05-28-2019 Regular AgendaR EG U LAR C IT Y C O U N C IL MEET IN G
R IC H F IE L D MU N IC IPAL C E N TE R, C O U N C IL C H AMB E R S
MAY 28, 2019
7:00 P M
IN TR O D U C TO RY P R O C E E D IN G S
C all to order
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
E ach speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. C omments
are to be an opportunity to address the C ouncil on items not on the agenda. I ndividuals who wish to address
the C ouncil must have registered prior to the meeting.
P ledge of A llegiance
A pproval of the minutes of the: (1) S pecial concurrent C ity C ouncil and Housing and Redevelopment A uthority work
session of A pril 15, 2019; (2) S pecial concurrent C ity C ouncil, Housing and Redevelopment A uthority and P lanning
C ommission work session of May 7, 2019; (3) S pecial C ity C ouncil work session of May 14, 2019; and (4) Regular C ity
C ouncil meeting of May 14, 2019.
P R E S E N TATIO N S
1.Receipt of the C ity of Richfield C omprehensive A nnual F inancial Report (C A F R) for the fiscal year ended
D ecember 31, 2018
S taff Report No. 70
2.Jon W ickett, P resident of the Richfield Historical S ociety
3.2018 F ood S afety Awards
C O U N C IL D ISC U SSIO N
4.Hats Off to Hometown Hits
AG E N D A APPR O VAL
5.A pproval of the A genda
6.Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one
motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended
actions have also been approved. No further Council action on these items is necessary. However, any
Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the
regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are
recommended for approval.
A .C onsider approval of the 2019 - 2020 P ublic Health E mergency P reparedness agreement with the
Minnesota D epartment of Health.
S taff Report No. 71
B .C onsider approval of setting a public hearing to be held on June 25, 2019, to consider issuance of a new
On-S ale W ine and 3.2 Malt L iquor licenses for L os S anchez Taqueria ll, L L C d/b/a L os S anchez Taqueria,
located at 2 West 66th S treet.
S taff Report No. 72
C .C onsider adoption of a resolution adopting a modification to the Tax Increment F inancing P lan for the
Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment F inancing D istrict.
S taff Report No. 73
D .C onsider adoption of a resolution granting a one-year extension of land use approvals for a planned unit
development at 101 66th S treet E ast.
S taff Report No. 74
7.C onsideration of items, if any, removed from C onsent C alendar
PR O P O S E D O R D IN AN C E S
8.C onsider approval of an ordinance amending Zoning C ode S ection 537: Mixed Use D istricts and S ection 512:
D istricts and adopt a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance.
S taff Report No. 75
C IT Y MAN AG E R’S R E P O R T
9.C ity Manager's Report
C LAIMS AN D PAYR O L LS
10.C laims and P ayrolls
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
E ach speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. C omments
are to be an opportunity to address the C ouncil on items not on the agenda. I ndividuals who wish to address
the C ouncil must have registered prior to the meeting.
11.A djournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96
hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special Concurrent City Council and
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Work Session
April 15, 2019
CALL TO ORDER
The work session was called to order by Mayor Regan Gonzalez at 5:45 p.m. in the
Bartholomew Room.
Council Members Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor; Mary Supple; Edwina Garcia; and Simon
Present: Trautmann.
Council Members Ben Whalen
Absent:
HRA Members Mary Supple, Chair; Pat Elliott; Maria Regan Gonzalez; and Sue Sandahl.
Present:
HRA Members Erin Vrieze Daniels.
Absent:
Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; John Stark, HRA Executive
Director/Community Development Director; Julie Urban, Housing Manager;
and Kate Aitchison, Housing Specialist.
Item #1
DISCUSS EMERSON LANE HOUSING PROPOSALS
Housing Manager Julie Urban provided an introduction to the topic. Housing Specialist Kate
Aitchison provided an overview of the memo distributed on April 11th, 2019.
Executive Director Stark added that each scenario discussed needs more work and research,
but until there is more guidance from policymakers, staff is unwilling to undertake further expenses.
Additionally, in terms of financing there is more work that needs to be done to ensure that the site can
support housing at these price points, on the part of the developer and the city.
Housing Manager Urban provided a simple pro/con overview of each development scenario
for 1-, 2- or 5-home scenarios on the property.
Councilmember Trautmann asked for clarificatio n on the per lot subsidy. Chair Supple
responded and clarified how the subsidy per lot was reached.
Executive Director Stark noted that while this property was originally purchased for three
Richfield Rediscovered homes, the extraordinary costs of the inf rastructure improvements on the site
do not make it feasible to recommend three or four homes on the site.
Special concurrent Council and HRA Work Session -2- April 15, 2019
Commissioner Sandahl asked about the tax values that the City/HRA could expect from new
homes on the site. Housing Specialist Aitchison stated that the estimated taxes to the City and HRA
would be approximately $2,050 per home, annually, based on a home value of approximately
$330,000.
Commissioner Elliott asked if an appraisal as originally done at the time of acquisition.
Housing Manager Urban sta ted that yes, an appraisal had been conducted.
Commissioner Elliott asked if any other uses have been considered for the property. Housing
Manager Urban responded that staff has reached out to other departments and the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT), but there have been no other entities interested in the
property. The acquisition of the property was always intended for the Richfield Rediscovered program.
Commissioner Elliott asked why 3 or 4 homes were not being discussed. Housing Manage r
Urban and Executive Director Stark clarified that the HRA would be required to further subsidize the
project in a scenario where 3 or 4 homes were to be built, so staff had eliminated those scenarios
from consideration. (29:30)
Councilmember Garcia stated she understands that the purpose of the purchase of the
property was to replace housing units that were previously lost.
Chair Supple asked about stormwater management on site, and how it would be monitored to
ensure it doesn’t negatively impact the neighbors. Housing Manager Urban explained that stormwater
management is always reviewed, in Richfield Rediscovered and with all developments. This is either
addressed in the Administrative Review Committee (ARC) process, or in the Building Permit process.
A Stormwater Management Plan would also likely be required as part of a 5 -home scenario.
Chair Supple also inquired about the widening of Emerson Lane as part of a development.
Housing Manager Urban responded that it would be dis cussed during the ARC process with input
from various departments.
Commissioner Sandahl asked about the adjacent land to the west and north, and whether it
was owned by MnDOT. Housing Manager Urban responded that it is owned by MnDOT, and the city
will need to address the long, narrow section to the north of the site.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez stated that she had been on the property. She asked if it would be
possible to develop two higher-valued homes and a third lot that would be sold as vacant land to an
adjacent neighbor. Housing Manager Urban stated that it could be considered, but that it would
depend on the proposal and the site plan.
Chair Supple asked about the procedure for another party submitting a proposal for
development of the site. Executive Director Stark explained the process for existing programs, and
stated that if the neighbors are interested they should contact the city and put something together.
Staff would put some timeframes on the process.
Councilmember Trautmann clarified that it would be a scheduled timeline for a proposal with
clear parameters for moving forward. Executive Director Stark responded that yes, staff would review
proposals and provide a timeline.
John Powell, 6800 Emerson Lane, spoke on behalf of the neighbors. The n eighbors stated
that they understand that housing is important to the city, and that there should be thoughtful
consideration for the best use of the property. They questioned whether developing five homes would
be consistent with the nearby lot sizes and character of the existing neighborhood. The neighbors feel
like the two-home scenario would allow current residents the opportunity to buy a larger home and
Special concurrent Council and HRA Work Session -3- April 15, 2019
remain residents. They stated that they have reached out and talked with contractors about the cost s
to develop the property. They stated they were hearing numbers of $500,000 -$600,000, which is
higher than what is being presented. The neighbors asked why Lynwood Blvd is zoned differently than
Emerson Avenue and Emerson Lane.
Housing Manager Urban stated that she believes it is because the lots on Lynwood Blvd are
larger, and that the lots on Emerson Avenue are not large enough to justify the different type of
zoning.
Mr. Powell asked about ongoing costs for road maintenance for the new public road, and/or
the widening of Emerson Lane. He also stated the neighbor’s concerns about increased traffic on the
roads, and whether any pedestrian safety improvements would be added as part of the development.
There are also concerns about parking overflow onto Emerson Avenue or Emerson Lane.
Chair Supple moved the conversation to the policy questions of: 1) Is housing the appropriate
use for this site, and 2) If housing is appropriate, what number of homes do you support?
Commissioner Sandahl stated her support for housing on this site, as it wouldn’t be
appropriate under another use. She stated her support for the development of 5 homes, as it provides
the best return on investment for the HRA, and the most opportunities for housing. She stated her
understanding of the concern shown by the neighbors. She stated that this development could be
seen as part of a new neighborhood, and would be a good place for people to live.
Councilmember Trautmann read a statement provided by Councilmember Whalen who wasn’t
in attendance.
Councilmember Garcia stated she agrees with Commissioner Sandahl, but that we do need to
work to accommodate the neighbors, while still providing housing opportunities in this tight housing
market. She stated her belief that the land needs to be used for housing.
Councilmember Trautmann asked for staff input on the financial responsibility of the city for
development costs on the lot, especially in the case of over -runs. Executive Director Stark responded
that the estimated development costs are estimates at this p oint. It is difficult to predict any specific
requirements on these elements from a preliminary plan. Executive Director Stark stated that a public
conversation would be had if the HRA was being asked to contribute more to the development of the
property. He also stated that the Public Works department hasn’t shown any concern over the
maintenance of additional public road on this site.
Councilmember Trautmann stated he is still concerned about the unknown costs of this
property, and would also like to ke ep in mind the goals of the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy as we
evaluate each site.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez stated that she supports housing on the site. She stated she doesn’t
feel like there is enough information available to decide whether or two or five homes would be most
appropriate. She stated her desire to understand the feasibility of a two -home proposal at a higher
price-point, or a proposal for three lots, with one lot being sold as vacant land to the neighbor. She
stated her support for giving the neighbors a chance to put forward a proposal.
Executive Director Stark explained the appraisal process and how it would take into
consideration the land use and development costs.
Commissioner Elliott stated the site seems to be a good place for two higher-valued, larger
homes.
Special concurrent Council and HRA Work Session -4- April 15, 2019
Executive Director Stark clarified the difference in road infrastructure for the two - or five-home
scenarios. A private driveway would be required for the two -home scenario versus a full public road
that would be required for the five-home scenario.
Chair Supple stated her support for housing on the site. She stated that the two -homes
scenario seems like a better fit, if there is a feasible proposal for it. She stated she could support five
homes if that is the only feasib le proposal, but that 1, 3 or 4 homes would not be acceptable.
Councilmember Trautmann encouraged those interested to possibly work together on the
development of this property.
Commissioner Elliott asked if the HRA could potentially sell land to remain vacant, or if that
would be in violation of our Comprehensive Plan. Executive Director Stark stated that the HRA could
make that decision if a proposal came before them with a different type of land use.
Councilmember Trautmann stated his concern that th e costs would increase and the HRA
would be responsible for those added costs. Housing Manager Urban stated that a Development
Agreement would be negotiated as part of the HRA’s approval for the land sale, and would address
the possibility of additional co sts and the responsibilities of the developer and the HRA.
Executive Director Stark stated that the purpose of the work session is to narrow down what
we should explore further.
Commissioner Sandahl clarified that housing seems to be the unanimous deci sion, and
appreciated Mr. Whalen’s comments. She stated her support for the HRA to act in a fiscally -
responsible manner.
Executive Director Stark reviewed the conversation and stated he understands that staff would
continue to look at housing on the site, and would accept proposals for 2- or 5-homes. If the neighbors
are interested in putting forward a proposal, they need to come in with a plan for the development of
2- or 5- homes. Staff will continue to look at both scenarios at this point.
Chair Supple thanked Dustin Endres with Endres Custom Homes, along with the neighbors
and staff for all the work done on this proposal and for the development of the property.
ADJOURNMENT
The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:58 p.m.
Date Approved: May 28, 2019
Maria Regan Gonzalez
Mayor
Jared Voto Katie Rodriguez
Assistant to the City Manager City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special Concurrent City Council, Housing
and Redevelopment Authority and
Planning Commission Work Session
May 7, 2019
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Regan Gonzalez at 4:08 p.m. in the Bartholomew
Room.
Council Members Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Mary Supple; Simon
Present: Trautmann; and Ben Whalen.
HRA Members Mary Supple, Chair; Maria Regan Gonzalez; Sue Sandahl; and
Present: Erin Vrieze Daniels.
HRA Members Pat Elliott.
Absent:
Planning Commission Kathryn Quam; James Rudolph; Susan Rosenberg; Peter Lavin; and Sean
Members Present: Hayford Oleary.
Planning Commission Allysen Hoberg, Chair; Bryan Pynn.
Members Absent:
Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; John Stark, Community Development
Director; and Melissa Poehlman, Assistant Community Development Director.
Item #1
CITIZEN PLANNER TRAINING
Community Development staff hosted a “Your Role as a Citizen Planner” workshop, facilitated
by Erin Perdu of WSB & Associates. The workshop highlighted the ways in which the roles of
elected/appointed officials vary in land use decisions based on the particular charge of the board or
committee to which they are elected/appointed. The workshop provided an opportunity to discuss the
areas in which policy makers have a significant amount of discretion and those in which they play a
largely regulatory role of applying existing rules. Participants discussed hypothetical applications, the
importance of waiting until all information has been provided before making a decision on a particular
application, making sound legal findings, and commun icating with constituents.
ADJOURNMENT
The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:41 p.m.
Special Concurrent Council, HRA, and Planning
Commission Work Session Minutes -2- May 7, 2019
Date Approved: May 28, 2019
Maria Regan Gonzalez
Mayor
Jared Voto Katie Rodriguez
Assistant to the City Manager City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special City Council Work Session
May 14, 2019
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Regan Gonzalez at 5:02 p.m. in the Bartholomew
Room.
Council Members Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor; Edwina Garcia; Mary Supple; Ben Whalen;
Present: and Simon Trautmann (arrived at 5:22 p.m.).
Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City
Manager/Administrative Services Director; Amy Markle, Recreation Services
Director; Bill Fillmore, Liquor Operations Director; Chris Regis, Finance
Director; Jay Henthorne, Chief of Police/Public Safety Director; John Stark,
Community Development Director; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director;
Wayne Kewitsch, Fire Chief; and Jared Voto, Assistant to the City Manager.
Others Present: Scott Morrell, Rebar Leadership.
Item #1
KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGIES AND COUNCIL GOAL SETTING
Finance Director Regis presented an overview of the Financial Management Plan and Ca pital
Financing Plan documents and Public Works Director Asher presented on the proposed 2020 utility
rates for water, sewer, stormwater, and street lights.
Mayor, Council Members, and City staff discussed a variety of topics including the proposed
increases in utility rates as it relates to the target fund balance, upcoming recreation facility projects
such as Wood Lake Nature Center and the refrigeration system at the ice arena , the potential for a
park dedication fee for new developments, the additional City debt and its impact on residents’
property taxes, prioritizing future capital projects, looking at opportunities to increase liquor operations
revenues or other revenue streams, and the Capital Improvement Budget and Plan (CIB/CIP).
Scott Morrell lead a goal setting session for the Council to affirm the 2018 City Council goals,
to add another goal of “Core Services”, and to provide further context for the goals as staff works on
the upcoming budget.
Mayor and Council Members discussed the goals and shared agreement in affirming the 2018
City Council goals and also agreed to add “Core Services” as a new goal.
Mayor, Council Members, and City staff discussed areas of importance under each of the
established goals. City staff indicated they would take the items discussed during the meeting and
create objectives underlying each goal and bring those back for City Council ’s review at a later date.
Special Council Work Session Minutes -2- May 14, 2019
ADJOURNMENT
The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:53 p.m.
Date Approved: May 28, 2019
Maria Regan Gonzalez
Mayor
Jared Voto Katie Rodriguez
Assistant to the City Manager City Manager
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Regan Gonzalez at 7:01 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
Council Members Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor; Mary Supple; Edwina Garcia; Simon
Present: Trautmann; and Ben Whalen.
Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; Pam Dmytrenko,
Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager; Jay Henthorne, Public
Safety Director/Police Chief; John Stark, Community Development Director;
Amy Markle, Recreation Service Director; and Jared Voto, Assistant to the City
Manager.
OPEN FORUM
None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Regan Gonzalez led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Whalen, S/Supple to approve the minutes of the: (1) Special City Council work session of
April 23, 2019; (2) Regular City Council meeting of April 23, 2019; and (3) Special City Council work
session of April 25, 2019.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #1
PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE 4, 2019 AS LEE ANN WISE DAY IN THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Council Member Whalen welcomed Principal Lee Ann Wise , thanked her for her service, and
invited her to say a few words.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Meeting
May 14, 2019
Council Meeting Minutes -2- May 14, 2019
Principal Wise thanked the City Council, Richfield Police Department and those she worked
with at Richfield Public Schools for all they did to her during her career.
Council Member Garcia shared memories of Principal Wise and thanked her for her dedicated
service to Richfield Public Schools.
Council Member Supple thanked Principal Wise for her dedication to the children and families
of Richfield.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez thanked Principal Wise for her leadership and read the proclamation
declaring June 4, 2019, as Lee Ann Wise Day in the city of Richfield.
Item #2
PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 12-18, 2019 AS NATIONAL POLICE WEEK
AND MAY 15, 2019 AS PEACE OFFICERS' MEMORIAL DAY IN THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD
Chief Henthorne spoke regarding National Police Week and Peace Officers’ Memorial Day
and discussed his experience in 2011 of attending National Police Week in Washington, D.C.
Council Members thanked Chief Henthorne and the Richfield Police Department for their
service to the city and its residents.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez thanked the Richfield Police Department officers, leadership, and their
families and read the proclamation declaring May 12 -18, 2019 as National Police Week and May 15,
2019 as Peace Officers’ Memorial Day in the city of Richfield.
Item #3
RICHFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT BADGE RETIREMENT CEREMONY
Chief Henthorne thanked the men and women of the Richfield Police Department for their
service, and their families and communities of support. He discussed the history of the City’s badge
and the Department’s effort to design the new badge. Lastly, he presented Officer Devinn Metz with
the new badge.
Item #4
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Hats Off to Hometown Hits
Council Member Supple spoke regarding the competition for Roosevelt Park’s basketball court
and encouraged residents to vote once per day to receive a new basketball court from the Minnesota
Timberwolves; and on Tuesday, May 21 at 6 p.m. at the Brooklyn Park City Council Chambers there
is a region-wide meeting on affordable housing for lower income residents, with emphasis on
universal design for everyone.
Council Member Whalen spoke regarding attending the Richfield High School musical and
thought they did a wonderful performance ; the Friends of Wood Lake (FOWL) held a wonderful
fundraiser dinner that supports the nature center; he attended a tour of the upcoming Orange Line
that is bus rapid transit from Burnsville to Minneapolis, through Richfield ; and attended the Bike to
School Day event held at Centennial Elementary.
Council Meeting Minutes -3- May 14, 2019
Council Member Trautmann spoke regarding attending the Friends of Wood Lake (FOWL)
fundraiser and enjoyed the event; and discussed summer camps that are held at Wood Lake
throughout the summer and encouraged parents to send their children.
Council Member Garcia spoke regarding a League of Women Voters event on May 18 where
they will be discussing the Orange Line and encouraged people to attend and learn about the project;
and the Richfield city-wide garage sale is taking place from May 16-18.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez spoke regarding the first Richfield farmers market is Saturday, May
18, from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m.; Monday, May 27 from 2 to 4 p.m. is the Memorial Day ceremony at
Veterans Park; and she gave a brief update from State Representative Michael Howard on the status
of the legislative session, including local government aid, pension aid and transportation; and she
attended the Richfield Rotary’s little free library assembly event .
Item #5
AP PROVAL OF THE AGENDA
M/Supple, S/Whalen to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #6
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar.
A. Consider adoption of a resolution authorizing the City to affirm the monetary limits on statutory
municipality tort liability. (S.R. No. 60)
RESOLUTION NO. 11622
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING MUNICIPAL TORT LIABILITY LIMITS
ESTABLISHED BY MINNESOTA STATUTES 466.04
B. Consider approval of a third amendment to the Site Lease Agreement at 7401 L ogan Avenue
South between the City of Richfield and Sprint Spectrum Realty Company, LLC with regard to
the extension of lease renewal terms. (S.R. No. 61)
C. Consider approval of a Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy. (S.R. No. 62)
D. Consider approval of the Public Works Department Water Service Shut-Off Policy. (S.R. No.
63)
E. Consider approval of the Richfield Utility Box Wrapping Policy and adoption of a resolution of
support for the selected photographs to be used to wrap the Hennepin County -owned utility
boxes located at Penn Avenue & 66th Street and Nicollet Avenue & 70th Street. (S.R. No. 64)
RESOLUTION NO. 11623
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED DECORATIVE UTILITY
BOX WRAPS ON HENNEPIN COUNTY UTILITY BOXES LOCATED AT
PENN AVE/66TH STREET & NICOLLET AVE/70TH STREET
F. Consider approval of an annual request for a Temporary On Sale Intoxicating Liquor license
for the Academy of Holy Angels, located at 6600 Nicollet Avenue South, for their annual Holy
Angels Rock the Lawn event taking place Friday, June 21, 2019. (S.R. No. 65)
Council Meeting Minutes -4- May 14, 2019
G. Consider adoption of a resolution granting a Site Plan Approval and a Variance for a
restaurant at 6433 Penn Avenue S. (S.R. No. 66)
RESOLUTION NO. 11624
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN AND
VARIANCE AT 6433 PENN AVENUE S.
M/Trautmann, S/Whalen to approve the consent calendar.
Motion carried 5-0.
Council Member Whalen thanked the owner of the Tii Cup restaurant for being in attendance
and welcomed him to the community.
David Fong, owner of the Tii Cup restaurant, spoke regarding his business and was excited to
be back in Richfield.
Council Member Garcia asked staff about parking issues raised by some members of the
Planning Commission.
Community Development Director responded there is a balance between the regulations of the
city and the ability for the business to operate and stated staff did not have concerns for parking in this
area.
Council Member Trautmann asked to confirm if there were 13 parking spaces available.
Community Development Director Stark confirmed to the best of his knowledge there were 13
usable spaces available.
Item #7
CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR
None.
Item #8
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING ZONING CODE SECTION 537: MIXED USE DISTRICTS AND
SECTION 512: DISTRICTS (S.R. NO. 67)
Mayor Regan Gonzalez presented Staff Report No. 67.
Community Development Director Stark discussed that the Planning Commission agreed with
a majority of these changes that have to do with inconsistencies in the City Code. One item the
Planning Commission split on was parking standards and described the staff recommendation of the
spaces per unit and the discussion at the Planning Commission.
Council Member Supple commented that it was a healthy discussio n at the Planning
Commission, appreciated the concerns raised, and thought the 1.25 spaces per unit was a good
compromise.
Council Meeting Minutes -5- May 14, 2019
Community Development Director Stark discussed the Lyndale Plaza Apartments at 64th and
Lyndale has a parking of 1.3 spaces per unit and has been functioning for years without complaint.
Council Member Whalen commented that the Henley Development was approved at 1 parking
space per unit.
Community Development Director Stark discussed that many of the recent developments are
from developers that plan to hold onto their developments long-term and it is in their best interest to
ensure there is adequate parking.
Council Member Whalen discussed having a broader discussion about parking requirements
in the code and that he thought it would be a helpful discussion .
Community Development Director Stark commented on the uniqueness of Richfield with the
mix of parking ratios that could be considered urban and suburban, which can create some conflicts .
Council Member Trautmann shared his appreciation for the Planning Commissioners f or their
civil discussion on the topic.
Mayor Regan Gonzalez asked staff for clarification of the purpose of the parking minimums ,
for those who may not have seen the Planning Commission .
Community Development Director Stark stated the reasons are to pro tect the neighborhoods
from spillover parking and that parking demand is met on-site. He stated there have been problems
with spillover parking in the past but they have been able to come back and find solutions .
Council Member Whalen thanked staff for re viewing the code to ensure that we are consistent
as it helps incoming developers know the standards and city staff in applying the standards.
M/Regan Gonzalez, S/Trautmann to approve a first reading of an Ordinance amending Zoning
Code Section 537: Mixed Use and Section 512: Districts.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #9
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF
$8,865,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2019A. (S.R. NO. 68)
Council Member Supple presented Staff Report No. 68.
Rebecca Kurtz, Ehlers & Associates, spoke regarding the affirmation from S&P Global Ratings
of the City’s AA+ bond rating and spoke to the results of the 2019A bond sale.
M/Supple, S/Whalen to adopt a resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Bonds,
Series 2019A, in the original aggregate principal amount of $8,325,000; Fixing their form and
specifications; Directing their execution and delivery; and providing for their payment.
RESOLUTION NO. 11625
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS, SERIES 2019A, IN THE ORIGINAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF $8,325,000; FIXING THEIR FORM AND
SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY;
AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT
Council Meeting Minutes -6- May 14, 2019
Mayor and Council Members thanked Finance Director Regis for his leadership in his
department and guiding the City’s finances.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #10
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A FACILITY DEDICATIO N REQUEST FOR A
MEMORIAL GARDEN DEDICATED TO GERTRUDE ULRICH NEAR THE
RICHFIELD BAND SHELL. (S.R. NO. 69)
Council Member Garcia presented Staff Report No. 69, shared stories of Gertrude Ulrich and
discussed her legacy and impact on Richfield.
Recreation Services Director Markle also shared memories of Gertrude Ulrich and agreed that
this garden is a great way to commemorate her.
M/Garcia, S/Supple to approve a dedication of a memorial garden at the Band Shell Garden
Area to Gertrude Ulrich.
Council Member Supple commented that Gertrude Ulrich is legendary to Richfield and a
mentor to generations and deserves this recognition .
Mayor Regan Gonzalez commented that Gertrude Ulrich, and other of the League of Women
Voters, was a community builder that paved a path for the leaders of today .
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #11
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Rodriguez stated Hennepin County staff recommended moving Southdale
Library to Southdale Center and will be holding open houses on May 30 from 6 to 8 p.m. and June 8
from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. at Southdale Library.
Council Member Garcia encouraged residents to call Commissioner Goettel and ask her to
vote “no” to moving the library to Southdale Center.
City Manager Rodriguez discussed Council Member Whalen will be holding a listening session
on May 30 from 6:30 to 8 p.m. at Hope Church.
Council Member Whalen discussed residents were looking for more opportunities to engage
with council members and finding ways to do that in an approachable way. He stated he planned on
hosting these on a regular basis.
Mayor and Council Members discussed and agreed it was a good idea.
Item #12
CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
M/Garcia, S/Regan Gonzalez that the following claims and payrolls be approved :
Council Meeting Minutes -7- May 14, 2019
U.S. Bank 05/14/19
A/P Checks: 277161 - 277645 $ 1,849,976.72
Payroll: 145226 - 145543 633,611.96
TOTAL $ 2,483,588.68
Motion carried 4-0.
OPEN FORUM
None.
Item #13
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:42 p.m.
Date Approved: May 28, 2019
Maria Regan Gonzalez
Mayor
Jared Voto Katie Rodriguez
Assistant to the City Manager City Manager
AGENDA SECTION:PRESENTATIONS
AGENDA ITEM #1.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 70
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
5/28/2019
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: C hris Regis, F inance D irector
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: C hris Regis, F inance D irector
5/15/2019
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
5/22/2019
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Receipt of the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (C AFR) for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
As required by state law all general purpose local governments must be audited in accordance with U.S.
generally accepted auditing standards by a firm of licensed certified public accountants.
I n addition, state law also requires that local governments publish within six months of the close of each fiscal
year a complete set of financial statements presented in conformance with U.S. generally accepted
accounting standards.
Accordingly, the City’s auditing firm, BerganK D V, Ltd. has completed the annual audit of the City’s financial
records and has issued an unqualified opinion on those records for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2018.
I n addition, the financial statements will be published locally and submitted to the State of Minnesota and the
Government Finance Officers Association.
Therefore, staff presents to the City Council, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (C A F R) for fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City for the year ended
December 31, 2018.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
The City’s auditing firm, BerganK D V, Ltd. has completed the annual audit of the City’s financial
records for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.
As part of the audit, BerganK D V, LTD. has issued an unqualified opinion on the City’s financial
statements for the year ending December 31, 2018.
A representative of BerganK D V, LTD. will be present at the Council meeting to make a brief
presentation on the 2018 financial information and answer questions.
I n addition, the C A FR will be submitted to the State of Minnesota pursuant to State law and to the
Government Finance Officers Association for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting program.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Action to be taken at the May 28, 2019 City Council meeting is the official receipt of the
December 31, 2018 City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report by the City
Council.
The City’s auditor has performed an audit of the City’s financial records for the year ended
December 31, 2018 and prepared reports to the City Council concerning legal compliance and
internal controls.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Action on this item is requested at the May 28, 2019, City Council meeting as there is a J une 30,
2019 reporting deadline with the State of Minnesota.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The C A F R will be submitted to the State of Minnesota, pursuant to State law.
The C A F R will be published in the Sun Current the week of J une 3, 2019.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Matthew Mayer, Partner at BerganK D V
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
2018 C ity C omprehensive A nnual F inancial Report
(C A F R)B ackup Material
2018 S chedule of E xpenditures of F ederal Awards and
Independent A uditor’s Reports B ackup Material
2018 C ommunications L etter B ackup Material
2018 Housing and Redevelopment A uthority C A F R B ackup Material
2018 E conomic D evelopment A uthority C A F R B ackup Material
CITY OF RICHFIELD
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL
FINANCIAL REPORT
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2018
City of Richfield • 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, MN 55423
612-861-9700 • www.richfieldmn.gov
COMPREHENSIVE
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
For The
Year Ended
DECEMBER 31, 2018
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Christopher T. Regis, Finance Director
Member of Government Finance Officers Association
of the United States and Canada
- 2 -
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
- 3 -
Reference Page
I. INTRODUCTORY SECTION
Letter of Transmittal 8
Certificate of Achievement 12
City Officials 13
Organization Chart 14
II - FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Auditor’s Report 18
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 22
Basic Financial Statements:
Government-Wide Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Position Statement 1 34
Statement of Activities Statement 2 35
Fund Financial Statements:
Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds Statement 3 37
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund
Balances - Governmental Funds Statement 4 38
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
to the Statement of Activities Statement 5 39
Statement of Net Position – Proprietary Funds Statement 6 40
Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net
Position - Proprietary Funds Statement 7 41
Statement of Cash Flows – Proprietary Funds Statement 8 42
Statement of Fiduciary Assets and Liabilities – Fiduciary Funds Statement 9 43
Notes to the Financial Statements 44
Required Supplementary information:
Budgetary Comparison Schedule – General Fund Schedule 10 73
Budgetary Comparison Schedule – Ice Arena Fund Schedule 11 77
Schedule of Changes in Total OPEB Liability and Related Ratios Schedule 12 78
City of Richfield Contributions General Employee Retirement Fund and
Police and Fire Fund Schedule 13 79
City of Richfield Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability - General
Employees Retirement Fund and Police and Fire Fund Schedule 14 80
Note to RSI 81
Combining and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules:
Combining Balance Sheet – Nonmajor Governmental Funds Statement 15 87
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes
in Fund Balance - Nonmajor Governmental Funds Statement 16 88
Subcombining Balance Sheet – Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds Statement 17 91
Subcombining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds Statement 18 93
Special Revenue Funds:
Schedules of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund
Balances - Budget and Actual:
Liquor Contribution Schedule 19 95
Tourism Administration Schedule 20 96
Communications Schedule 21 97
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- 4 -
Reference Page
Elections Schedule 22 98
Drug/Felony Forfeiture Schedule 23 99
Public Safety Compliance Schedule 24 100
Recreation Contributions Schedule 25 101
Nature Center Contributions Schedule 26 102
Public Health Grants Schedule 27 103
Wood Lake Half Marathon Schedule 28 104
Utility Franchise Fees Schedule 29 105
Swimming Pool Schedule 30 106
Special Facilities Schedule 31 107
Combining Statement of Net Position – Internal Service Funds Statement 32 109
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in
Fund Net Position - Internal Service Funds Statement 33 110
Combining Statement of Cash Flows – Internal Service Funds Statement 34 111
Combining Statement of Assets and Liabilities - Fiduciary Funds Statement 35 113
Combining Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities - Fiduciary Funds Statement 36 114
Supplementary Financial Information:
Housing and Redevelopment Authority:
Combined Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds Statement 37 117
Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in
Fund Balances - Governmental Funds Statement 38 118
Housing Choice Vouchers Financial Data Schedule - Balance Sheet Statement 39 119
Housing Choice Vouchers Financial Data Schedule - Income Statement Statement 40 120
Economic Development Authority:
Balance Sheet - General Fund Statement 41 121
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance -
General Fund Statement 42 122
III - STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)
Net Position by Components Schedule 1 125
Changes in Net Position Schedule 2 127
Fund Balance - Governmental Funds Schedule 3 129
Changes in Fund Balance - Governmental Funds Schedule 4 130
Assessed Value and Actual Value of Taxable Property Schedule 5 131
Property Tax Rates - Direct and Overlapping Governments Schedule 6 132
Principal Property Tax Payers Schedule 7 133
Property Tax Levies and Collections Schedule 8 134
Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type Schedule 9 135
Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding Schedule 10 136
Direct and Overlapping Governmental Activities Debt Schedule 11 137
Legal Debt Margin Information Schedule 12 138
Revenue Bond Coverage Schedule 13 139
Demographic and Economic Statistics Schedule 14 140
Principal Employers Schedule 15 141
Full-Time Equivalent City Employees by Function/Program Schedule 16 142
Operation Indications by Function/Program Schedule 17 143
Capital Asset Statistics by Function/Program Schedule 18 144
- 5 -
I. INTRODUCTORY SECTION
- 6 -
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
- 7 -
Finance Department
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 612.861.9700 FAX: 612.861.9715
www.richfieldmn.gov AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
MAYOR
MARIA REGAN
GONZALEZ
CITY COUNCIL
EDWINA GARCIA
MARY SUPPLE
SIMON TRAUTMANN
BEN WHALEN
CITY MANAGER
KATIE RODRIGUEZ
April 23, 2019
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council,
City of Richfield, Minnesota
State law requires that all general-purpose local governments publish within six months of
the close of each fiscal year a complete set of financial statements presented in conformance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and audited in accordance with
U.S. generally accepted auditing standards by a firm of licensed certified public accountants.
Pursuant to that requirement, we hereby issue the comprehensive annual financial report of
the City of Richfield for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.
This report consists of management’s representations concerning the finances of the City of
Richfield. Consequently, management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and
reliability of all the information presented in this report. To provide a reasonable basis for
making these representations, management of the City of Richfield has established a
comprehensive internal control framework that is designed both to protect the government’s
assets from loss, theft, misuse and to compile sufficient reliable information for the
preparation of the City of Richfield’s financial statements in conformity with GAAP. Because
the cost of internal controls should not outweigh their benefits, the City of Richfield’s
comprehensive framework of internal controls has been designed to provide reasonable
rather than absolute assurance that the financial statements will be free from material
misstatement. As management, we assert that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, this
financial report is complete and reliable in all material respects.
The City of Richfield’s financial statements have been audited by BerganKDV, a firm of
licensed certified public accountants. The goal of the independent audit was to provide
reasonable assurance that the financial statements of the City of Richfield for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018, are free of material misstatement. The independent audit
involved examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements; assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by management; and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. The
independent auditor concluded, based upon the audit, that there was a reasonable basis for
rendering an unmodified opinion that the City of Richfield’s financial statements for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, are fairly presented in conformity with GAAP. The
independent auditor’s report is presented as the first component of the financial section of
this report.
The independent audit of the financial statements of the City of Richfield was part of a
broader, federally mandated “Single Audit” designed to meet the special needs of federal
grantor agencies. The standards governing Single Audit engagements require the
independent auditor to report not only on the fair presentation of the financial statements, but
also on the audited government’s internal controls and compliance with legal requirements,
with special emphasis on internal controls and legal requirements involving the
administration of federal awards. Those reports are available in the City of Richfield’s
separately issued Special Purpose Audit Reports.
- 8 -
GAAP require that management provide a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis to accompany the basic financial statements in the form of Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). This letter of transmittal is designed to complement MD&A and should be read in conjunction with it. The City of Richfield’s MD&A can be found immediately following the report of the independent auditors. Profile of the Government The City was incorporated on February 26, 1908. Since 1964, the City has operated under a council/manager form of government, as authorized by its charter, and exists under the laws of the State of Minnesota. The City has a population of 36,544 (2017 Metropolitan Council Estimate) and covers an area of approximately seven square miles. Located in Hennepin County, Richfield is the first suburb south of Minneapolis. Richfield is bordered on the north by the Crosstown Highway 62; bordered on the east by the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport; bordered on the south by Interstate 494; and bordered on the west by Xerxes Avenue and the City of Edina. In addition, Interstate 35W, the major north/south thoroughfare in the Twin City area, runs north/south through the middle of Richfield. The City of Richfield provides a full range of services, including police and fire protection; the construction and maintenance of streets and other infrastructure; and recreational activities and cultural events. The City of Richfield also operates four municipal liquor stores, water and sewer utility, storm water utility, a two sheet ice arena, a municipal swimming pool and a mini golf course. The annual budget serves as the foundation for the City of Richfield’s financial planning and control. All departments of the City are required to submit requests for appropriation to the City Manager. The City Manager uses these requests as the starting point for developing a proposed budget. The City Manager then presents this proposed budget to the City Council for review prior to September 15. The Council is required to hold public hearings on the proposed budget and to adopt a final budget by no later than the last date established by law for the County Auditor to levy taxes. Budget-to-actual comparisons are provided in this report for each individual governmental fund for which an appropriated annual budget has been adopted. For the general fund and the ice arena fund this comparison is presented in the Required Supplementary Information section. For nonmajor governmental funds with appropriated annual budgets, this comparison is presented in the combining and individual fund statements and schedules. Factors Affecting Financial Condition Richfield was initially developed as a residential community. Residents of Richfield generally work at the adjacent airport, in the downtown Minneapolis-St. Paul area or on the I-494 strip. Richfield's commercial/industrial base is comparatively small when looking at other Twin City metropolitan area communities. In fact, when viewing the total estimated market value of the community, approximately 70% of the market value is comprised of residential properties, 12% apartments, and only 18% commercial/industrial property. Changes in the state's tax policy have indicated for some time a need for a more diversified tax base, including more commercial development. Richfield has responded to this by encouraging commercial development within the City. However, over 99% of the land area in Richfield is already developed. Commercial development in Richfield is a more complex process that requires extensive redevelopment and often the use of tax increment financing assistance. Since 1975, the City has created twenty-six tax increment districts. These tax increment districts were formed in order to help transform areas which are becoming market obsolete into a more vital commercial tax base. The City has transformed itself as a result of this redevelopment which includes not only commercial, but residential developments. Consequently, as the tax increment districts decertify, the City will realize the full market value benefit of these districts. The City has had one district decertified in 2002, a second district decertified in 2010, with a third district decertified in 2012.
- 9 -
In addition to the City’s efforts in commercial redevelopment, several housing programs have been established to encourage reinvestment in the City’s housing stock. The City enjoys an AA+ bond rating and an Aa2 bond rating from Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s respectively. Long-term financial planning The Metropolitan Council requires all cities in the seven-county metropolitan area to have
a Comprehensive Plan and State law requires cities to update their plans every 10 years.
The Comprehensive Plan guides development and redevelopment and addresses
changes likely to occur due to various social and market forces. The City completed the
update in 2018 and is working through the approval process.
In addition, the City on an annual basis engages in long-term financial and capital
planning. The objective of this process is to provide a framework for decision making
required to identify and implement strategies that will assure long-term community
viability. Accordingly, outcomes of the process include promotion of long-term community
affordability and livability, reinvesting in the City’s housing stock to position the City to
compete with other communities, addressing transportation impacts within the City,
establish a financial framework to maintain and replace the City’s physical and technical
infrastructure, and review options and opportunities to improve delivery of City services. Relevant financial policies
The City has adopted a set of financial management policies that focus on such areas as
capital budgeting, revenue policies, debt management, general fund balances, cash and
investments, risk management and operating budgets.
The City has established a fund balance policy for the general fund with a goal of
maintaining an unassigned fund balance of 40% of general fund revenues. At the end of
2018, the unassigned fund balance of the general fund is at 39% of general fund
revenues. Major Initiatives Major initiatives in 2018 included the following: Right Of Way Improvements: • The continuation of the reconstruction of 66th Street. This is a Hennepin County road project. It consists of the reconstruction of 66th Street from Xerxes Avenue east to 16th Avenue. 2018 was the second year of construction. It is estimated that the project will be completed in 2019. The total estimated cost is $61,292,000. • Year four of the six year mill & overlay program. It is planned that up to 85 miles of residential roads will be milled and overlaid, in addition to the repair of catch basins, manholes, and the replacement of curb and gutter. The overall program is estimated to cost $19,500,000 and will be funded through the issuance of street reconstruction bonds and franchise fee revenues. Commercial Redevelopment and Housing Initiatives • 2018 saw the planning and development of several large projects, including the completion of an 88-unit senior living facility at the former City Public Works site (211 W. 76th Street); commencement of construction on a 283-unit multi-family apartment project south of 66th Street between 17th and Cedar Avenues; site work for a new Morrie’s Land Rover and Jaguar dealership at 1550 E 78th Street, approval of plans and initial site work for a project that includes 30 luxury condominiums, 8 rental townhomes, 66 apartments, and 6,000 square feet of retail space at the former Lyndale Gardens Center site (64th Street and Lyndale Avenue), approval of plans for the Cedar Point II/RF64 project (west of Target/Home Depot along Richfield Parkway) that include 72 townhomes and 218
- 10 -
apartments, and approval of a 183-unit apartment complex at 66th Street and Queen Avenue. The HRA also purchased two substandard commercial buildings in 2018 – the former El Jalapeno Market at 1430 66th Street East and former Bumper-to-Bumper at 6501 Penn Avenue. The HRA will look to redevelop these parcels at some time in the future.
•The City continues to operate several very successful programs that encouragereinvestment in the City’s housing stock. These programs include but are notlimited to, incentive loan programs for remodeling homes to higher values, fundingassistance for the replacement of small substandard homes with larger new-construction, and a program to provide home ownership opportunities for low- tomoderate-income households working with non-profit builders and developers likeHabitat for Humanity.
•In 2018, the City continued its work to update the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Thismulti-year project focuses on redevelopment areas throughout the community, butspecifically emphasized plans for the future redevelopment of the area at 66thStreet and Nicollet Avenue. The update includes revised goals and policiesrelated to land use, housing, transportation, parks, utilities and more. The 2040update was submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review in December 2018.
Awards and Acknowledgments
The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement in Financial Reporting to the City of Richfield, Minnesota for its comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. This was the thirty-first consecutive year that the City has achieved this prestigious award.
In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government unit must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual financial report. This report must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements.
A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. We believe that our current comprehensive annual financial report continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement Program requirements, and we are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate.
In addition, the City also received the GFOA's award for Distinguished Budget Presentation for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2018.
In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan, and as a communications medium.
The award is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current budget continues to conform to program requirements, and we have submitted to GFOA the report to determine its eligibility for another award.
The preparation of this report could not be accomplished without the efficient and dedicated services of the entire staff of the finance department. We express our appreciation to all members of the department who assisted and contributed to its preparation. We also thank the Mayor and members of the City Council for their interest and support in planning and conducting the financial operations for the City of Richfield in a responsible and progressive manner.
Respectfully submitted,
- 11 -
Finance Director
- 12 -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OFFICIALS
MAYOR - PAT ELLIOTT
COUNCILMEMBER - MICHAEL HOWARD COUNCILMEMBER - EDWINA GARCIA
COUNCILMEMBER - SIMON TRAUTMANN COUNCILMEMBER - MARIA REGAN GONZALEZ
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
KATIE RODRIGUEZ - CITY MANAGER
CHRISTOPHER T. REGIS - FINANCE DIRECTOR
ELIZABETH VANHOOSE - CITY CLERK
- 13 -
CITY OF RICHFIELDADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION CHARTShops at Lyndale Administrative AssistantCity AttorneyCity ManagerAssistant City ManagerCommunity DevelopmentPublic WorksEngineeringIce ArenaStreet MaintenancePark MaintenanceForestryPlanning & ZoningInspectionsCompensated AbsencesSelf Insurance/ Risk ManagementCommunicationsGovernment BuildingsUtilitiesCentral Garage & EquipmentSwimming PoolHuman ResourcesCity Clerk/Election Deputy RegistrarInformation TechnologiesPolice OperationsEmergency ServicesPublic SafetyAdministrative ServicesLyndale StoreAdministrationFireSupport ServicesRecreation ServicesRecreation AdministrationEconomic DevelopmentFinanceAssessing AdministrationSpecial FacilitiesPenn StoreCitizensCity CouncilOther AgenciesCedar StorePark and RecreationWood Lake Nature CenterLiquor Operations- 14 -
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
- 15 -
II. FINANCIAL SECTION
- 16 -
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
- 17 -
Independent Auditor's Report
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Richfield
Richfield, Minnesota
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type
activities, the discretely presented component units, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund
information of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018, and the
related notes to financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements as
listed in the Table of Contents.
Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the
design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation
of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor's Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our
audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the
standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of
the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those
risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the City's preparation and fair presentation
of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but
not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. Accordingly,
we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies
used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating
the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our
audit opinions.
- 18 -
Opinions
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to on the previous page present fairly, in all material
respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, the
discretely presented component units, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, as of December 31, 2018, and the respective changes in financial position and,
where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America.
Implementation of GASB 75
As discussed in Note 20 to the financial statements, the City has adopted new accounting guidance,
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 75, Accounting and Financial
Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other than Pensions. Our opinion is not modified with respect
to this matter.
Other Matters
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the Management's
Discussion and Analysis, which follows this report letter and the Required Supplementary Information as
listed in the Table of Contents, be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information,
although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards
Board (GASB) who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial
statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited
procedures to the Required Supplementary Information in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of
preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to
our inquiries, the basic financial statements and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic
financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the
limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
Other Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively
comprise the City of Richfield's basic financial statements. The introductory section, combining and
individual fund financial statements and schedules, supplementary financial information, and statistical
section are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial
statements.
The combining and individual fund financial statements and schedules and supplementary financial
information are the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate directly to the underlying
accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been
subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain
additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying
accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial
statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the combining and individual fund financial
statements and schedules and supplementary financial information are fairly stated, in all material respects, in
relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
- 19 -
Other Matters (Continued)
Other Information (Continued)
The introductory section and statistical section have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in
the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any
assurance on them.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated
April 23, 2019, on our consideration of the City of Richfield's internal control over financial reporting and on
our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, and
other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over
financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the
effectiveness of the City's internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an
integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the
City of Richfield's internal control over financial reporting and compliance.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 23, 2019
- 20 -
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
- 21 -
Management’s Discussion and Analysis As management of the City of Richfield, we offer readers of the City of Richfield’s financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City of Richfield for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. We encourage readers to consider the information presented here in conjunction with additional information that we have furnished in our letter of transmittal, which can be found on pages 8 through 11 of this report. Financial Highlights • The assets and deferred outflows of resources of the City of Richfield exceeded its liabilities and deferred inflows of resources at the close of the most recent fiscal year by $70,666,661 (net position). Of this amount, $5,123,975 (unrestricted net position) may be used to meet the government’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. • The government’s total net position increased by $1,632,606. • As of the close of the current fiscal year, the City of Richfield’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $39,958,760. Of this total amount, $98,380 is classified as nonspendable, $14,128,908 as restricted, $13,784,178 as committed by City Council action, $8,234,215 as assigned and $3,713,079 as unassigned. • At the end of the current fiscal year, the general fund balance of $8,810,296 included $91,050 as nonspendable and $8,719,246 as unassigned. • The City of Richfield’s total bonded debt increased by $6,697,169 (10.87 percent) during the current fiscal year from $61,615,916 to $68,313,085. Overview of the Financial Statements This discussion and analysis are intended to serve as an introduction to the City of Richfield’s basic financial statements. The City of Richfield’s basic financial statements comprise three components: 1) government-wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to the financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. Government-wide financial statements. The government-wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the City of Richfield’s finances, in a manner similar to a private-sector business. The statement of net position presents information on all of the City of Richfield’s assets and deferred outflows or resources and liabilities and deferred inflows of resources, with the difference between the two reported as net position. Over time, increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City of Richfield is improving or deteriorating. The statement of activities presents information showing how the government’s net position changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net position are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g., uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City of Richfield that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business-type activities). The governmental activities of the City of Richfield include general government, public safety, fire, community development, public works, and parks and recreation. The business-type activities of the City of Richfield include a municipal liquor operation, water and sewer utility, and a storm sewer utility.
- 22 -
The government-wide financial statements include not only the City of Richfield itself (known as the primary government), but also the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Richfield Economic Development Authority, both discretely presented component units. Financial information for these component units is reported separately from the financial information presented for the primary government itself. Fund financial statements. A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City of Richfield, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. All of the funds of the City of Richfield can be divided into three categories: governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds. Governmental funds. Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. However, unlike the government-wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government’s near-term financing requirements. Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. By doing so, readers may better understand the long-term impact of the government’s near-term financing decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities. The City of Richfield maintains nineteen individual governmental funds. Information is presented separately in the governmental fund balance sheet and in the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances for the general fund, ice arena fund, improvement bonds fund, and capital improvements fund, all of which are considered to be major funds. Data from the other fifteen governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of these nonmajor governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. The City of Richfield adopts an annual appropriated budget for its general and special revenue funds. A budgetary comparison statement has been provided for these funds to demonstrate compliance with this budget. Proprietary funds. The City of Richfield maintains two different types of proprietary funds. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business-type activities in the government-wide financial statements. The City of Richfield uses enterprise funds to account for its liquor operation, water and sewer utility and for its storm sewer utility, all of which are considered to be major funds of the City. Internal service funds are an accounting device used to accumulate and allocate costs internally among the City of Richfield’s various functions. The City of Richfield uses internal service funds to account for its central garage & equipment, for its information technology systems, its self-insurance program, its building services function, and its compensated absences liability. Because all of these services predominantly benefit governmental rather than business-type functions, they have been included within governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. The internal service funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation in the proprietary fund financial statements. Individual fund data for the internal service funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. Fiduciary funds. Fiduciary funds are used to account for resources held for the benefit of parties outside the government. Fiduciary funds are not reflected in the government-wide financial statements because the resources of those funds are not available to support the City of Richfield’s own programs. The accounting used for fiduciary funds is much like that used for proprietary funds.
- 23 -
Notes to the financial statements. The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government-wide and fund financial statements. Other information. Required supplementary information can be found following the Notes to the Financial Statements. The combining statements referred to earlier in connection with nonmajor governmental funds, internal service funds and fiduciary funds are presented immediately following the required supplementary information. Government-Wide Financial Analysis As noted earlier, net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government’s financial position. In the case of the City of Richfield, assets and deferred outflows of resources exceeded liabilities and deferred inflows of resources by $70,666,661 at the close of the most recent fiscal year. By far the largest portion of the City of Richfield’s net position (84 percent) reflects its investment in capital assets (e.g., land, buildings, machinery, and equipment); less any related debt used to acquire those assets that is still outstanding. The City of Richfield uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the City of Richfield’s investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. CITY OF RICHFIELD’S NET POSITION
Governmental
Activities
Business-type
Activities
Total
2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017
Current and other assets $57,457,733 $48,242,371 $7,914,966 $7,780,417 $65,372,699 $56,022,788
Capital assets 70,519,680 72,636,067 34,282,834 31,374,176 104,802,514 104,010,243
Total assets 127,977,413 120,878,438 42,197,800 39,154,593 170,175,213 160,033,031
Deferred outflows of resources 11,252,709 14,979,211 351,649 571,329 11,604,358 15,550,540
Total assets and deferred outflows
of resources 139,230,122 135,857,649 42,549,449 39,725,922 181,779,571 175,583,571
Long-term liabilities outstanding 74,978,490 69,790,979 13,291,482 14,320,020 88,269,972 84,110,999
Other liabilities 2,578,980 2,600,226 1,001,002 1,069,629 3,579,982 3,669,855
Total liabilities 77,557,470 72,391,205 14,292,484 15,389,649 91,849,954 87,780,854
Deferred inflows of resources 18,733,704 17,819,830 529,252 524,226 19,262,956 18,344,056
Net position:
Net investment in capital assets 44,695,707 46,432,821 23,309,355 19,656,557 59,206,662 60,155,878
Restricted 6,336,024 3,388,199 - - 6,336,024 3,388,199
Unrestricted (8,092,783) (4,174,406) 4,418,358 4,155,490 5,123,975 5,914,584
Total net position 42,938,948 45,646,614 27,727,713 23,812,047 70,666,661 69,458,661
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources and net position $139,230,122 $135,857,649 $42,549,449 $39,725,922 $181,779,571 $175,583,571
An additional portion of the City of Richfield’s net position represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. At December 31, 2018, the City had restricted net position of $6,336,024. The remaining balance of unrestricted net position ($5,123,975) may be used to meet the government’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. The government’s net position reflects an increase of $1,632,606. The increase can be attributed to increased revenues in Charges for Services, Property Taxes, and Capital Grants and Contributions, while expenses reflect an overall net decrease across many categories from the prior year.
- 24 -
Governmental activities. Governmental activities decreased the City of Richfield’s net position by $2,606,735 in 2018. The k ey elements of this decrease are as follows: City of Richfield’s Changes in Net position
Governmental
activities
Business-type
activities
Total
2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017
Revenues:
Program Revenues:
Charges for services $5,431,407 $4,792,570 $21,978,680 $20,869,932 $27,410,087 $25,662,502
Operating grants and contributions 1,463,533 1,350,700 - - 1,463,533 1,350,700
Capital grants and contributions 3,590,702 3,322,494 - - 3,590,702 3,322,494
General revenues:
Property taxes 20,019,144 19,075,553 - - 20,019,144 19,075,553
Franchise taxes 2,242,216 2,264,759 - - 2,242,216 2,264,759
Grants and contributions not
restricted to specific programs
2,229,280
2,094,443
-
-
2,229,280
2,094,443
Other 1,772,578 1,573,837 434,240 349,124 2,206,818 1,922,961
Total revenues 36,748,860 34,474,356 22,412,920 21,219,056 59,161,780 55,693,412
Expenses:
General government 3,205,714 3,261,312 - - 3,205,714 3,261,312
Public safety 8,576,956 9,430,593 - - 8,576,956 9,430,593
Fire 4,381,882 4,275,793 - - 4,381,882 4,275,793
Community development 1,552,826 1,364,675 - - 1,552,826 1,364,675
Public Works 13,039,259 15,028,590 - - 13,039,259 15,028,590
Parks and recreation 4,308,628 4,142,433 - - 4,308,628 4,142,433
Interest on long-term debt 1,563,101 1,751,627 - - 1,563,101 1,751,627
Liquor Operations - - 10,824,828 10,729,098 10,824,828 10,729,098
Water & Sewer Utility - - 8,262,064 7,957,436 8,262,064 7,957,436
Storm Sewer Utility - - 1,720,653 1,623,854 1,720,653 1,623,854
Total expenses 36,628,366 39,255,023 20,807,545 20,310,388 57,435,911 59,565,411
Change in net position before transfers 120,494 (4,780,667) 1,605,375 908,668 1,725,869 (3,871,999)
Transfers (2,727,229) (3,715,810) 2,727,229 3,715,810 - -
Special item - - (93,263) - (93,263) -
Change in net position (2,606,735) (8,496,477) 4,239,341 4,624,478 1,632,606 (3,871,999)
Net position – January 1 45,646,614 54,143,091 23,812,047 19,187,569 69,458,661 73,330,660
Change in accounting principle (100,931) - (5,313) - (106,244) -
Prior period adjustment - - (318,362) - (318.362) -
Net position – January 1 - Restated 45,545,683 54,143,091 23,488,372 19,187,569 69,034,055 73,330,660
Net position – December 31 $42,938,948 $45,646,614 $27,727,713 $23,812,047 $70,666,661 $69,458,661 • Total revenues increased by $2,274,504 due to an increase in charges for services, specifically in license and permits revenue and ice arena and swimming pool revenues, capital grants and contributions as part of the 66th Street Reconstruction project, and finally increased property tax revenues. • Total expenses decreased by $2,626,657 primarily due to a reduction in public works as a result of the 66th Street Reconstruction nearing completion.
• Transfers out decreased by $988,581 due to a reduction in contributions of utility infrastructure assets to business type activities from the 66th Street Reconstruction project. Despite this decrease, transfers out is the primary reason for the decrease in change in net position for 2018.
- 25 -
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
Government Public Fire Community Public Parks &Interest on
General Safety Development Works Recreation LT Debt
Expenses and Program Revenues -Governmental Activities
Revenues
Expenses
Charges for
Services 15%
Operating Grants
& Contributions
4%
Capital Grants
and
Contributions
10%
Property Taxes
54%
Franchise Taxes
6%
Grants and
contributions not
restricted 6%
Other 5%
Revenues by Source -Government Activities
Business-type activities. Business-type activities increased the City’s net position by $4,239,341 in 2018. The increase can be attributed to improved operating performance of all business-type activities in 2018 and the assets transferred to business-type activities due to the contribution of approximately $2.7 million of utility infrastructure to the Water and Sewer and Storm Sewer Utility funds from the 66th Street Reconstruction project.
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
Liquor Water &Storm
Operations Sewer Sewer
Expenses and Program Revenues -Business-
type Activities Revenues
Expenses
- 26 -
Unrestricted
Investment
Earnings
.48%
Charges for
Services
98.07%
Miscellaneou
s
1.45%
Revenues by Source -Business -Type
Activities
Financial Analysis of the Government’s Funds As noted earlier, the City of Richfield uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. Governmental funds. The focus of the City of Richfield’s governmental funds is to provide information on near-term inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City of Richfield’s financing requirements. Fund balances are identified based on a hierarchy of the constraints placed on the use of financial resources within governmental funds. Accordingly, fund balances are classified as: nonspendable, restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned. As of the end of the current fiscal year, the City of Richfield’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $39,958,760 an increase of $5,943,860 from 2017. The increase is the result of increases in tax, intergovernmental, charges for services revenues and interest income and a decrease in debt service payments. Consequently, the year-end balance consists of the following: less than 1% ($98,380) are amounts that are not in spendable form such as prepaid items. 35% ($14,128,908) constitutes restricted fund balances which limits the spending of these balances to externally imposed constraints, i.e. debt service covenants. 34% ($13,784,178) represents committed fund balances which are determined by resolution of the City Council. 21% ($8,234,215) is classified as assigned. These amounts represent intended uses established by the City Council or by an official designated by the City Council. Finally, 9% ($3,713,079) consists of balances classified as unassigned, which includes the fund balance of the General Fund and deficit fund balances of other governmental funds. The general fund is the chief operating fund of the City of Richfield. At the end of the current year, the unassigned fund balance of the general fund was $8,719,246 while total fund balance was $8,810,296. As a measure of the general fund liquidity, it may be useful to compare unassigned fund balance to total general fund revenues. Unassigned fund balance represents approximately 39% of total general fund revenues and 39% of total general fund expenditures. Moreover, the State Auditor has set a standard that unrestricted, unassigned fund balance should be between 35 and 50 percent of yearly general fund revenues. The City has adopted a policy that strives to maintain a minimum fund balance equal to 40% of total general fund revenues. At December 31, 2018 the City of Richfield the City is slightly below the minimum fund balance goal. The City’s fund balance for its general fund increased by $55,969 in 2018. The increase is due to improved tax, license and permit, and intergovernmental revenues received in 2018. The Ice Arena fund reflects an increase in fund balance of $183,048 in 2018. The increase is due to improved charges for services revenue and transfers in to offset planned capital outlay expenditures.
- 27 -
The G.O. Improvement Bonds fund has a fund balance of $10,844,148 of which $8,911,127 is restricted for the payment of debt service. The fund balance increased in 2018 by $565,737 due to increased tax revenues for future debt service requirements. The Capital Improvement fund accounts for public improvements and road right-of-way projects undertaken by the City. This funds fund balance increased by $3,261,189. The increase can be attributed to the issuance of the $9,770,000 General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2018A which were issued to fund the second phase of the 66th Street reconstruction project and the final phase of the Mill and Overlay project and the receipt of intergovernmental revenues for the final phase of the 66th Street reconstruction project. The nonmajor governmental funds consist of the City’s Special Revenue funds, the Redevelopment Bond fund, and Park Capital Projects fund. The combined total of these funds increased by $1,877,737 in 2018. The increase can be attributed to the accumulation of franchise fees in 2018 to be used in 2019 for the Mill and Overlay project. Proprietary funds. The City of Richfield’s proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the government-wide financial statements, but in more detail. Unrestricted net position of the liquor operation at the end of the year amounted to a negative $497,986, for the water and sewer utility $4,186,725, and for the storm sewer utility $2,433,727. The total increase in net position for all of these funds was $565,684, $2,192,648 and $1,547,267 respectively. Budgetary Highlights General Fund As part of the annual budget process, the current general fund revenue and expenditure budgets are revised to reflect a more accurate picture throughout the current fiscal year. The intent of this annual budget process is for the City to continue to provide and maintain quality services to its residents while trying to maintain the tax levy at a reasonable level. As has been the recent practice, the City, under City Council direction, has been following a policy to minimize its reliance on Local Government Aid (LGA). This policy developed out of the history of volatile budget swings the State of Minnesota faced and the impact these swings had on cities with the reduction of LGA revenues. During the 2018 budget process the City deviated from this policy and increased the level of budgeted LGA by $600,000 to a total of $1,150,000. This was in response to the formation of the Richfield Economic Development Authority (EDA) and the issuance of the Series 2017A bonds. The tax levies from the EDA and the Series 2017A bonds put pressure on the 2018 tax levy and the increase in budgeted LGA helped relieve that pressure. Looking ahead to 2019, the City again increased budgeted LGA levels, this time by $50,000 to a total of $1,200,000. This was in response to increased General Fund budgeted expenditures and the issuance of the Series 2018A bonds. It is evident that the City will have to evaluate annually the amount of LGA to budget each year depending on the level of debt service tax levies and General Fund service needs. However, it will always remain the goal of the City to continue to reduce the City’s dependence on LGA and at the same time to minimize the tax levy on property owners. At the end of 2018 the City’s General Fund realized a surplus of $55,969 to its fund balance. This was accomplished through increased tax, license and permit, and intergovernmental revenues. Capital Asset and Debt Administration Capital assets. The City of Richfield’s investment in capital assets for its governmental and business type activities as of December 31, 2018 amounts to $104,802,514 (net of accumulated depreciation). This investment in capital assets includes land, buildings and structures, other improvements, machinery and equipment, infrastructure, and construction in progress. Major capital asset events during 2018 included the following:
• Completion of the renovation of the Penn Avenue liquor store. The total cost of the project was $1,129,165.
• Completion of the new Lime Feed system at the Water Plant at a total cost of $441,082.
• Installation of new dasher boards at Rink 1 at the City’s Ice Arena at a total cost of $184,345.
- 28 -
City of Richfield’s Capital Assets (net of depreciation)
Governmental
activities
Business-type
Activities
Total
2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017
Land $9,353,605 $9,353,605 $638,673 $638,673 $9,992,278 $9,992,278
Buildings and structures 34,694,936 35,825,885 3,668,515 2,887,654 38,363,451 38,713,539
Machinery and equipment 5,210,460 5,388,372 3,801,712 3,459,316 9,012,172 8,847,688
Other improvements 2,317,787 2,322,289 26,136,674 20,410,494 28,454,161 22,732,783
Streets (Infrastructures) 17,327,294 19,178,669 - - 17,327,294 19,178,669
Construction in progress 1,615,598 567,247 37,560 3,978,039 1,653,158 4,545,286
Total capital assets $70,519,680 $72,636,067 $34,282,834 $31,374,176 $104,802,514 $104,010,243
Additional information on the City’s capital assets can be found in Note 1M and Note 3 Capital Assets in the accompanying notes to the basic financial statements. Long-term debt. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City of Richfield had total bonded debt outstanding of $68,313,085. The debt service for the general obligation redevelopment bonds is provided through the collection of tax increments from Hennepin County. On an annual basis tax increment proceeds are transferred to meet annual debt service requirements. The general obligation improvement bonds are serviced by special assessment collections and tax levies.
During 2018, the City issued the $9,770,000 General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series
2018A, for the purpose of funding the second phase of the 66th Street reconstruction project and the
final phase of the Mill and Overpay projects. City of Richfield’s Outstanding Debt General Obligation and Revenue Bonds
Governmental
activities
Business-type
activities
Total
2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017
General obligation redevelopment
bonds
$4,940,000
$5,645,000
$ -
$ -
$4,940,000
$5,645,000
General obligation improvement
bonds
52,399,606
44,228,837
-
-
52,399,606
44,228,837
Revenue bonds - - 10,973,479 11,742,079 10,973,479 11,742,079
Total $57,339,606 $49,873,837 $10,973,479 $11,742,079 $68,313,085 $61,615,916
The City of Richfield maintains an AA+ rating from Standard & Poor’s and an “Aa2” rating from Moody’s Investor Service, for general obligation debt. State Statutes limit the amount of general obligation debt a governmental entity may issue to 3 percent of its total assessed valuation. The current debt limitation for the City of Richfield is $91,760,000, which is in excess of the City of Richfield’s outstanding general obligation debt. Additional details of the City’s long-term debt activity can be found in Note 5, Long-Term Liabilities, in the accompanying notes to the basic financial statements. Economic Factors and Next Year’s Budgets and Rates The following items are an integral part of the City’s planning for and dealing with near-term financial issues: • The economic and financial issues faced by the State of Minnesota over the last several years appear to be a thing of the past. As of February 2019, the State is forecasting a budget surplus of
- 29 -
approximately $1.05 billion dollars by the end of the fiscal year 2020-2021 biennium. This is a very strong positive for all cities in Minnesota. As for the City of Richfield, despite the positive financial forecast from the State, it intends to continue its policy of eliminating or at a minimum, reducing its dependence on Local Government Aid, when it is financially feasible, and to remain fiscally responsible. • In addition, the state of the economy, both local and national, has and will have an impact on the City. However, as the economy has stabilized and started to improve, the City has seen some positive signs. Market values within the City have increased for 2018 and those increases are expected to continue into 2019. Moreover, the market for redevelopment within the City is strong as developers are starting to seek out the City for redevelopment opportunities within the City.
• Rates for the Utility operations increased for 2018. For 2019 water rates will increase across the
three tier levels by 10%. Tier 1 will increase by .35 cents per thousand gallons, Tier 2 will increase
by .42 cents per thousand gallons, and Tier 3 rates will increase by .51 cents per thousand
gallons. In addition, wastewater rates will increase by 10% or .51 cents per thousand gallons.
Finally, rates for the Storm Sewer Utility will increase by 7% or 1.24 per quarter over 2018 levels.
Requests for Information This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the City of Richfield’s finances for all those with an interest in the government’s finances. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the Office of the Finance Manager, City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423.
- 30 -
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
- 31 -
BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
- 32 -
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
- 33 -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
December 31, 2018
Statement 1
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
Governmental Business-type Housing & Redev.Economic Dev.
Activities Activities Total Authority Authority
ASSETS:
Cash & investments 45,518,863$ 5,603,627$ 51,122,490$ 10,550,690$ 259,240$
Accrued interest 171,859 - 171,859 - -
Due from other governments 906,710 5,890 912,600 35,708 3,303
Accounts receivable - net 867,898 2,905,324 3,773,222 105,507 -
Inventories - 1,305,583 1,305,583 - -
Internal balances 1,920,404 (1,920,404) - - -
Due from component unit 1,204,860 - 1,204,860 - -
Prepaid items 98,380 14,946 113,326 - -
Property taxes receivable:
Delinquent 206,160 - 206,160 5,892 5,760
Special assessments receivable 474,670 - 474,670 - -
Assets held for resale - - 1,898,307 -
Restricted assets:
Cash & investments 6,087,929 - 6,087,929 39,245 -
Long term second mortgage receivable - - - 2,395,219 100,185
Allowance for uncollectible accounts - - - (2,395,219) (100,185)
Capital assets (not depreciable)10,969,203 676,233 11,645,436 - -
Capital assets (net of accumulated depr.)59,550,477 33,606,601 93,157,078 - -
Total assets 127,977,413 42,197,800 170,175,213 12,635,349 268,303
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES:
Deferred outflows or resources related to pensions 11,100,622 343,287 11,443,909 - -
Deferred outflows or resources related to OPEB 152,087 8,362 160,449 - -
Total Deferred Outflows of Resources 11,252,709 351,649 11,604,358 - -
Total assets and deferred outflows or resources 139,230,122 42,549,449 181,779,571 12,635,349 268,303
LIABILITIES:
Accounts and contracts payable 1,104,033 672,042 1,776,075 69,199 37,942
Due to other governmental units 305,491 143,965 449,456 - -
Due to primary government - - - 1,204,860 -
Salaries payable 420,414 68,525 488,939 - -
Accrued interest payable 749,041 116,470 865,511 - -
Noncurrent liabilities:
Due within one year 9,431,763 892,768 10,324,531 - -
Due in more than one year 65,546,728 12,398,714 77,945,442 -
Total Liabilities 77,557,470 14,292,484 91,849,954 1,274,059 37,942 -
DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES:-
Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions 15,833,821 529,252 16,363,073 - -
State aid received for subsequent years 2,899,883 - 2,899,883 - -
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources 18,733,704 529,252 19,262,956 - -
NET POSITION:
Net investment in capital assets 44,695,707 23,309,355 59,206,662 - -
Restricted for:
Debt service 2,356,747 - 2,356,747 - -
Capital projects 3,587,246 - 3,587,246 5,272,344 -
Grants and donations 392,031 - 392,031 73,645 -
Unrestricted (8,092,783) 4,418,358 5,123,975 6,015,301 230,361
Total net position 42,938,948 27,727,713 70,666,661 11,361,290 230,361
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources and net position 139,230,122 42,549,449 181,779,571 12,635,349 268,303
Primary Government Component Units
- 34 -
Operating Capital
Charges for Grants and Grants and
Functions/Programs Expenses Services Contributions Contributions
Primary government:
Governmental Activities:
General Government 3,205,714$ 793,277$ -$ -$
Public Safety 8,576,956 750,959 880,202 -
Fire 4,381,882 3,740 179,543 -
Community Development 1,552,826 1,696,677 - 869,366
Public Works 13,039,259 317,813 338,043 2,721,336
Parks and Recreation 4,308,628 1,868,941 65,745 -
Interest on long-term debt 1,563,101 - - -
Total governmental activities 36,628,366 5,431,407 1,463,533 3,590,702
Business-type activities:
Liquor Operations 10,824,828 11,561,557 - -
Water & Sewer Utility 8,262,064 8,648,729 - -
Storm Sewer Utility 1,720,653 1,768,394 - -
Total business-type activities 20,807,545 21,978,680 - -
Total primary government 57,435,911$ 27,410,087$ 1,463,533$ 3,590,702$
Component units:
Housing & Redevelopment Authority 9,412,275$ 42,302$ 1,697,348$ 49,067$
Economic Development Authority 333,584 - - -
Total Component Unit 9,745,859$ 42,302$ 1,697,348$ 49,067$
General Revenues:
Taxes:
Property taxes, levied for general purposes
Franchise taxes
Tax Increments
Grants & contributions not restricted to specific programs
Unrestricted investment earnings
Miscellaneous
Transfers
Special item
Total general revenues, transfers and special items
Change in net position
Net position - beginning
Change in accounting priciple
Prior period adjustment
Net position - beginning - restated
Net position - ending
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
For The Year Ended December 31, 2018
Program Revenues
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
- 35 -
Statement 2
Governmental Business-Type Component Component
Activities Activities Total Unit Unit
(2,412,437)$ -$ (2,412,437)$ -$ -$
(6,945,795) - (6,945,795) - -
(4,198,599) - (4,198,599) - -
1,013,217 - 1,013,217 - -
(9,662,067) - (9,662,067) - -
(2,373,942) - (2,373,942) - -
(1,563,101) - (1,563,101) - -
(26,142,724) - (26,142,724) - -
- 736,729 736,729 - -
- 386,665 386,665 - -
- 47,741 47,741 - -
- 1,171,135 1,171,135 - -
(26,142,724)$ 1,171,135$ (24,971,589)$ -$ -$
-$ -$ -$ (7,623,558)$ -$
- - - - (333,584)
-$ -$ -$ (7,623,558)$ (333,584)$
20,019,144$ -$ 20,019,144$ 566,595$ 560,007$
2,242,216 - 2,242,216 - -
- - - 4,997,404 -
2,229,280 - 2,229,280 - -
840,522 108,145 948,667 163,999 1,238
932,056 326,095 1,258,151 662,119 2,700
(2,727,229) 2,727,229 - - -
- (93,263) (93,263) - -
23,535,989 3,068,206 26,604,195 6,390,117 563,945
(2,606,735) 4,239,341 1,632,606 (1,233,441) 230,361
45,646,614 23,812,047 69,458,661 12,594,731 -
(100,931) (5,313) (106,244) - -
- (318,362) (318,362) - -
45,545,683 23,488,372 69,034,055 12,594,731 -
42,938,948$ 27,727,713$ 70,666,661$ 11,361,290$ 230,361$
Primary Government
Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Net Position
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
- 36 -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
BALANCE SHEET
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
December 31, 2018
Statement 3
Other Total
Ice Improvement Capital Governmental Governmental
General Arena Bonds Improvements Funds Funds
Assets
Cash and investments 5,846,296$ -$ 4,565,430$ 16,173,430$ 9,530,648$ 36,115,804$
Cash and investments held by trustee - - 6,087,929 - - 6,087,929
Accrued Interest - - 171,859 - - 171,859
Due from other governments 198,494 - 18,930 666,838 22,448 906,710
Receivables, net 160,470 108,684 - - 598,744 867,898
Due from other funds 3,379,262 - - 107,068 148,037 3,634,367
Due from component unit - - - 40,553 - 40,553
Prepaid items 91,050 - - - 7,330 98,380
Delinquent property taxes receivable 172,440 - 29,910 3,810 - 206,160
Special assessments receivable - - 294,751 179,919 - 474,670
Advances to other funds - - - 109,229 727,305 836,534
Advances to component unit - - - 659,547 - 659,547
Total assets 9,848,012$ 108,684$ 11,168,809$ 17,940,394$ 11,034,512$ 50,100,411$
Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources
and Fund Balances
Liabilities:
Accounts payable 206,127$ 56,224$ -$ 400,574$ 191,721$ 854,646$
Accrued salaries and benefits 383,248 11,983 - - 2,702 397,933
Due to other funds - 2,644,472 - - 946,330 3,590,802
Payable to other governments 275,901 3,567 - 239 570 280,277
Advances from other funds - 1,233,840 - - 203,440 1,437,280
Total liabilities 865,276 3,950,086 - 400,813 1,344,763 6,560,938
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Unavailabe revenue - delinquent property taxes 172,440$ -$ 29,910$ 3,810$ -$ 206,160$
Unavailabe revenue - special assessments - - 294,751 179,919 - 474,670
State aid received for subsequent years - - - 2,899,883 - 2,899,883
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources 172,440 - 324,661 3,083,612 - 3,580,713
Fund balances:
Nonspendable 91,050 - - - 7,330 98,380
Restricted - - 8,911,127 4,825,750 392,031 14,128,908
Committed - - 1,426,243 1,902,782 10,455,153 13,784,178
Assigned - - 506,778 7,727,437 - 8,234,215
Unassigned 8,719,246 (3,841,402) - - (1,164,765) 3,713,079
Total fund balances 8,810,296 (3,841,402) 10,844,148 14,455,969 9,689,749 39,958,760
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources
and fund balances 9,848,012$ 108,684$ 11,168,809$ 17,940,394$ 11,034,512$ 50,100,411$
Fund balance reported above 39,958,760$
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the
statement of net position are different because:
Capital assets used in governmental activities are not
financial resources, and therefore, are not reported in the funds 66,630,238
Other long-term assets are not available to pay for current-
period expenditures and therefore, are deferred in the funds.
Delinquent property taxes 206,160
Special assessments not yet due 474,670
The assets and liabilities of certain Internal Service Funds are included
in governmental activities in the statement of net position
Net position of internal service funds 10,392,505
Allocation to reflect consolidation of internal service fund activities related to enterprise funds 1,704,108
Allocation to reflect consolidation of internal service fund activities related to component unit 504,760
Long-term liabilities are not due and payable in the current period and, therefore,are not
reported as liabilities in the funds. Long-term liabilities at year-end consist of:
Unfunded OPEB liability (2,109,428)
Net pension liability (12,217,318)
Deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources are created as a result of
various differences related to pensions that are not recognized in the governmental funds.
Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions 10,975,499
Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions (15,640,917)
Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB 148,558
Long-term liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and
payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds:
Bonds payable (56,260,000)
Premiums general obligation debt (1,079,606)
Accrued interest payable (749,041)
Net position of governmental activities 42,938,948$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
- 37 -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2018
Statement 4
Other Total
Ice Improvement Capital Governmental Governmental
General Arena Bonds Improvements Funds Funds
REVENUES:
Property taxes 16,003,424$ -$ 2,884,805 1,152,799$ -$ 20,041,028$
Franchise taxes - - - - 2,242,216 2,242,216
Special assessments - - 56,015 146,293 - 202,308
Fees and fines 310,713 - - - 53,093 363,806
License and permits 1,385,288 - - - - 1,385,288
Intergovernmental 2,383,163 - - 3,630,323 981,744 6,995,230
Charges for Services 2,246,618 1,064,759 - - 370,936 3,682,313
Investment earnings 93,957 - 220,761 227,766 142,869 685,353
Miscellaneous 59,816 68,360 - 105,581 717,298 951,055
Total revenues 22,482,979 1,133,119 3,161,581 5,262,762 4,508,156 36,548,597
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Legislative/Executive 837,836 - - - - 837,836
Administrative Services 668,263 - - - 472,379 1,140,642
Finance 674,332 - - - - 674,332
Public Safety 8,671,310 - - - 84,728 8,756,038
Fire 4,237,354 - - - - 4,237,354
Community Development 1,471,067 - - - - 1,471,067
Public Works 4,032,936 - - 6,801,118 - 10,834,054
Recreation Services 1,896,519 992,963 - - 726,496 3,615,978
Debt service:
Principal - - 1,660,000 - 705,000 2,365,000
Interest and other charges - 18,573 1,415,058 - 164,366 1,597,997
Capital outlay 42,313 193,535 - 210,261 444,110 890,219
Construction/acquisition costs - - - 3,551,094 - 3,551,094
Total expenditures 22,531,930 1,205,071 3,075,058 10,562,473 2,597,079 39,971,611
Revenues over (under)
expenditures (48,951) (71,952) 86,523 (5,299,711) 1,911,077 (3,423,014)
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfers in 299,920 255,000 357,440 9,956,464 427,500 11,296,324
Transfers out (195,000) - (9,800,000) (1,395,564) (460,840) (11,851,404)
Bonds issued - - 9,770,000 - - 9,770,000
Premiums (Discounts) on bonds issued - - 151,774 - - 151,774
Total other financing sources and (uses) 104,920 255,000 479,214 8,560,900 (33,340) 9,366,694
Net increase (decrease) in fund balance 55,969 183,048 565,737 3,261,189 1,877,737 5,943,680
Fund Balances - January 1 8,754,327 (4,024,450) 10,278,411 11,194,780 7,812,012 34,015,080
Fund balances - December 31 8,810,296$ (3,841,402)$ 10,844,148$ 14,455,969$ 9,689,749$ 39,958,760$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
- 38 -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES,
EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
For The Year Ended December 31, 2018
Statement 5
Net Change in fund balances - total governmental funds 5,943,680$
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities are
different because:
Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the state-
ment of activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated
useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. This is the amount by which
depreciation ($3,451,041) and assets contributed to Enterprise Funds ($2,957,149)
exceeded capital outlay ($4,481,518) in the current period. (1,926,672)
Revenues in the statement of activities that do not provide current financial
resources are not reported as revenues in the funds. The amounts of these differences
are as follows:
Delinquent property taxes (21,884)
Deferred special assessments (32,015)
The issuance of long-term debt (e.g. bonds, leases) provides current financial
resources to governmental funds, while the repayment of the principal of long-
term debt consumes the current financial resources of governmental funds.
Neither transaction, however, has any effect on net position. The amounts of these
differences are:
Principal payments on long-term debt 2,365,000
Issuance of long-term debt (9,770,000)
Premiums on long-term debt (60,769)
Some expenses reported in the statement of activities do not require the use of
current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in
governmental funds. Expenses reported in the statement of activities include the
effects of the changes in these expense accruals as follows:
Change in accrued interest payable (56,109)
Net other post-employment benefit obligations payable reported in the Statement of
Activities do not require the use of current financial resources and are not
reported as expenditures in governmental funds until actually due. (147,378)
Government funds recognized pension contributions as expenditures at the time of
payment whereas the statement of activities factors in items related to pensions on a
full accrual perspective.
Pension expense 481,490
State Contribution 98,992
Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of certain
activities, such as insurance and telecommunication, to individual funds. The net
revenue (expense) of certain internal service funds is reported with governmental
activities.
Investment earnings 155,169
Consolidation of internal service fund activities related to government activities (421,239)
Transfers in 785,000
Change in net position of governmental activities (2,606,735)$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
- 39 -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
December 31, 2018
Statement 6
Governmental
Activities -
Water and Storm Internal
Municipal Sewer Sewer Service
Liquor Fund Utility Fund Fund Total Fund
ASSETS:
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents -$ 3,204,812$ 2,398,815$ 5,603,627$ 9,403,059$
Receivables, net - 2,532,111 373,214 2,905,325 -
Due from other funds - 212,511 - 212,511 63,503
Due from other governments - 5,890 - 5,890 -
Inventories 1,305,583 - - 1,305,583 -
Prepaid items 14,946 - - 14,946 -
Total current assets 1,320,529 5,955,324 2,772,029 10,047,882 9,466,562
Noncurrent assets:
Advances to other funds - - - - 709,975
Capital assets:
Land 499,188 53,550 85,935 638,673 -
Construction in progress - 37,560 - 37,560 67,640
Distribution and collection systems - 24,705,188 22,071,022 46,776,210 -
Buildings and equipment 6,354,471 16,144,309 674,472 23,173,252 10,569,286
Less accumulated depreciation (2,516,842) (22,830,284) (10,995,735) (36,342,861) (6,747,484)
Total capital assets (net of
accumulated depreciation) 4,336,817 18,110,323 11,835,694 34,282,834 3,889,442
Total noncurrent assets 4,336,817 18,110,323 11,835,694 34,282,834 4,599,417
Total assets 5,657,346 24,065,647 14,607,723 44,330,716 14,065,979
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES:
Deferred outflows or resources related to pensions 154,427 181,196 7,664 343,287 125,122
Deferred outflows or resources related to OPEB 3,744 2,845 1,773 8,362 3,530
158,171 184,041 9,437 351,649 128,652
Total assets and deferred outflows
of resources 5,815,517 24,249,688 14,617,160 44,682,365 14,194,631
LIABILITIES:
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable 327,655 127,705 212,637 667,997 249,388
Contracts payable 4,045 - - 4,045 -
Accrued salaries and benefits 34,053 33,082 1,390 68,525 22,481
Due to other governments 123,794 20,171 - 143,965 25,214
Compensated absences 62,191 79,448 1,129 142,768 561,763
Accrued interest payable - 52,090 64,380 116,470 -
Due to other funds 212,511 107,068 - 319,579 -
Bonds, notes, and loans payable - 375,000 375,000 750,000 -
Total current liabilities 764,249 794,564 654,536 2,213,349 858,846
Noncurrent liabilities:
Advances from other funds - 109,229 - 109,229 -
Compensated absences 64,485 82,379 1,171 148,035 1,404,753
Net OPEB obligation 51,043 67,002 - 118,045 70,028
Net pension liability 858,827 997,845 52,483 1,909,155 695,863
Claims and judgments - - - - 579,732
Bonds, notes, and loans payable(net of
unamortized premiums and discounts) - 4,082,218 6,141,261 10,223,479 -
Total noncurrent liabilities 974,355 5,338,673 6,194,915 12,507,943 2,750,376
Total liabilities 1,738,604 6,133,237 6,849,451 14,721,292 3,609,222
DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES:
Deferred inflows or resources related to pensions 238,082 276,621 14,549 529,252 192,904
NET POSITION:
Net investment in capital assets 4,336,817 13,653,105 5,319,433 23,309,355 3,889,442
Unrestricted (497,986) 4,186,725 2,433,727 6,122,466 6,503,063
Total net position 3,838,831 17,839,830 7,753,160 29,431,821 10,392,505
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources and net position 5,815,517$ 24,249,688$ 14,617,160$ 14,194,631$
Adjustment to reflect the consolidation of internal service fund activities related to enterprise funds (1,704,108)
Net position of business - type activities 27,727,713$
Business Type Activities - Enterprise Funds
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
- 40 -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND
CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITON
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2018
Statement 7
Governmental
Activities -
Water and Storm Internal
Municipal Sewer Sewer Total Service
Liquor Fund Utility Fund Fund Current Year Fund
OPERATING REVENUES
Charges for Service 11,561,557$ 8,648,729$ 1,768,394$ 21,978,680$ 3,860,861$
Less: cost of sales (8,645,844) - - (8,645,844) -
Total operating revenues 2,915,713 8,648,729 1,768,394 13,332,836 3,860,861
OPERATING EXPENSES
Personnel services 1,372,924 2,160,926 375,240 3,909,090 1,474,614
Other service and charges 579,474 4,753,196 585,199 5,917,869 2,284,711
Depreciation 207,322 1,200,236 604,129 2,011,687 828,458
Total operating expenses 2,159,720 8,114,358 1,564,568 11,838,646 4,587,783
Operating income (loss) 755,993 534,371 203,826 1,494,190 (726,922)
NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES)
Interest and investment revenue - 74,943 33,202 108,145 155,169
Intergovernmental revenue 6,570 17,634 401 24,605 5,324
Miscellaneous revenue 33,041 92,194 176,255 301,490 135,303
Gain(loss) on disposal of capital assets - - - - 86,862
Interest expense - (114,229) (142,567) (256,796) -
Total nonoperating revenue (expenses) 39,611 70,542 67,291 177,444 382,658
Income before transfers & capital contributions 795,604 604,913 271,117 1,671,634 (344,264)
Capital Contributions - 1,587,736 1,369,413 2,957,149 -
Transfers in 70,000 - - 70,000 855,000
Transfers out (299,920) - - (299,920) (70,000)
Special item - - (93,263) (93,263) -
Changes in net position 565,684 2,192,649 1,547,267 4,305,600 440,736
Total net position - beginning 3,275,272 15,850,877 6,323,747 9,953,893
Change in accounting principle (2,125) (3,188) - (2,124)
Prior period adjustment - (200,508) (117,854) -
Total net position - beginning - restated 3,273,147 15,647,181 6,205,893 9,951,769
Total net position - ending 3,838,831$ 17,839,830$ 7,753,160$ 10,392,505$
Adjustment to reflect the consolidation of internal service fund activities related to enterprise funds. (66,259)
Transfers in of capital assets from governmental activities 2,957,149
Governmental activities contribution revenue reported above (2,957,149)
Change in net position of business - type activities 4,239,341$
Business-Type Activities - Enterprise Funds
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
- 41 -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2018
Statement 8
Governmental
Activities -
Water and Storm Internal
Municipal Sewer Sewer Service
Liquor Fund Utility Fund Fund Totals Funds
Cash flows from operating activities:
Receipts from customers and users 2,916,221$ 8,494,678$ 1,752,013$ 13,162,912$ -$
Receipts from interfund services provided - - - - 3,875,782
Payment to employees (1,381,095) (2,146,068) (381,697) (3,908,860) (1,563,199)
Payment to suppliers (732,542) (4,483,662) (453,142) (5,669,346) (2,451,170)
Payments for interfund services used (172,994) (271,608) (125,671) (570,273) -
Miscellaneous revenue 33,041 92,194 176,255 301,490 140,627
Net cash flows from operating activities 662,631 1,685,534 967,758 3,315,923 2,040
Cash flows from noncapital financing activities:
Transfer from Special Revenue Fund 70,000 - - 70,000 -
Transfer to General Fund (299,920) - - (299,920) -
Transfer from Capital Project Funds - - - - 785,000
Transfer from Internal Service Funds - - - - 70,000
Transfer to Internal Service Funds - - - - (70,000)
Interfund borrowing 212,511 (317,461) - (104,950) 62,247
Intergovernmental grants 6,570 17,634 401 24,605 -
Net cash flows from noncapital financing
activities: (10,839) (299,827) 401 (310,265) 847,247
Cash flows from capital and related financing
activities:
Proceeds from disposal of capital assets - - - - 30,736
Acquisition of capital assets (1,376,122) (516,426) (70,650) (1,963,198) (582,619)
Principal paid on capital debt - (370,000) (365,000) (735,000) -
Interest payments - (137,488) (161,394) (298,882) -
Net cash flows from capital and related
financing activities (1,376,122) (1,023,914) (597,044) (2,997,080) (551,883)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Investment income - 74,943 33,202 108,145 155,169
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents (724,330) 436,736 404,317 116,723 452,573
Cash and cash equivalents - January 1 724,330 2,768,076 1,994,498 5,486,904 8,950,486
Cash and cash equivalents - December 31 -$ 3,204,812$ 2,398,815$ 5,603,627$ 9,403,059
Reconciliation of operating income to net cash
flows from operating activities:
Operating income (loss) 755,993$ 534,370$ 203,826$ 1,494,189$ (726,922)$
Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss)
to net cash flows from operating activities:
Miscellaneous revenue (expense) 33,041 92,194 176,255 301,490 140,627
Depreciation 207,322 1,200,237 604,129 2,011,688 828,459
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Decrease (increase) in receivables 508 (151,125) (16,379) (166,996) 14,921
Decrease (increase) in prepaid items 1,006 - - 1,006 1,418
Decrease (increase) in inventory (59,530) - - (59,530) -
Decrease (increase) in deferred outflows related to pensions 116,692 96,791 6,197 219,680 85,969
Increase (decrease) in payables (192,506) (41,780) 7,075 (227,211) (8,470)
Increase (decrease) in salaries and benefits payable 7,926 7,070 35 15,031 3,187
Increase (decrease) in compensated absences (16,097) 7,789 (6,494) (14,802) (91,770)
Increase (decrease) in due to other governments 2,308 (15,506) - (13,198) (45,588)
Increase (decrease) in net OPEB obligations 8,635 8,826 - 17,461 7,750
Increase (decrease) in deferred inflows related to pensions (14,120) 18,942 204 5,026 (4,023)
Increase (decrease) in net pension liability (188,547) (72,274) (7,090) (267,911) (121,958)
Increase (decrease) in claims and judgments - - - - (81,560)
Total adjustments (93,362) 1,151,164 763,932 1,821,734 728,962
Net cash flows from operating activities 662,631$ 1,685,534$ 967,758$ 3,315,923$ 2,040$
Non cash capital and related financing
activities:
Capital assets contributed by other funds -$ 1,587,736$ 1,369,413$ 2,957,149$ -$
Net non cash flows from non cash capital
and related financing activities -$ 1,587,736$ 1,369,413$ 2,957,149 -$
Business Type Activities - Enterprise Funds
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
- 42 -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
December 31, 2018
Statement 9
Agency
Fund
Assets
Cash and investments 594,510$
Total Assets 594,510$
Liabilities
Due to other governments 4,045$
Deposits 590,465
Total Liabilities 594,510$
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
- 43 -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2018 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies The City of Richfield (the City) was incorporated February 26, 1908. Since 1964, the City has operated under a Council-Manager form of government, as authorized by its City Charter. The accounting policies of the City conform to generally accepted accounting principles, as applied to governmental units by the U.S. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The following is a summary of the more significant policies: A. Reporting Entity The financial statements present the City and its component units. The City includes all funds, organizations, institutions, agencies, departments, and offices that are not legally separate from such. Component units are legally separate organizations for which the elected officials of the City are financially accountable and are included within the general purpose financial statements of the City because of the significance of their operational or financial relationships with the City. The City is considered financially accountable for a component unit if it appoints a voting majority of the organization’s governing body and it is able to impose its will on the organization by significantly influencing the programs, projects, activities, or level of services performed or provided by the organization, or there is a potential for the organization to provide specific financial benefits to, or impose specific financial burdens, on the City. As a result of applying the component unit definition criteria above, certain organizations have been defined and are presented in this report as follows: • Blended Component Units - Reported as if they were part of the City. • Discretely Presented Component Units - Entails reporting the component unit financial data in a column separate from the financial data of the City. • Related Organizations - The relationship of the City with the entity is disclosed. For each of the categories above, the specific entities are identified as follows: • Blended Components Units: The City has no blended component units. • Discretely Presented Component Units: Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in and for the City of Richfield. Economic Development Authority (EDA) in and for the City of Richfield The HRA was established on November 12, 1974, per Minnesota State Statute 462.426 (Minnesota Housing and Redevelopment Act of 1947), and is governed by a five-member commission appointed by the Mayor. The HRA was formed by the City to provide housing and redevelopment assistance to Richfield citizens and businesses. The HRA provides this assistance through the general taxes, the use of Community Development Block Grants, and the establishment of tax increment and tax abatement financing districts. The HRA also operates the Section 8 rental subsidy program as a direct recipient from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As the City appoints the HRA commission and has the ability to hire or dismiss those persons responsible for its day-to-day operations, the HRA is considered a component unit of the City. The EDA was established May 9, 2017 per Minnesota State Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.108 and some but not all of the powers of a housing and redevelopment authority under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047. The EDA is governed by a five-member commission. Two commissioners shall be members of the City Council and three commissioners shall be members at large. The three at large commissioners shall be the three at large commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota. The EDA was formed to provide resources for economic development in Richfield, including the Kids @ Home program, Transformation Loan program, apartment remodeling programs and business development programing. Financial statements of the HRA can be obtained from the administrative offices at City Hall: Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423
- 44 -
Financial Statements of the EDA can be obtained from the administrative offices at City Hall Richfield Economic Development Authority 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 • Related Organizations The City has no related organizations. B. Government-Wide and Fund Financial Statements The government-wide financial statements (i.e., the statement of net position and the statement of activities) report information on all of the nonfiduciary activities of the primary government and its component units. For the most part, the effect of interfund activity has been removed from these statements. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business-type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or business-type activity is offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or business-type activity. Program revenues include: 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or business-type activity; and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or business type activity. Taxes and other items not included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues. Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds, even though the latter are excluded from the government-wide financial statements. Major individual governmental funds and major individual enterprise funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. C. Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the Proprietary Fund and Fiduciary Fund financial statements. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Agency funds, however, are unlike all other funds, reporting only assets and liabilities. So agency funds cannot be said to have a measurement focus. They do, however, use the accrual basis of accounting to recognize receivables and payables. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the government considers all revenues, except reimbursement grants, to be available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period. Reimbursement grants are considered available if they are collected within one year of the end of the current fiscal period. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences, OPEB obligations, and claims and judgments, are recorded only when payment is due. Property taxes, special assessments, intergovernmental revenues, charges for services and interest associated with the current fiscal period are all considered to be susceptible to accrual and so have been recognized as revenues of the current fiscal period. Only the portion of special assessments receivable due within the current fiscal period is considered to be susceptible to accrual as revenue of the current period. All other revenue items are considered to be measurable and available only when cash is received by the government. The government reports the following major governmental funds: The General Fund is the government’s primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the general government, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. The Ice Arena Fund accounts for the revenues earned and other resources generated by the operation of the City’s two sheet ice arena facility.
- 45 -
The Improvement Bond Debt Service Fund is used for the accumulation of resources for payment of principal and interest for outstanding general obligation issues. The Capital Improvement Capital Projects Fund is used to account for projects related to public improvement within the City. The government reports the following major proprietary funds: The Municipal Liquor Fund accounts for the operations of the four municipal liquor stores operated by the City. The Water and Sewer Utility Fund accounts for the water and sewer service charges which are used to finance the water system and sanitary sewer system operating expenses. The Storm Sewer Fund accounts for storm sewer user fees, which are used to finance storm sewer system operating expenses. Additionally, the government reports the following fund types: Internal Service Funds account for fleet management, data processing, risk management, building maintenance services, and compensated absences, provided to other funds or departments on a cost reimbursement basis. Agency Funds are used to account for the City’s collection of fees to be remitted to the State of Minnesota such as building permit-surcharges, snowmobile-boat license fees, and motor vehicle license fees. In addition, escrow deposits collected, are accounted within agency funds. These funds are custodial in nature and do not involve measurement of results of operation. As a general rule the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government-wide financial statements. Exceptions to this general rule are transactions that would be treated as revenues, expenditures or expenses if they involved external organizations, such as buying goods and services or payments in lieu of taxes, are similarly treated when they involve other funds of the City of Richfield. Elimination of these charges would distort the direct costs and program revenues reported for the various functions concerned. Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund’s principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the City’s enterprise funds, the liquor, water & sewer, and storm sewer funds, and the City’s internal service funds are from the sale of product and charges to customers for services. Operating expenses for enterprise funds and internal service funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for an allowable use, it is the government’s policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. D. Budgets Budgets for the General Fund and Special Revenue Funds are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. Budgetary control for Capital Projects Funds is accomplished through the use of project controls and for the Debt Service Funds by bond indentures. Encumbrance accounting, under which purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the expenditures of monies are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the applicable appropriation, is employed as an extension of formal budgetary integration in the General, Special Revenue, and Capital Projects Funds. Encumbrances outstanding at year-end are reported within restrictions, commitments, or assignments of fund balance, as appropriate, since they do not constitute expenditures or liabilities. At December 31, 2018 there are no significant encumbrances outstanding in any major or nonmajor fund. E. Legal Compliance - Budgets The City follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial statement and set forth in Sections 7.05 and 7.06 of the City Charter. 1. The City Manager shall, at a special budget meeting of the Council on or before September 15, submit to the Council a proposed budget and an explanatory budget message in a form and manner as prescribed by the City Charter.
- 46 -
2. At the City Council meeting, where the proposed budget and tax levy is submitted for adoption, the Council shall determine the place and time of the public hearing on the budget. Public hearings are conducted to obtain taxpayer comments. 3. The Council shall adopt the budget no later than the last date established by law for the County Auditor to levy taxes. The budget shall set forth the total for each budgeted fund and each department with such segregation as to objects and purposes of expenditures as the Council deems necessary for purposes of budget control for the General and Special Revenue Funds. 4. Reported budget amounts are as originally adopted or as amended by Council-approved budget transfers. During 2018 the General Fund budget was amended to decrease budgeted expenditures and transfers out by $102,520. The City Manager is authorized to transfer budgeted amounts between divisions within any department; however, any revisions that alter the total expenditures of any department must be approved by the City Council with formal adoption by resolution. All budgeted appropriations lapse at the end of the year. 5. Expenditures may not legally exceed budgeted appropriations at the total department level. Monitoring of budgets is maintained at the expenditure category (i.e., salaries, wages, and benefits; material, supplies, and services; and capital outlay) within each activity. Budgetary monitoring, by departments or divisions and by category, is required by the City Charter. F. Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments Cash and investment balances from all funds are pooled and invested to the extent available in authorized investments. Earnings from such investments are allocated to the respective funds on the basis of applicable cash balance participation by each fund. Certain investments for the City are reported at fair value as disclosed in Note 2. The City
categorizes its fair value measurements within the fair value hierarchy established by
generally accepted accounting principles. The hierarchy is based on the valuation inputs used
to measure the fair value of the asset. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices in active markets for
identical assets; Level 2 inputs are significant other observable inputs; Level 3 inputs are
significant unobservable inputs. Investment income is accrued at the balance sheet date. For purposes of the statement of cash flows, the Proprietary Funds consider investments held in the City’s cash management pool to be cash equivalents because this pool is used essentially as a demand deposit account. At December 31, 2018 the City currently has restricted cash balances on the financial statements of $6,087,929. This balance represents cash that is restricted for the future refunding of the G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2008A. The future refunding for this issue will occur on February 1, 2019. G. Short-Term Interfund and Primary Government/Component Unit Receivable/Payables During the course of operations, numerous transactions occur between individual funds for goods provided or services rendered. These receivables and payables are classified as “advances to other funds” or “advances from other funds” on the balance sheet. Payables/receivables between the primary government and its component unit are classified as “due to/from component unit” on the primary government’s balance sheet and “due to/from primary government” on the component unit’s balance sheet. Property taxes and special assessments have been reported net of estimated uncollectible accounts. (See Note 1H and I.) Because utility bills are considered liens on property, no estimated uncollectible amounts are established. Uncollectible amounts are not material for other receivables and have not been reported. H. Property Tax Revenue Recognition The City Council annually adopts a tax levy and certifies it to the County in December (levy/assessment date) of each year for collection in the following year. The County is responsible for billing and collecting all property taxes for itself, the City, the local School District and other taxing authorities. Such taxes become a lien on January 1 and are recorded as receivables by the City at that date. Real property taxes are payable (by property owners) on May 15 and October 15 of each calendar year. Personal property taxes are payable by taxpayers on February 28 and June 30 of each year. These taxes are collected by the County and remitted to the City on or before July 5 and December 5 of the same year. Delinquent
- 47 -
collections for November and December are received the following January. The City has no ability to enforce payment of property taxes by property owners. The County possesses this authority. Government-Wide Financial Statements The City recognizes property tax revenue in the period for which the taxes were levied. Uncollectible property taxes are not material and have not been reported. Governmental Fund Financial Statements The City recognizes property tax revenue when it becomes both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. In practice, current and delinquent taxes and State credits received by the City in July, December and January are recognized as revenue for the current year. Taxes collected by the County by December 31 (remitted to the City the following January) and taxes and credits not received at the year end are classified as delinquent and due from County taxes receivable. The portion of delinquent taxes not collected by the City in January is fully offset by deferred inflows of resources because they are not available to finance current expenditures. I. Special Assessment Revenue Recognition Special assessments are levied against benefited properties for the cost or a portion of the cost of special assessment improvement projects in accordance with State Statutes. These assessments are collectible by the City over a term of years usually consistent with the term of the related bond issue. Collection of annual installments (including interest) is handled by the County Auditor in the same manner as property taxes. Property owners are allowed to (and often do) prepay future installments without interest or prepayment penalties. Once a special assessment roll is adopted, the amount attributed to each parcel is a lien upon that property until full payment is made or the amount is determined to be excessive by the City Council or court action. If special assessments are allowed to go delinquent, the property is subject to tax forfeit sale. Proceeds of sales from tax forfeit properties are allocated first to the County’s costs of administering all tax forfeit properties. Pursuant to State Statutes, a property shall be subject to a tax forfeit sale after three years unless it is homesteaded, agricultural or seasonal recreational land in which event the property is subject to such sale after five years. Government-Wide Financial Statements The City recognizes special assessment revenue in the period that the assessment roll was adopted by the City Council. Uncollectible special assessments are not material and have not been reported. Governmental Fund Financial Statements Revenue from special assessments is recognized by the City when it becomes measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current fiscal period. In practice, current and delinquent special assessments received by the City are recognized as revenue for the current year. Special assessments that are collected by the County by December 31 (remitted to the City the following January) and are also recognized as revenue for the current year. All remaining delinquent, deferred and special deferred assessments receivable in governmental funding are completely offset by deferred inflows of resources of revenues. J. Inventories Inventories are valued at cost, on a first-in, first-out basis. The cost of inventory in the Proprietary Funds is recognized as cost of sales or expense of operation at the time the inventory is sold or used. K. Prepaid Items Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as prepaid items in both government-wide and fund financial statements. Accordingly, prepaid items are accounted for using the consumption method, where expense is recognized in the periods that the service or benefit is provided. L. Land Held for Resale Land held for resale represents property purchased by the City with the intent to resell in the future for redevelopment. These assets are stated at the lower of cost of net realizable value. M. Capital Assets Capital assets, which include property, plant, equipment and infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, bridges, sidewalks, and similar items), are reported in the applicable governmental or
- 48 -
business-type activities columns in the government-wide financial statements. Infrastructure assets that are reported within the government-wide financial statements include assets that were acquired on or after 1960. Capital assets are defined by the government as assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $5,000 (amount not rounded) and an estimated useful life in excess of one year. Such assets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets, donated works of art and similar items, and capital assets received in a service concession arrangement are reported at acquisition value. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend assets lives are not capitalized. Major outlays for capital assets and improvements are capitalized as projects are constructed. Interest incurred during the construction phase of capital assets of business-type activities is included as part of the capitalized value of the assets constructed. For the year ended December 31, 2018, no interest was capitalized in connection with construction in progress. Property, plant and equipment of the primary government, as well as the component units, is depreciated using the straight-line method, while infrastructure assets are depreciated using the composite method. Capital assets are depreciated over the following estimated useful lives: Assets
Buildings and structures 20-50 years
Machinery and equipment 3-15 years
Furniture and fixtures 10 years
Other improvements 10-50 years
Storm sewers 25-30 years
Streets 25 years
Street lights 25 years
Distribution and collection systems 30-50 years N. Compensated Absences It is the City’s policy to permit employees to accumulate earned but unused vacation and personal leave pay benefits. In addition, the fire employees are paid one-third of their unused sick pay upon termination. All vacation pay is accrued when incurred in the government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements. A liability for governmental fund employees is accrued in the Compensated Absences Fund as they are incurred. In accordance with the provisions of Statement of Government Accounting Standards No. 16, Accounting for Compensated Absences, no liability is recorded for nonvesting accumulating rights to receive sick pay benefits. However, a liability is recognized for that portion of accumulating sick leave benefits that is vested as severance pay. Compensated absences for governmental funds are accounted for in the Compensated Absences Internal Service Fund. O. Long-Term Obligations In the government-wide financial statements and proprietary fund types in the fund financial statements, long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the applicable governmental activities, business-type activities, or proprietary fund type statement of net position. In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and discounts, as well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount of debt issued is reported as other financing sources. Premiums received on debt issuances are reported as other financing sources while discounts on debt issuances are reported as other financing uses. Issuance costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received, are reported as debt service expenditures. P. Pensions For purposes of measuring the net pension liability, deferred outflows/inflows of resources, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) and additions to/deductions from PERA’s fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by PERA except that PERA’s fiscal year end is June 30. For this purpose, plan contributions are recognized as of employer payroll paid dates and benefit payments and refunds are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value.
- 49 -
Q. Fund Equity In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report fund balance classifications that disclose constraints for which amounts in those funds can be spent. These classifications are as follows: Nonspendable – Consists of amounts that are not in spendable form, such as prepaid items, inventory, and other long-term assets. Restricted –Consists of amounts related to externally imposed constraints established by creditors, grantors, or contributors; or constraints imposed by state statutory provisions. Committed –Consists of internally imposed constraints that are established by resolution of the City Council. Those committed amounts cannot be used for any other purpose unless the City Council removes or changes the specified use by taking the same type of action it employed to previously commit those amounts. Assigned –Consists of internally imposed constraints. These constraints consist of amounts intended to be used by the City for specific purposes but do not meet the criteria to be classified as restricted or committed. In governmental funds, assigned amounts represent intended uses established by the governing body itself or by an official to which the governing body delegates the authority. Pursuant to City Council resolution, the City’s Finance Manager is authorized to establish assignments of fund balance. Unassigned –The residual classification for the General Fund which also reflects negative residual amounts in other funds. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to first use restricted resources, and then use unrestricted resources as they are needed. When committed, assigned, or unassigned resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to use resources in the following order: 1) committed, 2) assigned, and 3) unassigned. R Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources In addition to assets, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element represents a consumption of net position that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an outflow of resources (expense/expenditure) until that time. The City has two items that qualifies for reporting in this category. The City presents deferred outflows of resources on the Statement of Net Position for deferred outflows or resources related to pensions and OPEB for various estimate differences that will be amortized and recognized over future years. In addition to liabilities, the statement of financial position and fund financial statements will sometimes report a separate section for deferred inflows of resources. This separate financial statement element represents an acquisition of net position that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time. The City has two items that qualify for reporting in this category. The City presents deferred inflows of resources on the Governmental Fund Balance sheet as unavailable revenue. The governmental funds report unavailable revenues from three sources: delinquent property taxes, special assessments and state aid received for subsequent years. These amounts are deferred and recognized as an inflow of resources in the period that the amounts become available. The City presents deferred inflows or resources on the Statement of Net Position for deferred inflows of resources related to state aid received for subsequent years and pensions for various estimate differences that will be amortized and recognized over future years. S Net position In the government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements, net position represents the difference between assets and deferred outflows of resources, and liabilities and deferred inflows of resources. A reclassification of $8,798,400 was made between the net investment in capital assets net position class and unrestricted net position in the total column of the Statement of Net Position to recognize the portion of debt attributable to capital assets donated from governmental activities to business-type activities. Net position is displayed in three components: Net Investment in Capital Assets – Consists of capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation reduced by any outstanding debt attributable to acquire capital assets. Restricted Net position –Consists of net position restricted when there are limitations imposed on their use through external restrictions imposed by creditors, grantors, or laws or regulations of other governments.
- 50 -
Unrestricted Net position –All other net positions that do not meet the definition of “restricted” or “invested in capital assets.” T. Targeted Fund Balance The City has established a targeted fund balance policy for its General Fund where it will strive to maintain an unassigned fund balance of an amount not less than 40% of the current year end actual General Fund revenues. The dollar amount of the target may fluctuate with each year’s actual results. U. Interfund Transactions Interfund services provided and used are accounted for as revenues, expenditures or expenses. Transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures/expenses initially made from it that are properly applicable to another fund, are recorded as expenditures/expenses in the reimbursing fund and as reductions of expenditures/expenses in the fund that is reimbursed. Interfund loans are reported as an interfund loan receivable or payable which offsets the movement of cash between funds. All other interfund transactions are reported as transfers. V. Reclassified Certain 2017 amounts have been reclassified to conform to the 2018 presentation. W. Use of Estimates The preparation of financial statements, in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, requires management to make estimates that affect amounts reported in the financial statements during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from such estimates. 2. Deposits and Investments A. Deposits Minnesota Statutes require that all deposits with financial institutions must be collateralized in an amount equal to 110% of deposits in excess of FDIC insurance. Deposits include checking, savings and certificates of deposits. B. Investments The City, HRA and EDA are authorized by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 118A to invest in the following: a) Direct obligations or obligations guaranteed by the United States or its agencies. b) Shares of investment companies registered under the Federal Investment Company Act of 1940 and whose only investments are in securities described in a) above. c) General obligations of the State of Minnesota or any of its municipalities. d) Bankers’ acceptances of United States banks eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. e) Commercial paper, issued by United States corporations of their Canadian subsidiaries, of the highest quality, and maturing in 270 days or less. f) Repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements with banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System with capitalization exceeding $10,000,000, a primary reporting dealer in U.S. government securities in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, or certain Minnesota securities broker-dealers. g) Guaranteed investment contracts (GIC) issued or guaranteed by a United States commercial bank or domestic branch of a foreign bank or a United States insurance company or its Canadian or United States subsidiary. h) Mortgage-backed securities that are direct obligations or guaranteed or insured issues of the United States, its agencies, and its instrumentality’s, or organizations created by an act of Congress. The City’s investments are categorized by level of risk as provided in GASB Statement No. 40, Deposit and Investment Risk Disclosures, in the following manner: Custodial Credit Risk – For investments, this is the risk that in the event of a failure of the counterparty to an investment transaction (typically a broker-dealer) the City would not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The City’s investment policies do not formally address this risk, but the City typically limits its exposure by purchasing insured or registered investments, or by the control of who holds the securities. To protect against potential fraud and embezzlement, the investments of the City, HRA and EDA are secured through a third party custody and safekeeping arrangement.
- 51 -
Interest Rate Risk – To control the risk of market price changes, the City’s formal investment policy recommends investment maturities shall match the City’s projected cash flows. Investments in securities with maturities in excess of two years shall be placed with the intention to hold the security until maturity. Credit Risk – To control credit risk, investments purchased shall include those authorized by Minnesota Statutes, such as U.S. Government Securities and the highest quality commercial paper. The ratings assigned to these securities are noted in the table below. The City’s investment policy does not further address credit risk. The City participates in the Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund (the 4M Fund) which is regulated by Minnesota statutes and the Board of Directors of the League of Minnesota Cities and is a customized cash management and investment program for Minnesota public funds. Sponsored and governed by the League of Minnesota Cities since 1987, the 4M Fund is a unique investment alternative designed to address the daily and long term investment needs of Minnesota cities and other municipal entities. Allowable under Minnesota statutes, the 4M Fund is comprised of top quality, rated investments. The Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund operates in accordance with appropriate State laws and regulations. The 4M Fund is an external investment pool not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): however, it follows the same regulatory rules of the SEC under rule 2a7. The reported value of the pool is the same as the fair value of the pool share. The City’s investment in the 4M Fund at December 31, 2018 is $12,350,317. In accordance with GASB Statement No. 79, the Minnesota Municipal Investment Pool securities are valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair value. There are no restrictions or limitations on withdrawals from the 4M Liquid Asset Fund. Investments in the 4M Plus must be deposited for a minimum of 14 calendar days. Withdrawal prior to the 14-day restriction period will be subject to a penalty equal to seven days interest on the amount withdrawn. Seven days’ notice of redemption is required for withdrawals of investments in the 4M Term Series withdrawn prior to the maturity date of that series. A penalty could be assessed as necessary to recoup the Series for any charges, losses, and other costs attributable to the early redemption. Money market mutual funds invested as part of the City’s trust arrangement at Wells Fargo are consist entirely of money market 2a7 funds and is unrated. Concentration of Credit Risk – The City’s investment policy places no limit on the amount the City may invest in any one issuer. Approximately 62% of the City’s investments are with U.S. Government Securities. The following is a summary of the City’s, HRA’s and EDA’s investments, stated at fair value. The majority of the HRA and EDA investments are in the investment pool of the City. Therefore, the HRA and EDA investments are not segregated for disclosure. As of December 31, 2018, the City, HRA and EDA had the following investments and maturities:
Investment Maturities (In Years)
Investment
Type
Moody’s
Ratings
% of
Total
Fair
Value
Less
Than 1 Year
Years
1-5
Years
6-10
Pooled Investments:
U.S Agencies:
Federal Home Loan Bank AAA 15.16% $9,477,139 $8,489,339 $ 987,800 $-
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation AAA 16.84% 10,527,402 10,527,402 - -
Federal National Mortgage Association AAA 8.75% 5,467,485 5,467,485 - -
Federal Farm Credit AAA 8.27% 5,170,714 5,170,714 - -
U.S. Treasury Bonds AAA 13.17% 8,232,490 6,256,980 1,975,510 -
Commercial Paper
Commercial Paper NR 1.20% 749,535 749,535 - -
Money Markets:
Money Market Mutual Fund Investments NR 16.86% 10,541,291 10,541,291 - -
External Investment Pool NR 19.76% 12,350,317 12,350,317 - -
Total Pooled Investments 100.00% $62,516,373 $59,553,063 $2,963,310 $-
Non-Pooled Investment:
U.S. Treasury, State and Local
Government Series Time Deposit
NR
4.05%
$246,786
$246,786
$-
$-
U.S. Treasury Note NR 95.95% 5,841,143 5,841,143 - -
Total Non-Pooled Investments 100.00% $6,087,929 $6,087,929 $- $-
Total $68,604,302 $65,640,992 $2,963,310 $-
- 52 -
The City has the following recurring fair value measurements as of December 31, 2018: • $23,704,861 of investments are valued using a quoted market prices (Level 1 inputs) • $31,392,275 of investments are valued using a matrix pricing model (Level 2 inputs) 3. Capital Assets Capital asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2018:
Beginning Beginning
Balance
Ending
Primary Government Balance Reclass Restated Additions Deletions Balance
Governmental activities:
Capital assets, not being depreciated:
Land $ 9,353,605 $- $ 9,353,605 $ - $ - $ 9,353,605
Construction in progress 567,247 - 567,247 1,049,246 (895) 1,615,598
Total capital assets, not being depreciated 9,920,852 - 9,920,852 1,049,246 (895) 10,969,203
Capital assets, being depreciated:
Buildings and structures 49,239,072 - 49,239,072 47,021 - 49,286,093
Machinery and equipment 13,891,559 - 13,891,559 813,753 (361,580) 14,343,732
Other improvements 6,065,633 - 6,065,633 255,736 - 6,321,369
Streets (Infrastructures) 74,076,129 - 74,076,129 - - 74,076,129
Total capital assets, being depreciated 143,272,393 - 143,272,393 1,116,510 (361,580) 144,027,323
Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings and structures 13,413,187 3,645 13,416,832 1,174,325 - 14,591,157
Machinery and equipment 8,503,187 - 8,503,187 989,916 (359,831) 9,133,272
Other improvements 3,743,344 (3,645) 3,739,699 263,883 - 4,003,582
Streets (Infrastructures) 54,897,460 - 54,897,460 1,851,375 - 56,748,835
Total accumulated depreciation 80,557,178 - 80,557,178 4,279,499 (359,831) 84,476,846
Total capital assets being depreciated-net 62,715,215 - 62,715,215 (3,162,989) (1,749) 59,550,477
Governmental activities capital assets-net $72,636,067 - 72,636,067 (2,113,743) (2,644) $70,519,680
Business-type activities:
Capital assets, not being depreciated:
Land $ 638,673 - $ 638,673 - - $ 638,673
Construction in process 3,978,040 - 3,978,040 37,560 (3,978,040) 37,560
Total capital assets, not being depreciated 4,616,713 - 4,616,713 37,560 (3,978,040) 676,233
Capital assets, being depreciated:
Buildings and structures 9,325,836 - 9,325,836 1,029,590 - 10,355,426
Machinery and equipment 11,721,138 - 11,721,138 825,911 (22,017) 12,525,032
Other improvements 40,071,557 - 40,071,557 7,005,324 (7,877) 47,069,004
Total capital assets, being depreciated 61,118,531 - 61,118,531 8,860,825 (29,894) 69,949,462
Less accumulated depreciation for:
Buildings and structures 6,438,182 - 6,438,182 248,729 - 6,686,911
Machinery and equipment 8,261,822 - 8,261,822 483,515 (22,017) 8,723,320
Other improvements 19,661,064 - 19,661,064 1,279,443 (7,877) 20,932,630
Total accumulated depreciation 34,361,068 - 34,361,068 2,011,687 (29,894) 36,342,861
Total capital assets being depreciated – net 26,757,464 - 26,757,464 6,849,138 - 33,606,601
Business-type activities capital assets - net $31,374,176 $- $31,374,176 6,886,698 (3,978,040) $34,282,834 Capital assets transferred from governmental activities to business-type activities are not reflected in the changes
of capital assets because those assets were never capitalized as governmental assets prior to the transfer. Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of the primary government as follows: Governmental activities:
General government $ 508,025
Public safety 42,550
Fire 54,559
Public works, including depreciation of general infrastructure assets 2,183,101
Parks and recreation 662,806
Internal service funds 828,458
Total depreciation expense – governmental activities $4,279,499
- 53 -
Business-type activities:
Liquor operations $ 207,322
Water & Sewer utility 1,200,236
Storm Sewer utility 604,129
Total depreciation expense – business-type activities $2,011,687 Construction Commitments At December 31, 2018, the City had construction project contracts in progress. The commitments related to the remaining contract balances are summarized as follows: Contract Remaining
Project # Project Amount Commitment
41009 66th Street Reconstruction $1,103,767 $ 578,075
41110 Band Shell $ 411,785 $ 36,479 4. Risk Management The City is exposed to various risks such as loss related to: torts; theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters. It is the City’s policy to be self insured for workers’ compensation, dental insurance and short-term disability insurance. Additionally, the City maintains a risk retention program for property, general liability, and auto liability insurance coverage by maintaining high deductibles. Accordingly, a Self-Insurance Fund (an Internal Service Fund) was established to account for and finance the City’s uninsured risk of loss. Under this program, the Self Insurance Fund provides coverage for up to a maximum of $500,000 for each Workers’ Compensation claim, and $50,000 ($300,000 aggregate) for each general liability and property damage claim. The City purchases insurance from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for property and municipal liability and the Workers’ Compensation Reinsurance Association for claims in excess of coverage provided by the Fund and for all other risks of loss. The City has realized no significant reductions in insurance coverage during 2018. Finally, settled claims have not exceeded this commercial coverage in any of the past three fiscal years. Insurance reimbursements to the Self-Insurance Fund are charged back to the affected Governmental and Proprietary funds in the form of an insurance charge to fund future premiums and estimated prior and current year claims. The claims and judgments liability of $579,732 reported in the fund at December 31, 2018 is based on the requirements of Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 10 which requires a liability for claims reported if it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities of the fund are reported when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities include an amount for claims that have been incurred but not reported (IBNRs). The result of the process to estimate the claims liability is not an exact amount as it depends on many complex factors, such as inflation, changes in legal doctrines, and damage awards. Accordingly, claims are reevaluated periodically to consider the effects of inflation, recent claim settlement trends (including frequency and amount of pay-outs), and other economic and social factors. The estimate of the claims liability also includes amounts for incremental claim adjustment expenses related to specific claims and other claim adjustment expenses regardless of whether allocated to specific claims. Estimated recoveries, for example from salvage or subrogation, are another component of the claims liability estimate. A summary of the claims and judgments liability amount at December 31, 2018 and 2017 are as follows:
Beginning
of Fiscal Year
Liability
Current Year
Claims &
Changes
in Estimates
Claim
Payments-Net
Balance at
Fiscal
Year End
2017 $1,113,594 $(349,801) $(102,501) $661,292
2018 $661,292 $(25,624) $(55,936) $579,732 5. Long-Term Liabilities The City issues general obligation bonds and capital notes to provide funds for the acquisition and construction of capital projects. The reporting entity and long-term debt is segregated between the amounts repaid from governmental activities and amounts to be repaid from business-type activities.
- 54 -
Redevelopment bonds are paid primarily from tax increments derived from increases in the taxable valuation of property within a redevelopment area in the City. The full faith and credit of the City is pledged on the bonds. Improvement bonds are paid primarily from debt service tax levies and proceeds of special assessments levied against property owners benefiting from improvements made. The full faith and credit of the City is pledged on the bonds. The Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds debt requirements are paid from the revenues of the operation of Water and Sewer Utility Fund. The Storm Sewer Revenue Bonds debt requirements are paid from net revenue of the operation of the Storm Sewer Utility Fund. In 2016, the City issued the $6,130,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016C, which is an advance crossover refunding of the $9,480,000 General Obligation Capital Improvement Bonds, Series 2008A. The 2016C proceeds will be held in escrow and will refund the 2008A issue on February 1, 2019. The City will realize a savings in interest costs with the refunding in the amount of $776,547 over the remaining life of the bonds. The net present value cash flow savings from this transaction was $677,813. During 2018, the City issued the $9,770,000 General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2018A. The purpose of this issue was to fund the second phase of the 66th Street reconstruction project and the final phase of the six year Mill & Overlay project. Governmental Activities As of December 31, 2018, the governmental long-term bonded debt of the financial reporting entity consisted of the following:
Net
Interest
Rate
Issue
Date
Final
Maturity
Date
Original
Issued
Payable
12/31/18 REDEVELOPMENT BONDS
G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, 2010B 3.05% 12/30/2010 2/1/2024 $6,355,000 $3,240,000
G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, 2012B 2.25% 9/6/2012 2/1/2025 2,970,000 1,700,000
Total Redevelopment Bonds 9,325,000 4,940,000
IMPROVEMENT BONDS
G.O. Capital Improvement Bonds Series, 2008A 4.60% 12/23/2008 2/1/2029 9,480,000 6,525,000
G.O. Capital Improvement Bonds Series, 2009A 4.49% 1/14/2009 2/1/2029 4,550,000 220,000
G.O. Bonds, 2010A 1.89% 5/19/2010 2/1/2021 1,500,000 60,000
G.O. Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2012A 2.35% 9/6/2012 2/1/2033 2,120,000 1,680,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2013A 2.18% 3/21/2013 2/1/2034 3,120,000 2,018,456
G.O. Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2015A 2.71% 6/4/2015 2/1/2036 9,100,000 8,362,821
G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2016B 1.58% 11/17/2016 2/1/2028 5,085,000 4,946,582
G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2016C 2.04% 12/15/2016 2/1/2029 6,130,000 6,278,617
G.O. Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2017A 2.49% 4/20/2017 2/1/2038 9,130,000 9,302,892
G.O. Capital Improvement Ref. Bonds, Series 2017B 2.17% 12/14/2017 2/1/2029 3,045,000 3,091,053
G.O. Street Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2018A 3.10% 5/31,2018 2/1/2039 9,770,000 9,914,185
Total Improvement Bonds 63,030,0000 52,399,606
TOTAL GOVERNMENTAL INDEBTEDNESS $72,355,000 $57,339,606
ENTERPRISE BONDS
Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2011A 3.67% 5/18/2011 2/1/2032 $1,480,000 $1,122,526
G.O. Storm Sewer Bonds, Series 2013B 2.26% 3/21/2013 2/1/2033 2,770,000 2,185,131
G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 2015B 1.74% 11/10/2015 2/1/2027 5,360,000 4,729,140
G.O. Storm Water Bonds, Series 2016A 2.18% 5/19/2016 2/1/2037 2,970,000 2,936,682
TOTAL BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITY INDEBTEDNESS $12,580,000 $10,973,479
TOTAL CITY INDEBTEDNESS $84,935,000 $68,313,085
- 55 -
Annual debt service requirements to maturity for general obligation bonds are as follows:
Redevelopment Bonds Improvement Bonds Water & Sewer Storm Sewer
Year Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest
2019 $720,000 $147,146 $8,150,000 $1,403,134 $375,000 $119,835 $375,000 $150,020
2020 745,000 128,321 2,545,000 1,149,654 390,000 108,425 380,000 139,945
2021 760,000 107,430 2,615,000 1,084,879 405,000 96,498 395,000 129,595
2022 790,000 84,528 2,660,000 1,014,691 410,000 84,202 405,000 118,895
2023 815,000 56,772 2,740,000 941,599 425,000 71,485 415,000 107,920
2024-2028 1,110,000 27,994 14,935,000 3,542,276 1,940,000 181,411 2,070,000 384,686
2029-2033 - - 9,825,000 1,839,604 380,000 31,975 1,600,000 189,172
2034-2038 - - 7,205,000 604,094 - - 710,000 37,785
2039 - - 645,000 11,288 - - - -
TOTALS $4,940,000 $552,191 $51,320,000 $11,591,219 $4,325,000 $693,831 $6,350,000 $1,258,018 Change in Long-Term Liabilities Long-term liability activity for the year ended December 31, 2018, was as follows:
Beginning
Balance
Additions
Reductions
Ending
Balance
Amounts
Due Within
One Year
Governmental Activities
Bonds and notes payable:
Redevelopment Bonds $5,645,000 $- $(705,000) $4,940,000 $ 720,000
Improvement Bonds 43,210,000 9,770,000 (1,660,000) 51,320,000 8,150,000
Premium (Discount) on bonds payable 1,018,837 151,774 (91,005) 1,079,606 -
Total bonds and notes payable 49,873,837 9,921,774 (2,456,005) 57,339,606 8,870,000
Other Liabilities:
Claims and judgments 661,292 - (81,560) 579,732 -
Total OPEB liability 1,774,838 404,618 - 2,179,456 -
Net Pension liability 15,422,726 - (2,509,545) 12,913,181 -
Compensated absences 2,058,286 18,126 (109,896) 1,966,516 561,763
Governmental activities long-term liabilities $69,790,979 $10,344,518 $(5,157,006) $74,978,491 $9,431,763
Business – Type Activities
Bonds and notes payable:
Storm Sewer Revenue Bonds $5,250,000 $- $(240,000) $5,010,000 $245,000
Water Revenue Bonds 1,185,000 - (65,000) 1,120,000 65,000
G.O. Refunding Bonds 4,975,000 - (430,000) 4,545,000 440,000
Premium (Discount) on bonds payable 332,079 - (33,600) 298,479 -
Total bonds and notes payable 11,742,079 - (768,600) 10,973,479 750,000
Other Liabilities:
Total OPEB liability 95,272 22,774 - 118,045 -
Net Pension liability 2,177,066 - (267,911) 1,909,155 -
Compensated absences 305,603 7,790 (22,590) 290,803 142,768
Business-type activities long-term liabilities $14,320,020 $30,563 $(1,059,101) $13,291,482 $892,768 For the governmental activities, compensated absences are generally liquidated by the compensated absences fund. Net OPEB obligations and pensions are generally liquidated by the General Fund and Enterprise Funds. Claims and judgments are generally liquidated by the Self Insurance Fund. All long-term bonded indebtedness outstanding at December 31, 2018 is backed by the full faith and credit of the City, including special assessment and revenue bond issues. Special assessment receivable at December 31, 2018 totaled $474,670.
- 56 -
Revenue Pledged Future revenue pledged for the payment of long-term debt is as follows:
Revenue Pledged Current Year
Percent of Remaining Principal Pledged
Use of Total Term of Principal and Interest Revenue
Bond Issue Proceeds Type
Debt
Service Pledge
and
Interest Paid Received
Water Revenue Bonds,
Series 2011A
Utility
Infrastructure
Utility
Charges 100%
2012-
2032
$1,448,856
$106,774 $4,002,853
G.O. Storm Sewer Bonds,
Series 2013B
Utility
Infrastructure
Utility
Charges 100%
2013-
2033
$2,563,525 $174,905 $1,768,394
G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series
2015B
Utility
Infrastructure
Utility
Charges 100%
2016-
2027 $5,062,400 $556,250 $5,771,247
G.O. Storm Water Bonds,
Series 2016A
Utility
Infrastructure
Utility
Charges 100%
2017-
2037 $3,552,068 $187,740 $1,768,394 6. Interfund balances and transactions Interfund transfers as of December 31, 2018 are as follows: Transfers in
Transfers out
General
Fund
Ice
Arena
Improvement
Bonds
Capital
Improvements
Nonmajor
Governmental
Liquor
Enterprise
Internal
Service
Total
General Fund - 85,000 - - 110,000 - $195,000
Improvement Bonds - - - 9,800,000 - - $9,800,000
Capital Improvement - 170,000 4,100 156,464 280,000 - 785,000 $1,395,564
Nonmajor governmental - - 353,340 - 37,500 70,000 $460,840
Liquor Enterprise 299,920 - - - - - $299,920
Internal Service - - - - - - 70,000 $70,000
$299,920 $255,000 $357,440 $9,956,464 $427,500 $70,000 $855,000 $12,221,324
Interfund transfers allow the City to allocate financial resources to funds to provide funding for services to be provided or to provide financing for specific capital projects. The City’s Self Insurance Fund made an advance to the Ice Arena Fund to finance energy improvements for the City’s Ice Arena. The term of the advance will be twenty (20) years with a beginning interest rate of 2%. The City Manager is authorized to adjust the interest rate as market conditions may dictate. At December 31, 2018 the balance of the respective advances (due in more than a year) was $709,975. The portion of the advances that is due in one year is $63,503. In 2011, the City’s Capital Improvements Fund made an advance to the Water & Sewer Utility Fund to help provide funding for certain capital projects to be undertaken within the water operation. The advance will be repaid over the next ten years with a 2% interest rate, using funds generated from the water utility operation. The City Manager is authorized to adjust the interest rate as market conditions may dictate. At December 31, 2018, the balance of the advance was $216,297. The portion of this advance that is due in one year, $107,068 is included in interfund receivables and payables. In 2013, the City’s Recreation Improvement Fund made an advance to the Park Capital Project Fund to finance the Honoring All Veterans Memorial monument located in Veterans Park. The advance will be repaid over the next five years using proceeds received from monument engravings at 0% interest. At December 31, 2018 the portion of the advance that is due in one year is $10,000, and the portion due in more than one year is $203,440. In 2014, the City’s Communications Fund made an advance to the Ice Arena Fund to finance the construction of a new locker room at Rink 1. The advance will be repaid over fifteen (15) years with rent received from the tenant of the locker room. In addition, the City’s Recreation Improvement Fund also made an advance to the Ice Arena Fund to finance the call and retirement of the 1999 Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999. The advance will be repaid over six years at a 1% rate of interest, using revenues generated by the Ice Arena operation. Finally, the City’s Capital Improvements Fund made an advance to the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to prepay special assessments to be levied against the HRA property as part of the North Richfield Parkway Project. The term of the loan will be twenty (20) years with no principal and interest payments due the first two years and then 1% interest beginning in year three (2017). The repayment of the loan will have three sources in the following priority; land sale proceeds, tax increment revenues and funds of the HRA that are legally available to pay on the loan. At December 31, 2018, the portion of the advances that is due within one year is $42,764 for the locker room, $95,273 for the bond retirement
- 57 -
and $40,553 for the loan to prepay the special assessments. The portions of the loans due in more than one year are $427,635, $96,230, and $659,547 for the locker room, bond retirement and prepay of special assessments. At the end of 2018, the Ice Arena, Swimming Pool and Municipal Liquor Funds have overdrawn their cash positions. As a result, the General Fund has advanced to the Ice Arena and Swimming Pool and the Water and Sewer Fund Utility Fund has advanced to the Liquor Fund, funds to cover the overdrawn cash position as of December 31, 2018. These advances are reflected in the financial statements as due to and due from other funds. Individual fund interfund receivables and payables balances at year-end were as follows: Due From Other Funds Due to Other Funds Amount
Self-Insurance Fund Ice Arena $ 63,503
Capital Improvement Funds
Water & Sewer Utility
107,068
Recreation Improvement Fund Park Capital Projects Fund 10,000
Communications Fund Ice Arena 42,764
Recreation Improvement Fund Ice Arena 95,273
Capital Improvement Funds
Component Unit 40,553
General Fund Ice Arena 2,442,932
General Fund Swimming Pool 936,330
Water & Sewer Utility Municipal Liquor $ 212,511 Individual fund advances to and advances from at year-end were as follows: Advances to Other Funds Advances from Other Funds Amount
Self-Insurance Fund Ice Arena $709,975
Capital Improvements Funds Water & Sewer Utility 109,229
Recreation Improvement Fund Park Capital Projects Fund 203,440
Communications Fund Ice Arena 427,635
Recreation Improvement Fund Ice Arena 96,230
Capital Improvement Funds Component Unit $659,547 7. Individual Fund Disclosures Expenditures exceeded appropriations (budget) in the following individual funds for the year ended December 31, 2018: Final Over
Budget Actual Budget
Primary Government:
Ice Arena $1,159,560 $1,205,071 $45,511
Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds:
Tourism 9,830 9,839 9
Recreation Contributions 20,000 20,214 214
Nature Center Contributions 76,180 87,294 11,114
Public Health Grants 36,780 48,554 11,774
Wood Lake Half Marathon 63,000 66,803 3,803
Special Facilities 45,050 144,431 99,381 8. Fund Balances The following is a breakdown of equity components of governmental funds which are defined earlier in the report. Any such restrictions which have an accumulated deficit rather than positive balance at December 31 are included in unassigned fund balance in the City’s financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
- 58 -
At December 31, 2018, a summary of the City’s governmental fund balance classifications are as follows:
Other
General Ice Improvement Capital Governmental
Fund Arena Bonds Improvements Funds Total
Nonspendable
Prepaid items $91,050 $- $- $- $7,330 $ 98,380
Total nonspendable 91,050 - - - 7,330 98,380
Restricted
Future debt service - - 8,911,127 - - 8,911,127
Future MSA projects - - - 285,404 - 285,404
Portland Avenue Reconstruction - - - 36,848 - 36,848
66th Street Reconstruction - - - 1,422,233 - 1,422,233
Mill & Overlay - - - 2,975,391 - 2,975,391
Cedar Point abatement - - - 105,874 - 105,874
Law enforcement drug forfeitures - - - - 185,839 185,839
Public Safety State grants 8,133 8,133
Public Safety County grants 1,260 1,260
Recreation services donations - - - - 38,328 38,328
Wood Lake Nature Center donations - - - - 53,961 53,961
Public health assessment - - - - 104,510 104,510
Total restricted - - 8,911,127 4,825,750 392,031 14,128,908
Committed
Street Improvements - - 1,426,243 - - 1,426,243
Local improvement funding - - - 1,195,680 - 1,195,680
Recycling Grant - - - 225,205 - 225,205
Mill & Overlay 481,900 481,900
Park Improvement projects - - - - 136,873 136,873
Tourism administration - - - - 55,643 55,643
Public Cable TV & information
activities - - - - 2,027,746 2,027,746
National, State, and Local elections - - - - 1,267,878 1,267,878
Alcohol and Tobacco Compliance - - - - 130,237 130,237
Wood Lake Half Marathon - - - - 25,636 25,636
Street Maintenance & forestry
programs - - - - 2,208,703 2,208,703
Special Facilities - - - - 26,791 26,791
Park & Recreation Capital Projects - - - - 4,575,643 4,575,643
Total committed - - 1,426,243 1,902,782 10,455,153 13,784,178
Assigned
Debt related expenditures - - 506,778 - - 506,778
Future capital projects - - - 7,727,437 - 7,727,437
Total assigned - - 506,778 7,727,437 - 8,234,215
Unassigned
General Fund 8,719,246 - - - - 8,719,246
Ice Arena - (3,841,402) - - - (3,841,402)
Swimming Pool - - - - (952,039) (952,039)
Park & Recreation Capital Projects (212,726) (212,726)
Total unassigned 8,719,246 (3,841,402) - - (1,164,765) 3,713,079
Total $8,810,296 $(3,841,402) $10,844,148 $14,455,969 $9,689,749 $39,958,760
9. Contingencies and Litigation The City is currently involved in various pending litigation cases. After evaluation by the City’s attorney it is believed that the resolution of these cases will not have a material impact on the financial statements. The City has entered into an agreement with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), where the City will purchase certain right-of-way-properties as part of the 66th Street/17th Avenue intersection constructed in 2007. As part of the agreement, MAC will provide to the City the funds necessary to finance the right-of-way acquisitions. In addition, the City agrees to repay to MAC payments made by MAC to the City for the right-of-way acquisitions. However, within the agreements there are specific provisions that must be met in order for repayment to MAC to occur.
- 59 -
In 2018 the City sold the right-of-way properties to a developer for $982,850. Of this $982,850, $300,000 was paid to the City in cash and the balance of $682,850 will be paid back by the developer between the years 2025 and 2060. MAC acknowledged that since some of the property was acquired with City money, they only consider $788,625 of the funds as needing to be paid back to them. MAC further agreed that the money owed to them could be paid toward the 77th Street Underpass project, a City project, as they see this as an airport related activity. 10. Defined Benefit Pension Plans The City participates in various pension plans. For the year ended December 31, 2018 total pension expense was $1,299,340 and the total net pension liability was $14,822,336. The components of pension expense and net pension liability are noted in the following plan summaries. At December 31, 2018 the City reported its total proportionate share of deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources, and its contributions subsequent to the measurement date, related to pensions from the following sources:
Public Employees Retirement Association A. Plan Description The City of Richfield participates in the following cost-sharing multiple-employer defined benefit pension plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA’s defined benefit pension plans are established and administered in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 353 and 356. PERA’s defined benefit pension plans are tax qualified plans under Section 401 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code. 1. General Employees Retirement Fund (GERF) All full-time and certain part-time employees of the City of Richfield are covered by the General Employees Retirement Fund (GERF). GERF members belong to the Coordinated Plan. Coordinated Plan members are covered by Social Security. 2. Public Employees Police and Fire Fund (PEPFF) The PEPFF, originally established for police officers and firefighters not covered by a local relief association, now covers all police officers and firefighters hired since 1980. Effective July 1, 1999, the PEPFF also covers police officers and firefighters belonging to local relief associations that elected to merge with and transfer assets and administration to PERA. B. Benefits Provided PERA provides retirement, disability, and death benefits. Benefit provisions are established by state statute and can only be modified by the state legislature. Vested, terminated employees who are entitled to benefits but are not receiving them yet are bound by the provisions in effect at the time they last terminated their public service. 1. GERF Benefits General Employees Plan benefits are based on a member’s highest average salary for any five successive years of allowable service, age, and years of credit at termination of service. Two methods are used to compute benefits for PERA's Coordinated Plan members. Members hired prior to July 1, 1989, receive the higher of Method 1 or Method 2 formulas. Only Method 2 is used for members hired after June 30, 1989. Under Method 1, the accrual rate for Coordinated members is 1.2% for each of the first 10 years of service and 1.7% for each additional year. Under Method 2, the accrual rate for Coordinated members is 1.7% for all years of service. For members hired prior to July 1, 1989 a full annuity is available when age plus years of service
Deferred Outflows of Resources
Deferred Inflows of Resources Differences between expected and actual economic experience
$ 477,735
$ 1,933,094 Changes in actuarial assumptions 9,534,152 10,220,385 Difference between projected and actual investment earnings
-
1,990,103 Changes in proportion 516,360 2,219,491 Contributions paid to PERA subsequent to the measurement date
915,662
- Total $11,443,909 $16,363,073
- 60 -
equal 90 and normal retirement age is 65. For members hired on or after July 1, 1989 normal retirement age is the age for unreduced Social Security benefits capped at 66. Benefit increases are provided to benefit recipients each January. Increases are related to the funding ratio of the plan. If the General Employees Plan is at least 90 percent funded for two consecutive years, benefit recipients are given a 2.5 percent increase. If the plan has not exceeded 90 percent funded, or have fallen below 80 percent, benefit recipients are given a one percent increase. A benefit recipient, who has been receiving a benefit for at least 12 full months as of June 30, will receive a full increase. Members receiving benefits for at least one month but less than 12 full months as of June 30, will receive a pro rata increase. 2. PEPFF Benefits
Benefits for Police and Fire Plan members first hired after June 30, 2010 but before July 1, 2014
vest on a prorated basis from 50 percent after five years up to 100 percent after ten years of
credited service. Benefits for Police and Fire Plan members first hired after June 30, 2014 vest on
a prorated basis from 50 percent after ten years up to 100 percent after twenty years of credited
service. The annuity accrual rate is 3 percent of average salary for each year of service. For Police
and Fire Plan members who were first hired prior to July 1, 1989 a full annuity is available when
age plus years of service equal at least 90. Benefit increases are provided to benefit recipients each January. Police and Fire Plan benefit recipients receive a future annual 1.0 percent increase. An annual adjustment will equal 2.5 percent any time the plan exceeds a 90 percent funded ratio for two consecutive years. If the adjustment is increased to 2.5 percent and the funded ratio falls below 80 percent for one year or 85 percent for two consecutive years, the post-retirement benefit increase will be lowered to one percent. A benefit recipient who has been receiving a benefit for at least 12 full months as of June 30 will receive a full increase. Members receiving benefits for at least one month but less than 12 full months as of June 30 will receive a pro rata increase. For retirements after May 31, 2014, the first increase will be delayed two years.
C. Contributions Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353 sets the rates for employer and employee contributions. Contribution rates can only be modified by the state legislature. 1. GERF Contributions Coordinated Plan members were required to contribute 6.50%, of their annual covered salary in calendar year 2018. The City of Richfield was required to contribute 7.50% for Coordinated Plan members in calendar year 2018. The City of Richfield’s contributions to the GERF for the year ended December 31, 2018, were $783,227. The City of Richfield’s contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute. 2. PEPFF Contributions Plan members were required to contribute 10.8 percent of their annual covered salary and the City of Richfield was required to contribute 16.20 percent of pay for members in fiscal year 2018. The City of Richfield’s contributions to the Police and Fire Fund for the year ended December 31, 2018, were $1,048,095. The City of Richfield’s contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute.
D. Pension Costs 1. GERF Pension Costs At December 31, 2018, the City of Richfield reported a liability of $8,432,337 for its proportionate share of the GERF’s net pension liability. The City of Richfield’s net pension liability reflected a reduction due to the State of Minnesota’s contribution of $16 million to the fund in 2018. The state of Minnesota is considered a non-employer contributing entity and the state’s contribution meets the definition of a special funding situation. The State of Minnesota’s proportionate share of the net pension liability associated with the City of Richfield totaled $276,621. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2018, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The City of Richfield’s proportion of the net pension liability was based on the City of Richfield contributions received by PERA during the measurement period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, relative to the total employer contributions received from all of PERA’s participating employers. At June 30, 2018, the City of Richfield’s proportion share was .1520% which was an increase of .0013% from its proportion measured as of June 30, 2017.
- 61 -
City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability $8,432,337 State of Minnesota’s proportionate share of the net pension Liability associated with the City 276,621 Total $8,708,958 For the year ended December 31, 2018, the City of Richfield recognized pension expense of $689,001 for its proportionate share of the GERF’s pension expense. Included in the amount, the City of Richfield recognized $64,507 as pension expense (and grant revenue) for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota’s contribution of $16 million to the General Employees Fund. At December 31, 2018, the City of Richfield reported its proportionate share of the GERF’s deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources, and its contributions subsequent to the measurement date, related to pensions from the following sources:
$391,614 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from City of Richfield contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended December 31, 2019. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: 2. PEPFF Pension Costs At December 31, 2018, the City of Richfield reported a liability of $6,389,999 for its proportionate share of the PEPFF’s net pension liability. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2018, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The City of Richfield proportion of the net pension liability was based on the City of Richfield contributions received by PERA during the measurement period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, relative to the total employer contributions received from all of PERA’s participating employers. At June 30, 2018, the City of Richfield proportion was .6046% which was an increase of .0136 percent from its proportion measured as of June 30, 2017. The City of Richfield also recognized $54,414 for the year ended December 31, 2018 as revenue and an offsetting reduction of the net pension liability for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota’s on-behalf contributions to the PEPFF. Legislation passed in 2013 required the State of Minnesota to begin contributing $9 million to the PEPFF each year, starting in fiscal year 2014. Beginning in January 1, 2019, the COLA will be fixed at 1 percent. Under funding measurements from 2017, the 2.5 percent COLA trigger was never expected to occur and was subsequently removed from law. For the year ended December 31, 2018, the City of Richfield recognized pension expense of $609,434 for its proportionate share of the PEPFF’s pension expense. At December 31, 2018, the City of Richfield reported its proportionate share of the PEPFF’s deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources, and its contributions subsequent to the measurement date, related to pensions from the following sources:
Deferred Outflows of Resources
Deferred Inflows of Resources Differences between expected and actual economic experience $ 221,365
$256,775 Changes in actuarial assumptions 841,004 941,917 Difference between projected and actual investment earnings
-
802,460 Changes in proportion 62,244 336,441 Contributions paid to PERA subsequent to the measurement date
391,614
- Total $1,516,227 $2,337,593
Year ended December 31: Pension Expense Amount 2019 $ 195,640 2020 (572,682) 2021 (659,942) 2022 (175,996) 2023 - Thereafter - Total $ (1,212,980)
- 62 -
$524,048 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from City of Richfield contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended December 31, 2019. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows:
E. Actuarial Assumptions The total pension liability in the June 30, 2018 actuarial valuation was determined using the following actuarial assumptions: General Employees Plan Police & Fire Plan
Inflation 2.5% per year 2.5% per year
Salary Growth 3.25% 3.25% Investment Rate of Return 7.5% 7.5%
Salary increases were based on a service-related table. Mortality rates for active members, retirees, survivors, and disabilitants for all plans were based on RP 2014 tables for males or females, as appropriate, with slight adjustment to fit PERA’s experience. Cost of living benefit increases after retirement for retirees are assumed to be 1.25 percent per year for the General Employees Plan, and 1.0 percent per year for the Police and Fire Plan. Actuarial assumptions used in the June 30, 2018 valuation were based on the results of actuarial experience studies. The most recent six-year experience study in the General Employees Plan was completed in 2015. The most recent four-year experience study for Police and Fire Plan was completed in 2016. Economic assumptions were updated in 2017 based on a review of inflation and investment return assumptions. The following changes in actuarial assumptions occurred in 2018: GERF
• The morality projection scale was changed from MP-2015 to MP-2017.
• The assumed benefit increase was changed from 1.00 percent per year through 2044 and
2.50 percent per year thereafter to 1.25 percent per year. PEPFF
• The morality projection scale was changed from MP-2016 to MP-2017.
• As set by statute, the assumed post-retirement benefit increase was changed from 1.0
percent per year through 2064 and 2.5 percent per year, thereafter, to 1.0 percent for all
years, with no trigger.
Deferred Outflows of Resources
Deferred Inflows of Resources Differences between expected and actual economic experience $ 256,370
$ 1,676,319 Changes in actuarial assumptions 8,693,148 9,278,468 Difference between projected and actual investment earnings
-
1,187,643 Changes in proportion 454,116 1,883,050 Contributions paid to PERA subsequent to the measurement date
524,048
- Total $9,927,682 $14,025,480
Year ended December 31: Pension Expense Amount 2019 $ (212,026) 2020 (510,462) 2021 (977,123) 2022 (2,931,593) 2023 9,358 Thereafter -
Total $ (4,621,846)
- 63 -
The State Board of Investment, which manages the investments of PERA, prepares an analysis of the reasonableness on a regular basis of the long-term expected rate of return using a building-block method in which best-estimate ranges of expected future rates of return are developed for each major asset class. These ranges are combined to produce an expected long-term rate of return by weighting the expected future rates of return by the target asset allocation percentages. The target allocation and best estimates of geometric real rates of return for each major asset class are summarized in the following table: Asset Class Target Allocation Long-Term Expected Real Rate of Return Domestic Stocks 36% 5.10% International Stocks 17% 5.30% Bonds 20% .75% Alternative Assets 25% 5.90% Cash 2% 0.00% Total 100%
F. Discount Rate The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability in 2018 was 7.50%. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that contributions from plan members and employers will be made at rates set in Minnesota Statutes. Based on these assumptions, the fiduciary net positions of the General Employees Fund and the Police and Fire Fund was projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current plan members. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability. G. Pension Liability Sensitivity The following presents the City of Richfield’s proportionate share of the net pension liability for all plans it participates in, calculated using the discount rate disclosed in the preceding paragraph, as well as what the City of Richfield’s proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate 1 percentage point lower or 1 percentage point higher than the current discount rate: Sensitivity of Net Pension Liability at Current Single Discount Rate (in thousands) GERF PEPFF
1% Lower 6.50% $13,703,627 6.50% $13,817,226
Current Discount Rate 7.50% 8,432,337 7.50% 6,389,999
1% Higher 8.50% 4,081,037 8.50% 347,403 H. Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position Detailed information about each pension plan’s fiduciary net position is available in a separately-issued PERA financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. That report may be obtained on the Internet at www.mnpera.org. 11. Defined Contribution Plan Two council members of the City of Richfield are covered by the Public Employees Defined
Contribution Plan (PEDCP), a multiple-employer deferred compensation plan administered by
PERA. The PEDCP is a tax qualified plan under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and
all contributions by or on behalf of employees are tax deferred until time of withdrawal. The defined contribution plan consists of individuals accounts paying a lump-sum benefit. Plan
benefits depend solely on amounts contributed to the plan plus investment earnings, less
administrative expenses. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 353D.03, specifies plan provisions,
including the employee and employer contribution rates for those qualified personnel who elect to
participate. An eligible elected official who decides to participate contributes five percent of salary
which is matched by the elected official's employer. For ambulance service personnel, employer
contributions are determined by the employer, and for salaried employees contributions must be a
fixed percentage of salary. Employer contributions for volunteer personnel may be a unit value for
each call or period of alert duty. Employees who are paid for their services may elect to make
member contributions in an amount not to exceed the employer share. Employer and employee
contributions are combined and used to purchase shares in one or more of the seven accounts of
the Minnesota Supplemental Investment Fund. For administering the plan, PERA receives two
- 64 -
percent of employer contributions and twenty-five hundredths of one percent (0.25 percent) of the
assets in each member's account annually.
Pension expense for the year is equal to contributions made. Total contributions made by the City
of Richfield during fiscal year 2018 were: Contribution Amount Percentage of Covered Payroll Required Employee Employer Employee Employer Rate $905 $905 5% 5% 5% 12. Other Post Employments Benefits A. Plan Description
The City provides a single-employer defined benefit health care plan to eligible
retirees and their spouses. The plan offers medical coverage that is administered by
Health Partners. It is the City's policy to periodically review its medical coverage and
to obtain requests for proposals in order to provide the most favorable benefits and
premiums for City employees and retirees. No assets are accumulated in a trust. B. Benefits Provided
At retirement, employees of the City receiving a retirement or disability benefit, or
eligible to receive a benefit, from a Minnesota public pension plan may continue to
participate in the City's group health insurance plan.
C. Members As of December 31, 2018, the following were covered by the benefit terms: Active employees electing coverage 222 Retirees receiving payments 17 Total 239
D. Contributions
Retirees and their spouses contribute to the health care plan at the same rate as City
employees. This results in retirees receiving an implicit rate subsidy. Contribution
requirements are established by the City, based on the contract terms with BlueCross
BlueShield. The required contributions are based on projected pay-as-you-go financing
requirements. For 2018, the City contributed $109,190 to the plan. 1. Actuarial Assumptions
The total OPEB liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of December 31,
2017, using the following actuarial assumptions, applied to all periods included in the
measurement, unless otherwise specified: Key Methods and Assumptions Used in Valuation of Total OPEB Liability Investment Rate of return 3.44%
Salary increases 3.50%
Healthcare cost trend increases 10.00% as of December 31, 2017, decreasing each
year to an ultimate rate of 5.0% after 11 years. Mortality Rate The mortality rates used are in the PERA plan of which the employee, retiree or beneficiary is a participant. Coordinated
• Healthy Pre-Retirement RP-2014 Employee Mortality Table, adjusted for white collar and mortality improvements using projection scale MP-2015, from a base year of 2014. Rates are set forward one year for males and set back one year for females.
• Healthy Post-Retirement RP-2014 Healthy Annuitant Mortality Table, adjusted for white collar and mortality improvements using projection scale MP-2015, from a base year of 2014. Rates are set forward two years for males. Female rates are multiplied by a factor of 0.90.
- 65 -
• Disabled RP-2014 Disabled Mortality Table, adjusted for mortality improvements using projection scale MP-2015, from a base year of 2014. Rates are set forward one year for males and set forward six years for females. Police & Fire
• Healthy Pre-Retirement RP-2014 employee generational mortality table projected with mortality improvement scale MP-2016, from a base year of 2006.
• Healthy Post-Retirement RP-2014 annuitant generational mortality table projected with mortality improvement scale MP-2016 from a base year of 2006. Male rates are adjusted by a factor of 0.96.
• Disabled RP-2014 annuitant generational mortality table projected with mortality improvement scale MP-2016 from a base year of 2006. Male rates are adjusted by a factor of 0.96 The actuarial assumptions used in the December 31, 2017, valuation were based on the
results of an actuarial experience study for the period December 31, 2016 – December 31,
2017. The discount rate used to measure the total OPEB liability was 3.44%. 2. Total OPEB Liability
The City’s total OPEB liability of $2,297,501 was measured as of December 31, 2017
and was determined by an actuarial analysis as of that date. Total OPEB Liability Balances at December 31, 2016 $2,085,544 Changes for the year Service Cost 184,122 Interest Cost 83,730 Changes of Assumptions 53,295 Benefit Payments (109,190) Net Changes 211,957 Balances at December 31, 2017 $2,297,501 Changes of assumptions and other inputs reflect a change in the discount rate from 4.5% as of December 31, 2016 to 3.44% as of December 31, 2017.
3. OPEB Liability Sensitivity
The following presents the City’s total OPEB liability calculated using the discount rate of 3.44% as
well as the liability measured using 1% lower and 1% higher than the current discount rate. Net OPEB Liability
1% decrease Current 1% increase
(2.44%) (3.44%) (4.44%)
$2,143,603 $2,297,501 $2,459,474 The following presents the total OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City’s total OPEB liability
would be if it were calculated using health care trend rates that are 1% lower and 1% higher than the
current health care trend rates. 1% decrease Current 1% increase
(9.0%) (10.0%) (11.0%)
decreasing to decreasing to decreasing to
(8.0%) (9.0%) (10.0%)
Total OPEB Liability $2,567,596 $2,297,501 $2,067,010
4. OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related
to OPEB
- 66 -
For the year ended December 31, 2018 the City recognized OPEB expense of $6,162. At December
31, 2018, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to
OPEB from the following sources: Deferred Deferred
Outflows of Inflows of
Resources Resources
Change in assumptions $ 47,133 $-
Benefit payments subsequent
to measurement date
113,316
-
Total $160,449 $- $113,316 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB resulting from City contributions
made subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the OPEB liability in
the year ended December 31, 2019. $47,133 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB resulting from changes in
assumptions in the year ended December 31, 2018.
Amounts reported as deferred outflows and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB will be
recognized in OPEB expense as follows: Year Ending December 31, Total
2019 $ 6,162
2020 6,162
2021 6,162
2022 6,162
2023 6,162
Thereafter 16,323
Total $47,133 13. Right-of-Way In 2002 the City acquired three properties for a total cost of $7,000,000 for Interstate 494 widening right-of-way under the Metropolitan Council Right-of -Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF). Under the RALF program, the City is obligated to return to the Metropolitan Council the proceeds of all RALF properties sold to the State of Minnesota. These RALF obligations and related properties have not been recorded since they do not represent true resources or liabilities of the City. 14. Conduit Debt From time to time, the City has issued various industrial development revenue bonds to provide financial assistance to private-sector entities for the acquisition and construction of industrial and commercial facilities deemed to be in the public interest. The bonds are secured by the property financed and are payable solely from payments received on the underlying mortgage loans. Upon repayment of the bonds, ownership of the acquired facilities transfers to the private-sector entity served by the bond issuance. Neither the City, the State, nor any political subdivision thereof is obligated in any manner for repayment of the bonds. Accordingly, the bonds are not reported as liabilities in the accompanying financial statements. Finally, the City does not track the remaining outstanding principal balances on conduit debt, as the City does not have any obligation toward the debt. As of December 31, 2018 there were two bond issues outstanding with an estimated aggregate principal amount outstanding of approximately $3,327,133. 15. Tax Increment Financing The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) have entered into 10 Tax Increment Financing agreements which meet the criteria for disclosure under Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 77 Tax Abatement Disclosures. The HRA’s authority to enter into these agreements comes from Minnesota Statute 469. The HRA entered into these agreements for the purpose of economic development.
- 67 -
Under each agreement, the City and developer agree on an amount of development costs to be reimbursed to the developer by the HRA through tax revenues from additional taxable value of the property generated by the development (tax increment). A “pay-as-you-go” note is established for this amount, on which the HRA makes payments for a fixed period of time with available tax increment after deducting for certain administrative costs. The HRA has determined through its agreements with developers and state law to grant abatements of up to 90% of annual property taxes through a direct reduction of the entity’s property tax bill. There were no agreements in 2018 that exceeded this 90% threshold. During the year ended December 31, 2018, the HRA generated $4,997,404 in tax increment revenue and made $2,542,808 in payments to developer. The tax abatement agreements that the HRA has outstanding as of December 31, 2018 are the following:
Percentage Amount of
of Taxes Taxes Abated
Abated during during the
Purpose the Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Retail redevelopment 90% $ 147,962
Senior housing 75 328,738
Senior housing and market rate housing 75 348,533
Business redevelopment 75 428,167
Rental Housing 90 156,079
Mixed-use housing and retail 75 561,258
Mixed-use housing and retail 90 -
Mixed-use housing and retail 90 249,105
Mixed-use housing and retail 75 394,816
Senior housing 90 126
Retail redevelopment - 325,092
Rental Housing - -
Townhomes - -
Rental Housing - - 16. Federal and State Funds The City received financial assistance from federal and state governmental agencies in the form of grants. The disbursement of funds received under these programs generally requires compliance with the terms and conditions specified in the grant agreements and are subject to audit by the grantor agencies. Any disallowed claims resulting from such audits could become a liability of the applicable fund. However, in the opinion of management, any such disallowed claims will not have a material effect on any of the financial statements of the individual fund types included herein or on the overall financial position of the City at December 31, 2018. 17. Nature and Amount of Significant Transactions between City – HRA As noted in note 1, the HRA was established for the purpose to provide housing and redevelopment assistance to Richfield residents and businesses. The structure of the HRA is that it has no employees per se; however, it has a contract with the City where the City’s Community Development department is to provide services as needed. Accordingly, the City charges the HRA for labor provided, data processing services, and office supplies, etc. In addition, to help fund redevelopment projects, the City will issue long term debt on behalf of the HRA. At the same time the HRA enters into a pledge agreement with the City whereby the HRA pledges future tax increment receipts generated by the redevelopment to service the debt issued. During 2018, the HRA transferred to the City $869,366 of tax increment receipts to fund debt service requirements for debt issued on behalf of the HRA. Finally, during 2013, as part of the North Richfield Parkway project, the City purchased several properties with the future intent to convey the properties to the HRA for future redevelopment of the site. Funding for the property purchases was provided by the $3,120,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2013A. The bonds were issued with a debt service structure of 75% to be paid with a debt service tax levy and 25% to be paid by special assessments levied against the HRA, once the properties were conveyed to the HRA. The amount of the special assessment was $780,000. During 2014, the City conveyed the properties to the HRA at a value of $704,639 and levied the planned special assessments against the HRA. As part of the special assessment process the
- 68 -
HRA prepaid the $780,000 with funding provided by the City in the form of an inter fund loan from the City’s Capital Improvement Fund. The term of the loan will be twenty (20) years with no principal and interest payments due the first two years and then payment beginning in year three with an interest rate of 1%.The repayment of the loan will have three sources in the following priority; land sale proceeds, tax increment revenues and funds of the HRA that are legally available to pay on the loan. In 2016, the City conveyed several properties to the HRA at a book value of $1,264,063. The City Council determined that since the HRA was the development agency of the City, it would be appropriate for ease of future development that the properties be legally owned by the HRA. 18. Joint Venture Local Government Information Systems Association (LOGIS): This consortium of approximately 30 government entities provides computerized data processing and support services to its members. LOGIS is legally separate; the City does not appoint a voting majority of its board, and the Consortium is fiscally independent of the City. The total amount recorded within the 2018 financial statements of the City was $726,789 for services provided, which is allocated to the various funds based on applications. Complete financial statements may be obtained at the LOGIS offices located at 5750 Duluth Street, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422. 19. Service Concession Arrangement The City has entered into an agreement with Wheel Fun Rentals LLC, where Wheel Fund Rentals will manage the City’s Mini-Golf facility, concession sales, and bicycle rental operations starting the first weekend of May through the last weekend of October each year. The City will continue to own existing assets of the operation. Any new equipment purchased by Wheel Fun Rentals for the operation of the facility will be the property of Wheel Fund Rentals. As compensation for operating the facility, Wheel Fun Rentals will retain gross revenues from the mini-golf facility, concessions and bike rental up to $200,000 and then pay the City 10% of gross revenues over $200,000. Wheel Fun Rentals will also pay to the City a base rent of $16,000 per season. Wheel Fun Rentals will be responsible for managing the facility, setting hours of operation and rates, with City approval, provide sufficient staffing to operate, maintain and repair the facility during the operating season, pay utilities associated with the operation, purchase and maintain a food license, and purchase and hold the necessary insurance coverage for such an operation. 20. Change in Accounting Principle For the year ended December 31, 2018, the City implemented GASB Statement 75 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other than Pensions. This resulted in an adjustment to the beginning net position on the Statement of Activities of $106,244 to add to the beginning Net OPEB obligation, and an adjustment to the beginning net position on the Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Change in Fund Net Position-Proprietary Funds of $7,436 to add to the beginning Net OPEB obligation. 21 Prior Period Adjustment For the year ended December 31, 2018, the City recognized a prior period adjustment that resulted in adjustments to beginning net position of the City’s utility funds. These adjustments were the result of miscalculations in the City’s computerized utility billing system that affected the storm sewer utility and an overstatement of prior year’s accruals for unbilled utility revenues. This resulted in an adjustment to the beginning net position on the Statement of Activities of $318,362 and an adjustment to the beginning net position on the Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Change in Fund Net Position-Proprietary Funds of $318,362. The City has implemented the necessary controls and corrections to prevent any future occurrence of these issues. 22 Special Item For the year ended December 31, 2018, the City is recognizing a Special Item that is the result of miscalculations in the City’s Storm Sewer computerized billing system which resulted in the under billing of certain accounts. The City has chosen not to pursue collection of the under billed accounts. The outcome of this choice is the recognition of an adjustment to the Statement of Activities of $93,263 and an adjustment to the Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in
- 69 -
Fund Net Position-Proprietary Funds of $93,263. The City has corrected the miscalculations and has put controls in place to prevent any future occurrences. 23 Subsequent Event In January 2019, the City deposited with the Hennepin County District Court Administrator $4,600,000 toward the purchase of the Motel 6 property as part of the 77th Street Underpass project. The total purchase price of the property was $6,700,000. The balance of the purchase price is expected to be paid in later in 2019.
- 70 -
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
- 71 -
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
- 72 -
Schedule 10
Page 1 of 4
Variance with
Final Budget
Over
Original Final Actual (Under)
Taxes:
Current ad valorem 12,533,005$ 12,533,005$ 13,362,738$ 829,733$
Fiscal disparities 3,302,435 3,302,435 2,640,686 (661,749)
Total Taxes 15,835,440 15,835,440 16,003,424 167,984
Fees and Fines:
Municipal court fines 360,000 330,000 310,713 (19,287)
Total Fees and Fines 360,000 330,000 310,713 (19,287)
Licenses and Permits:
Business licenses 345,170 338,970 340,866 1,896
Nonbusiness licenses and permits 620,800 904,600 1,044,422 139,822
Total Licenses and Permits 965,970 1,243,570 1,385,288 141,718
Intergovernmental Revenues:
Federal :
Grants 144,800 134,320 97,568 (36,752)
State:
Local government aid 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 -
Fire State Aid 164,000 161,000 163,754 2,754
Grants - other 23,250 29,750 37,701 7,951
Police State Aid 378,000 383,000 412,971 29,971
Law officer training 13,500 40,190 40,194 4
State-aid street maintenance 315,000 315,000 315,000 -
County -
Community health services 134,320 134,410 134,407 (3)
Grants - other 27,640 23,340 31,568 8,228
Total Intergovernmental
Revenue 2,350,510 2,371,010 2,383,163 12,153
Charges for Services:
General Government 766,200 874,000 974,201 100,201
Deputy Registrar 935,000 908,100 789,085 (119,015)
Public Safety 34,230 38,180 50,086 11,906
Park and Recreation 380,510 349,670 357,411 7,741
Nature Center 85,060 72,250 75,835 3,585
Total Charges for Services 2,201,000 2,242,200 2,246,618 4,418
Investment Earnings
Investment Earnings 31,000 39,000 93,957 54,957
Total Investment Earnings 31,000 39,000 93,957 54,957
Miscellaneous Revenues:
Rent 27,240 32,740 30,391 (2,349)
Recovery - damage to City property 3,500 11,700 13,391 1,691
Other 33,810 25,300 16,034 (9,266)
Total Miscellaneous Revenues 64,550 69,740 59,816 (9,924)
Total Revenues 21,808,470$ 22,130,960$ 22,482,979$ 352,019$
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND
For The Year Ended December 31, 2018
Budgeted Amounts
- 73 -
Schedule 10
Page 2 of 4
Variance with
Final Budget
Over
Original Final Actual (Under)
EXPENDITURES:
LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE
Mayor - Council:
Personnel services 119,100$ 118,670$ 122,844$ 4,174$
Other services and charges 106,610 108,640 138,677 30,037
Total 225,710 227,310 261,521 34,211
Other Agencies:
Personnel services 29,900 27,750 27,750 -
Other services and charges 70,480 70,480 70,480 -
Total 100,380 98,230 98,230 -
City Manager:
Personnel services 202,210 200,000 190,132 (9,868)
Other services and charges 34,810 36,150 34,614 (1,536)
Total 237,020 236,150 224,746 (11,404)
Legal:
Other services and charges 339,180 339,180 253,339 (85,841)
Total 339,180 339,180 253,339 (85,841)
Total Legislative/Executive 902,290 900,870 837,836 (63,034)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
Administration:
Personnel services 8,660 6,050 (53,764) (59,814)
Other services and charges 113,870 112,720 114,360 1,640
Total 122,530 118,770 60,596 (58,174)
Human Resources:
Personnel services 39,760 31,420 7,364 (24,056)
Other services and charges 23,990 24,250 17,135 (7,115)
Total 63,750 55,670 24,499 (31,171)
City Clerk:
Personnel services 482,400 447,650 509,619 61,969
Other services and charges 73,880 72,330 73,549 1,219
Total 556,280 519,980 583,168 63,188
Total Administrative Services 742,560 694,420 668,263 (26,157)
FINANCE:
Finance:
Personnel services 236,670 235,710 236,580 870
Other services and charges 61,040 62,280 58,739 (3,541)
Total 297,710 297,990 295,319 (2,671)
Assessing:
Personnel services 103,870 55,610 52,782 (2,828)
Other services and charges 322,030 336,670 326,231 (10,439)
Total 425,900 392,280 379,013 (13,267)
Total Finance 723,610 690,270 674,332 (15,938)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
Administrative Support Services:
Personnel services 466,650 441,410 428,165 (13,245)
Other services and charges 478,920 474,330 486,311 11,981
Total 945,570 915,740 914,476 (1,264)
Police Operations:
Personnel services 6,278,760 6,230,670 5,883,474 (347,196)
Other services and charges 1,817,320 1,825,860 1,850,438 24,578
Total 8,096,080 8,056,530 7,733,912 (322,618)
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Budgeted Amounts
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND
For The Year Ended December 31, 2018
- 74 -
Schedule 10
Page 3 of 4
Variance with
Final Budget
Over
Original Final Actual (Under)
Emergency Services:
Personnel services 7,430 7,430 7,434 4
Other services and charges 18,730 28,980 15,488 (13,492)
Total 26,160 36,410 22,922 (13,488)
Total Public Safety 9,067,810 9,008,680 8,671,310 (337,370)
FIRE:
Fire Protection:
Personnel services 3,608,210 3,604,620 3,600,998 (3,622)
Other services and charges 666,290 666,290 636,356 (29,934)
Total 4,274,500 4,270,910 4,237,354 (33,556)
Total Fire 4,274,500 4,270,910 4,237,354 (33,556)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Administration:
Personnel services - - - -
Other services and charges 66,700 67,220 67,543 323
Total 66,700 67,220 67,543 323
Planning & Zoning:
Personnel services 241,450 242,710 246,080 3,370
Other services and charges 50,870 51,050 54,523 3,473
Total 292,320 293,760 300,603 6,843
Inspection:
Personnel services 849,580 895,070 882,645 (12,425)
Other services and charges 217,880 220,170 220,276 106
Total 1,067,460 1,115,240 1,102,921 (12,319)
Total Community Development 1,426,480 1,476,220 1,471,067 (5,153)
PUBLIC WORKS:
Administration:
Personnel services 139,820 140,010 148,296 8,286
Other services and charges 44,060 44,960 31,448 (13,512)
Total 183,880 184,970 179,744 (5,226)
Engineering:
Personnel services 238,500 233,520 247,066 13,546
Other services and charges 95,580 100,220 93,480 (6,740)
Total 334,080 333,740 340,546 6,806
Streets:
Personnel services 1,186,410 1,188,300 1,182,665 (5,635)
Other services and charges 1,080,600 1,067,560 1,057,887 (9,673)
Capital outlay - 23,120 23,113 (7)
Total 2,267,010 2,278,980 2,263,665 (15,315)
Park Maintenance:
Personnel services 678,660 678,590 693,550 14,960
Other services and charges 610,470 609,700 578,544 (31,156)
Capital outlay - - 19,200 19,200
Total 1,289,130 1,288,290 1,291,294 3,004
Total Public Works 4,074,100 4,085,980 4,075,249 (10,731)
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND
For The Year Ended December 31, 2018
Budgeted Amounts
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
- 75 -
Schedule 10
Page 4 of 4
Variance with
Final Budget
Over
Original Final Actual (Under)
RECREATION SERVICES:
Recreation Services Administration:
Personnel services 285,750 281,800 291,901 10,101
Other services and charges 83,700 86,250 94,297 8,047
Total 369,450 368,050 386,198 18,148
Recreation Programs:
Personnel services 648,670 643,360 624,819 (18,541)
Other services and charges 374,710 360,990 330,457 (30,533)
Total 1,023,380 1,004,350 955,276 (49,074)
Wood Lake Nature Center:
Personnel services 454,890 451,610 453,043 1,433
Other services and charges 95,940 101,130 102,002 872
Total 550,830 552,740 555,045 2,305
Total Recreation Services 1,943,660 1,925,140 1,896,519 (28,621)
Total Expenditures 23,155,010$ 23,052,490$ 22,531,930$ (520,560)$
Revenues over (under) expenditures (1,346,540)$ (921,530)$ (48,951)$ 872,579$
Other financing sources (uses):
Transfer from Special Revenue Funds 150,000 150,000 - (150,000)
Transfer from Debt Service Funds 435,000 435,000 - (435,000)
Transfer from Capital Project Funds 656,620 231,610 - (231,610)
Transfer from Enterprise Funds 299,920 299,920 299,920 -
Transfer to Special Revenue Funds (195,000) (195,000) (195,000) -
Total other financing sources (uses) 1,346,540 921,530 104,920 (816,610)
Net increase in fund balance - - 55,969 55,969
Fund balance - January 1 8,754,327 8,754,327 8,754,327 -
Fund Balance - December 31 8,754,327$ 8,754,327$ 8,810,296$ 55,969$
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND
For The Year Ended December 31, 2018
Budgeted Amounts
- 76 -
Schedule 11
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - ICE ARENA FUND
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Over
Original Final Amounts (Under)
Revenues:
Charges for Services 982,360$ 970,810$ 1,064,759$ 93,949$
Miscellaneous 76,730 61,830 68,360 6,530
Total Revenues 1,059,090 1,032,640 1,133,119 100,479
Expenditures:
Current
Personnel services 526,340 513,340 542,879 29,539
Other services and charges 456,680 457,640 450,084 (7,556)
Debt Service
Interest 18,580 18,580 18,573 (7)
Capital outlay - 170,000 193,535 23,535
Total Expenditures 1,001,600 1,159,560 1,205,071 45,511
Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures 57,490 (126,920) (71,952) 54,968
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers in:
General Fund 85,000 85,000 85,000 -
Capital Project Fund - 170,000 170,000 -
Net Other Financing Sources:85,000 255,000 255,000 -
Net decrease in fund balance 142,490 128,080 183,048 54,968
Fund Balance - January 1 (4,024,450) (4,024,450) (4,024,450) -
Fund Balance - December 31 (3,881,960)$ (3,896,370)$ (3,841,402)$ 54,968$
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Budgeted Amounts
- 77 -
Schedule 12
City of Richfield
Schedule of Changes in Total OPEB Liability
and Related Ratios
December 31, 2018
Total OPEB liability
Service Cost 184,122
Interest Cost 83,730
Changes of Assumptions 53,295
Benefit Payments (109,190)
Net Change in total OPEB liability 211,957
Beginning of year 2,085,544
End of year 2,297,501
Covered Payroll 15,900,000
Total OPEB liability as a percentage of covered-employee payroll 14.40%
Note: Schedule is intended to show ten year trend. Additional years will be reported as they become available.
- 78 -
Schedule 13
Fiscal Year Ending
December 31
Statutorily
Required
Contribution
Contributions in Relation
to the Statutorily Required
Contribution
Contribution
Deficiency
(Excess) Covered Payroll
Contributions as a
Percentage of
Covered Payroll
2015 706,736$ 706,736$ -$ 9,423,147$ 7.50%
2016 726,143$ 726,143$ -$ 9,681,907$ 7.50%
2017 742,606$ 742,606$ -$ 9,901,413$ 7.50%
2018 783,227$ 783,227$ -$ 10,443,027$ 7.50%
Fiscal Year Ending
December 31
Statutorily
Required
Contribution
Contributions in Relation
to the Statutorily Required
Contribution
Contribution
Deficiency
(Excess) Covered Payroll
Contributions as a
Percentage of
Covered Payroll
2015 948,453$ 948,453$ -$ 5,854,648$ 16.20%
2016 1,000,004$ 1,000,004$ -$ 6,172,864$ 16.20%
2017 1,004,300$ 1,004,300$ -$ 6,199,383$ 16.20%
2018 1,048,095$ 1,048,095$ -$ 6,469,722$ 16.20%
* Option to provide RSI for ten years at transition or to provide RSI prospectively.
Last Ten Years
Schedule of City of Richfield Contributions
Last Ten Years
General Employees Retirement Fund
Schedule of City of Richfield Contributions
Public Employees Police and Fire Fund
- 79 -
Schedule 14
Fiscal Year
Ending June 30
Employer's
Proportion
(Percentage) of
the Net Pension
Liability (Asset)
Employer's
Proportionate
Share (Amount)
of the Net
Pension Liability
(Asset)
State's
Proportionate
Share (Amount) of
the Net Pension
Liability Associated
with the City
Employers
Proportionate Share
of the Net Pension
Liability and the
State's Proportionate
Share of the Net
Pension Liability
Associated with the
City
Employer's
Covered
Payroll
Employer's
Proportionate
Share of the Net
Pension Liability
(Asset) as a
Percentage of its
Covered Payroll
Plan Fiduciary
Net Position
as a
Percentage of
the Total
Pension
Liability
2015 0.1596%$8,271,300 $0 $8,271,300 $9,226,400 89.65%78.19%
2016 0.1587%$12,885,653 $168,215 $13,053,868 $9,846,133 130.87%68.91%
2017 0.1507%$9,620,589 $121,007 $9,741,596 $9,711,387 99.07%75.90%
2018 0.1520%$8,432,337 $276,621 $8,708,958 $10,214,587 82.55%79.53%
Fiscal Year
Ending June 30
Employer's
Proportion
(Percentage) of
the Net Pension
Liability (Asset)
Employer's
Proportionate
Share (Amount)
of the Net
Pension Liability
(Asset)
Employer's
Covered Payroll
Employer's
Proportionate Share
of the Net Pension
Liability (Asset) as a
Percentage of its
Covered Payroll
Plan
Fiduciary Net
Position as a
Percentage of
the Total
Pension
Liability
2015 0.603%$6,851,491 $5,371,889 127.54%86.61%
2016 0.656%$26,326,421 $6,317,469 416.72%63.88%
2017 0.5910%$7,979,203 $6,070,907 131.43%85.43%
2018 0.6046%$6,389,999 $6,371,512 100.29%88.84%
* Schedule is to be provided prospectively beginning with the employer's fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, or after.
Schedule of City of Richfield Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability
Last Ten Years GERF Retirement Fund
Schedule of City of Richfield Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability
Public Employees Police and Fire Fund
Last Ten Years PEPFF Retirement Fund
Public Employees General Employees Retirement Fund
- 80 -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE
NOTE TO RSI
DECEMBER 31, 2018
Note 1 Legal Compliance – Budgets
Budgets for the General Fund are adopted on a basis consistent with generally
accepted accounting principles. The legal level of budgetary control is at the
department level for the General Fund. At December 31, 2018, there were no
General Fund departments whose expenditures exceeded budget appropriations.
Note 2 Pensions Plans
General Employees Fund
2018 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
• The morality projection scale was changed from MP-2015 to MP-2017.
• The assumed benefit increase was changed from 1.00 percent per year
through 2044 and 2.50 percent per year thereafter to 1.25 percent per
year
2017 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
• The Combined Service Annuity (CSA) loads were changed from 0.8
percent for active members and 60 percent for vested and non-vested
deferred members. The revised CSA loads are now 0.0 percent for active
member liability, 15.0 percent for vested deferred member liability and 3.0
percent for non-vested deferred member liability.
• The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from
1.0 percent per year for all years to 1.0 percent per year through 2044
and 2.5 percent per year thereafter.
2016 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
• The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from
1.0% per year through 2035 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.0% per
year for all future years.
• The assumed investment return was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. The
single discount rate was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%.
• Other assumptions were changed pursuant to the experience study dated
June 30, 2015. The assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, and
inflation were decreased by 0.25% to 3.25% for payroll growth and 2.50%
for inflation.
- 81 -
2015 Changes
Changes in Plan Provisions
• On January 1, 2015, the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund was
merged into the General Employees Fund, which increased the total
pension liability by $1.1 billion and increased the fiduciary plan net position
by $892 million. Upon consolidation, state and employer contributions
were revised.
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
• The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from
1.0% per year through 2030 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.0% per
year through 2035 and 2.5% per year thereafter.
Police and Fire Fund
2018 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
• The morality projection scale was changed from MP-2016 to MP-2017.
• As set by statute, the assumed post-retirement benefit increase was
changed from 1.0% per year through 2064 and 2.5% per year thereafter,
to 1.0% for all years, with no trigger.
2017 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
• Assumed salary increases were changed as recommended in the June
30, 2016 experience study. The net effect is proposed rates that average
0.34 percent lower than the previous rates.
• Assumed rates of retirement were changed, resulting in fewer retirements.
• The Combined Service Annuity (CSA) load was 30 percent for vested and
non-vested deferred members. The CSA has been changed to 33 percent
for vested members and 2 percent for non-vested members.
• The base mortality table for healthy annuitants was changed from the RP-
2000 fully generational table to the RP-2014 fully generational table (with
a base year of 2006), with male rates adjusted by a factor of 0.96. The
mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale AA to Scale MP-
2016. The base mortality table for disabled annuitants was changed from
the RP-2000 disabled mortality table to the mortality tables assumed for
healthy retirees.
• Assumed termination rates were decreased to 3.0 percent for the first
three years of service. Rates beyond the select period of three years were
adjusted, resulting in more expected terminations overall.
• Assumed percentage of married female members was decreased from 65
percent to 60 percent.
- 82 -
• Assumed age difference was changed from separate assumptions for
male members (wives assumed to be three years younger) and female
members (husbands assumed to be four years older) to the
assumption that males are two years older than females.
• The assumed percentage of female members electing Joint and Survivor
annuities was increased.
• The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from
1.00 percent for all years to 1.00 percent per year through 2064 and 2.50
percent thereafter.
2016 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
• The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from
1.0% per year through 2037 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.0% per
year for all future years.
• The assumed investment return was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. The
single discount rate was changed from 7.9% to 5.6%.
• The assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, and inflation were
decreased by 0.25% to 3.25% for payroll growth and 2.50% for inflation.
2015 Changes
Changes in Plan Provisions
• The post-retirement benefit increase to be paid after attainment of the
90% funding threshold was changed, from inflation up to 2.5%, to a fixed
rate of 2.5%.
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
• The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from
1.0% per year through 2030 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.0% per
year through 2037 and 2.5% per year thereafter.
- 83 -
COMBINING AND INDIVIDUAL FUND STATEMENTS AND
SCHEDULES
- 84 -
NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
- 85 -
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
A Special Revenue Fund is used to account for the proceeds of specific
revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for specified
programs.
GENERAL OBLIGATION REDEVELOPMENT BONDS FUND
This fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources from tax
increment for and the payment of, interest and principal on general
obligation long-term debt. It has been established in accordance with bond
indentures.
PARK CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
This fund accounts for financial resources to be used for the acquisition or
construction of major park recreational or cultural development capital
improvement purposes.
- 86 -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET
NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
December 31, 2018
Statement 15
Total
Park Nonmajor
Special Redevelopment Capital Governmental
Revenue Bonds Projects Funds
Assets
Cash and investments 5,268,065$ - 4,262,583 9,530,648$
Due from other governments 22,448 - - 22,448
Receivables, net 598,744 - - 598,744
Due from other funds 42,764 - 105,273 148,037
Prepaid items 7,330 - - 7,330
Advances to other funds 427,635 - 299,670 727,305
Total assets 6,366,986$ -$ 4,667,526$ 11,034,512$
Liabilities and Fund Balances
Liabilities:
Accounts payable 100,552$ - 91,169 191,721$
Accrued salaries and benefits 2,702 - - 2,702
Due to other funds 936,330 - 10,000 946,330
Payable to other governments 570 - - 570
Advances from other funds - - 203,440 203,440
Total liabilities 1,040,154 - 304,609 1,344,763
Fund balances
Nonspendable 7,330 - - 7,330
Restricted 392,031 - - 392,031
Committed 5,879,510 - 4,575,643 10,455,153
Unassigned (952,039) - (212,726) (1,164,765)
Total fund balances 5,326,832 - 4,362,917 9,689,749
Total liabilities and fund balances 6,366,986$ -$ 4,667,526$ 11,034,512$
- 87 -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
For The Year Ended December 31, 2018
Statement 16
Total
Park Nonmajor
Special Redevelopment Capital Governmental
Revenue Bonds Projects Funds
REVENUES:
Franchise taxes 2,242,216$ -$ -$ 2,242,216$
Fees and fines 53,093 - - 53,093
Intergovernmental 112,378 869,366 - 981,744
Charges for services 370,936 - - 370,936
Investment earnings 74,117 - 68,752 142,869
Miscellaneous 685,079 - 32,219 717,298
Total revenues 3,537,819 869,366 100,971 4,508,156
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
Administrative Services 472,379 - - 472,379
Public Safety 84,728 - - 84,728
Recreation Services 633,263 - 93,233 726,496
Debt Service
Principal - 705,000 - 705,000
Interest and other charges - 164,366 - 164,366
Capital Outlay:
Administrative Services 7,525 - - 7,525
Recreation Services 108,932 - 327,653 436,585
Total expenditures 1,306,827 869,366 420,886 2,597,079
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over expenditures 2,230,992 - (319,915) 1,911,077
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):
Transfers in 110,000 - 317,500 427,500
Transfers out (423,340) - (37,500) (460,840)
Total other financing sources and uses (313,340) - 280,000 (33,340)
Net decrease in fund balance 1,917,652 - (39,915) 1,877,737
Fund balances (deficit) - January 1 3,409,180 - 4,402,832 7,812,012
Fund balances (deficit) - December 31 5,326,832$ -$ 4,362,917$ 9,689,749$
- 88 -
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
- 89 -
NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Liquor Contributions Fund is maintained according to Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 of the City
Charter. Its primary purpose is to receive profits from the municipal off-sale liquor operations,
which are restricted in use to financing capital improvements of the type which would be
financed by a general obligation bond issue. Project appropriations are authorized by
ordinance.
The Tourism Administration Fund is maintained to account for the collection of lodging taxes
and subsequent payment to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board.
The Communications Fund is maintained to account for the quarterly cable franchise fee
received and cable television city communication activities.
The Elections Fund was created to better account for the cost fluctuations in conducting
elections. The revenue source is rental revenue derived from leases with cell phone carriers.
The Drug/Forfeiture Fund is maintained according to federal regulations and is used to
account for monies allocated to the City and spent according to their guidelines.
The Public Safety Compliance Fund is maintained to account for the collection of funds from
the sale of recovered property, and fines collected from violations of alcohol and tobacco
compliance checks.
Contributions – Recreation, and Nature Center are used to account for private donations
restricted by the donor to certain programs or used for the parks, Nature Center and
recreation programs.
The Public Health Grants Fund was created to account for grant funds received for enhancing
the health and environmental well being of the community.
The Wood Lake Half Marathon Fund was created to separately account for the proceeds and
costs associated with the Half Marathon race held at Wood Lake Nature Center.
The Utility Franchise Fee Fund was created to account for gas and electric franchise fees
received from gas and electric public utilities.
The Swimming Pool Fund is used to account for the operations of the City’s municipal pool at
Veteran’s Memorial Park.
The Special Facilities Fund is used to account for the City’s mini golf and picnic shelter
operations at Veteran’s Memorial Park.
- 90 -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
SUBCOMBINING BALANCE SHEET
NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
December 31, 2018
Liquor Public
Contributions Tourism Drug/Safety Recreation
Fund Admin Communications Elections Forfeiture Compliance Contr.
ASSETS
Cash and investments 136,873$ 68,299$ 1,463,112$ 1,293,193$ 186,055$ 132,844$ 39,661$
Due from other governments - - - - - 9,393 -
Receivables, net - - 99,454 - - 692 -
Due from other funds - - 42,764 - - - -
Prepaid items - - 7,330 - - - -
Advances to other funds - - 427,635 - - - -
Total Assets 136,873$ 68,299$ 2,040,295$ 1,293,193$ 186,055$ 142,929$ 39,661$
LIABILITIES AND FUND
BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable -$ 12,653$ 2,517$ 25,315$ -$ 2,990$ 1,288$
Accrued salaries and benefits - - 2,702 - - - -
Due to other funds - - - - - - -
Payable to other governments - - - - 216 309 45
Total Liabilities - 12,653 5,219 25,315 216 3,299 1,333
Fund Balances:
Nonspendable - - 7,330 - - - -
Restricted - - - - 185,839 9,393 38,328
Committed 136,873 55,646 2,027,746 1,267,878 - 130,237 -
Unassigned - - - - - - -
Total Fund Balances 136,873 55,646 2,035,076 1,267,878 185,839 139,630 38,328
Total Liabilities and
Fund Balances 136,873$ 68,299$ 2,040,295$ 1,293,193$ 186,055$ 142,929$ 39,661$
- 91 -
Statement 17
Total
Nonmajor
Nature Public Wood Lake Utility Special
Center Health Half Franchise Swimming Special Revenue
Contr.Grants Marathon Fees Pool Facilities Funds
57,514$ 91,455$ 25,636$ 1,745,655$ -$ 27,768$ 5,268,065$
- 13,055 - - - - 22,448
- - - 463,048 - 35,550 598,744
- - - - - - 42,764
- - - - - - 7,330
- - - - - - 427,635
57,514$ 104,510$ 25,636$ 2,208,703$ -$ 63,318$ 6,366,986$
3,553$ -$ -$ -$ 15,709$ 36,527$ 100,552$
- - - - - - 2,702
- - - - 936,330 - 936,330
- - - - - - 570
3,553 - - - 952,039 36,527 1,040,154
- - - - - - 7,330
53,961 104,510 - - - - 392,031
- - 25,636 2,208,703 - 26,791 5,879,510
- - - - (952,039) - (952,039)
53,961 104,510 25,636 2,208,703 (952,039) 26,791 5,326,832
57,514$ 104,510$ 25,636$ 2,208,703$ -$ 63,318$ 6,366,986$
- 92 -
Liquor Public
Contributions Tourism Drug/ Safety
Fund Admin Communications Elections Forfeiture Compliance
Revenues:
Franchise taxes -$ -$ 401,332$ -$ -$ -$
Fees and fines - - - - 53,093 -
Intergovernmental revenues:
Federal grants - - - - - 4,424
State of Minnesota -
Other - - - - - 3,158
County - - - - - 20,000
Total Intergovernmental Revenues - - - - - 27,582
Charges for services - - - - - -
Investment Earnings 2,128 1,033 22,801 16,719 2,496 1,882
Miscellaneous:
Contributions - - - - - 13,378
Other - 13,233 3,101 343,064 - 8,037
Total Miscellaneous Revenues - 13,233 3,101 343,064 - 21,415
Total Revenues 2,128 14,266 427,234 359,783 55,589 50,879
Expenditures:
Current:
Personnel services - 9,830 182,660 88,802 - 915
Other services and charges - 9 116,701 29,452 10,484 24,775
Capital outlay - - 7,525 - - -
Total Expenditures - 9,839 306,886 118,254 10,484 25,690
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
over Expenditures 2,128 4,427 120,348 241,529 45,105 25,189
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in:
General Fund - - - - - -
Transfers out:
General Fund - - - - - -
Debt Service Funds - - - - - -
Capital Project Funds - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - (70,000) - - -
Net Other Financing Sources (Uses) - - (70,000) - - -
Net increase (decrease) in fund balance 2,128 4,427 50,348 241,529 45,105 25,189
Fund Balance - January 1 134,745 51,219 1,984,728 1,026,349 140,734 114,441
Fund Balance - December 31 136,873$ 55,646$ 2,035,076$ 1,267,878$ 185,839$ 139,630$
For The Year Ended December 31, 2018
CITY OF RICHFIELD
SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
- 93 -
Statement 18
Total
Nonmajor
Nature Public Wood Lake Utility Special
Recreation Center Health Half Franchise Swimming Special Revenue
Contr. Contr. Grants Marathon Fees Pool Facilities Funds
-$ -$ -$ -$ 1,840,884$ -$ -$ 2,242,216$
- - - - - - - 53,093
- - 52,397 - - - - 56,821
- 19,574 - - - - - 22,732
11,250 1,575 - - - - - 32,825
11,250 21,149 52,397 - - - - 112,378
- - - - - 370,936 - 370,936
371 4,637 1,464 494 19,860 - 232 74,117
31,038 67,815 - 10,500 - - - 122,731
- - - 48,830 - - 146,083 562,348
31,038 67,815 - 59,330 - - 146,083 685,079
42,659 93,601 53,861 59,824 1,860,744 370,936 146,315 3,537,819
- 41,180 - 33,000 - 201,512 9,870 567,769
20,214 46,114 48,554 33,803 44,925 221,941 25,629 622,601
- - - - - - 108,932 116,457
20,214 87,294 48,554 66,803 44,925 423,453 144,431 1,306,827
22,445 6,307 5,307 (6,979) 1,815,819 (52,517) 1,884 2,230,992
- - - - - 100,000 10,000 110,000
- - - - - - - -
- - - - (353,340) - - (353,340)
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - (70,000)
- - - - (353,340) 100,000 10,000 (313,340)
22,445 6,307 5,307 (6,979) 1,462,479 47,483 11,884 1,917,652
15,883 47,654 99,203 32,615 746,224 (999,522) 14,907 3,409,180
38,328$ 53,961$ 104,510$ 25,636$ 2,208,703$ (952,039)$ 26,791$ 5,326,832$
- 94 -
Schedule 19
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Over
Original Final Amounts (Under)
Revenues:
Investment Earnings 800$ 900$ 2,128$ 1,228$
Net increase in fund balance 800 900 2,128 1,228
Fund Balance - January 1 134,745 134,745 134,745 -
Fund Balance - December 31 135,545$ 135,645$ 136,873$ 1,228$
Budgeted Amounts
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - LIQUOR CONTRIBUTIONS
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
- 95 -
Schedule 20
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - TOURISM ADMINISTRATION
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Over
Original Final Amounts (Under)
Revenues:
Investment Earnings 300$ 400$ 1,033$ 633$
Miscellaneous:
Other 13,300 13,000 13,233 233
Total Revenues 13,600 13,400 14,266 866
Expenditures:
Current
Personnel services 9,830 9,830 9,830 -
Other services and charges - - 9 9
Total Expenditures 9,830 9,830 9,839 9
Net increase in fund balance 3,770 3,570 4,427 857
Fund Balance - January 1 51,219 51,219 51,219 -
Fund Balance - December 31 54,989$ 54,789$ 55,646$ 857$
Budgeted Amounts
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
- 96 -
Schedule 21
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - COMMUNICATIONS
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Over
Original Final Amounts (Under)
Revenues:
Franchise taxes 428,000$ 433,000$ 401,332$ (31,668)$
Investment Earnings 8,500 9,600 22,801 13,201
Miscellaneous:
Other - - 3,101 3,101
Total Revenues 436,500 442,600 427,234 (15,366)
Expenditures:
Current
Personnel services 178,650 191,400 182,660 (8,740)
Other services and charges 129,700 134,800 116,701 (18,099)
Capital outlay - 8,000 7,525 (475)
Total Expenditures 308,350 334,200 306,886 (27,314)
Excess of revenues over expenditures 128,150 108,400 120,348 11,948
Other Financing Uses:
Transfers out:
General Fund (150,000) (150,000) - 150,000
Enterprise Funds - (70,000) (70,000) -
Net Other Financing Uses:(150,000) (220,000) (70,000) 150,000
Net increase (decrease) in fund balance (21,850) (111,600) 50,348 161,948
Fund Balance - January 1 1,984,728 1,984,728 1,984,728 -
Fund Balance - December 31 1,962,878$ 1,873,128$ 2,035,076$ 161,948$
Budgeted Amounts
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
- 97 -
Schedule 22
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - ELECTIONS
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Over
Original Final Amounts (Under)
Revenues:
Investment Earnings 4,000$ 5,900$ 16,719$ 10,819$
Miscellaneous:
Other 213,900 235,000 343,064 108,064
Total Revenues 217,900 240,900 359,783 118,883
Expenditures:
Current
Personnel services 104,190 96,240 88,802 (7,438)
Other services and charges 41,060 41,060 29,452 (11,608)
Total Expenditures 145,250 137,300 118,254 (19,046)
Net increase in fund balance 72,650 103,600 241,529 137,929
Fund Balance - January 1 1,026,349 1,026,349 1,026,349 -
Fund Balance - December 31 1,098,999$ 1,129,949$ 1,267,878$ 137,929$
Budgeted Amounts
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
- 98 -
Schedule 23
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - DRUG FORFEITURE
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Over
Original Final Amounts (Under)
Revenues:
Fees and Fines 40,000$ 40,000$ 53,093$ 13,093$
Investment Earnings 200 800 2,496 1,696
Miscellaneous:
Other 1,000 16,000 - (16,000)
Total Revenues 41,200 56,800 55,589 (1,211)
Expenditures:
Current
Other services and charges 20,500 41,400 10,484 (30,916)
Total Expenditures 20,500 41,400 10,484 (30,916)
Net increase in fund balance 20,700 15,400 45,105 29,705
Fund Balance - January 1 140,734 140,734 140,734 -
Fund Balance - December 31 161,434$ 156,134$ 185,839$ 29,705$
Budgeted Amounts
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
- 99 -
Schedule 24
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLIANCE
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Over
Original Final Amounts (Under)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental:
Federal Grants -$ 3,120$ 4,424$ 1,304$
State - - 3,158 3,158
County 20,000 20,000 20,000 -
Investment Earnings 500 600 1,882 1,282
Miscellaneous:
Contributions - - 13,378 13,378
Other 11,000 4,500 8,037 3,537
Total Revenues 31,500 28,220 50,879 22,659
Expenditures:
Current
Personnel services 2,500 2,300 915 (1,385)
Other services and charges 20,000 27,000 24,775 (2,225)
Total Expenditures 22,500 29,300 25,690 (3,610)
Net increase (decrease) in fund balance 9,000 (1,080) 25,189 26,269
Fund Balance - January 1 114,441 114,441 114,441 -
Fund Balance - December 31 123,441$ 113,361$ 139,630$ 26,269$
Budgeted Amounts
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
- 100 -
Schedule 25
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - RECREATION CONTRIBUTIONS
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Over
Original Final Amounts (Under)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental:
County -$ -$ 11,250$ 11,250$
Investment Earnings 120 100 371 271
Miscellaneous:
Contributions 30,000 30,000 31,038 1,038
Total Revenues 30,120 30,100 42,659 12,559
Expenditures:
Current
Other services and charges 24,000 20,000 20,214 214
Total Expenditures 24,000 20,000 20,214 214
Net increase in fund balance 6,120 10,100 22,445 12,345
Fund Balance - January 1 15,883 15,883 15,883 -
Fund Balance - December 31 22,003$ 25,983$ 38,328$ 12,345$
Budgeted Amounts
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
- 101 -
Schedule 26
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - NATURE CENTER CONTRIBUTIONS
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Over
Original Final Amounts (Under)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental:
State 5,000$ -$ 19,574$ 19,574$
County - - 1,575 1,575
Investment Earnings 1,500 2,400 4,637 2,237
Miscellaneous:
Contributions 67,000 70,000 67,815 (2,185)
Total Revenues 73,500 72,400 93,601 21,201
Expenditures:
Current
Personnel services 36,540 41,180 41,180 -
Other services and charges 40,000 35,000 46,114 11,114
Total Expenditures 76,540 76,180 87,294 11,114
Net increase (decrease) in fund balance (3,040) (3,780) 6,307 10,087
Fund Balance - January 1 47,654 47,654 47,654 -
Fund Balance - December 31 44,614$ 43,874$ 53,961$ 10,087$
Budgeted Amounts
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
- 102 -
Schedule 27
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - PUBLIC HEALTH GRANTS
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Over
Original Final Amounts (Under)
Revenues:
Intergovernmental revenues:
Federal grants 34,220$ 36,780$ 52,397$ 15,617$
Investment Earnings 100 500 1,464 964
Total Revenues 34,320 37,280 53,861 16,581
Expenditures:
Current
Other services and charges 34,300 36,780 48,554 11,774
Net increase in fund balance 20 500 5,307 4,807
Fund Balance - January 1 99,203 99,203 99,203 -
Fund Balance - December 31 99,223$ 99,703$ 104,510$ 4,807$
Budgeted Amounts
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
- 103 -
Schedule 28
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - WOOD LAKE HALF MARATHON
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Over
Original Final Amounts (Under)
Revenues:
Investment Earnings -$ 100$ 494$ 394$
Miscellaneous:
Contributions 11,000 14,000 10,500 (3,500)
Other 50,000 50,000 48,830 (1,170)
Total Revenues 61,000 64,100 59,824 (4,276)
Expenditures:
Current
Personnel services 30,000 33,000 33,000 -
Other services and charges 28,000 30,000 33,803 3,803
Total Expenditures 58,000 63,000 66,803 3,803
Net increase (decrease) in fund balance 3,000 1,100 (6,979) (8,079)
Fund Balance - January 1 32,615 32,615 32,615 -
Fund Balance - December 31 35,615$ 33,715$ 25,636$ (8,079)$
Budgeted Amounts
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
- 104 -
Schedule 29
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - UTILITY FRANCHISE FEES
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Over
Original Final Amounts (Under)
Revenues:
Franchise taxes 1,831,450$ 1,831,450$ 1,840,884$ 9,434$
Investment Earnings 5,000 5,000 19,860 14,860
Total Revenues 1,836,450 1,836,450 1,860,744 24,294
Expenditures:
Current
Other services and charges 95,000 95,000 44,925 (50,075)
Excess of revenues over expenditures 1,741,450 1,741,450 1,815,819 74,369
Other Financing Uses:
Transfers out:
Debt Service Fund (349,030) (469,920) (353,340) 116,580
Net Other Financing Uses:(349,030) (469,920) (353,340) 116,580
Net increase in fund balance 1,392,420 1,271,530 1,462,479 190,949
Fund Balance - January 1 746,224 746,224 746,224 -
Fund Balance - December 31 2,138,644$ 2,017,754$ 2,208,703$ 190,949$
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Budgeted Amounts
- 105 -
Schedule 30
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - SWIMMING POOL
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Over
Original Final Amounts (Under)
Revenues:
Charges for services 387,370$ 394,300$ 370,936$ (23,364)$
Total Revenues 387,370 394,300 370,936 (23,364)
Expenditures:
Current
Personnel services 211,640 211,640 201,512 (10,128)
Other services and charges 243,310 243,660 221,941 (21,719)
Total Expenditures 454,950 455,300 423,453 (31,847)
Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures (67,580) (61,000) (52,517) 8,483
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers in:
General Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 -
Net Other Financing Sources:100,000 100,000 100,000 -
Net increase in fund balance 32,420 39,000 47,483 8,483
Fund Balance - January 1 (999,522) (999,522) (999,522) -
Fund Balance - December 31 (967,102)$ (960,522)$ (952,039)$ 8,483$
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Budgeted Amounts
- 106 -
Schedule 31
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - SPECIAL FACILITIES
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Over
Original Final Amounts (Under)
Revenues:
Investment earnings -$ -$ 232$ 232$
Miscellaneous:
Other 35,140 35,140 146,083 110,943
Total Revenues 35,140 35,140 146,315 111,175
Expenditures:
Current
Personnel services 9,870 9,870 9,870 -
Other services and charges 34,780 35,180 25,629 (9,551)
Capital outlay - - 108,932 108,932
Total Expenditures 44,650 45,050 144,431 99,381
Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures (9,510) (9,910) 1,884 11,794
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers in:
General Fund 10,000 10,000 10,000 -
Net Other Financing Sources:10,000 10,000 10,000 -
Net increase in fund balance 490 90 11,884 11,794
Fund Balance - January 1 14,907 14,907 14,907 -
Fund Balance - December 31 15,397$ 14,997$ 26,791$ 11,794$
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Budgeted Amounts
- 107 -
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Internal Service Funds are used to account for the financing of goods or services provided
by one department or agency to other departments or agencies of the government on a
cost reimbursement basis. Internal Service Funds are authorized by Section 7.12,
Subdivision 6 of the Richfield City Charter.
The Central Garage and Equipment Fund, the Information Technology Fund, the Self
Insurance Fund, Building Services Fund, and the Compensated Absences Fund, are self-
sustaining funds providing service to other departments within the City and for which
payments are made by the using department.
- 108 -
Statement 32
Central
Garage & Information Self Building Compensated
Equipment Technology Insurance Services Absences
Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Total
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents 1,606,760$ 434,745$ 4,599,697$ 919,412$ 1,842,445$ 9,403,059$
Due from other funds - - 63,503 - - 63,503
Total current assets 1,606,760 434,745 4,663,200 919,412 1,842,445 9,466,562
Noncurrent assets:
Advances to other funds - - 709,975 - - 709,975
Capital assets:
Buildings and equipment 9,374,259 752,899 - 442,128 - 10,569,286
Construction in process 67,640 - - - - 67,640
Less accumulated depreciation (5,953,064) (549,522) - (244,898) - (6,747,484)
Total noncurrent assets 3,488,835 203,377 709,975 197,230 - 4,599,417
Total assets 5,095,595 638,122 5,373,175 1,116,642 1,842,445 14,065,979
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES:
Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions 42,271 45,626 - 37,225 - 125,122
Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB 1,650 487 - 1,393 - 3,530
Total deferred outflows of resources 43,921 46,113 - 38,618 - 128,652
Total assets and deferred outflows
of resources 5,137,866 683,748 5,373,175 1,153,867 1,842,445 14,194,631
LIABILITIES
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable 100,604 101,884 14,841 32,059 - 249,388
Accrued salaries and benefits 7,638 8,441 - 6,402 - 22,481
Due to other governments 23,024 60 2,130 - - 25,214
Compensated absences 8,752 10,073 - 16,618 526,320 561,763
Total current liabilities 140,018 120,458 16,971 55,079 526,320 858,846
Noncurrent liabilities:
Compensated absences 21,884 25,188 - 41,556 1,316,125 1,404,753
Net OPEB obligation 31,149 16,835 - 22,044 - 70,028
Net pension liability 235,083 253,751 - 207,029 - 695,863
Claims and judgments - - 579,732 - - 579,732
Total noncurrent liabilities 288,116 295,774 579,732 270,629 1,316,125 2,750,376
Total liabilities 428,134 416,232 596,703 325,708 1,842,445 3,609,222
DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES:
Deferred inflows or resources related to pensions 65,169 70,344 - 57,391 - 192,904
NET POSITON
Net investment in capital assets 3,488,835 203,377 - 197,230 - 3,889,442
Unrestricted 1,157,378 (5,718) 4,776,472 574,931 - 6,503,063
Total net position 4,646,213 197,659 4,776,472 772,161 - 10,392,505
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources and net position 5,139,516$ 684,235$ 5,373,175$ 1,155,260$ 1,842,445$ 14,194,631$
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
December 31, 2018
- 109 -
Statement 33
Central
Garage & Information Self Building Compensated
Equipment Technology Insurance Services Absences
Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Total
OPERATING REVENUES
Charges for Service 1,192,520$ 978,946$ 817,686$ 871,709$ -$ 3,860,861$
Total operating revenues 1,192,520 978,946 817,686 871,709 - 3,860,861
OPERATING EXPENSES
Personnel services 412,873 368,949 316,553 345,832 30,407 1,474,614
Other service and charges 854,113 646,296 304,396 479,906 - 2,284,711
Depreciation 733,868 64,175 - 30,415 - 828,458
Total operating expenses 2,000,854 1,079,420 620,949 856,153 30,407 4,587,783
Operating gain (loss)(808,334) (100,474) 196,737 15,556 (30,407) (726,922)
NONOPERATING REVENUES
Interest and investment revenue 19,561 5,638 85,668 13,895 30,407 155,169
Intergovernmental revenue 1,798 1,941 - 1,585 - 5,324
Miscellaneous revenue 55,912 - 75,731 3,660 - 135,303
Gain (loss) on disposal of capital assets 86,862 - - - - 86,862
Total nonoperating revenue 164,133 7,579 161,399 19,140 30,407 382,658
Income (loss) before transfers (644,201) (92,895) 358,136 34,696 - (344,264)
Transfers in 655,000 130,000 70,000 - - 855,000
Transfers out - - (70,000) - - (70,000)
Changes in net position 10,799 37,105 358,136 34,696 - 440,736
Total net position - beginning 4,636,476 160,554 4,418,336 738,527 - 9,953,893
Change in accounting principle (1,062) - - (1,062) - (2,124)
Total net position - beginning - restated 4,635,414 160,554 4,418,336 737,465 - 9,951,769
Total net position - ending 4,646,213$ 197,659$ 4,776,472$ 772,161$ -$ 10,392,505$
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
- 110 -
Statement 34
Central
Garage & Information Self Building Compensated
Equipment Technology Insurance Services Absences
Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Totals
Cash flows from operating activities:
Receipts from interfund services provided 1,207,211$ 978,946$ 817,686$ 871,939$ -$ 3,875,782$
Payment to employees (400,791) (389,321) (316,553) (343,239) (113,294) (1,563,198)
Payment to suppliers (794,695) (674,492) (460,000) (521,984) - (2,451,171)
Miscellaneous revenue 57,710 1,941 75,731 5,245 - 140,627
Net cash flows from operating activities 69,435 (82,926) 116,864 11,961 (113,294) 2,040
Cash flows from noncapital financing activities:
Transfer from Capital Project Funds 655,000 130,000 - - - 785,000
Transfer from Internal Service Funds - - 70,000 - - 70,000
Transfer to Internal Service Funds - - (70,000) - - (70,000)
Interfund borrowing - - 62,247 - - 62,247
Net cash flows from noncapital financing
activities:655,000 130,000 62,247 - - 847,247
Cash flows from capital and related financing
activities:
Proceeds from sale of property 30,736 - - - - 30,736
Acquisition of capital assets (582,619) - - - - (582,619)
Net cash flows from capital and related
financing activities (551,883) - - - - (551,883)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Investment income 19,561 5,638 85,668 13,895 30,407 155,169
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 192,113 52,712 264,779 25,856 (82,887) 452,573
Cash and cash equivalents - January 1 1,414,647 382,033 4,334,918 893,556 1,925,332 8,950,486
Cash and cash equivalents - December 31 1,606,760$ 434,745$ 4,599,697$ 919,412$ 1,842,445$ 9,403,059$
Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net cash
provided (used) by operating activities:
Operating income (loss)(808,334)$ (100,474)$ 196,737$ 15,556$ (30,407)$ (726,922)$
Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss)
to net cash flows from operating activities:
Miscellaneous revenue 57,710 1,941 75,731 5,245 - 140,627
Depreciation 733,869 64,175 - 30,415 - 828,459
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Decrease (increase) in receivables 14,691 - - 230 - 14,921
Decrease (increase) in prepaid items - 1,418 - - - 1,418
Decrease (increase) in deferred outflows related to pensions 21,544 39,101 - 25,324 - 85,969
Increase (decrease) in payables 45,866 8,078 (30,574) (31,840) - (8,470)
Increase (decrease) in salaries and benefits 1,941 626 - 620 - 3,187
Increase (decrease) in compensated absences 10,141 (20,998) - 1,974 (82,887) (91,770)
Increase (decrease) in due to other governments (2,118) - (43,470) - - (45,588)
Increase (decrease) in net OPEB obligations 3,399 2,012 - 2,339 - 7,750
Increase (decrease) in deferred inflows related to pensions 5,101 (7,845) - (1,279) - (4,023)
Increase (decrease) in net pension liability (14,375) (70,960) - (36,623) - (121,958)
Increase (decrease) in claims and judgements - - (81,560) - - (81,560)
Total adjustments 877,769 17,548 (79,873) (3,595) (82,887) 728,962
Net cash flows from operating activities 69,435$ (82,926)$ 116,864$ 11,961$ (113,294)$ 2,040$
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
- 111 -
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
Fiduciary Funds are used to report assets held in a trustee or agency capacity for others
and therefore cannot be used to support the government’s own programs. Agency funds
are custodial in nature (assets equal liabilities) and do not involve measurements of
results of operations.
Building Permit – Surcharges Fund is maintained to account for surcharges collected for
the state and to remit these funds to them.
Escrow Fund is maintained to account for various deposits, mainly contractors’ deposits,
to guarantee work performance improvements required by the City.
Snowmobile – Boat Licenses Fund accounts for monies collected for registration of
snowmobile and boat licenses and remits these funds to the Department of Natural
Resources.
Motor Vehicle Licenses Fund accounts for monies collected for registration and license
fees of motor vehicles and remits these funds to the State of Minnesota.
- 112 -
CITY OF RICHFIELD
COMBINING STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
December 31, 2018
Statement 35
Building Snowmobile Total
Permit Escrow Boat Fiduciary
Surcharges Fund Licenses Funds
Assets
Cash and investments 1,177$ 590,465$ 2,868$ 594,510$
1,177$ 590,465$ 2,868$ 594,510$
Liabilities
Due to other governments 1,177$ -$ 2,868$ 4,045$
Deposits - 590,465 - 590,465
Total Liabilities 1,177$ 590,465$ 2,868$ 594,510$
Agency Funds
- 113 -
Statement 36
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
Balance Balance
January 1,December 31,
2018 Additions Deductions 2018
BUILDING PERMIT SURCHARGES
ASSETS
Cash and investments 1,727$ 33,687$ 34,237$ 1,177$
LIABILITIES
Due to other governments 1,727$ 67,363$ 67,913$ 1,177$
ESCROW FUND
ASSETS
Cash and investments 593,029$ 399,189$ 401,753$ 590,465$
LIABILITIES
Deposits 593,029$ 399,011$ 401,575$ 590,465$
SNOWMOBILE - BOAT LICENSES
ASSETS
Cash and investments 3,040$ 56,404$ 56,576$ 2,868$
LIABILITIES
Due to other governments 3,040$ 56,404$ 56,576$ 2,868$
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSES
ASSETS
Cash and investments -$ 19,685,178$ 19,685,178$ -$
LIABILITIES
Due to other governments -$ 19,685,178$ 19,685,178$ -$
TOTAL - ALL AGENCY FUNDS
ASSETS
Cash and investments 597,796$ 20,174,458$ 20,177,744$ 594,510$
TOTAL ASSETS 597,796$ 20,174,458$ 20,177,744$ 594,510$
LIABILITIES
Due to other governments 4,767 19,808,945 19,809,667 4,045
Deposits 593,029 399,011 401,575 590,465
TOTAL LIABILITIES 597,796$ 20,207,956$ 20,211,242$ 594,510$
- 114 -
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
- 115 -
SUPPLEMENTARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
- 116 -
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Statement 37
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
COMBINED BALANCE SHEET
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
December 31, 2018
Special Capital
General Revenue Projects Total
ASSETS & DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Cash and investments 1,797,042$ 1,592,273$ 7,161,375$ 10,550,690$
Due from other governments 3,693 14,434 17,581 35,708
Accounts receivable - 6,065 99,442 105,507
Taxes receivable 5,892 - - 5,892
Assets held for resale - 31,744 1,866,563 1,898,307
Restricted cash - 39,245 - 39,245
Long term second mortgage receivable 173,660 2,221,559 - 2,395,219
Allowance for doubtful accounts (173,660) (2,221,559) - (2,395,219)
Total Assets 1,806,627$ 1,683,761$ 9,144,961$ 12,635,349$
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable 12,295$ 20,476$ 36,428$ 69,199$
Due to primary government 700,100 - - 700,100
Total Liabilities 712,395 20,476 36,428 769,299
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Unavailable revenue - property taxes 5,892$ -$ -$ 5,892$
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources 5,892 - - 5,892
Fund Balances:
Restricted - 73,645 5,272,344 5,345,989
Committed - 1,485,216 - 1,485,216
Assigned - 104,424 3,836,189 3,940,613
Unassigned 1,088,340 - - 1,088,340
Total Fund Balances 1,088,340 1,663,285 9,108,533 11,860,158
Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources
and Fund Balances 1,806,627$ 1,683,761$ 9,144,961$ 12,635,349$
Fund balance reported above 11,860,158$
Allocation to reflect consolidation on internal service fund activities related to component unit (504,760)
Other long-term assets are not available to pay for current period
expenditures and therefore, are deferred in component unit funds.
Delinquent property taxes 5,892
Net position of component unit activities 11,361,290$
- 117 -
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Statement 38
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES,
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
For the Year December 31, 2018
Special Capital
General Revenue Projects Total
Revenues:
Taxes 566,945$ -$ 4,997,404$ 5,564,349$
Intergovernmental revenue 7,900 1,635,797 40,022 1,683,719
Investment income 22,419 21,448 120,132 163,999
Miscellaneous revenues 111,056 74,571 581,490 767,117
Total Revenues 708,320 1,731,816 5,739,048 8,179,184
Expenditures -
Current:
Personnel services 257,987 152,803 315,018 725,808
Other services and charges 139,379 1,564,992 3,168,175 4,872,546
Capital outlay - - 3,801,986 3,801,986
Total Expenditures 397,366 1,717,795 7,285,179 9,400,340
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
over Expenditures 310,954 14,021 (1,546,131) (1,221,156)
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfers in:
General Fund - 33,852 3,000 36,852
Capital Project Funds - - 589,559 589,559
Transfers out:
Special Revenue Funds (33,852) - - (33,852)
Capital Project Funds (3,000) - (589,559) (592,559)
Net Other Financing Sources (Uses) (36,852) 33,852 3,000 -
Net Changes in Fund Balances 274,102 47,873 (1,543,131) (1,221,156)
Fund Balances - January 1 814,238 1,615,412 10,651,664
Fund Balances - December 31 1,088,340$ 1,663,285$ 9,108,533$
Adjustment to reflect the consolidation of internal service fund activities related to component unit (11,935)
Adjustment to reflect the change in other long-term assets not available to pay current
period expenditures (350)
Change in net positon of component unit activities (1,233,441)$
- 118 -
Statement 39
Current assets 2018
113 Cash 39,245$
128 Fraud recovery 13,109
128.1 Allowance for doubtful accounts - fraud (7,044)
190 Total assets 45,310$
Current liabilities
312 Accounts payable <= 90 days 525$
331 Accounts payable - PHA projects 2,884
310 Total current liabilities 3,409
509.3 Fund balance restricted 25,080
512.3 Unassigned fund balance 16,821
513 Total fund balance 41,901
600 Total liabilities and fund balance 45,310$
Note: Financial Data Schedules - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
The City has presented the financial data schedules for its Housing and
Redevelopment Authority. These schedules are presented on a modified accrual
basis of accounting. The information in these schedules is presented in
accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office
of Public Housing (HUD) and Indian Housing, Real Estate Assessment Center and
the Financial Assessment Subsystem - Public Housing (FASS-PH). Accordingly,
some of the amounts presented in these schedules may differ from the amounts
presented in, or used in the preparation of, the City's basic financial statements.
Liabilities and Fund Balance
City of Richfield
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - Housing Choice Vouchers
Financial Data Schedule
Balance Sheet
December 31, 2018
Assets
- 119 -
Statement 40Housing and Redevelopment Authority - Housing Choice Vouchers
Revenue 2018
70600 HUD PHA operating grants 1,586,730$
71500 Other revenue 535,762
70000 Total revenue 2,122,492
Operating expenses
Administrative expenses
91100 Administrative salaries 99,322
91500 Employee benefit contributions - administrative 53,481
91600 Office expenses 35,342
91000 Total operating administrative expenses 188,145
General expenses
96200 Other general expenses 27,358
27,358
96900 Total operating expenses 215,503
Excess of operating revenue over operating expenses 1,906,989
Other expenses
97300 Housing assistance payments 1,386,521
97350 HAP Portability-in 500,371
90000 Total other expenses 1,886,892
Other financing sources
10030 Operating Transfers from Primary Government 12,789 10100 Total Other financing sources 12,789
Net increase (decrease) in net position 32,886
Net position - beginning 9,015
Net position - ending 41,901$
Memo account information
11170 Administrative fee equity 16,821
11180 Housing assstance payments equity 25,080
Total net position 41,901$
11190 Unit months available 2,411
11210 Number of unit months leased 2,327
The City has presented the financial data schedules for its Housing and
Redevelopment Authority. These schedules are presented on a modified accrual
basis of accounting. The information in these schedules is presented in accordance
with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public
Housing (HUD) and Indian Housing, Real Estate Assessment Center and the
Financial Assessment Subsystem - Public Housing (FASS-PH). Accordingly, some of
the amounts presented in these schedules may differ from the amounts presented in,
or used in the preparation of, the City's basic financial statements.
City of Richfield
Financial Data Schedule
Income Statement
For the year ended December 31, 2018
Note: Financial Data Schedules - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
- 120 -
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Statement 41
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
BALANCE SHEET
GENERAL FUND
December 31, 2018
ASSETS & DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Cash and investments 259,240$
Due from other governments 3,303
Taxes receivable 5,760
Long term second mortgage receivable 100,185
Allowance for doubtful accounts (100,185)
Total Assets 268,303$
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts payable 37,942$
Total Liabilities 37,942
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Unavailable revenue - property taxes 5,760$
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources 5,760
Fund Balances:
Unassigned 224,601
Total Fund Balances 224,601
Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources
and Fund Balances 268,303$
Fund balance reported above 224,601$
Other long-term assets are not available to pay for current period
expenditures and therefore, are deferred in component unit funds.
Delinquent property taxes 5,760
Net position of component unit activities 230,361$
- 121 -
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Statement 42
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES,
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
GENERAL FUND
For the Year December 31, 2018
Revenues:
Taxes 554,247$
Investment income 1,238
Miscellaneous revenues 2,700
Total Revenues 558,185
Expenditures -
Current:
Personnel services 57,296
Other services and charges 276,288
Total Expenditures 333,584
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
over Expenditures 224,601
Net Changes in Fund Balances 224,601
Fund Balances - January 1 -
Fund Balances - December 31 224,601$
Adjustment to reflect the change in other long-term assets not available to pay current
period expenditures 5,760
Change in net positon of component unit activities 230,361$
- 122 -
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
- 123 -
III. STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED)
This part of the City of Richfield’s comprehensive annual financial report
presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the
information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required
supplementary information says about the government’s overall financial
health.
Financial Trends These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand
how the government’s financial performance and well-being have changed
over time.
Revenue Capacity These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the
government’s most significant local revenue source, the property tax.
Debt Capacity These schedules present information to help the reader assess the
affordability of the government’s current levels of outstanding debt and the
government’s ability to issue additional debt in the future.
Demographic and Economic Information These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the
reader understand the environment within which the government’s
financial activities take place.
Operating Information These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader
understand how the information in the government’s financial report
relates to the services the government provides and the activities it
performs.
- 124 -
Schedule 1
City of Richfield
Net Position by Components
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
Note: The City implemented GASB Statement No. 68 and GASB Statement No. 71 in 2015. Years prior to 2015 have not been restated.
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Governmental activities
Net investment in capital assets 45,358,789$ 45,717,964$ 50,996,302$ 50,719,652$ 48,633,166$ 53,868,489$ 53,489,119$ 51,478,014$ 46,432,821$ 44,695,707$
Restricted 18,955,821 18,729,736 4,106,339 4,773,505 2,824,310 3,625,019 6,159,180 3,093,111 3,388,199 6,336,024
Unrestricted 3,825,158 4,861,701 14,489,164 16,420,037 20,321,278 17,269,452 5,339,294 (428,034) (4,174,406) (8,092,783)
Total governmental activities net position 68,139,768$ 69,309,401$ 69,591,805$ 71,913,194$ 71,778,754$ 74,762,960$ 64,987,593$ 54,143,091$ 45,646,614$ 42,938,948$
Business-type activities
Net investment in capital assets 21,000,169$ 20,297,510$ 18,768,234$ 18,482,474$ 19,212,879$ 14,105,007$ 14,610,034$ 16,757,963$ 19,656,557$ 23,309,355$
Restricted 272,507 272,507 272,507 272,507 272,507 - - - - -
Unrestricted 3,147,419 3,380,134 4,457,373 5,062,397 3,890,596 9,019,091 2,723,163 2,429,606 4,155,490 4,418,358
Total business-type activities net position 24,420,095$ 23,950,151$ 23,498,114$ 23,817,378$ 23,375,982$ 23,124,098$ 17,333,197$ 19,187,569$ 23,812,047$ 27,727,713$
Primary government
Net investment in capital assets 66,358,958$ 66,015,474$ 69,764,536$ 69,202,126$ 67,846,045$ 67,973,496$ 68,099,153$ 68,235,977$ 60,155,878$ 59,206,662$
Restricted 19,228,328 19,002,243 4,378,846 5,046,012 3,096,817 3,625,019 6,159,180 3,093,111 3,388,199 6,336,024
Unrestricted 6,972,577 8,241,835 18,946,537 21,482,434 24,211,874 26,288,543 8,062,457 2,001,572 5,914,584 5,123,975
Total primary government net position 92,559,863$ 93,259,552$ 93,089,919$ 95,730,572$ 95,154,736$ 97,887,058$ 82,320,790$ 73,330,660$ 69,458,661$ 70,666,661$ - 125 -
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
- 126 -
Note: The City implemented GASB Statement No. 68 and GASB Statement No. 71 in 2015. Years prior to 2015 have not been restated.
Schedule 2
City of Richfield
Changes in Net Position
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Expenses
Governmental activities:
General government 2,435,317$ 2,241,131$ 2,871,668$ 2,874,868$ 3,042,891$ 3,102,253$ 3,112,271$ 3,503,975$ 3,261,312$ 3,205,714$
Public safety 9,220,252 7,956,850 8,337,565 8,207,554 8,369,982 8,010,123 8,367,770 11,080,522 9,430,593 8,576,956
Fire 2,849,347 3,375,222 3,342,834 3,427,929 3,365,043 3,757,653 4,114,362 5,766,379 4,275,793 4,381,882
Community development 143,142 1,118,218 1,145,063 1,136,623 1,322,175 1,360,558 1,390,908 1,489,202 1,364,675 1,552,826
Public Works 30,589,925 7,310,898 6,837,282 7,076,058 9,545,980 9,647,341 15,932,128 16,161,254 15,028,590 13,039,259
Parks and recreation 2,260,043 1,943,071 2,118,937 2,015,873 2,154,180 3,882,319 3,973,233 4,244,085 4,142,433 4,308,628
Interest on long-term debt 1,684,937 1,569,436 1,534,727 1,496,022 1,196,968 1,220,893 1,118,400 1,786,750 1,751,627 1,563,101
Total governmental activities expenses 49,182,963$ 25,514,826$ 26,188,076$ 26,234,927$ 28,997,219$ 30,981,140$ 38,009,072$ 44,032,167$ 39,255,023$ 36,628,366$
Business-type activities
Liquor 10,454,379$ 10,231,138$ 10,309,292$ 10,799,198$ 10,308,021$ 10,639,175$ 10,246,033$ 10,018,719$ 10,729,098$ 10,824,828$
Water and sewer utility 6,402,596 6,543,019 6,698,270 6,699,992 7,217,814 7,271,227 7,503,496 8,067,365 7,957,436 8,262,064
Storm sewer utility 1,158,998 1,099,575 1,056,249 1,167,332 1,260,211 1,220,584 1,263,819 1,462,684 1,623,854 1,720,653
Recreation Fund 1,701,676 1,671,877 1,680,331 1,679,838 1,745,104 - - - - -
Street Light utility 1,640 - - - - - - - - -
Total business-type activities expenses 19,719,289 19,545,609 19,744,142 20,346,360 20,531,150 19,130,986 19,013,348 19,548,768 20,310,388 20,807,545
Total primary government expenses 68,902,252$ 45,060,435$ 45,932,218$ 46,581,287$ 49,528,369$ 50,112,126$ 57,022,420$ 63,580,935$ 59,565,411$ 57,435,911$
Program Revenues
Governmental activities:
Charges for services:
General government 404,782$ 398,787$ 438,427$ 514,721$ 545,092$ 672,182$ 795,899$ 830,145$ 762,824$ 793,277$
Public safety 1,484,728 689,767 752,083 683,347 822,423 837,168 828,737 640,411 721,376 750,959
Fire 21,150 15,589 14,376 15,899 12,140 25,905 13,605 18,180 14,414 3,740
Community development 10,325 1,038,020 967,780 1,188,057 985,884 1,305,144 1,146,164 1,383,804 1,289,746 1,696,677
Public Works 19,698 15,205 277,224 290,307 309,848 308,784 307,611 309,235 309,361 317,813
Parks and recreation 326,746 381,511 396,727 413,146 419,164 1,608,943 1,721,646 1,751,634 1,694,849 1,868,941
Total Charges for services 2,267,429 2,538,879 2,846,617 3,105,477 3,094,551 4,758,126 4,813,662 4,933,409 4,792,570 5,431,407
Operating grants and contributions:
Public safety 787,410 1,003,961 767,708 813,807 776,911 852,230 818,401 906,083 823,813 880,202
Fire 138,196 129,055 288,954 275,595 163,949 141,794 150,837 161,310 178,447 179,543
Public Works 257,775 268,305 292,677 337,167 328,310 453,428 316,893 338,323 338,043 338,043
Parks and recreation 34,938 3,494 8,947 22,180 26,396 2,032 19,261 28,611 10,397 65,745
Total Operating grants and contributions 1,218,319 1,404,815 1,358,286 1,448,749 1,295,566 1,449,484 1,305,392 1,434,327 1,350,700 1,463,533
Capital grants and contributions:
Public safety - - 20,000 - - - - - - -
Community development 1,546,075 1,549,542 1,559,732 2,029,215 820,737 861,086 868,587 869,352 873,056 869,366
Public Works 26,141,406 2,012,957 1,216,632 1,180,578 1,764,952 2,174,565 5,266,238 3,864,463 2,449,438 2,721,336
Parks and recreation 200,248 116,030 - 11,971 - 30,253 - - - -
Total Capital grants and contributions 27,887,729 3,678,529 2,796,364 3,221,764 2,585,689 3,065,904 6,134,825 4,733,815 3,322,494 3,590,702
Total governmental activities program revenues 31,373,477$ 7,622,223$ 7,001,267$ 7,775,990$ 6,975,806$ 9,273,514$ 12,253,879$ 11,101,551$ 9,465,764$ 10,485,642$ - 127 -
Note: The City implemented GASB Statement No. 68 and GASB Statement No. 71 in 2015. Years prior to 2015 have not been restated.
Schedule 2 (cont.)
City of Richfield
Changes in Position
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Business-type activities
Charges for services:
Liquor 11,349,563$ 11,117,676$ 11,198,404$ 11,807,489$ 11,137,402$ 11,500,417$ 10,859,642$ 10,457,318$ 11,351,640$ 11,561,557$
Water & Sewer 5,703,187 6,099,325 6,525,152 6,940,791 7,008,087 7,222,179 7,314,887 7,647,683 8,023,101 8,648,729
Storm Sewer 936,509 980,077 991,950 1,238,267 1,117,761 1,204,476 1,181,739 1,352,699 1,495,191 1,768,394
Recreation Activities 1,293,946 1,248,111 1,196,110 1,131,040 1,120,189 - - - - -
Street Light utility 82,832 274,182 - - - - - - - -
Capital Grants & Contributions - - - - - - 200,000 - - -
Total business-type activities program revenues 19,366,037 19,719,371 19,911,616 21,117,587 20,383,439 19,927,072 19,556,268 19,457,700 20,869,932 21,978,680
Total primary government program revenues 50,739,514 27,341,594 26,912,883 28,893,577 27,359,245 29,200,586 31,810,147 30,559,251 30,335,696 32,464,322
Net (Expense) Revenue
Governmental activities (17,809,486) (17,892,603) (19,186,809) (18,458,937) (22,021,413) (21,707,626) (25,755,193) (32,930,616) (29,789,259) (26,142,724)
Business-type activities (353,252) 173,762 167,474 771,227 (147,711) 796,086 542,920 (91,068) 559,544 1,171,135
Total primary government net expense (18,162,738)$ (17,718,841)$ (19,019,335)$ (17,687,710)$ (22,169,124)$ (20,911,540)$ (25,212,273)$ (33,021,684)$ (29,229,715)$ (24,971,589)$
General Revenues and other changes in Net Position
Governmental activities
Property taxes 13,631,513$ 14,522,676$ 15,276,804$ 17,025,767$ 17,985,988$ 18,613,321$ 18,388,710$ 18,398,414$ 19,075,553$ 20,019,144$
Franchise taxes 1,055,073 1,161,200 1,236,825 1,259,670 1,304,716 1,973,751 2,230,602 2,260,122 2,264,759 2,242,216
Unrestricted grants and contributions 2,719,211 1,320,480 1,319,307 1,230,268 1,223,981 1,937,907 2,054,379 2,084,057 2,094,443 2,229,280
Others 836,787 1,214,910 846,105 631,131 710,988 809,564 1,069,172 940,134 1,573,837 1,772,578
Transfers 629,031 842,970 790,172 633,490 661,300 866,460 1,009,749 (1,596,613) (3,715,810) (2,727,229)
Total governmental activities 18,871,615 19,062,236 19,469,213 20,780,326 21,886,973 24,201,003 24,752,612 22,086,114 21,292,782 23,535,989
Business-type activities
Others 263,689 199,264 170,661 181,527 481,633 309,319 335,616 348,827 349,124 434,240
Transfers (629,031) (842,970) (790,172) (633,490) (661,300) (866,460) (1,009,749) 1,596,613 3,715,810 2,727,229
Special item - - - - - - - - - (93,263)
Total business-type activities (365,342) (643,706) (619,511) (451,963) (179,667) (557,141) (674,133) 1,945,440 4,064,934 3,068,206
Total primary government 18,506,273$ 18,418,530$ 18,849,702$ 20,328,363$ 21,707,306$ 23,643,862$ 24,078,479$ 24,031,554$ 25,357,716$ 26,604,195$
Changes in Net Position
Governmental activities 1,062,129$ 1,169,633$ 282,404$ 2,321,389$ (134,440)$ 2,493,377$ (1,002,581)$ (10,844,502)$ (8,496,477)$ (2,606,735)$
Business-type activities (718,594) (469,944) (452,037) 319,264 (327,378) 238,945 (131,213) 1,854,372 4,624,478 4,239,341
Total primary government 343,535$ 699,689$ (169,633)$ 2,640,653$ (461,818)$ 2,732,322$ (1,133,794)$ (8,990,130)$ (3,871,999)$ 1,632,606$ - 128 -
Schedule 3
City of Richfield
Fund Balance, Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
General Fund
Reserved 91,326$ 73,146$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Unreserved 6,683,584 6,756,678 - - - - - - - -
Nonspendable - - 67,919 72,531 72,413 83,241 85,424 76,593 82,273 91,050
Unassigned - - 6,886,065 7,235,983 7,679,767 8,414,671 8,601,783 8,625,011 8,672,054 8,719,246
Total general fund 6,774,910$ 6,829,824$ 6,953,984$ 7,308,514$ 7,752,180$ 8,497,912$ 8,687,207$ 8,701,604$ 8,754,327$ 8,810,296$
All Other Governmental Funds
Reserved
Advances to other funds -$ 908,750$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Prepaid items 20,275 20,275 - - - - - - - -
Debt service 3,860,116 10,850,982 - - - - - - - -
Unreserved, reported in
Special revenue funds 10,603,383 3,195,982 - - - - - - - -
Capital project funds 17,748,413 12,261,522 - - - - - - - -
Nonspendable - - 20,275 7,330 7,330 7,330 7,330 7,330 7,330 7,330
Restricted - - 2,682,735 3,198,047 3,360,006 3,477,447 6,195,103 14,300,168 10,990,575 14,128,908
Committed - - 6,010,283 6,469,737 6,703,091 7,409,218 9,417,154 13,209,935 11,585,895 13,784,178
Assigned - - 4,728,247 4,826,523 7,539,435 7,385,044 12,653,949 6,844,543 7,921,533 8,234,215
Unassigned - - (66,244) (307,452) (217,010) (5,327,013) (5,155,757) (5,205,632) (5,244,580) (5,006,167)
Total all other government funds 32,232,187$ 27,237,511$ 13,375,296$ 14,194,185$ 17,392,852$ 12,952,026$ 23,117,779$ 29,156,344$ 25,260,753$ 31,148,464$
Note: The City implemented GASB Statement 54 in 2011. This information is not available for previous years. - 129 -
Schedule 4
City of Richfield
Changes in Fund Balance, Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Revenues
Property taxes 13,614,364$ 14,583,414$ 15,436,001$ 16,975,557$ 18,116,437$ 18,370,724$ 18,407,060$ 18,357,209$ 19,112,961$ 20,041,028$
Franchise taxes 1,055,073 1,161,200 1,236,825 1,259,670 1,304,716 1,973,751 2,230,602 2,260,122 2,264,759 2,242,216
Special assessments 386,977 356,068 332,974 338,582 295,384 975,724 222,667 194,607 206,140 202,308
Fees and fines 389,819 415,624 447,611 377,343 467,095 493,947 442,278 279,437 345,143 363,806
License and permits 733,326 901,746 810,617 928,747 938,455 1,030,746 985,367 1,124,025 1,061,107 1,385,288
Intergovernmental 31,506,661 6,088,027 5,262,097 5,502,036 4,903,648 5,486,032 9,272,706 7,971,353 6,526,885 6,995,230
Charges for services 1,144,284 1,221,509 1,588,389 1,799,387 1,689,001 3,233,433 3,386,017 3,529,947 3,386,320 3,682,313
Investment earnings 240,971 178,949 95,422 58,402 35,355 62,931 56,206 157,444 247,818 685,353
Miscellaneous 535,604 997,545 723,012 530,813 638,488 726,303 980,395 719,430 1,254,319 951,055
Total revenues 49,607,079 25,904,082 25,932,948 27,770,537 28,388,579 32,353,591 35,983,298 34,593,574 34,405,452 36,548,597
Expenditures
General government 2,075,721 2,055,395 2,098,161 2,184,584 2,207,715 2,478,487 2,523,323 2,602,322 2,633,435 2,652,810
Police 8,320,110 7,607,999 7,972,936 7,886,426 8,228,719 7,761,398 7,936,351 8,310,386 8,330,682 8,756,038
Fire 3,153,679 3,230,065 3,251,870 3,283,640 3,495,925 3,561,443 3,845,082 4,056,978 4,140,668 4,237,354
Community Development 220,912 1,075,950 1,092,855 1,096,509 1,215,361 1,297,986 1,337,103 1,330,766 1,349,571 1,471,067
Public Works 29,253,543 5,313,266 4,727,177 4,854,365 7,244,947 7,424,484 13,814,201 13,457,283 12,643,244 10,834,054
Recreation services 1,712,717 1,725,477 1,815,018 1,756,185 1,795,561 3,207,929 3,282,355 3,382,122 3,379,327 3,615,978
Capital outlay 113,155 73,903 202,064 101,130 48,636 1,128,508 523,092 743,485 549,084 890,219
Construction/acquisition cost 2,879,275 14,801,527 8,471,460 3,217,198 1,934,877 1,215,892 1,840,072 2,207,711 4,087,867 3,551,094
Debt service:
Principal 1,285,000 1,600,000 1,955,000 2,850,000 1,830,000 2,760,000 2,565,000 2,125,000 8,140,000 2,365,000
Interest and other charges 1,424,744 1,726,989 1,637,254 1,602,365 1,230,904 1,257,263 1,271,643 1,563,351 1,699,998 1,597,997
Total expenditures 50,438,856 39,210,571 33,223,795 28,832,402 29,232,645 32,093,390 38,938,222 39,779,404 46,953,876 39,971,611
Excess of revenues
over (under) expenditures (831,777) (13,306,489) (7,290,847) (1,061,865) (844,066) 260,201 (2,954,924) (5,185,830) (12,548,424) (3,423,014)
Other Financing Sources(Uses)
Bonds issued 4,550,000 7,855,000 - 5,090,000 3,120,000 - 9,100,000 11,215,000 12,175,000 9,770,000
Premium (Discounts) on debt issued (22,339) 146,587 - 20,307 76,365 - 278,526 516,582 319,366 151,774
Proceeds from sale of capital assets - - - - 6,804 - - - - -
Payments to refunded bond escrow agent - - (6,610,000) (2,705,000) - - - - (2,950,000) -
Transfers in 6,579,328 11,890,481 2,458,913 5,016,917 5,773,029 3,333,711 11,965,883 4,368,205 5,333,223 11,296,324
Transfers out (6,478,297) (11,525,341) (2,296,121) (5,186,940) (5,806,099) (3,227,251) (11,848,134) (4,860,995) (6,172,033) (11,851,404)
Total other financing sources(uses)4,628,692 8,366,727 (6,447,208) 2,235,284 3,170,099 106,460 9,496,275 11,238,792 8,705,556 9,366,694
Net change in fund balances 3,796,915$ (4,939,762)$ (13,738,055)$ 1,173,419$ 2,326,033$ 366,661$ 6,541,351$ 6,052,962$ (3,842,868)$ 5,943,680$
Debt service as a percentage
of noncapital expenditures 5.7%13.7%14.6%17.5%11.2%13.5%10.5%10.0%23.3%11.1%- 130 -
Schedule 5
City of Richfield
Assessed Value and Actual Value of Taxable Property
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(in thousand of dollars)
Total Taxable Total Total
Year Ended Residential Commercial Industrial Assessed Estimated Direct
December 31 Property Property Property Value Market Value Tax Rate (1)
2009 2,387,793 584,442 5,655 2,977,890 3,214,994 44.33%
2010 2,198,407 508,244 4,985 2,711,636 2,990,148 49.79%
2011 1,954,100 497,407 4,913 2,456,420 2,669,488 56.80%
2012 1,816,389 489,491 7,992 2,313,872 2,534,910 62.56%
2013 1,934,597 507,270 7,902 2,449,769 2,672,791 65.67%
2014 1,971,484 548,560 7,859 2,527,903 2,736,099 66.17%
2015 2,061,584 577,408 12,690 2,651,682 2,854,982 61.66%
2016 2,260,137 605,362 13,567 2,879,066 3,091,380 62.66%
2017 2,462,327 582,035 14,300 3,058,662 3,263,103 58.41%
2018 2,768,600 612,983 18,206 3,399,789 3,566,514 54.31%
Source: Hennepin County Finance Department
(1) Includes both City and Housing and Redevelopment Authority Rates.- 131 -
Schedule 6
City of Richfield
Property Tax Rates-Direct and Overlapping Governments
Per $1,000 of Assessed Value or Tax Capacity
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Total Direct
Fiscal Total School Hennepin Metropolitan & Overlapping
Year General Debt HRA City District County Agencies Rates
2009 37.91%4.62%1.81%44.33%23.08%40.41%7.15%114.98%
2010 41.22%6.73%1.83%49.79%23.60%42.64%8.14%124.16%
2011 48.60%6.39%1.81%56.80%26.76%45.84%9.17%138.57%
2012 54.21%6.59%1.76%62.56%28.89%48.23%9.52%149.21%
2013 56.77%7.29%1.60%65.67%31.01%49.46%10.09%156.23%
2014 56.79%7.67%1.71%66.17%34.14%49.95%10.58%160.83%
2015 53.17%6.97%1.53%61.66%26.66%46.40%9.79%144.50%
2016 53.19%7.80%1.67%62.66%28.77%45.36%9.53%146.32%
2017 50.18%6.67%1.56%58.41%27.05%44.09%9.32%138.87%
2018 45.11%7.75%1.45%54.31%32.90%41.66%8.51%137.38%
Source: Hennepin County Assessing Office
Overlapping RatesDirect City Rates
- 132 -
Schedule 7
City of Richfield
Principal Property Tax Payers
Source: Hennepin County Assessing Office
Percentage Percentage
of Total City of Total City
Assessed Value/Tax Capacity Assessed Value/Tax Capacity
Tax payer Tax Capacity Rank Value Tax payer Tax Capacity Rank Value
Best Buy 2,369,250$ 1 6.28%Best Buy 5,156,464$ 1 13.18%
Meridian Crossings LLC 1,176,206 2 3.12%Ohio Teacher Retirement System 1,998,719 2 5.11%
JIW Inc 773,030 3 2.05%CSM Corporation 963,777 3 2.46%
Crossroads at Penn LLC 764,875 4 2.03%CSM Shops, Inc.758,658 4 1.94%
Menards, Inc.379,250 5 1.00%CP Gal Richfield LLC 740,132 5 1.89%
Brixmor SPE 1, LLC 370,570 6 0.98%Centro Bradley SPE 1 LLC 684,346 6 1.75%
City Bella 362,484 7 0.96%Target Corporation 594,100 7 1.52%
CSM Corporation 338,250 8 0.90%Wood Lake-Vef IV LLC 534,483 8 1.37%
Gramercy Park 327,326 9 0.87%Crossroads at Penn LLC 453,859 9 1.16%
DRFC Southdale Square LLC 298,850 10 0.79%Principal Life Insurance Co. 439,943 10 1.12%
Total 7,160,091$ 18.97%Total 12,324,481$ 31.50%
2018 2009
- 133 -
Schedule 8
City of Richfield
Property Tax Levies and Collections
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Percent of Percent of
Net Total Percent Delinquent Total Tax Outstanding Delinquent
Fiscal Property Current Tax of Levy Tax Total Tax Collections Delinquent Taxes to
Year Tax Levy (1)Collections Collected Collections Collections to Tax Levy Taxes Tax Levy
2009 13,664,697 13,502,685 98.8%- 13,502,685 98.8%- 0.0%
2010 14,575,518 14,464,099 99.2%- 14,464,099 99.2%- 0.0%
2011 16,037,434 15,901,906 99.2%- 15,901,906 99.2%- 0.0%
2012 17,477,266 17,261,829 98.8%- 17,261,829 98.8%- 0.0%
2013 17,744,951 17,631,536 99.4%(20,382) 17,611,154 99.2%(9,974) -0.1%
2014 18,012,303 17,933,454 99.6%(11,280) 17,922,174 99.5%9,597 0.1%
2015 18,745,569 18,685,167 99.7%(9,270) 18,675,897 99.6%18,200 0.1%
2016 19,125,557 19,001,616 99.4%6,554 19,008,170 99.4%35,749 0.2%
2017 19,664,285 19,568,641 99.5%(24,223) 19,544,418 99.4%37,279 0.2%
2018 21,083,735 20,972,448 99.5%- 20,972,448 99.5%156,961 0.7%
Notes:(1) Net amount certified to County after credits and adjustments.
- 134 -
Schedule 9
City of Richfield
Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type
Last Ten Fiscal Years
G.O. Total Percentage Debt
Redevelopment Improvement Capital Storm Sewer Ice Arena Water & Sewer Water Primary of Personal Per
Year Bonds Bonds Notes Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Government Income Capita
2009 12,120,000 22,975,000 515,000 2,350,000 1,110,000 5,660,000 - 44,730,000 - 1,321
2010 17,500,000 24,105,000 260,000 2,260,000 1,035,000 5,440,000 - 50,600,000 - 1,436
2011 10,205,000 23,095,000 - 2,170,000 955,000 5,210,000 1,480,000 43,115,000 - 1,219
2012 8,955,000 23,880,000 - 2,075,000 870,000 4,975,000 1,480,000 42,235,000 - 1,174
2013 8,340,000 25,785,000 4,790,431 780,000 4,730,000 1,428,526 45,853,957 - 1,274
2014 7,685,000 24,460,000 - 4,557,831 - 4,475,000 1,368,326 42,546,157 - 1,180
2015 7,020,000 31,989,510 - 5,983,079 - 4,210,000 5,273,618 54,476,207 - 1,507
2016 6,340,000 42,212,887 - 7,150,861 - - 5,194,818 60,898,566 - 1,666
2017 5,645,000 44,228,837 - 6,896,061 - - 4,846,018 61,615,916 - 1,696
2018 4,940,000 52,399,608 - 6,516,261 - - 4,457,218 68,313,087 - 1,869
Note:
Note: Information on personal income is not available.
Government Activities
Details regarding the city's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial
Business Type Activities
- 135 -
Schedule 10
City of Richfield
Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Less: Amounts
General Available in Percentage of
Fiscal Obligation Redevelopment Debt Service Net Actual Taxable Per
Year Bonds Bonds Total Fund Total Value of Property (1)Capita (2)
2009 23,490,000 12,120,000 35,610,000 3,860,116 31,749,884 1.07%938
2010 24,365,000 17,500,000 41,865,000 10,850,982 31,014,018 1.14%880
2011 23,095,000 10,205,000 33,300,000 2,006,261 31,293,739 1.27%885
2012 23,880,000 8,955,000 32,835,000 1,525,230 31,309,770 1.35%870
2013 25,785,000 8,340,000 34,125,000 1,680,344 32,444,656 1.32%902
2014 24,460,000 7,685,000 32,145,000 2,388,013 29,756,987 1.18%826
2015 31,989,510 7,020,000 39,009,510 1,653,862 37,355,648 1.41%1,033
2016 42,212,887 6,340,000 48,552,887 2,192,838 46,360,049 1.61%1,268
2017 44,228,837 5,645,000 49,873,837 1,904,043 47,969,794 1.57%1,320
2018 52,399,608 4,940,000 57,339,608 2,356,747 54,982,861 1.62%1,505
Note: Details regarding the city's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements.
(1) Total Taxable Assessed Value can be found in Schedule 5.
(2) Population data can be found in Schedule 14. - 136 -
Schedule 11
City of Richfield
Direct and Overlapping Governmental Activities Debt
As of December 31, 2018
Percentage Amount
Net Debt Applicable to Applicable to
Jurisdiction Outstanding (1)City of Richfield (2)City of Richfield
City of Richfield 52,806,152$ 100.00%52,806,152$
Hennepin County 1,056,890,798$ 2.00%21,137,816$
Independent School District #280, Richfield, MN 134,390,184 70.39%94,597,251
Hennepin Suburb Park District 43,575,708 2.80%1,220,120
Hennepin Regional RR Authority 24,600,380 2.80%688,811
Metropolitan Council 75,902,689 0.95%721,076
1,335,359,759$ 118,365,072$
Total 1,388,165,911$ 171,171,224$
Source: Hennepin County Property Tax
Note: (1) Excludes Revenue bonds and Special Assessment bonds
(2) The percentage applicable to the City of Richfield was determined by dividing the portion of the tax capacity within the City by the total
tax capacity of the taxing jurisdiction.- 137 -
Schedule 12
City of Richfield
Legal Debt Margin Information
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(in thousand dollars)
Market Value of taxable property 3,399,789$
Debt Limit (3% of market value 101,994
of taxable property)
Total debt applicable to debt limit 50,769
Legal debt margin 51,225
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Debt limit 83,337$ 81,349$ 73,693$ 69,416$ 73,493$ 75,837$ 79,550$ 80,126$ 91,760$ 101,994$
Total debt applicable to limit 22,383 23,167 21,992 22,978 24,151 22,875 30,910 29,522 42,506 50,769
Legal debt margin 60,954$ 58,182$ 51,701$ 46,438$ 49,342$ 52,962$ 48,640$ 50,604$ 49,254$ 51,225$
Total net debt applicable to
the limit as a percentage of debt limit 26.86%28.48%29.84%33.10%32.86%30.16%38.86%36.84%46.32%49.78%
Legal Debt Margin Calculation for Fiscal Year 2018
- 138 -
Schedule 13
City of Richfield
Revenue Bond Coverage
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Direct Net Revenue
Fiscal Gross Operating Available for
Year Revenue Expenses (1)Debt Service Principal Interest Total Coverage
2009 7,579,089 (4)6,448,574 1,130,515 375,000 385,598 760,598 1.49
2010 7,967,431 (4)7,389,315 578,116 385,000 395,350 780,350 0.74
2011 8,441,735 (5)6,727,238 1,714,497 400,000 425,307 825,307 2.08
2012 9,026,205 (5)6,709,992 2,316,213 415,000 427,749 842,749 2.75
2013 9,246,037 (5)7,683,443 1,562,594 490,000 447,541 937,541 1.67
2014 8,426,655 (6)6,532,437 1,894,218 515,000 399,985 914,985 2.07
2015 8,496,626 (6)6,805,269 1,691,357 555,000 386,154 941,154 1.80
2016 4,929,871 (7)3,520,861 1,409,010 570,000 364,299 934,299 1.51
2017 5,195,297 (7)3,532,721 1,662,576 570,000 357,053 927,053 1.79
2018 5,771,247 (7)3,943,875 1,827,372 735,000 324,269 1,059,269 1.73
Notes: (1) Total operating expenses exclude depreciation
(2) Include principal and interest of revenue bonds only
(3) Storm sewer and Ice Arena bonds
(4) Storm sewer, Ice Arena, Water and Sewer revenue bonds
(5) Storm sewer, Ice Arena, Water and Sewer revenue bonds, and Water revenue bonds
(6)
(7)
Debt Service Requirements (2)
Storm sewer, Water and Sewer, and Water revenue bonds
Storm sewer and Water revenue bonds- 139 -
Schedule 14
City of Richfield
Demographic and Economic Statistics
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Personal Per
Income Capita Education
(thousands of Personal Median Level in Years School Unemployment
Year Population dollars)Income Age of Schooling Enrollment Rate
2009 33,859 3,995 6.7%
2010 35,228 3,980 6.4%
2011 35,376 4,131 5.8%
2012 35,979 4,388 4.3%
2013 36,041 4,405 3.8%
2014 36,154 4,396 3.0%
2015 36,557 4,302 2.6%
2016 36,338 4,235 3.2%
2017 36,338 4,231 2.7%
2018 36,554 4,127 2.1%
Sources:
Note:
Information on personal income, median age, and education levels is not available.
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, Metropolitan Council, and Richfield School District #280. - 140 -
Schedule 15
City of Richfield
Principal Employers
Percentage Percentage
No. of of Total City No. of of Total City
Employer Employees Rank Employment Employer Employees Rank Employment
Best Buy Corporate office 6,000 1 30.02%Best Buy Corporate office 5,200 1 28.50%
U.S. Bancorp 2,144 2 10.73%Independent School District 280 656 2 3.60%
Independent School District 280 719 3 3.60%ResCap Financial 530 3 2.90%
Target at Cedar Point Commons 350 4 1.75%Metro Sales Inc.243 4 1.33%
Metro Sales Inc.270 5 1.35%City of Richfield 205 5 1.12%
Fraser School 244 6 1.22%Best Buy Store at Shops at Lyndale 200 6 1.10%
Menards 200 7 1.00%Target at Cedar Point Commons 200 7 1.10%
City of Richfield 190 8 0.95%Richfield Health Center 122 8 0.67%
Headway Emotional Health Services 100 9 0.50%Metro Dental 119 9 0.65%
Weis Builders 75 10 0.38%Weiss Builders, Inc.119 10 0.65%
Total 10,292 51.49% Total 7,594 41.62%
Note: Employee totals include only employees with full time status.
Sources: Minnesota State Business Directory, Richfield Chamber of Commerce, and
the Minnesota Manufacturers Register.
2018 2009
- 141 -
Schedule 16
City of Richfield
Full-Time Equivalent City Employees by Function/Program
Last Ten Fiscal Years
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Function/Program
General government
Management services 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Finance 5 6 6 7 5 6 5 6 6 5
City Clerk 8 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 9 9
Assessing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Others 9 11 10 10 10 11 12 11 12 12
Public Safety
Police officers 45 46 46 46 46 46 48 48 49 48
Dispatchers 8 7 6 6 7 8 0 0 0 0
Others 12 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Fire
Fire fighters and officers 24 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 26
Community Development
Planning/Zoning 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Inspections 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9
Others 12 10 10 8 8 8 6 7 7 8
Public Works
Engineering 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4
Street and park maintenance 18 23 20 20 20 20 19 20 18 23
Forestry 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0
Others 8 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 6
Parks and recreation 18 18 17 18 18 33 33 32 32 34
Liquor 24 26 27 28 25 26 25 23 24 24
Water and Wastewater 14 18 18 18 18 18 17 16 18 19
Storm Water 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Recreation funds 16 16 15 15 15 0 0 0 0 0
Total 244 254 250 251 247 252 243 242 245 248
Source: City Administration Services office
Full Time Equivalent - inlcudes intermittent, seasonal, and part-time
employees adjusted to full time equivalent status.- 142 -
Schedule 17
City of Richfield
Operating Indications by Function/Program
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Function/Program 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Police
Physical arrest 493 571 468 451 490 404 435 471 489 591
Total Offenses Cited 6,650 6,179 5,535 5,172 6,653 7,274 5,764 4,486 4,818 5,315
Fire
Emergency responses 3,634 3,773 3,917 4,066 4,096 4,135 4,195 4,073 4,287 4,252
Fires extinguished 110 117 109 101 90 75 90 83 72 92
Other public works
Streets resurfacing (miles)3.21 3.68 - 0.50 0.20 - 14.30 15 16 14.4
Potholes repaired (tons of asphalt used)475.14 367.72 599.24 441.95 732.00 306.46 100.79 81.4 18.64 84.93
Parks and recreation
Athletic field permits issued 87 89 47 54 58 52 55 56 53 57
Water
New connections - - - 1 2 4 2 6 9 10
Connections eliminated (Redevelopment)- - - - - 17 4 18 3 -
Water main breaks 8 13 11 7 13 9 19 16 15 14
Average daily consumption 3.24 3.03 3.09 3.19 3.02 2.90 2.84 2.70 2.70 2.71
(million of gallons)
Peak daily consumption 6.75 5.63 5.90 6.81 6.24 6.01 4.97 4.80 5.23 5.26
(million of gallons)
Waste Water
Average daily sewage treatment 2.90 2.72 2.88 3.08 3.13 3.16 3.16 3.14 3.02 2.42
(million of gallons)
Sources: Various city departments
Note: Indicators are not available for the general government function- 143 -
Schedule 18
City of Richfield
Capital Asset Statistics by Function/Program
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Function/Program 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Police
Stations 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fire stations 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Other public works
Street (miles)125.19 125.19 123.43 123.43 123.43 123.43 123.43 123.43 123.43 123.43
Highway (miles)6.64 6.64 7.17 7.17 7.17 7.17 7.17 7.17 7.17 7.17
Street lights 3,183 3,184 3,183 3,183 3,349 3,349 3,349 3,349 3,349 3,349
Traffic signals 50 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 47
Parks and recreation
Acreage 461 461 461 461 461 461 461 461 461 461
Playgrounds 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21
Baseball/softball diamonds 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21
Soccer/football fields 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Hockey Rink - indoor 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Community Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nature Center 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Water
Water mains (miles)121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 120 120
Fire hydrants 1,043 1,043 1,044 1,046 1,047 1,048 1,052 1,050 1,053 1,053
Storage capacity (millions of gallons)5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Wastewater
Sanitary sewers (miles)119.4 119.4 119.4 119.4 119.4 119.4 119.4 119.4 119.4 118
Storm sewers (miles)59.9 59.9 59.9 59.9 59.9 59.9 59.9 59.9 59.9 59.9
Sources: Various city departments
Note: No capital asset indicators are available for the general government.- 144 -
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
- 145 -
City of Richfield
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards and Independent
Auditor's Reports
December 31, 2018
City of Richfield
Table of Contents
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 1
Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 2
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and
Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in
Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 3
Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program and on Internal Control
over Compliance and on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Required by Uniform Guidance 5
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs 8
Minnesota Legal Compliance 10
Federal
CFDA Federal
Number Expenditures
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Received Directly
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program 14.871 2,121,064$
Passed through Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant - Entitlement Grant 14.218 49,067
Total U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2,170,131
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Passed through the State of Minnesota
Public Health Emergency Preparedness 93.069 52,397
U.S. Department of Justice
Received directly
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program 16.607 3,152
U.S. Department of Transportation
Passed through Metropolitan Airport Commission
Towards Zero Deaths 20.608 11,453
Passed through the State of Minnesota
Towards Zero Deaths 20.608 55,497
DWI Enforcement 20.616 27,197
Passed through the Hennepin County
Justice Assistance Grant 16.738 1,272
Total U.S. Department of Transportation 95,419
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Passed through the State of Minnesota
Summer Food Service Program for Children 10.559 3,422
Total Federal Expenditures 2,324,521$
See Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. 1
Federal Agency/Pass Through Agency/Program Title
City of Richfield
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Year Ended December 31, 2018
2
City of Richfield
Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
NOTE 1 – BASIS OF PRESENTATION
The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards includes the federal grant activity of
the City of Richfield, Minnesota and is presented on the modified accrual basis of accounting. The
information in this Schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance.
Therefore, some amounts presented in this Schedule may differ from amounts presented in, or used in,
the preparation of the basic financial statements.
NOTE 2 – PASS-THROUGH GRANT NUMBERS
All pass-through entities listed previously use the same CFDA numbers as the federal grantors to
identify these grants and have not assigned any additional identifying numbers.
NOTE 3 – INDIRECT COST RATE
The City did not elect to use the 10 percent de minimis indirect cost rate.
3
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of
Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with
Government Auditing Standards
Independent Auditor's Report
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Richfield
Richfield, Minnesota
We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental
activities, the business-type activities, the discretely presented component units, each major fund, and
the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2018, and the related notes to financial statements, which collectively comprise the
City's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated April 23, 2019.
Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City's internal
control over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate
in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for
the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. Accordingly, we
do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or
detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a
combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material
misstatement of the City's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a
timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal
control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those
charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this
section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material
weaknesses, or significant deficiencies and therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies
may exist that were not identified. We did identify a certain deficiency in internal control as described in
the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs as Audit Finding 2018-001 that we
consider to be a material weakness.
4
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City's financial statements are free from
material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations,
contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on
the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with
those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.
The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be
reported under Government Auditing Standards.
City's Response to Findings
The City's response to the finding identified in our audit is described in the accompanying Schedule of
Findings and Questioned Costs. The City's response was not subjected to the auditing procedures
applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and
compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the
City's internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in
accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City's internal control and
compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 23, 2019
5
Report on Compliance for each Major Program
and Report on Internal Control over Compliance In Accordance
With the Uniform Guidance
Independent Auditor's Report
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Richfield
Richfield, Minnesota
Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program
We have audited the compliance of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, with the types of compliance
requirements described in the OMB Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect
on each of the City's major federal programs for the year ended December 31, 2018. The City's major
federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor's results section of the accompanying
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs.
Management's Responsibility
Management is responsible for compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and
conditions of its federal awards applicable to its federal programs.
Auditor's Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance for each of the City's major federal programs
based on our audit of the types of compliance requirements referred to above. We conducted our audit of
compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America;
the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States; and the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Those standards and the Uniform Guidance
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance
with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect
on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the
City's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance for each major
federal program. However, our audit does not provide legal determination of the City's compliance.
6
Opinion on Each Major Federal Program
In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements
referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for
the year ended December 31, 2018.
Report on Internal Control over Compliance
Management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over
compliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above. In planning and performing
our audit of compliance, we considered the City's internal control over compliance with the types of
requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each major federal program to determine the
auditing procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing an opinion
on compliance for each major federal program and to test and report on internal control over compliance
in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the
effectiveness of the City's internal control over compliance.
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over
compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a
federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a
deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a
reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal
program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in
internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control
over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a
material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those
charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first
paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over
compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. We did not identify any
deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses. However,
material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our
testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of
the Uniform Guidance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.
7
Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform
Guidance
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, the
discretely presented component units, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of
the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018, and have issued our
report thereon dated April 23, 2019, which contained unmodified opinions on the financial statements.
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements as a whole.
The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards is presented for purposes of additional
analysis as required by the Uniform Guidance and is not a required part of the financial statements. Such
information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the
underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements. The information has
been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain
additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying
accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements
themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in
the United States of America. In our opinion, the Schedule of Expenditure of Federal Awards is fairly
stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 23, 2019
8
City of Richfield
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
SECTION I – SUMMARY OF AUDITOR'S RESULTS
Financial Statements
Type of auditor's report issued: Unmodified
Internal control over financial reporting:
Material weakness(es) identified? Yes, Audit Finding 2018-001
Significant deficiency(ies) identified? No
Noncompliance material to financial statements noted? No
Federal Awards
Type of auditor's report issued on compliance for major
programs: Unmodified
Internal control over major programs:
Material weakness(es) identified? No
Significant deficiency(ies) identified? No
Any audit findings disclosed that are required to
be reported in accordance with 2 CFR 200.516(a)? No
Identification of Major Programs
CFDA No.: 14.871
Name of Federal Program or Cluster: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Dollar threshold used to distinguish
between type A and type B programs: $750,000
Auditee qualified as low risk auditee? Yes
9
City of Richfield
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
SECTION II – FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS
Audit Finding 2018-001 - Material Audit Adjustments
Criteria or Specific Requirement:
Internal control that supports the City's ability to report financial data, consistent with the assertions of
management in the financial statements, requires thorough review of the accounting records at year-end.
Condition:
During the course of our engagement, we proposed audit adjustments that were not identified as a result
of the City's existing internal controls and, therefore, resulted in a material misstatement of the City's
financial statements.
In order to ensure financial statements were free from material misstatements, an audit adjustment was
required to adjust utility receivables and deferred inflows of resources.
Context:
This finding impacts the City's ability to internally prepare their financial statements free from material
misstatements.
Effect:
The City's financial data was misstated in the current year's financial general ledger system.
Cause:
City personnel did not make all required adjustments in the year of occurrence.
Recommendation:
Review the City's financial statements to assure all entries are prepared and posted.
Management's Response:
The City acknowledged and approved these adjustments and will strive to correct this in the future.
SECTION III – FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
None
SECTION IV – SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS AUDIT FINDINGS
None
10
Minnesota Legal Compliance
Independent Auditor's Report
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Richfield
Richfield, Minnesota
We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America, and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental
activities, the business-type activities, the discretely presented component units, each major fund, and
the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2018, and the related notes to financial statements, which collectively comprise the
City's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated April 23, 2019.
The Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Cities, promulgated by the State Auditor pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes § 6.65, contains seven categories of compliance to be tested: contracting and
bidding, deposits and investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness, claims and disbursements,
miscellaneous provisions and tax increment financing. Our audit considered all of the listed categories.
In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, failed to comply with the provisions of the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit
Guide for Cities. However, our audit was not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of such
noncompliance. Accordingly, had we performed additional procedures, other matters may have come to
our attention regarding the City's noncompliance with the above referenced provisions.
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the results of
that testing, and not to provide an opinion on compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not
suitable for any other purpose.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 23, 2019
City of Richfield
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Communications Letter
December 31, 2018
City of Richfield
Table of Contents
Report on Matters Identified as a Result of
the Audit of the Financial Statements 1
Material Weakness 3
Other Deficiency 4
Required Communication 5
Financial Analysis 9
Emerging Issues 21
1
Report on Matters Identified as a Result of
the Audit of the Financial Statements
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council and Management
City of Richfield
Richfield, Minnesota
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the governmental activities,
business-type activities, the discretely presented component units, each major fund, and the aggregate
remaining fund information of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2018, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America, we considered the City's internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis
for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing
our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of the City's internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the
effectiveness of the City's internal control.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph
and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or
significant deficiencies and, therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that
have not been identified. In addition, because of inherent limitations in internal control, including the
possibility of management override of controls, misstatements due to error, or fraud may occur and not
be detected by such controls. However, as discussed below, we identified a certain deficiency in internal
control that we consider to be a material weakness.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or
detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a
combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable
possibility that a material misstatement of the City's financial statements will not be prevented, or
detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A reasonable possibility exists when the likelihood of an event
occurring is either reasonably possible or probable as defined as follows: reasonably possible – the
change of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely; probable – the
future event or events are likely to occur. The material weakness identified is stated within this letter.
A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less
severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with
governance.
During our audit, we also became aware of deficiencies in internal control other than significant
deficiencies or material weaknesses, and other matters that are opportunities for strengthening internal
controls and operating efficiency. They are described in the accompanying letter under Other
Deficiency.
2
The City's written response to the material weakness identified in our audit has not been subjected to
audit procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion
on it.
The accompanying memorandum also includes financial analysis provided as a basis for discussion. The
matters discussed herein were considered by us during our audit and they do not modify the opinion
expressed in our Independent Auditor's Report dated April 23, 2019, on such statements.
This communication is intended solely for the information and use of the Members of the City Council
and management and others within the City and state oversight agencies and is not intended to be, and
should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 23, 2019
3
City of Richfield
Material Weakness
MATERIAL AUDIT ADJUSTMENTS
During the course of our engagement, we proposed material audit adjustments that would not have been
identified as a result of the City's existing internal controls and, therefore, could have resulted in a
material misstatement of the City's financial statements.
In order to ensure financial statements were free from material misstatements, audit adjustments were
required to adjust utility receivables and deferred inflows of resources.
4
City of Richfield
Other Deficiency
PERFORM ROUTINE TEST COUNTS OF INVENTORY
During our audit, we conducted a test count of liquor store inventory. Multiple variances were noted
between inventory counted and inventory balances maintained within the POS system. We recommend
each store perform test counts routinely to monitor inventory balances and ensure balances are accurate.
5
City of Richfield
Required Communication
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, business-type activities, the
discretely presented component units, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of
the City as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018. Professional standards require that we advise
you of the following matters related to our audit.
OUR RESPONSIBILITY IN RELATION TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT
As communicated in our engagement letter, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is
to form and express opinions about whether the financial statements prepared by management with your
oversight are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America. Our audit of the financial statements does not
relieve you or management of its respective responsibilities.
In planning and performing our audit, we considered the City's internal control over financial reporting
in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial
statements and not to provide assurance on the internal control over financial reporting. We also
considered internal control over compliance with requirements that could have a direct and material
effect on a major federal program in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of
expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance in
accordance with the Uniform Guidance.
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City's financial statements are free of
material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations,
contracts, and grants. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an
objective of our audit. Also, in accordance with Uniform Guidance, we examined, on a test basis,
evidence about the City's compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the U.S.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Compliance Supplement applicable to each of its major
federal programs for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the City's compliance with those
requirements. While our audit provided a reasonable basis for our opinion, it did not provide a legal
determination on the City's compliance with those requirements.
Generally accepted accounting principles provide for certain required supplementary information (RSI)
to supplement the basic financial statements. Our responsibility with respect to the RSI, which
supplements the basic audit financial statements, is to apply certain limited procedures in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards. However, the RSI was not audited and, because the limited
procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance,
we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI.
Our responsibility for the supplementary information accompanying the financial statements, as
described by professional standards, is to evaluate the presentation of the supplementary information in
relation to the financial statements as a whole and to report on whether the supplementary information is
fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.
6
City of Richfield
Required Communication
PLANNED SCOPE AND TIMING OF THE AUDIT
An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements; therefore, our audit involved judgment about the number of transactions to be
examined and the areas to be tested.
Our audit included obtaining an understanding of the City and its environment, including internal
control, sufficient to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and to design
the nature, timing, and extent of further audit procedures. Material misstatements may result from
(1) errors, (2) fraudulent financial reporting, (3) misappropriation of assets, or (4) violations of laws or
governmental regulations that are attributable to the City or to acts by management or employees acting
on behalf of the City.
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL ETHICS REQUIREMENTS REGARDING INDEPENDENCE
The engagement team, others in our firm, as appropriate, our firm, and our network firms have complied
with all relevant ethical requirements regarding independence.
QUALITATIVE ASPECTS OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING PRACTICES
Management has the responsibility to select and use appropriate accounting policies. A summary of the
significant accounting policies adopted by the City is included in the notes to financial statements. There
have been no initial selection of accounting policies and no changes to significant accounting policies or
their application during 2018. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for
which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been
recognized in the proper period.
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are
based on management's knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about
uture events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the
financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ
significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements were:
Depreciation – The City is currently depreciating its capital assets over their estimated useful lives,
as determined by management, using the straight-line method.
Net/Total Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Liability, Deferred Outflows of Resources
Related to OPEB and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB – These balances are based
on an actuarial study using the estimates of future obligations of the City for post employment
benefits.
Net Pension Liability, Deferred Outflows of Resources Relating to Pensions and Deferred Inflows of
Resources relating to Pensions – These balances are based on an allocation by the pension plans
using estimates based on contributions.
7
City of Richfield
Required Communication
QUALITATIVE ASPECTS OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING PRACTICES (CONTINUED)
Land Held for Resale – Land held for resale is recorded using either the lower of historical cost or
estimated resale value.
We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the accounting estimates in determining
that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.
The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
SIGNIFICANT DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED DURING THE AUDIT
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management relating to the performance of
the audit.
UNCORRECTED AND CORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the
audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of
management. Further, professional standards require us to also communicate the effect of uncorrected
misstatements related to prior periods on the relevant classes of transactions, account balances or
disclosures, and the financial statements as a whole. We identified the following uncorrected
misstatements of the financial statements. Management has determined their effects are immaterial, both
individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole.
An adjustment to liquor store inventory was not made
HRA mortgage receivables were not written off
The following material misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures were corrected by
management.
Deferred inflows of resources
Utility receivables
DISAGREEMENTS WITH MANAGEMENT
For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a
matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting, or
auditing matter, which could be significant to the City's financial statements or the auditor's report.
No such disagreements arose during the course of the audit.
REPRESENTATIONS REQUESTED FROM MANAGEMENT
We requested certain written representations from management, which are included in the
management representation letter.
8
City of Richfield
Required Communication
MANAGEMENT'S CONSULTATIONS WITH OTHER ACCOUNTANTS
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting
matters. Management has informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no consultations with
other accountants regarding auditing and accounting matters.
OTHER SIGNIFICANT MATTERS, FINDINGS, OR ISSUES
In the normal course of our professional association with the City, we generally discuss a variety of
matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, operating
conditions affecting the City, and operating plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material
misstatement. None of the matters discussed resulted in a condition to our retention as the City's
auditors.
OTHER MATTERS
We applied certain limited procedures to the RSI that supplements the basic financial statements. Our
procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information
and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic
financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements.
We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI.
With respect to the supplementary information accompanying the financial statements, we made certain
inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content and methods of preparing the information to
determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period and the information
is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and
reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the
financial statements or to the financial statements themselves.
9
City of Richfield
Financial Analysis
The following pages provide graphic representation of select data pertaining to the financial position and
operations of the City for the past five years. Our analysis of each graph is presented to provide a basis
for discussion of past performance and how implementing certain changes may enhance future
performance. We suggest you view each graph and document if our analysis is consistent with yours.
GENERAL FUND
As illustrated in the graph below, total expenditures exceeded total revenues in the General Fund in
2018. This deficit, combined with net transfers in of $104,920 resulted in an increase in fund balance of
$55,969 in 2018. The City's total fund balance of $8,810,296 at December 31, 2018, represents 39.1% of
General Fund expenditures based on 2018 spending levels. The City relies on year-end fund balance to
finance much of the subsequent year's expenditures, since major property tax settlements are not
received until June.
The City's target General Fund balance is to maintain a minimum unassigned fund balance of 40% of the
current year end actual General Fund revenues. At December 31, 2018, the City's unassigned fund
balance amounted to $8,719,246, which excludes nonspendable fund balance for prepaid items of
$91,050. This amount equals 38.8% of the City's 2018 actual General Fund revenues.
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Total Revenues $20,422,431 $20,454,684 $20,490,258 $21,128,170 $22,482,979
Total Expenditures 19,843,159 20,439,859 21,363,571 21,657,027 22,531,930
Fund Balance 8,497,912 8,687,207 8,701,604 8,754,327 8,810,296
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
General Fund Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balance
10
City of Richfield
Financial Analysis
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Trends for each of the City's major revenue classifications over the past five years are portrayed in the
bar graph below.
General Fund revenues increased $1,354,809 from 2018. The most significant increase was in
intergovernmental revenues, which increased $652,290 mainly due to the City allocating more local
government aid to the General Fund. Licenses and permits increased $324,181 due to increased
development activity. All other categories remained consistent with the prior year.
Property Taxes Fees and Fines License and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Miscellaneous
2014 $15,230,039 $386,139 $1,030,746 $1,597,986 $2,073,353 $104,168
2015 15,285,807 377,694 985,367 1,588,917 2,118,267 98,632
2016 14,981,083 269,749 1,124,025 1,761,699 2,246,971 106,731
2017 15,764,663 312,041 1,061,107 1,730,873 2,145,995 113,491
2018 16,003,424 310,713 1,385,288 2,383,163 2,246,618 153,773
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
$11,000,000
$12,000,000
$13,000,000
$14,000,000
$15,000,000
$16,000,000
$17,000,000
General Fund Revenues
11
City of Richfield
Financial Analysis
GENERAL FUND REVENUES (CONTINUED)
The City's revenues by source for 2018 and 2017 are shown below. As seen on the following graphs,
intergovernmental and licenses and permits categories of revenues both increased in 2018 compared to
2017.
Property Taxes
71%
Fees and Fines
1%
License and Permits
6%
Intergovernmental
11%
Charges for Services
10%
Miscellaneous
1%
2018 General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes
75%
Fees and Fines
1%
License and Permits
5%
Intergovernmental
8%
Charges for Services
10%
Miscellaneous
1%
2017 General Fund Revenues
12
City of Richfield
Financial Analysis
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Total General Fund expenditures increased 4.0%, or $874,903, from 2017 to 2018. The most significant
increase by program was in public safety. Public safety expenditures increased by $457,098 in 2018
with higher personnel costs. Two main factors are health insurance increases as well as a younger
workforce receiving step increases in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. Other
programs' spending was consistent from 2018 to 2017.
Legislative/Executive Administrative Services Public Safety Fire Community Development Public Works Recreation Services Capital Outlay
2014 $836,054 $1,145,220 $7,570,660 $3,561,443 $1,297,986 $3,679,158 $1,710,352 $42,286
2015 897,644 1,169,763 7,753,459 3,845,082 1,337,103 3,679,043 1,757,765 -
2016 814,724 1,323,809 8,175,701 4,056,978 1,330,766 3,833,814 1,827,779 -
2017 866,235 1,274,142 8,214,212 4,140,668 1,349,571 3,964,477 1,847,722 -
2018 837,836 1,342,595 8,671,310 4,237,354 1,471,067 4,032,936 1,896,519 42,313
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
General Fund Expenditures
13
City of Richfield
Financial Analysis
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (CONTINUED)
The City's expenditures by program for 2018 and 2017 are shown below. As seen on the following
graphs, expenditure by program remained consistent from 2017 to 2018.
Legislative/
Executive
4%Administrative
Services
6%
Public Safety
38%
Fire
19%
Community
Development
7%
Public Works
18%
Recreation Services
8%
2018 General Fund Expenditures
Legislative/
Executive
4%Administrative
Services
6%
Public Safety
38%Fire
19%
Community
Development
6%
Public Works
18%
Recreation
Services
9%
2017 General Fund Expenditures
14
City of Richfield
Financial Analysis
GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Variance
Actual Final Budget -
Final Budget Amounts Over (Under)
Revenues
Property taxes 15,835,440$ 16,003,424$ 167,984$
Fines and fees 330,000 310,713 (19,287)
Licenses and permits 1,243,570 1,385,288 141,718
Intergovernmental revenues 2,371,010 2,383,163 12,153
Charges for services 2,242,200 2,246,618 4,418
Investment income 39,000 93,957 54,957
Miscellaneous revenues 69,740 59,816 (9,924)
Total revenues 22,130,960 22,482,979 352,019
Expenditures
Legislative/executive 900,870 837,836 (63,034)
Administrative services 1,384,690 1,342,595 (42,095)
Public safety 9,008,680 8,671,310 (337,370)
Fire 4,270,910 4,237,354 (33,556)
Community development 1,476,220 1,471,067 (5,153)
Public works 4,085,980 4,075,249 (10,731)
Recreation services 1,925,140 1,896,519 (28,621)
Total expenditures 23,052,490 22,531,930 (520,560)
Other financing sources (uses)
Net transfers 921,530 104,920 (816,610)
Net change in fund balances -$ 55,969$ 55,969$
For the year ended December 31, 2018, the City budgeted for revenues and transfers in to the General
Fund to equal expenditures and transfers out. Actual revenues and transfers in exceeded expenditures
and transfers out by $55,969.
Revenues were over budget by $352,019, or 1.6%. Property taxes were over budget $167,984. Licenses
and permits were over budget $141,718 due to conservative budgeting. All other sources of revenue
were consistent with the budget in 2018.
Expenditures were $520,560, or 2.3% under budget. The most significant variance was in public safety
due to conservative budgeting.
Transfers in to the General Fund were under budget by $816,610 as revenues were consistent with
budgeted amounts and expenditures were less than budgeted amounts.
15
City of Richfield
Financial Analysis
TAX LEVY, CAPACITY, AND RATES
The graph below presents information relating to the City's tax levy, tax capacity and rates.
The levy for 2018 includes the General Fund levy of $15,995,394 plus a levy for the Debt Service and
Capital Project Funds totaling $4,066,050.
As illustrated below, the taxable tax capacity of the City has experienced a steady increase over the last
five years. While the City has increased the levy during this period, the tax capacity rate has declined
because of increases in market values and tax capacity.
$22,413,159
$24,594,694 $25,580,324
$27,845,963
$30,001,418
$18,012,303 $18,288,524 $18,820,576 $19,434,690 $20,061,444
64.46%
60.13%60.99%
56.85%57.73%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Tax Capacity, Levy, and Rates
Taxable Tax Capacity Certified City Levy Tax Capacity Rate
16
City of Richfield
Financial Analysis
LIQUOR FUND
The City's liquor store reported an increase in sales from 2017 to 2018 of 1.8%. Cost of sales
correspondingly increased by 1.7%. The City's liquor store sales have been directly affected by the
opening of competitors' stores in the metro area, but due to the change in State law allowing Sunday
liquor sales, sales increased in 2018.
Operating expenses in the Liquor Fund remained consistent with the prior year, decreasing by 2.3%.
$8,601,930 $8,210,714 $7,828,967 $8,505,073 $8,645,844
$2,017,819 $2,024,145 $2,134,992
$2,211,546 $2,159,720
$11,500,417
$10,859,642 $10,457,318
$11,351,640 $11,561,557
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
$11,000,000
$12,000,000
$13,000,000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Liquor Fund
Cost of Sales Operating Expenses Sales
2018
Metro
City of City of City of City of City of Municipal
Richfield Richfield Edina* Eden Prairie* Savage* Average*
Sales 11,561,557$ 11,351,640$ 12,991,764$ 10,501,449$ 4,887,788$ 6,653,329$
Costs of sales 8,645,844 8,505,073 9,442,254 7,548,842 3,710,540 4,923,622
Gross profit 2,915,713 2,846,567 3,549,510 2,952,607 1,177,248 1,729,707
Operating expenses 2,159,720 2,211,546 2,536,414 2,331,692 1,171,384 1,324,386
Operating income 755,993 635,021 1,013,096 620,915 5,864 405,321
Gross profit percentage 25.2% 25.1% 27.3% 28.1% 24.1% 26.0%
2017
*Individual metro municipal and averages obtained from the Office of State Auditor, Analysis of
Municipal Liquor Store Operations Report.
The City's gross profit percentage increased slightly compared to the prior year due to a 1.8% increase in
sales and a 1.7% increase in cost of sales for 2018. The City's gross profit percentage is similar to both
the metro stores and the metro municipal average.
17
City of Richfield
Financial Analysis
WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES FUND
Charges for services in the fund increased $625,628 or 7.8% from 2017 to 2018. This increase was the
result of an increase in water and sewer rates. Operating expenses increased $306,156 or 3.9% from
2017 as a result of an increase in water operating costs for professional services and maintenance costs.
The Fund had operating income of $534,371 in 2018 with depreciation. Except for 2016, the Fund has
fully funded depreciation expense since 2014.
$7,222,179 $7,314,887 $7,647,683 $8,023,101 $8,648,729
$6,993,635 $7,208,849 $7,819,880 $7,808,203 $8,114,358
$1,361,704 $1,204,379 $985,621
$1,426,956 $1,734,607
$228,544 $106,038
$(172,197)
$214,898 $534,371
$(1,000,000)
$(500,000)
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
$5,000,000
$5,500,000
$6,000,000
$6,500,000
$7,000,000
$7,500,000
$8,000,000
$8,500,000
$9,000,000
$9,500,000
$10,000,000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Water and Sewer Utilities Fund
Charges for Services Operating Expenses
Operating Income without Depreciation Operating Income with Depreciation
18
City of Richfield
Financial Analysis
STORM SEWER FUND
Charges for services in the Fund increased $273,203 from 2017 to 2018, increasing or 18.3%. This was
due to an increase in rates and development. Operating expenses increased $101,868 or 7.0% due to
professional services costs.
The Fund reported operating income of $203,826 in 2018 with depreciation. The Fund has fully funded
depreciation expense since 2014.
$1,204,476 $1,181,739
$1,352,699
$1,495,191
$1,768,394
$1,072,652 $1,110,483
$1,228,750
$1,462,700
$1,564,568
$532,518 $486,978
$592,982 $620,850
$807,955
$131,824 $71,256 $123,949
$32,491
$203,826
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
$2,000,000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Storm Sewer Fund
Charges for Services Operating Expenses
Operating Income without Depreciation Operating Income with Depreciation
19
City of Richfield
Financial Analysis
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
The tables below and on the following page illustrate the City's various sources of revenue and
expenditures per capita over a three year period in comparison to 2017 data for Minnesota cities ranked
by various sizes.
Year 2016 2017 2018**
Population 2,500-10,000 10,000-20,000 20,000-100,000 36,338 36,338 36,554
Property taxes 474$ 451$ 475$ 505$ 526$ 548$
Tax increments 26 27 38 - - -
Franchise fees and other taxes 38 43 48 62 62 61
Special assessments 57 48 59 5 6 6
Licenses and permits 39 34 49 31 29 38
Intergovernmental revenues 322 276 147 219 180 191
Charges for services 108 103 103 97 93 101
Other 68 53 48 32 51 55
Total revenue 1,132$ 1,035$ 967$ 951$ 947$ 1,000$
City of Richfield
December 31, 2017
State-Wide*
* State-wide data obtained from the Office of the State Auditor's 2017 Minnesota City
Finances Report.
** Population is estimated as of January 1, 2018, from the Met Council population data study; 2018
information is not yet available.
The City has few special assessments and, thus, has consistently shown higher tax revenues per capita
and lower special assessments revenues per capita compared to the state averages. Total governmental
revenues increased $53 per capita from 2017. The most significant increases were in property taxes,
intergovernmental revenues and licenses and permits. Property taxes increased due to an increase in the
levy. Intergovernmental revenues increased primarily due to the receipt of additional local government
aid, grant funds for the 77th street underpass project and MSA funding for the City's 66th street project in
2018. Licenses and permit revenue increased due to increased development activity in 2018.
20
City of Richfield
Financial Analysis
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS (CONTINUED)
Year 2016 2017 2018**
Population 2,500-10,000 10,000-20,000 20,000-100,000 36,338 36,338 36,554
Current
Administration 147$ 120$ 101$ 72$ 72$ 73$
Community development 56 46 60 37 37 40
Police 192 188 201 229 229 239
Fire and other public safety 78 71 85 112 114 116
Public works 128 127 101 370 348 296
Parks and recreation 96 112 99 93 93 99
Other 20 18 17 - - -
Total current 717$ 682$ 664$ 913$ 893$ 863$
Capital outlay
And construction 403$ 319$ 263$ 81$ 128$ 121$
Debt service
Principal 228$ 147$ 121$ 58$ 224$ 65$
Interest and fiscal 44 35 32 43 47 44
Total debt service 272$ 182$ 153$ 101$ 271$ 109$
City of Richfield
December 31, 2017
State-Wide*
* State-wide data obtained from the Office of the State Auditor's 2017 Minnesota City
Finances Report.
** Population is estimated as of January 1, 2018, from the Met Council population data study; 2018
information is not yet available.
The City's current expenditures for 2018 were more than the state-wide average for a city of a
comparable population, while debt service and capital outlay and construction expenditures are less.
Overall, the City's governmental expenditures decreased 14.9% 2017 to 2018, or $199 per capita. The
largest variances in City expenditures per capita from 2017 to 2018 was in the debt service expenditures
program. This was primarily due to bond refundings that occurred in 2017.
Public works expenditures appears higher than the City's peer group, however significant maintenance
projects including Portland Avenue, 66th street and the ongoing city-wide mill and overlay impact this
number. If not for these expenditures, the City's public works costs per capita would be very comparable
to state averages.
21
City of Richfield
Emerging Issues
Executive Summary
The following is an executive summary of financial and business related updates to assist you in staying
current on emerging issues in accounting and finance. This summary will give you a preview of the new
standards that have been recently issued and what is on the horizon for the near future. The most recent
and significant updates include:
Accounting Standard Update – GASB Statement No. 84 – Fiduciary Activities – GASB has
issued GASB Statement No. 84 relating to accounting and financial reporting for fiduciary
activities. This new statement establishes clarity to determine when a government has fiduciary
responsibility for a certain activity.
Accounting Standard Update – GASB Statement No. 87 – Leases – GASB has issued GASB
Statement No. 87 relating to accounting and financial reporting for leases. This new statement
establishes a single model for lease accounting based on the principle that leases are financing of
the right to use an underlying asset.
The following are extensive summaries of each of the current updates. As your continued business
partner, we are committed to keeping you informed of new and emerging issues. We are happy to
discuss these issues with you further and their applicability to your City.
ACCOUNTING STANDARD UPDATE – GASB STATEMENT NO. 84 – FIDUCIARY
ACTIVITIES
The objective of this Statement is to improve guidance regarding the identification of fiduciary activities
for accounting and financial reporting purposes and how those activities should be reported.
This Statement establishes criteria for identifying fiduciary activities of all state and local governments.
The focus of the criteria generally is on (1) whether a government is controlling the assets of the
fiduciary activity and (2) the beneficiaries with whom a fiduciary relationship exists. Separate criteria
are included to identify fiduciary component units and postemployment benefit arrangements that are
fiduciary activities. An activity meeting the criteria should be reported in a fiduciary fund in the basic
financial statements. Governments with activities meeting the criteria should present a statement of
fiduciary net position and a statement of changes in fiduciary net position. An exception to that
requirement is provided for a business-type activity that normally expects to hold custodial assets for
three months or less.
GASB Statement No. 84 describes four fiduciary funds that should be reported, if applicable: (1)
pension (and other employee benefit) trust funds, (2) investment trust funds, (3) private-purpose trust
funds, and (4) custodial funds. Custodial funds generally should report fiduciary activities that are not
held in a trust or equivalent arrangement that meets specific criteria.
This Statement also provides for recognition of a liability to the beneficiaries in a fiduciary fund when
an event has occurred that compels the government to disburse fiduciary resources. Events that compel a
government to disburse fiduciary resources occur when a demand for the resources has been made or
when no further action, approval, or condition is required to be taken or met by the beneficiary to release
the assets.
22
City of Richfield
Emerging Issues
ACCOUNTING STANDARD UPDATE – GASB STATEMENT NO. 84 – FIDUCIARY
ACTIVITIES (CONTINUED)
GASB Statement No. 84 is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018. Earlier
application is encouraged.
Information provided above was obtained from www.gasb.org.
ACCOUNTING STANDARD UPDATE – GASB STATEMENT NO. 87 – LEASES
The objective of this Statement is to better meet the information needs of financial statement users by
improving accounting and financial reporting for leases by governments. This Statement increases the
usefulness of governments' financial statements by requiring recognition of certain lease assets and
liabilities for leases that previously were classified as operating leases and recognized as inflows of
resources or outflows of resources based on the payment provisions of the contract. It establishes a
single model for lease accounting based on the foundational principle that leases are financings of the
right to use an underlying asset. Under this Statement, a lessee is required to recognize a lease liability
and an intangible right-to-use lease asset, and a lessor is required to recognize a lease receivable and a
deferred inflow of resources, thereby enhancing the relevance and consistency of information about
governments' leasing activities.
A lease is defined as a contract that conveys control of the right to use another entity's nonfinancial asset
(the underlying asset) as specified in the contract for a period of time in an exchange or exchange-like
transaction. Examples of nonfinancial assets include buildings, land, vehicles, and equipment. Any
contract that meets this definition should be accounted for under the leases guidance, unless specifically
excluded in this Statement.
A short-term lease is defined as a lease that, at the commencement of the lease term, has a maximum
possible term under the lease contract of 12 months (or less), including any options to extend, regardless
of their probability of being exercised. Lessees and lessors should recognize short-term lease payments
as outflows of resources or inflows of resources, respectively, based on the payment provisions of the
lease contract.
A lessee should recognize a lease liability and a lease asset at the commencement of the lease term,
unless the lease is a short-term lease or it transfers ownership of the underlying asset. The lease liability
should be measured at the present value of payments expected to be made during the lease term (less any
lease incentives). The lease asset should be measured at the amount of the initial measurement of the
lease liability, plus any payments made to the lessor at or before the commencement of the lease term
and certain direct costs. A lessee should reduce the lease liability as payments are made and recognize
an outflow of resources (for example, expense) for interest on the liability. The lessee should amortize
the lease asset in a systematic and rational manner over the shorter of the lease term or the useful life of
the underlying asset. The notes to financial statements should include a description of leasing
arrangements, the amount of lease assets recognized, and a schedule of future lease payments to be
made.
23
City of Richfield
Emerging Issues
ACCOUNTING STANDARD UPDATE – GASB STATEMENT NO. 87 – LEASES
(CONTINUED)
A lessor should recognize a lease receivable and a deferred inflow of resources at the commencement of
the lease term, with certain exceptions for leases of assets held as investments, certain regulated leases,
short-term leases, and leases that transfer ownership of the underlying asset. A lessor should not
derecognize the asset underlying the lease. The lease receivable should be measured at the present value
of lease payments expected to be received during the lease term. The deferred inflow of resources
should be measured at the value of the lease receivable plus any payments received at or before the
commencement of the lease term that relate to future periods. A lessor should recognize interest revenue
on the lease receivable and an inflow of resources (for example, revenue) from the deferred inflows of
resources in a systematic and rational manner over the term of the lease. The notes to financial
statements should include a description of leasing arrangements and the total amount of inflows of
resources recognized from leases.
GASB Statement No. 87 is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019. Earlier
application is encouraged.
Information provided above was obtained from www.gasb.org.
COMPREHENSIVE
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
For The Year Ended December 31, 2018
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
1
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
For The
Year Ended
DECEMBER 31, 2018
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Christopher T. Regis, Finance Director
Member of Government Finance Officers Association
of United States and Canada
2
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
3
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 31, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.INTRODUCTORY SECTION
Title Page 1
Table of Contents 3
Appointed Officials 4
II.General Purpose Financial Statements:
Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Group Form A 6
Combined Statement Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in
Fund Balances - All Governmental Fund Types Form B 8
II-A Financial Statements of Individual Funds and Account Group:
General Fund:
Comparative Balance Sheet Form C 12
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund
Balance - Budget and Actual Form C-1 13
Special Revenue Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet Form D 14
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances (Deficits)Form D-1 16
Capital Improvement Fund:
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund
Balance - Budget and Actual Form E 18
New Home Program Fund:
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund
Balance - Budget and Actual Form F 19
Housing and Rehabilitation Program Fund:
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund
Balance - Budget and Actual Form G 20
Housing Assistance Program Fund:
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund
Balance - Budget and Actual Form H 21
Housing Assistance Program Administration Fund:
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund
Balance - Budget and Actual Form I 22
Capital Projects Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet Form J 24
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances (Deficits)Form K 26
4
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OFFICIALS
HRA COMMISSIONERS
MARY SUPPLE - CHAIR
COMMISSIONER - SUE SANDAHL COMMISSIONER - PAT ELLIOTT
COMMISSIONER - ERIN VRIEZE DANIELS COMMISSIONER - MICHAEL HOWARD
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
JOHN STARK - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CHRIS REGIS - FINANCE DIRECTOR
5
II. GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
6
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
COMBINED BALANCE SHEET
ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUP
December 31, 2018
Governmental Fund Types
Special Capital
General Revenue Projects
ASSETS & DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Cash and investments 1,514,644$ 1,592,273$ 7,443,773$
Due from other governments 3,693 14,434 17,581
Accounts receivable - 6,065 99,442
Taxes receivable 5,892 - -
Due from other funds 282,398 - 3,188,498
Assets held for resale - 31,744 1,866,563
Restricted cash - 39,245 -
Long term second mortgage receivable 173,660 2,221,559 -
Allowance for uncollectible accounts (173,660) (2,221,559) -
Total Assets 1,806,627$ 1,683,761$ 12,615,857$
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF
RESOURCES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities:
Accounts payable 12,295$ 20,476$ 36,429$
Due to other government - - -
Due to primary government 700,100 - -
Due to other funds - - 3,470,895
Total Liabilities 712,395 20,476 3,507,324
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Unavailable revenue - property taxes 5,892$ -$ -$
Total Deferred Inflows of Resources 5,892 - -
Fund Balances:
Restricted - 73,645 5,272,344
Committed - 1,485,216 -
Assigned - 104,424 3,836,189
Unassigned 1,088,340 - -
Total Fund Balances 1,088,340 1,663,285 9,108,533
Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources
and Fund Balances 1,806,627$ 1,683,761$ 12,615,857$
7
FORM A
Totals
(Memorandum Only)
2018 2017
10,550,690$ 9,039,665$
35,708 888,271
105,507 273,332
5,892 6,242
3,470,896 2,191,243
1,898,307 4,356,040
39,245 2,374
2,395,219 2,504,176
(2,395,219) (2,504,176)
16,106,245$ 16,757,167$
69,200$ 643,342$
- 82,224
700,100 752,803
3,470,895 2,191,242
4,240,195 3,669,611
5,892$ 6,242$
5,892 6,242
5,345,989 7,160,306
1,485,216 1,485,216
3,940,613 3,621,554
1,088,340 814,238
11,860,158 13,081,314
16,106,245$ 16,757,167$
8
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES,
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES
For the Year December 31, 2018
Governmental Fund Types
Special Capital
General Revenue Projects
Revenues:
Taxes 566,945$ -$ 4,997,404$
Intergovernmental revenue 7,900 1,635,797 40,022
Investment income 22,419 21,448 120,132
Miscellaneous revenues 111,056 74,571 581,490
Total Revenues 708,320 1,731,816 5,739,048
Expenditures -
Personnel services 257,987 152,803 315,018
Other services and charges 139,379 1,564,992 3,168,175
Capital improvements - - 3,801,986
Total Expenditures 397,366 1,717,795 7,285,179
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
over Expenditures 310,954 14,021 (1,546,131)
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Operating transfers in:
General Fund - 33,852 3,000
Special Revenue Funds - - -
Capital Project Funds - - 589,559
Operating transfers out:
General Fund - - -
Special Revenue Funds (33,852) - -
Capital Project Funds (3,000) - (589,559)
Net Other Financing Sources (Uses)(36,852) 33,852 3,000
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues & Other
Financing Sources over Expenditures &
Other Financing Uses 274,102 47,873 (1,543,131)
Fund Balances - January 1 814,238 1,615,412 10,651,664
Fund Balances - December 31 1,088,340$ 1,663,285$ 9,108,533$
9
FORM B
Totals
(Memorandum Only)
2018 2017
5,564,349$ 4,504,795$
1,683,719 3,073,414
163,999 72,380
767,117 1,102,878
8,179,184 8,753,467
725,808 663,101
4,872,546 4,949,879
3,801,986 3,437,529
9,400,340 9,050,509
(1,221,156) (297,042)
36,852 76,924
- 29,050
589,559 58,959
- (29,050)
(33,852) (127,190)
(592,559) (8,693)
- -
(1,221,156) (297,042)
13,081,314 13,378,356
11,860,158$ 13,081,314$
10
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
11
II-A. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL FUNDS
AND ACCOUNT GROUPS
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GENERAL FUND
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 2018 and 2017
FORM C
12
ASSETS 2018 2017
Cash and temporary cash investments 1,514,644$ 1,307,261$
Due from other governments 3,693 770
Due from other funds 282,398 248,818
Taxes receivable 5,892 6,242
Deferred loan receivable 173,660 208,660
Allowance for uncollectible accounts (173,660) (208,660)
Total Assets 1,806,627$ 1,563,091$
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities:
Accounts payable 12,295$ 2,361$
Due to primary government 700,100 740,250
Total Liabilities 712,395 742,611
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Unavailable revenue - property taxes 5,892$ 6,242$
5,892 6,242
Fund Balances:-
Unassigned 1,088,340 814,238
Total Fund Balance 1,088,340 814,238
Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources and Fund Balance 1,806,627$ 1,563,091$
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GENERAL FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES
IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
FORM C-1
13
2018
Over
Final (Under)2017
Budget Actual Budget Actual
Revenues:
Taxes:
Current ad valorem 560,460$ 565,537$ 5,077$ 520,798$
Delinquent ad valorem - 1,408 1,408 (1,165)
Total Taxes 560,460 566,945 6,485 519,633
Intergovernmental - 7,900 7,900 -
Miscellaneous revenues:
Investment income 10,000 22,419 12,419 10,738
Other 10,800 111,056 100,256 46,588
Total Miscellaneous Revenues 20,800 133,475 112,675 57,326
Total Revenues 581,260 708,320 119,160 576,959
Expenditures:
General Government:
Personal services 268,380 257,987 (10,393) 221,429
Other services and charges 145,770 139,379 (6,391) 229,720
Total Expenditures 414,150 397,366 (16,784) 451,149
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
over Expenditures 167,110 310,954 143,844 125,810
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfer from (to) other funds:
HRA:
Special Revenue Fund - - - 29,050
Special Revenue Fund (73,840) (33,852) 39,988 (102,974)
Capital Projects Funds - - - 29,050
Capital Projects Funds (3,000) (3,000) - (3,000)
Total Other Financing (Uses)(76,840) (36,852) 39,988 (47,874)
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues and
Other Sources over Expenditures and
Other Uses 90,270 274,102 183,832 77,936
Fund Balance - January 1 814,238 814,238 - 736,302
Fund Balance - December 31 904,508$ 1,088,340$ 183,832$ 814,238$
14
New Housing
Capital Home Rehabilitation
Improvement Program Program
ASSETS
Cash and temporary cash investments 1,104,424$ 181,436$ 306,413$
Due from other governments - 14,434 -
Accounts receivable - - -
Assets held for resale - 31,744 -
Restricted cash - - -
Long term secon mortgage receivable - 384,050 1,837,509
Allowance for uncollectible accounts - (384,050) (1,837,509)
Total Assets 1,104,424$ 227,614$ 306,413$
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF
RESOURCES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities:
Accounts payable -$ 14,857$ 2,210$
Due to other governments - - -
Total Liabilities - 14,857 2,210
Fund Balances:
Restricted - 31,744 -
Committed 1,000,000 181,013 304,203
Assigned 104,424 - -
Total Fund Balances 1,104,424 212,757 304,203
Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of
Resources and Fund Balances 1,104,424$ 227,614$ 306,413$
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
December 31, 2018 and 2017
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET
15
FORM D
Housing Housing
Assistance Assistance Total
Program Program Admin 2018 2017
-$ -$ 1,592,273$ 1,586,618$
- - 14,434 82,244
6,065 - 6,065 6,955
- - 31,744 31,744
(6,830) 46,075 39,245 2,375
- - 2,221,559 2,295,516
- - (2,221,559) (2,295,516)
(765)$ 46,075$ 1,683,761$ 1,709,936$
2,726$ 683$ 20,476$ 12,299$
- - - 82,224
2,726 683 20,476 94,523
(3,491) 45,392 73,645 40,759
- - 1,485,216 1,485,216
- - 104,424 89,437
(3,491) 45,392 1,663,285 1,615,412
(765)$ 46,075$ 1,683,761$ 1,709,935$
16
New Housing
Capital Home Rehabilitation
Improvement Program Program
Revenues:
Intergovernmental -$ 49,067$ -$
Investment income 14,987 737 4,728
Miscellaneous revenues - - 40,176
Total Revenues 14,987 49,804 44,904
Expenditures:
Personal services - - -
Other services and charges - 52,680 63,091
Total Expenditures - 52,680 63,091
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
over Expenditures 14,987 (2,876) (18,187)
Other financing Sources (Uses): Operating transfers from (to):
General Fund - 2,876 18,187
Capital Project Funds - - -
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses)- 2,876 18,187
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues and
Other Sources over Expenditures
and Other Uses 14,987 - -
Fund Balances - January 1 1,089,437 212,757 304,203
Fund Balances - December 31 1,104,424$ 212,757$ 304,203$
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS)
For the Year Ended Decemer 31, 2018
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
COMBINGING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND
17
FORM D-1
Housing Housing
Assistance Assistance Total
Program Program Admin 2018 2017
1,411,270$ 175,460$ 1,635,797$ 1,881,204$
- 996 21,448 10,334
432 33,963 74,571 68,010
1,411,702 210,419 1,731,816 1,959,548
- 152,803 152,803 146,938
1,386,522 62,699 1,564,992 1,944,177
1,386,522 215,502 1,717,795 2,091,115
25,180 (5,083) 14,021 (131,567)
- 12,789 33,852 73,924
- - - 24,216
- 12,789 33,852 98,140
25,180 7,706 47,873 (33,427)
(28,671) 37,686 1,615,412 1,648,839
(3,491)$ 45,392$ 1,663,285$ 1,615,412$
FORM E
18
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES
IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
2018
Over
Final (Under)2017
Budget Actual Budget Actual
Revenues:
Miscellaneous revenues:
Investment income 7,000$ 14,987$ 7,987$ 7,553$
Total Revenues 7,000 14,987 7,987 7,553
Expenditures - - - -
Excess of Revenues
over Expenditures 7,000 14,987 7,987 7,553
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Transfer to funds:
General Fund - - - (29,050)
Special Revenue Fund - - - (24,216)
Total Other Financing Sources - - - (53,266)
Deficiency of Revenues and
Other Sources over Expenditures 7,000 14,987 7,987 (45,713)
Fund Balance - January 1 1,089,437 1,089,437 - 1,135,150
Fund Balance - December 31 1,096,437$ 1,104,424$ 7,987$ 1,089,437$
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
NEW HOME PROGRAM FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES
IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
FORM F
19
2018
Over
Final (Under)2017
Budget Actual Budget Actual
Revenues:
Miscellaneous revenues:
Intergovernmental 127,000$ 49,067$ (77,933)$ 298,608$
Investment income - 737 737 838
Miscellaneous income 10,000 - (10,000) 24,000
Total Revenues 137,000 49,804 (87,196) 323,446
Expenditures:
Other services and charges 132,550 52,680 (79,870) 302,472
Total Expenditures 132,550 52,680 (79,870) 302,472
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
over Expenditures 4,450 (2,876) (7,326) 20,974
Other Financing Sources:
Transfer from other funds:
General Fund - 2,876 2,876 -
Total Other Financing Sources - 2,876 2,876 -
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues and
Other Sources over Expenditures 4,450 - (4,450) 20,974
Fund Balance - January 1 212,757 212,757 - 191,783
Fund Balance (Deficit) - December 31 217,207$ 212,757$ (4,450)$ 212,757$
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
HOUSING AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES
IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
20
FORM G
2018
Final Over(Under)2017
Budget Actual Budget Actual
Revenues:
Miscellaneous revenues -
Investment income -$ 4,728$ 4,728$ 1,588$
Other Miscellaneous Revenues 16,600 40,176 23,576 7,381
Total Revenues 16,600 44,904 28,304 8,969
Expenditures:
Other services and charges 74,500 63,091 (11,409) 146,714
Total Expenditures 74,500 63,091 (11,409) 146,714
Excess ( Deficiency) of Revenues
over Expenditures (57,900) (18,187) 39,713 (137,745)
Other Financing Sources:
Transfer from other funds:
General Fund 57,900 18,187 (39,713) 89,314
Special Revenue Funds - - - 24,216
Capital Project Funds - - - 24,216
Total Other Financing Sources 57,900 18,187 (39,713) 137,746
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues and
Other Sources over Expenditures - - - 1
Fund Balance - January 1 304,203 304,203 - 304,202
Fund Balance - December 31 304,203$ 304,203$ -$ 304,203$
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES
IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
FORM H
21
2018
Final Over(Under)2017
Budget Actual Budget Actual
Revenues:
Intergovernmental revenues -
Federal Housing Assistance Plan 1,375,000$ 1,411,270$ 36,270$ 1,329,652$
Miscellaneous revenues -
Other - 432 432 3,362
Total Miscellaneous Revenues - 432 432 3,362
Total Revenues 1,375,000 1,411,702 36,702 1,333,014
Expenditures:
Other services and charges 1,375,000 1,386,522 11,522 1,341,044
Total Expenditures 1,375,000 1,386,522 11,522 1,341,044
Excess ( Deficiency) of Revenues
over Expenditures - 25,180 25,180 (8,030)
Fund Balance - January 1 (28,671) (28,671) - (20,641)
Fund Balance - December 31 (28,671)$ (3,491)$ 25,180$ (28,671)$
FORM I
22
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES
IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
2018
Over
Final (Under)2017
Budget Actual Budget Actual
Revenues:
Intergovernmental revenues -
Federal Housing Assistance Plan 160,000$ 175,460$ 15,460$ 159,043$
Miscellaneous revenues -
Investment income - 996 996 355
Other revenue 42,000 33,963 (8,037) 33,267
Total Revenues 202,000 210,419 8,419 192,665
Expenditures:
Personnel services 157,250 152,803 (4,447) 146,938
Other services and charges 60,690 62,699 2,009 60,046
Total Expenditures 217,940 215,502 (2,438) 206,984
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
over Expenditures (15,940) (5,083) 10,857 (14,319)
Other Financing Sources:
Transfer to other funds:
General Fund 15,940 12,789 (3,151) 13,660
Total Other Financing Sources 15,940 12,789 (3,151) 13,660
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues and
Other Sources over Expenditures - 7,706 7,706 (659)
Fund Balance - January 1 37,686 37,686 - 38,345
Fund Balance (Deficit) - December 31 37,686$ 45,392$ 7,706$ 37,686$
23
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
24
Cedar
Development Lakes at Lyndale Cedar Corridor
Opportunities Lyndale Garden Point TIF
ASSETS
Cash and temporary cash investments 290,856$ 24,885$ (27,230)$ (152,207)$ 257,089$
Receivables:
Due from other governments - - - - -
Accounts receivable - - 8,497 - -
Due from other funds - - - - -
Assets held for resale 597,344 - - - 704,639
Total Assets 888,200$ 24,885$ (18,733)$ (152,207)$ 961,728$
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF
RESOURCES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities:
Accounts payable 7,067$ -$ 411$ -$ 3,190$
Due to primary government - - - - -
Due to other funds - - - 215,031 -
Total Liabilities 7,067 - 411 215,031 3,190
Fund Balances:
Restricted 597,344 - - - 704,639
Assigned 283,789 24,885 - - -
Unassigned - - (19,144) (367,238) 253,899
Total Fund Balances (Deficits)881,133 24,885 (19,144) (367,238) 958,538
Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of
Resources and Fund Balances (Deficits)888,200$ 24,885$ (18,733)$ (152,207)$ 961,728$
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 2018 and 2017
25
FORM J
Capital Tax
Penn Projects Development Increment Total
Corridor Funding Fund Funds 2018 2017
(14,530)$ -$ 469,550$ 6,595,360$ 7,443,773$ 6,145,786$
16,480 - - 1,101 17,581 805,257
- - - 90,945 99,442 266,377
- 1,315,031 1,873,467 - 3,188,498 1,942,425
91,000 - - 473,580 1,866,563 4,324,296
92,950$ 1,315,031$ 2,343,017$ 7,160,986$ 12,615,857$ 13,484,141$
-$ -$ -$ 25,761$ 36,429$ 628,682$
- - - - - 12,553
- - - 3,255,864 3,470,895 2,191,242
- - - 3,281,625 3,507,324 2,832,477
91,000 - - 3,879,361 5,272,344 7,119,547
- 1,315,031 2,343,017 - 3,966,722 3,981,704
1,950 - - - (130,533) (449,587)
92,950 1,315,031 2,343,017 3,879,361 9,108,533 10,651,664
92,950$ 1,315,031$ 2,343,017$ 7,160,986$ 12,615,857$ 13,484,141$
26
Cedar
Development Lakes at Lyndale Point
Opportunities Lyndale Garden Redevelopment
Revenues:
Taxes - Tax increment -$ -$ -$ -$
Intergovernmental - - 23,542 -
Miscellaneous revenues:
Investment income 4,402 387 17 -
Other revenues 8,568 - 5,109 -
Total Revenues 12,970 387 28,668 -
Expenditures:
Personnel services - - - -
Other services and charges 2,018,894 - 4,479 278
Capital outlay - - - -
Total Expenditures 2,018,894 - 4,479 278
Excess (Deficiency) of
Revenues over Expenditures (2,005,924) 387 24,189 (278)
Other financing Sources :
Operating transfers in:
General Fund - - - 3,000
Capital Projects Fund 24,160 - - -
Operating transfers out:
General Fund - - - -
Special Revenue Fund - - - -
Capital Projects Fund - - - -
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses)24,160 - - 3,000
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
and Other Financing Sources over
Expenditures and Other Uses (1,981,764) 387 24,189 2,722
Fund Balances - January 1 2,862,897 24,498 (43,333) (369,960)
Fund Balances (Deficits) - December 31 881,133$ 24,885$ (19,144)$ (367,238)$
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, AND EXPENDITURES,
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS)
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
27
FORM K
Cedar Capital Tax
Corridor Penn Projects Development Increment
TIF Corridor Funding Fund Funds 2018 2017
-$ -$ -$ -$ 4,997,404$ 4,997,404$ 3,985,162$
- 16,480 - - - 40,022 1,192,210
2,162 - - 27,081 86,083 120,132 51,308
296,567 - - - 271,246 581,490 988,280
298,729 16,480 - 27,081 5,354,733 5,739,048 6,216,960
- - - - 315,018 315,018 294,734
8,536 18,619 - 198,000 919,369 3,168,175 2,775,982
- - - - 3,801,986 3,801,986 3,437,529
8,536 18,619 - 198,000 5,036,373 7,285,179 6,508,245
290,193 (2,139) - (170,919) 318,360 (1,546,131) (291,285)
- - - - - 3,000 3,000
- 2,139 - - 563,260 589,559 5,693
- - - - - - (29,050)
- - - - - - (24,216)
- - - (26,299) (563,260) (589,559) (5,693)
- 2,139 - (26,299) - 3,000 (50,266)
290,193 - - (197,218) 318,360 (1,543,131) (341,551)
668,345 92,950 1,315,031 2,540,235 3,561,001 10,651,664 10,993,215
958,538$ 92,950$ 1,315,031$ 2,343,017$ 3,879,361$ 9,108,533$ 10,651,664$
Total
28
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
COMPREHENSIVE
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
For The Year Ended December 31, 2018
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
2
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
For The
Year Ended
DECEMBER 31, 2018
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Christopher T. Regis, Finance Director
Member of Government Finance Officers Association
of United States and Canada
3
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 31, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.INTRODUCTORY SECTION
Title Page 1
Table of Contents 3
Appointed Officials 4
II.Financial Statements of Individual Funds
General Fund:Form A 5
Balance Sheet
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Form B 6
Balance - Budget and Actual
4
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA COMMISSIONERS
MARY SUPPLE - PRESIDENT
COMMISSIONER - SUE SANDAHL COMMISSIONER - PAT ELLIOTT
COMMISSIONER - ERIN VRIEZE DANIELS COMMISSIONER - MICHAEL HOWARD
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
JOHN STARK - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CHRIS REGIS - FINANCE DIRECTOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GENERAL FUND
BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 2018
FORM A
5
ASSETS 2018
Cash and temporary cash investments 259,240$
Due from other governments 3,303
Taxes receivable 5,760
Deferred loan receivable 100,185
Allowance for uncollectible accounts (100,185)
Total Assets 268,303$
LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities:
Accounts payable 37,942$
Total Liabilities 37,942
Deferred Inflows of Resources:
Unavailable revenue - property taxes 5,760$
5,760
Fund Balances:-
Unassigned 224,601
Total Fund Balance 224,601
Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of Resources and Fund Balance 268,303$
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
GENERAL FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES
IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL
For the Year Ended December 31, 2018
FORM B
6
2018
Over
Final (Under)2017
Budget Actual Budget Actual
Revenues:
Taxes:
Current ad valorem 554,860$ 554,242$ (618)$ -$
Delinquent ad valorem - 5 5 -
Total Taxes 554,860 554,247 (613) -
Miscellaneous revenues:
Investment income - 1,238 1,238 -
Other 2,100 2,700 600 -
Total Miscellaneous Revenues 2,100 3,938 1,838 -
Total Revenues 556,960 558,185 1,225 -
Expenditures:
General Government:
Personal services 57,670 57,296 (374) -
Other services and charges 386,590 276,288 (110,302) -
Total Expenditures 444,260 333,584 (110,676) -
Excess of Revenues
over Expenditures 112,700 224,601 111,901 -
Fund Balance - January 1 - - - -
Fund Balance - December 31 112,700$ 224,601$ 111,901$ -$
7
THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
May 23, 2019
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: 2018 Food Safety Awards
Council Members:
Attached is a summary of the steps and process used in determining the 2018
Richfield Food Safety Award nominees and winners.
The Richfield Advisory Board of Health is involved in this effort on an annual
basis and believes it is important to place a priority on recognizing Richfield food
establishments that are doing an excellent job in the area of food safety. It also
encourages other food establishments to strive for the same outcome.
The awards will be presented to the winners at the City Council meeting on May
28, 2019, by Jeremy Barthels, Chair of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health.
Respectfully submitted,
Katie Rodriguez
City Manager
KR:jf
Richfield Food Safety Awards – 2018
Background Information
Annual awards to acknowledge excellence in food safety and service – Focus
on the good work that restaurants do rather than the negative.
In 2006, Richfield Advisory Board of Health recommended starting a program
in Richfield, similar to the existing award program in Bloomington.
The health inspector nominates 2 or 3 candidates in two risk categories
based on:
Food Collaborative Interviews
Inspection results
The categories are: full service (or large) restaurant and fast food-Café or
Pizza Carryout-Limited Service.
A team of interviewers visit each site to conduct the interviews. The team
consists of members of the Richfield/Bloomington Food Collaborative who
meet regularly with inspection staff.
Nominees were judged on the following:
Managing risk factors on a daily basis.
How the establishment encourages workers to be continually motivated
about serving safe food.
If management can list five critical factors that affect food safety.
Whether procedures are in place regarding customers who bec ome ill
after eating at their establishment
Is aware of the establishment’s policy if an employee shows up for work
with obvious symptoms of illness.
Being able to provide a description of food safety training programs and
policies.
Management’s overall commitment to food safety.
The physical appearance of the establishment at the time of the interview.
The Richfield Advisory Board of Health presents the awards to the winners at
a City Council meeting. Certificates for the nominees have been mailed out
to the establishments. Establishment information and photos of the award
presentation will be given to the Richfield Sun Current and placed on the
City’s social media sites for publicity for the establishments.
2018 Richfield Food Safety Winners
Full Service Restaurants:
Broadway Pizza (Winner) 7514 Lyndale Ave. S. – Owner:
John and Nina Sterbuck.
Giordano’s – (Nominee) 3000 W. 66th St. – General Manager:
Ehric Holland.
Fast Food Café-or Pizza Carryout-Limited Service
DQ Grill & Chill (Winner) 2800 W. 66th St. - Manager: Toni
Hartle.
Wendy’s (Nominee) 6500 Lyndale Ave. S. – Manager: Troy
Brown.
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #6.A.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 71
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
5/28/2019
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jennifer A nderson, S upport S ervices Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
5/21/2019
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
5/22/2019
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider approval of the 2019 - 2020 Public Health Emergency Preparedness agreement with the
Minnesota Department of Health.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The State of Minnesota receives funds from the federal government, Centers for Disease Control (C D C), to
be used in developing agencies' public health emergency preparedness/response to bio-terrorism or a large
public health disease outbreak. This is part of a nationwide effort to respond to serious public health
emergencies.
There are specific requirements in the grant in the areas of coordination, assessment, planning and exercise,
response surveillance, Health Alert Network, risk communications training and providing services and
activities to improve the mass dispensing of medicines and medical supplies through the Cities Readiness
I nitiative.
Richfield pools these federal grant dollars with Bloomington and Edina, with a portion used to support a Public
Health Emergency Response Coordinator for the three cities. Nick Kelley, Public Health Emergency
Preparedness Coordinator, is representing the Tri-City area (Boomington, Edina and Richfield) and has been
regularly meeting with Richfield and Edina staff to plan and develop the requirements of the grant.
These are annual grant funds distributed by a federal grant from the C D C, to provide mandated services in
the area of public health emergency preparedness/bio-terrorism and the development of a response system.
Grant funding for the City of Richfield for Budget Period 1 (J uly 1, 2019 - J une 30, 2020) is $50,405.
Subsequent amounts are announced annually in the Spring.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve the the 2019-2020 P H E P agreement, allowing emergency preparedness exercise
and training opportunities to continue for the City of Richfield.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
Contained in the Executive Summary.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The City of Richfield became a Local Public Health agency in 1977, which makes the City eligible
to receive these grant funds to use for the development of a public health emergency response
system specific to Richfield and its needs.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
MD H has mandated all agreements be signed and returned no later than J une 10, 2019.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
Funds being used are those given to Richfield as a Local Public Health agency, from the federal
government, to develop a system for responding to public health emergency preparedness and
bio-terrorism threats.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The City must comply with the requirements of the grant in order to receive the funds.
The City Attorney has reviewed the contents of the agreement and has approved it.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
There are no alternative recommendations.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
N/A
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Richfield P HE P A greement C ontract/A greement
CHB Grant Project Agreement Template FEDERAL FUNDS Version 1.8, 1/19
Grant Project Agreement Number insert number
Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield Community Health Board
Page 1 of 8
Minnesota Department of Health
Community Health Board Grant Project Agreement
This Grant Project Agreement, and amendments and supplements, is between the State of Minnesota, acting
through its Commissioner of Health ( “STATE”) and City of Richfield Community Health Board, an independent
organization, not an employee of the State of Minnesota, 6700 Portland Avenue So. Richfield, MN 55423,
(“GRANTEE”).
1. Under Minnesota Statutes 144.0742, the STATE is empowered to enter into a contractual agreement for the
provision of statutorily prescribed public health services;
2. The STATE and the GRANTEE have entered into Master Grant Contract number 12‐700‐00080(“Master Grant
Contract”) effective January 1, 2015 or subsequent Master Grant Contracts and amendments and
supplements thereto;
3. The STATE, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 144.0742 is empowered to enter into a Public Health Emergency
Preparedness Cooperative Agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) CDC‐RFA‐
TP19‐1901 under the Catalog of Domestic Assistance Number CFDA# 93.069 to assist state, local and
territorial/freely associated state health departments in demonstrating organizational and operational
capacity to carry out the CDC’s Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Capabilities: National
Standards for State, Local, Tribal and Territorial Public Health. Awards are intended to assist in increasing
and maintaining operational readiness across six (6) domain areas: community resilience, incident
management, information management, countermeasures and mitigation, surge management and
biosurveillance. Awards under this contract build upon work required and completed in previous funding
periods.
This preparedness program is authorized under Section 319C‐1 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (47USC
§247d‐3a), as amended. If applicable, contingent supplemental emergency response awards are authorized
under 317 (a) and 317 (d) of the PHS Act [42 USC § 247b (a) and (d)] subject to available funding and other
requirements and limitations; and
The STATE may choose to amend this contract throughout the five (5) year project period for changes in
state or federal requirements, grant duties, reporting requirements, deliverables, additional funds based
upon continuation funding from the CDC and real world circumstances; and
As a federal condition of this funding, Congress or the federal funder may modify performance measures,
benchmarks, other evaluation and assessment methods, and data collection requirements on an annual
basis or as needed in accordance with their respective directives, goals and objectives, or as performance
measures or other evaluation methods are developed and refined; the GRANTEE accepts these conditions
and agrees to follow the direction of the STATE in the implementation of those changes without a formal
amendment to this contract; and
The STATE may communicate federal change information and direction to the GRANTEE via email,
conference call, Webinar or other electronic means. GRANTEES are responsible for implementing federal
information and guidance communicated by the STATE in the performance of this contract. GRANTEES are
required to login and obtain grant related information, guidance documents and forms directly from the
STATE’S designated SharePoint site or successor portal.
The GRANTEE must demonstrate the organizational capacity and skills to implement the award including
public health emergency preparedness, incident management ,response leadership, program planning,
performance monitoring, personnel management, financial and administrative oversight; and
CHB Grant Project Agreement Template FEDERAL FUNDS Version 1.8, 1/19
Grant Project Agreement Number insert number
Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield Community Health Board
Page 2 of 8
4. The GRANTEE represents that it is duly qualified and willing to perform the duties described in this grant
project agreement to the satisfaction of the STATE. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 16B.98,
subdivision 1, the GRANTEE agrees to minimize administrative costs as a condition of this grant.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed:
1. Incorporation of Master Grant Contract. All terms and conditions of the Master Grant Contract are hereby
incorporated by reference into this grant project agreement.
2. Term of Agreement.
2.1 Effective date. This grant project agreement shall be effective on July 1, 2019, or the date the STATE
obtains all required signatures under Minnesota Statutes 16B.98. Subd. 5(a), whichever is later. The
GRANTEE must not begin work until this contract is fully executed and the State’s Authorized
Representative has notified the GRANTEE that work may commence.
2.2 Expiration date. June 30, 2024, or until all obligations have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the STATE,
whichever occurs first, except for the requirements specified in this grant project agreement with
completion dates which extend beyond the termination date specified in this sentence.
3. Grantee’s Duties and Responsibilities. The GRANTEE shall: Complete the following Administrative (AD)
Duties:
AD‐1 GRANTEE is responsible for actively managing and monitoring each project, program, work plan
component, function or activity supported by the award to ensure timely completion and
submission of all grant deliverables.
AD‐2 GRANTEE shall not assign or transfer any rights or obligation under this grant agreement
without prior written consent of the State.
AD‐3 GRANTEE shall appropriately obligate, budget and spend grant funds by the end of each budget
period as directed by the State. Payments under this contract will be made from federal funds
obtained by the State through Title 42 United States Code, of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act
as amended. GRANTEE shall accept sole financial and legal responsibility for any requirements,
fines, penalties or sanctions imposed by the GRANTEE’S failure to comply with any or all
applicable federal or state requirements including actions of a sub‐GRANTEE or independent
contractors paid in whole or in part from grant funds.
AD‐4 GRANTEE shall submit a detailed line item budget and complete the staff roster for grant funded
staff with appropriate justification for each funding source by July 1, 2019 and before July 1, for
each subsequent budget period. The budgets shall be reflective of all required duties and work
plan activities.
1. Budget revisions, if required, shall be submitted and processed prior to cost being incurred.
Non‐emergency budget revisions must be received and processed prior to May 1st of each
budget year. Non‐emergency budget amendments will not be allowed within the last sixty
days (60) days of any budget period.
a) All budget revisions or modifications moving funds from one budget category to another
budget category require the submission of a revised budget form.
CHB Grant Project Agreement Template FEDERAL FUNDS Version 1.8, 1/19
Grant Project Agreement Number insert number
Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield Community Health Board
Page 3 of 8
b) Budget revisions or modifications greater than 10 percent of any budget line item within the
same budget category in the most recently approved budget on file at the STATE requires
prior approval from the STATE. Failure to obtain prior approval of modifications greater than
10 percent of any budget line item may result in denial of modification request and/or loss
of funds.
c) Budget revisions or modifications equal to or less than 10 percent of any budget line item
within the same budget category are permitted without prior approval from the STATE
provided that all budget deviations are documented with appropriate justification on the
invoice at the time of submission and that the total obligation of the STATE for all
compensation and reimbursements to the GRANTEE shall not exceed the total obligation
listed in section 4.1(b).
2. Travel Costs
a) GRANTEE budgets shall contain appropriate justification and detail relating to all
planned interstate/ out‐ of‐ state travel. GRANTEE shall submit the Out‐of‐State Travel
Request for national conferences, trainings and events not conducted by MDH for
review in accordance with directions on the form. A separate request form is required
for each individual staff person requesting travel approval.
The notification shall be inclusive of all public health staff working on grant
requirements for the budget period. Notification to the STATE shall be made on the
notification form as directed by the STATE.
b) Travel outside of the United States is prohibited with grant funds.
AD‐5 GRANTEE shall maintain original source documentation for all grant funds and grant related
activities. The GRANTEE shall ensure that these records will be provided to the STATE or federal
funder immediately upon request.
AD‐6 GRANTEE shall supply any additional information that may be requested by the STATE or federal
funding agency as it relates to the GRANTEE’S public health preparedness, response capabilities,
preparedness milestones, benchmarks, resource assessments, or evidence‐based deliverables
such as plans, procedures, after action reports including improvement plans (AAR/IPs),
corrective action tracking, survey responses, exercises, training records, audits and fiscal
management and/or other documents apparent or necessary to the successful completion of
this contract, contract management or grant oversight.
AD‐7 GRANTEE shall fully participate in site visits, monitoring calls, monitoring visits, technical
assistance consultations, operational readiness reviews, technical assistance planning sessions
or reviews, financial and programmatic reviews, evaluations, state scheduled events or
exercises, surveys, assessments, conference calls and meetings as requested or required by the
STATE or federal funding Agency.
AD‐8 GRANTEE shall submit clear, concise and complete invoices, general ledgers and supporting
documentation as directed by the STATE. Claims for reimbursement of actual grant expenditures
paid by the GRANTEE shall be invoiced in accordance with the Invoice Submission Schedule
contained in 4.1 (a).
CHB Grant Project Agreement Template FEDERAL FUNDS Version 1.8, 1/19
Grant Project Agreement Number insert number
Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield Community Health Board
Page 4 of 8
AD‐9 GRANTEE shall submit timely, clear, concise, complete and accurate programmatic progress
reports, surveys, self‐assessments, and other reporting tools as directed by the STATE.
AD‐10 The GRANTEE shall provide copies of any plans, annexes, or supporting documentation to the
State or federal funder for review, inspection and evaluation as directed by the STATE or federal
funder.
AD‐11 GRANTEE shall complete all programmatic duties assigned by the STATE. Programmatic duties
for each budget period will be posted electronically at MDH’s SharePoint or successor site. The
GRANTEE is responsible for all information posted at MDH’s SharePoint or successor site. The
GRANTEE shall begin performing programmatic duties on July 1 of each year or when there
grant project agreement is fully executed, whichever is later. All duties are required to be
completed within each individual budget period. The programmatic duties for each budget
period are fully incorporated by reference.
4. Consideration and Payment.
4.1 Consideration. The STATE will pay for all services performed by the GRANTEE under this grant project
agreement as follows:
(a) Compensation. The GRANTEE will be paid on a reimbursement basis only.
Each specific Budget Period award is available only for the specific Budget Period for which it is awarded.
Funds remaining and not fully liquidated at the end of each Budget Period will be cancelled and will not
be available to the GRANTEE in any subsequent Budget Period. GRANTEE shall maintain separate
accounting records and source documentation for each award; funds may not be comingled.
Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Awards
Award Name Budget Period Award Amount
Budget Period 1
PHEP
Budget Period 1
July 1, 2019‐June 30, 2020
$38,405
Budget Period 2
PHEP
Budget Period 2
July 1, 2020‐June 30, 2021
$ To Be Determined
Budget Period 3
PHEP
Budget Period 3
July 1, 2021‐June 30, 2022
$ To Be Determined
Budget Period 4
PHEP
Budget Period 4
July 1, 2022‐June 30, 2023
$ To Be Determined
Budget Period 5
PHEP
Budget Period 5
July 1, 2023‐June 30, 2024
$ To Be Determined
Cities Readiness Initiative (CRI) Awards
Award Name Budget Period Award Amount
Budget Period 1
CRI
Budget Period 1
July 1, 2019‐June 30, 2020
$12,000
Budget Period 2
CRI
Budget Period 2
July 1, 2020‐June 30, 2021
$ To Be Determined
CHB Grant Project Agreement Template FEDERAL FUNDS Version 1.8, 1/19
Grant Project Agreement Number insert number
Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield Community Health Board
Page 5 of 8
Budget Period 3
CRI
Budget Period 3
July 1, 2021‐June 30, 2022
$ To Be Determined
Budget Period 4
CRI
Budget Period 4
July 1, 2022‐June 30, 2023
$ To Be Determined
Budget Period 5
CRI
Budget Period 5
July 1, 2023‐June 30, 2024
$ To Be Determined
(b) Total Obligation. The total obligation of the STATE for all compensation and reimbursements to the
GRANTEE under this grant project agreement will not exceed Fifty thousand four hundred five dollars
($50,405).
4.2 Terms of Payment.
(a) Invoices. The State will promptly pay the GRANTEE after the GRANTEE presents an itemized invoice for
the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services.
Invoices must be submitted in a timely fashion and according to the following schedule:
Invoice Submission Schedule
Invoice Due Invoice Activity Period Deadline for Receipt
1st Quarter July 1 ‐30 September October 31
2nd Quarter October 1‐ December 31 January 31
3rd Quarter January 1‐ March 31 April 30
4th Quarter/ BP Final Invoice April 1‐ June 30 July 31
The State reserves the right to deny payment of invoices not received within thirty (30) days of the invoice
deadline.
(b) Federal Funds. Payments under this grant project agreement will be made from federal funds obtained
by the STATE through Title 47, CFDA number 93.069 , of Section 319C‐1 of the Public Health Service (PHS)
Act (47 USC § 247d‐3a), including public law and all amendments. The Notice of Grant Award (NGA) number
is pending. The GRANTEE is responsible for compliance with all federal requirements imposed on these
funds and accepts full financial responsibility for any requirements imposed by the Grantee's failure to
comply with federal requirements. If at any time federal funds become unavailable, this agreement shall be
terminated immediately upon written notice of by the STATE to the GRANTEE. In the event of such a
termination, GRANTEE is entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily
performed.
5. Conditions of Payment. All services provided by GRANTEE pursuant to this grant project agreement must be
performed to the satisfaction of the STATE, as determined in the sole discretion of its Authorized
Representative. Further, all services provided by the GRANTEE must be in accord with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations.
6. Ownership of Equipment. Disposition of all equipment purchased under this grant project agreement shall
be in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Part 74, Subpart C or, for Notice of Grant
Awards issued on or after December 26, 2014, in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations, Title 2,
Subpart A, Chapter II, Part 200. For all equipment having a current per unit fair market value of $5,000 or
more, the STATE shall have the right to require transfer of the equipment, including title, to the Federal
Government or to an eligible non‐Federal party named by the STATE. This right will normally be exercised by
the STATE only if the project or program for which the equipment was acquired is transferred from one
grantee to another.
CHB Grant Project Agreement Template FEDERAL FUNDS Version 1.8, 1/19
Grant Project Agreement Number insert number
Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield Community Health Board
Page 6 of 8
7. Authorized Representatives.
7.1 STATE’s Authorized Representative. The STATE’s Authorized Representative for purposes of
administering this grant project agreement is Deborah Radi, PHEP Manager, MDH Center for Emergency
Preparedness and Response P. O. Box 64975 St. Paul, MN 55164, 651/201‐5709, and Deb.Radi@state.mn.us,
or his/her successor, and has the responsibility to monitor the GRANTEE’s performance and the final
authority to accept the services provided under this grant project agreement. If the services are satisfactory,
the STATE’s Authorized Representative will certify acceptance on each invoice submitted for payment.
7.2 GRANTEE’s Authorized Representative. The GRANTEE’s Authorized Representative is Jennifer Anderson,
CHS Administrator, 6700 Portland Avenue So. Richfield, MN 55423, 612/861‐9881, and
jenniferanderson@richfieldmn.gov, or his/her successor. The GRANTEE’s Authorized Representative has full
authority to represent the GRANTEE in fulfillment of the terms, conditions, and requirements of this
agreement. If the GRANTEE selects a new Authorized Representative at any time during this grant project
agreement, the GRANTEE must immediately notify the STATE.
8. Termination.
8.1 Termination by the STATE. The STATE or GRANTEE may cancel this grant project agreement at any time,
with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party.
8.2 Termination for Cause. If the GRANTEE fails to comply with the provisions of this grant project
agreement, the State may terminate this grant project agreement without prejudice to the right of the
STATE to recover any money previously paid. The termination shall be effective five business days after the
STATE mails, by certified mail, return receipt requested, written notice of termination to the GRANTEE at its
last known address.
8.3 Termination for Insufficient Funding. The STATE may immediately terminate this grant project
agreement if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota legislature or other funding source; or if funding
cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the work scope covered in this grant
project agreement. Termination must be by written (e‐mail, facsimile or letter) notice to the GRANTEE. The
STATE is not obligated to pay for any work performed after notice and effective date of the termination.
However, the GRANTEE will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services
satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. The STATE will not be assessed any penalty if
this grant project agreement is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota legislature, or other
funding source, not to appropriate funds. The STATE must provide the GRANTEE notice of the lack of funding
within a reasonable time of the STATE receiving notice of the same.
9. Publicity. Any publicity given to the program, publications, or services provided from this grant project
agreement, including, but not limited to, notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports,
signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the GRANTEE or its employees individually or jointly with
others, or any subgrantees shall identify the STATE as a sponsoring agency and shall not be released, unless
such release is approved in advance in writing by the STATE’S Authorized Representative. If federal funding
is being used for this grant project agreement, the federal program must also be recognized.
10. Other Provisions.
10.1 GRANTEE shall comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, programmatic standards, and
metrics, including benchmarks applicable to this funding source and the subject matter contained in the
contract.
CHB Grant Project Agreement Template FEDERAL FUNDS Version 1.8, 1/19
Grant Project Agreement Number insert number
Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield Community Health Board
Page 7 of 8
10.2 The GRANTEE is responsible for compliance with all federal administrative requirements of this funding.
The following Administrative Requirements (AR) apply to this project: AR‐7:Executive Order 12372,AR‐9:
Paperwork Reduction Act,AR‐11 Healthy People 2020,AR‐12: Lobbying Restrictions,AR‐13:Prohibition on Use
of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities,AR‐14:Accounting System Requirements,AR‐16: Security
Clearance Requirement,AR‐21: Small, Minority, and Women‐Owned Business ,AR‐24:Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act,AR‐25: Release and Sharing of Data,AR‐26:National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966,AR‐20 Compliance with EO13513 “Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging while
Driving”, October 1, 2009, AR‐30: Compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,AR‐33: Plain
Writing Act of 2010,ARs applicable to awards related to conferences: AR‐20:Conference Support, AR‐27
Conference Disclaimer and Use of Logos. These documents are fully incorporated by reference.
10.3 The GRANTEE is responsible for compliance with all Federal Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles and Audit Requirements including compliance supplements relating to funds awarded under this
this contract contained in 2 CFR, 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Costs Principles and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards also known as Uniform Guidance requirements. GRANTEE must
demonstrate fiscal responsibility and the ability to provide efficient and effective financial oversight.
GRANTEE shall maintain separate accounting records and documentation for each award; funds may not be
comingled. Financial management systems must meet the requirements as described 2 CFR 200; 2 CFR 200
is fully incorporated by reference.
10.4 GRANTEE must register and maintain an active status in the Federal System for Award Management
must maintain active status in Federal System for Award Management (SAM) throughout the contract and
any subsequent amendments. The GRANTEE registration in SAM must be publically viewable. Additional
information about the SAM registration procedures is available at www.SAM.gov.
10.5 GRANTEE must obtain a Duns and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) for the entity
named in this contract. A DUNS number is a unique nine‐digit identification number provided by Duns &
Bradstreet (D&B). The GRANTEE must provide their DUNS numbers to the STATE before accepting any funds.
The GRANTEE may request a DUNS number by telephone at 1‐866‐705‐5711 or internet at
http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform/displayHomePage.do
10.6 As a federal condition of this funding, the federal funder may modify performance measures, other
evaluation and assessment methods, and data collection requirements on an annual basis, or as needed, in
accordance with their respective directives, goals and objectives, or as performance measures or other
evaluation methods are developed and refined. The grantee accepts these conditions and agrees to follow
the direction of the STATE in the implementation of federal changes without a formal amendment to this
contract.
CHB Grant Project Agreement Template FEDERAL FUNDS Version 1.8, 1/19
Grant Project Agreement Number insert number
Between the Minnesota Department of Health and City of Richfield Community Health Board
Page 8 of 8
APPROVED:
1. GRANTEE
The Grantee certifies that the appropriate persons(s) have
executed the project agreement on behalf of the Grantee as
required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or
ordinances.
2. STATE AGENCY
Project Agreement approval and certification that STATE
funds have been encumbered as required by Minn. Stat.
§§ 16A.15 and 16C.05.
By: ____________________________________ By: _____________________________________
Title: ___________________________________ Title: ____________________________________
Date: ___________________________________ Date: ________________________________
By: _____________________________________
Title: ____________________________________
Date: ___________________________________
Distribution:
MDH (Original fully executed Grant Project Agreement)
Grantee
State Authorized Representative
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #6.B.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 72
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
5/28/2019
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Jennifer A nderson, S upport S ervices Manager
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: Jay Henthorne, D irector of P ublic S afety/C hief of P olice
5/21/2019
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
5/22/2019
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider approval of setting a public hearing to be held on June 25, 2019, to consider issuance of a
new On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor licenses for Los Sanchez Taqueria ll, L LC d/b/a Los Sanchez
Taqueria, located at 2 W est 66th Street.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
On April 19, 2019, the City received the application materials for new On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Malt Liquor
licenses for Los Sanchez Taqueria I I , LLC d/b/a Los Sanchez Taqueria, located at 2 W est 66th Street. Los
Sanchez Taqueria ll, L L C (f/k/a Los Sanchez Taqueria #2, LLC) will be operating in the city under a new
name and new ownership.
All required information and documents have been received. All licensing fees have been paid.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Approve the setting of a public hearing to be held on June 25, 2019, to consider issuance of
a new On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor licenses for Los Sanchez Taqueria ll, L LC d/b/a Los Sanchez
Taqueria, located at 2 W est 66th Street.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
This is a notice to set the public hearing. Staff will provide a more detailed historical context in the
report submitted for the public hearing on J une 25, 2019.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
City ordinance requires the City Council to conduct a public hearing to consider all On-
Sale W ine and 3.2 Malt Liquor license applications and set a date for the public hearing.
The hearing must be scheduled and held before a new license may be considered.
The new process has been initiated.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
Holding the public hearing on J une 25, 2019 will provide ample time to complete the licensing
process.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
All licensing fees have been received.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
There are no legal considerations.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Schedule the public hearing for another date; however, this will delay the licensing process.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
There are no parties expected at this meeting.
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #6.C.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 73
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
5/28/2019
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Melissa P oehlman, A ssistant C D D irector/Myrt L ink, C D A ccountant
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
5/22/2019
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
5/22/2019
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider adoption of a resolution adopting a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the
Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
The Lyndale Gardens Tax I ncrement Financing (TI F) District was established on August 9, 2011 to facilitate
the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of retail, multi-family housing, and public/quasi-public
space on the site of the former Lyndale Garden Center and surrounding parcels. As required, the approved
TI F Plan included a budget that allocated the projected TI F funds into various TI F-eligible line items (e.g.
land/building acquisition costs, site improvements, utilities, administrative fees). The original budget was
modified on October 17, 2011.
On J une 26, 2018 the City Council approved revised site/building plans for the northern half of the Lyndale
Garden Center Development and an amended Contract for Private Development was approved by the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) on J uly 16, 2018. The proposed amendment to the TI F Plan
revises individual line items to reflect costs based on the project as now approved. The modification does not
change the overall amount of TI F funds that the developer could receive and the developer must provide proof
of eligible expenditures prior to receiving any funds. The proposed modification is required in order to comply
with the Office of the State Auditor.
U S E S O F IN C R E ME N T AME N D E D 10/17/11 P R O P O S E D
Land/Building Acquisition $ 3,200,000 $ 3,466,559
Site I mprovements/Prep.$ 2,416,000 $ 2,159,441
Utilities $ 0 $ 80,000
Other Qualifying Costs $ 15,000 $ 0
Costs Outside of District $ 75,000 $ 0
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$ 1,560,000 $ 1,560,000
P ROJ E C T TOTA L C OS T $ 7,266,000 $ 7,266,000
I nterest $ 8,334,000 $ 8,334,000
P ROJ E C T A ND I NTE RE S T TOTA L $15,600,000 $15,600,000
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Adopt a resolution adopting a modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the
Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
See Executive Summary
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
Pursuant to Section 469.175, Subd. 4(b) of the TI F Act, a tax increment financing plan may be
modified without a public hearing or the findings required to be made for the original tax increment
financing plan if the modification does not include (i) any reduction or enlargement of the
geographic area of the project or tax increment financing district; (ii) an increase in the amount of
bonded indebtedness; (iii) a determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was
not a part of the original plan; (iv) an increase in the portion of hte captured net tax capacity to be
retained by the City; (v) an increase in the estimated cost of the project, including administrative
expenses, to be paid or financed with tax increment from the district; or (vi) the designation of
additional property to be acquired by the authority.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The TI F Plan must be modified prior to the issuance of the Pay-As-You-Go-Notes.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None; the total amount of Tax I ncrement Financing that could be provided to the developer is
unchanged.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
The resolution was drafted by the Ehler's, the City's Financial Consultant and reviewed by
Kennedy & Graven.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Rebecca Kurtz, Ehlers
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
Modified Tax Increment F inancing P lan B ackup Material
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN FOR THE LYNDALE GARDENS TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE RICHFIELD REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA.
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield (the “City”) has established the Richfield
Redevelopment Project Area and adopted the Redevelopment Plan therefor and established
therein the Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District and adopted a Tax Increment
Financing Plan (the Plan) therefor. It has been proposed that the City of Richfield adopt a
Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Modification") for the Lyndale Gardens
Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable
law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, and Sections 469.174 to
469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Act"), all as reflected in the Plans and presented for the
City Council's consideration; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has investigated the facts relating to the Modification
and has caused the Modification to be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has performed all actions required by law to be
performed prior to the adoption and approval of the proposed Modification. Because of the
nature of this modification, and because this Modification does not entail an enlargement of
geographic area, an increase in the amount of bonded indebtedness, an increase to the amount
of interest on debt, an increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity, or an increase in
the total estimated tax increment expenditures, this modification is not subject to a public
hearing requirement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows:
1. The City of Richfield hereby reaffirms that the District as modified herein is in the
public interest and is a "redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
subd. 10 (a)(2); that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely through private
investment within the reasonably foreseeable future, that the increased market value on the site
that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be
less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development
after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of
the Lyndale Gardens TIF District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan; that the
Modified Plan conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as
a whole; and that the Modified Plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound
needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Lyndale Gardens TIF District by
private enterprise.
2. The City of Richfield further finds that the Modifications will afford maximum
opportunity, consistent with the sound needs for the City as a whole, for the development or
redevelopment of the project area by private enterprise in that the intent is to provide only that
public assistance necessary to make the private developments financially feasible.
3. Conditioned upon the approval thereof by the City Council, the Modification, as
presented on this date, is hereby approved and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office
of the Community Development Director.
4. Upon approval of the Modifications by the City Council, the Community
Development Director is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the Modification to the
Minnesota Department of Revenue and Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a.
5. The Community Development Director is authorized and directed to forward a
copy of the Modification to the Hennepin County Auditor and request that the Auditor certify the
original tax capacity of the District as described in the Modifications, all in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes 469.177.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of May,
2019.
_______________________________
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
Exhibit A
Budget
Use of Tax Increment Funds
Adopted
August 9, 2011
Modified
October 17, 2011
Modified
May 28, 2019
Land / Building Acquisition 3,000,000 3,200,000 3,466,559
Site Improvements / Preparation 351,000 2,416,000 2,159,441
Utilities 0 0 80,000
Other Qualifying Improvements 15,000 15,000 0
Costs Outside District 2,340,000 75,000 0
Administrative Costs (up to 10%) 1,560,000 1,560,000 1,560,000
Project Cost Total 7,266,000 7,266,000 7,266,000
Interest 8,334,000 8,334,000 8,334,000
Project and Interest Costs Total 15,600,000 15,600,000 15,600,000
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
-AND -
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
Modification of the Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing
Richfield Housing & Redevelopment Authority
City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Public hearing: August 9, 2011
Adopted: August 9, 2011
Modification Adopted:
Modification Considered:
October 17, 2011
May 28, 2019
Table of Contents
(for reference purposes only)
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area ................................. 1-1
Foreword ............................................................. 1-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District ....................... 2-1
Subsection 2-1. Foreword............................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority........................................ 2-1
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................. 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District................................. 2-2
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District........... 2-4
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................ 2-4
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ...................... 2-5
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ........................................... 2-6
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election.................................. 2-7
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies....................................... 2-7
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs ....................................... 2-8
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ................. 2-9
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation ................................ 2-10
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 2-11
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District................................ 2-11
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-11
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-12
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-13
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 2-14
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-14
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-14
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District ............................... 2-14
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-15
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 2-15
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment . ................ 2-15
Subsection 2-28. Summary.............................................. 2-16
Appendix A
Project Description ...................................................... A-1
Appendix B
Map of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the District ................. B-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........................................ D-1
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form ....................................... E-1
Appendix F
Redevelopment Qualifications for the District .................................. F-1
Appendix G
Findings Including But/For Qualifications..................................... G-1
Appendix H
Prior Planned Improvements .............................................. H-4
Appendix I
2017 Special Legislation ................................................... I-4
Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment
Project Area. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the
Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area. Generally, the substantive changes
include the establishment of the Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
is recommended. It is available from the Community Development Director at the City of Richfield. Other
relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing
Districts located within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area.
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area 1-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District
Subsection 2-1. Foreword
The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), the City of Richfield (the "City"), staff
and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Lyndale
Gardens Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district,
located in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area.
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the HRA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to
469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing
public costs related to this project.
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant
information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment
Project Area.
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of four parcel(s) of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District
is being created to facilitate the construction of a mixed-use commercial/retail, multi-family rental housing
and public/community space in the City. Please see Appendix A for further District information. The HRA
has not entered into an agreement or designated a developer at the time of preparation of this TIF Plan,
however, it is anticipated that they will enter into an agreement with the Cornerstone Group. Development
is likely to begin in summer 2011. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in
the Redevelopment Plan for the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude
the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated
to occur over the life of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the District.
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by
the HRA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the HRA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may
acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4. The HRA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction,
relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District.
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information
on the location of the District.
The HRA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of
way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the HRA or City only in order to
accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets,
utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to
accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The HRA or City may acquire property by gift,
dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF
Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition
and related costs.
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District
The HRA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a
redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below:
(a)"Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project,
or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the
following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists:
(1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent
of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance;
(2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently
used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way;
(3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined
in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility:
(i) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons;
(ii) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or
(iii)have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently
used; or
(4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. 10b.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in
structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions,
or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
(c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District 2-2
to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15
percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the
site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard
under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size,
type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or
other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without
an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal
prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the
property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable
to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that
owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion
that the building is structurally substandard.
(d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the
finding under paragraph (a) or by the improvement described in paragraph (e) if all of the
following conditions are met:
(1)the parcel was occupied by a substandard building or met the requirements of paragraph
(e), as the case may be, within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the
parcel as part of the district with the county auditor;
(2)the substandard building or the improvements described in paragraph (e) were demolished
or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the authority or
was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority;
(3)the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was
occupied by a structurally substandard building or met the requirement of paragraph (e) and
that after demolition and clearance the authority intended to include the parcel within a
district; and
(4)upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district,
the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be
adjusted as provided by § 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (f).
(e)For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved
or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel
contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
(f)For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a
redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of
the district must satisfy paragraph (a).
In meeting the statutory criteria the HRA and City rely on the following facts and findings:
• The District is a redevelopment district consisting of four parcels.
• An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District are
occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
•An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings
are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F).
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District 2-3
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that
qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111 or 273.112 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in
any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax
increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b.,
the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the HRA or City (a total of
26 years of tax increment). The HRA or City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2014, which is no
later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District,
including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after
2039, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The HRA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to
the legally required date.
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity
(ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 2011 for taxes payable 2012.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2014) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no
value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the HRA or City.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2012, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2012. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the
District appear in the table below.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, upon
completion of the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown
in the table below. The HRA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for
repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2014. The Project
Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed.
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District 2-4
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)$908,678
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)$62,977
Fiscal Disparities Reduction $110,967
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)$734,734
Original Local Tax Rate 1.38568 Pay 2011
Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $1,018,106
Percent Retained by the HRA 100%
Tax capacity includes a 4% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in thischart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25.The tax capacity of the District in year one isestimated to be $142,942.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the HRA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its
request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which
building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the
TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase
the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building
permit was issued.
The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found that some building permits
have been issued in the past 18 months, but none that should increase the original tax capacity. Please
see Appendix H for the building permits that were issued.
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued
The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax
increments. The HRA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF
Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by on or more pay-as-you-go
notes. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This
provision does not obligate the HRA or City to incur debt. The HRA or City will issue bonds or incur other
debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City.
The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below:
SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL
Tax Increment $15,600,000
Interest $0
TOTAL $15,600,000
The HRA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments
from the District in a maximum principal amount of $7,266,000. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as-
you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total
bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval.
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District 2-5
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the construction of a mixed-use
commercial/retail, multi-family rental housing and public/community space. The HRA and City have
determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as
described below. The HRA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in
and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District,
this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses.
The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table.
USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS
AS ADOPTED ON
AUGUST 9, 2011
AS AMENDED ON
OCTOBER 17, 2011
Land/Building Acquisition $3,000,000 $3,200,000
Site Improvements/Preparation $351,000 $2,416,000
Utilities $0 $0
Other Qualifying Improvements $15,000 $15,000
Costs Outside of District $2,340,000 $75,000
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$1,560,000 $1,560,000
PROJECT COST TOTAL $7,266,000 $7,266,000
Interest $8,334,000 $8,334,000
PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $15,600,000 $15,600,000
(As Modified May 28, 2019)
USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS
AS MODIFIED
ON MAY 28, 2019
Land/Building Acquisition $3,466,559
Site Improvements/Preparation $2,159,441
Utilities $80,000
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$1,560,000
PROJECT COST TOTAL $7,266,000
Interest $8,334,000
PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $15,600,000
The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total
projected tax increments for the District as shown in Appendix D.
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District 2-6
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification
to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed,
without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant
to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the
District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within
the boundaries of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area, (including administrative costs, which are
considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan. The
HRA and the City reserve the right to expend tax increment for activities outside the District within the
limitations of M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2.
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the HRA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal
disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b (within the District) are
followed, the following method of computation shall apply:
(1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity
provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal
disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the
current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section
276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax
capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity
and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax
capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity
is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has
designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the
retained captured net tax capacity of the authority.
(2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the
net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The
local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity
of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by
the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate
to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority.
The HRA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b.
According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3:
(c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or
(b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may
elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in
paragraph (b).
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies
Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1)A business subsidy of less than $150,000;
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District 2-7
(2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses,
such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria;
(3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a
public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at
the time the improvements are made;
(4)Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3;
(5)Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing
it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that
the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost;
(6)Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to
provide those services;
(7) Assistance for housing;
(8)Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing
hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23;
(9)Assistance for energy conservation;
(10)Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law;
(11)Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
(12)Benefits derived from regulation;
(13)Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
(14)Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and
bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
(15)Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business;
(16)Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section
469.174, Subd. 19;
(17)Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation
is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value;
(18)General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally
technical nature;
(19)Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
(20)Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
(21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less;
(22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration; and
(23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to
valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100.
The HRA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance
under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions.
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the HRA or City to pay for all or
part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment
will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of
road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five
years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the HRA or City within forty-
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District 2-8
five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the HRA and City and consultants, the proposed
development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan
was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The HRA and City are aware that the
county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing.
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF
Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the HRA or City has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as
follows if the "but for" test was not met:
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
2010/Pay 2011
Total Net
Tax Capacity
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Completion
Percent of CTC
to Entity Total
Hennepin County 1,320,682,751 734,734 0.0556%
City of Richfield 24,776,100 734,734 2.9655%
Richfield ISD No. 280 32,204,673 734,734 2.2815%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Pay 2011
Extension Rates
Percent
of Total CTC
Potential
Taxes
Hennepin County 0.458400 33.08% 734,734 336,802
City of Richfield 0.567970 40.99% 734,734 417,307
Richfield ISD No. 280 0.267590 19.31% 110,967 29,694
Other 0.091720 6.62%110,967 10,178
Total 1.385680 100.00%793,980
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the actual Pay 2011 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based
on actual Pay 2011 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2012 rates, which were
unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b):
(1)Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be
generated over the life of the District is $15,600,000;
(2)Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. A minimal impact
of the District on police protection is expected. The Police Department does track all calls for service
including property-type calls and crimes. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police
calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional
overall demands to the call load. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District 2-9
of itself, will necessitate new capital investment in vehicles or require that the City hire additional
officers.
The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new
buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. The existing buildings, which
will be eliminated by the new development, have public safety concerns that includes a vacant,
blighted building with issues such as vandalism. The building will also go from a non-sprinklered
building, to a fully-sprinkled building.
The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The development is
not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area. The current infrastructure for
sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from
the proposed development. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated
with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. The development in the District
is not expected to contribute to water (WAC) connection fees.
The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue
debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any
general obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the
City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit.
(3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the
amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district
levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions
remained the same, is $3,012,360;
(4)Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of
tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the
county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $5,160,480;
(5)Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any
standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and
impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional
information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax
increment financing plan.
No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed
development for the District have been received.
Subsection 2-15.Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and
description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd.
3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of
reports and studies on file at the City that support the HRA and City's findings:
• TIF Application, The Cornerstone Group;
• Project Proformas, The Cornerstone Group;
• Report of Inspection Procedures and Results for Determining Qualifications of a Tax Increment
Financing District, LHB Inc., 2011.
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District 2-10
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S.,
Section 469.177;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was
purchased by the Authority with tax increments;
3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the Authority with tax increments;
4.Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments;
5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for
which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and
6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384.
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the
requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e);
2.Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3.A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF
Plan;
4.Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the HRA or City;
5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid
or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA or City,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original TIF Plan.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not
be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county
auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that
the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, must be documented in
writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is
elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2)(A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated
from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax
capacity or (B) the HRA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax
capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the
District.
The HRA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the
District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF
Plan.
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District 2-11
HRA or City, other than:
1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and
engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the
District;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
District; or
4.Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance
costs described in clauses (1) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982,
and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond
counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section
469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative
expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures
authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause
(1), from the District, whichever is less.
For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay
any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment
expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.
25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits
of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the
year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36
percent) of any increment distributed to the HRA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount
deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be
appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information
and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be
adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue.
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District
may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow
account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or
redemption date.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation
or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District 2-12
street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water
systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district
by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing
plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original net tax
capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently
commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel
including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the
tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity
has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most
recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity
of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this
subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required
activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be
submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified
as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a
street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street,
and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
The HRA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately July 2015
and report such actions to the County Auditor.
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment
The HRA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in the District for the following purposes:
1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. To finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the Richfield Redevelopment Project
Area pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047;
3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan;
4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
HRA or City or for the benefit of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area by a developer;
6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and
7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on
the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152
through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4.
Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the HRA for the Tax Increment
Fund of said District. The HRA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an
amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public
improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds
will be used for HRA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement
activities outside the District.
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District 2-13
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments
Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the
following:
1. Prepay any outstanding bonds;
2.Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds;
3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or
4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their local tax rates.
The HRA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after
the end of the year. In addition, the HRA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to
modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area
or the District.
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The HRA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the HRA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with City plans and ordinances. The HRA or City may also use the Agreements to address other
issues related to the development.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the HRA or City as a result
of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments
from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the HRA
or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which
provides recourse for the HRA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed.
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the HRA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement
in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market
value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement
shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements
to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are
to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears,
in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the
minimum market value agreement.
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Community Development Director.
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District 2-14
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the HRA or City must undertake financial reporting
for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor
on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement
shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15.
If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax
increment from the District.
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated
development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected
to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value
estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax
increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said
determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects
and upon HRA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District.
A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and
the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow
in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less
the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the
District and the use of tax increments.
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the the
Richfield Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047. Tax increments
may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition,
construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for
conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government
or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax
increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure.
2.Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance
activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not
more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside of the District.
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year
following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District 2-15
permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit
enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a
redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation
of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs
include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or
improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary
to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures,
clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of
the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated
administrative expenses of the HRA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action
response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs.
Subsection 2-28. Summary
The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the
tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for
the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota
55113, telephone (651) 697-8500.
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District 2-16
Appendix A
Project Description
The Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District is being established to facilitate a multi-phase, mixed
use redevelopment on the former Lyndale Garden Center Site. Phase I will include rehabilitation of the
garden center building. It is anticipated that the commercial space will contain several uses, including an
anchor tenant, office space, retail and a community space. Phase II will include construction of
approximately 100 units of rental housing with a mixture of market rate and affordable units. The final phase
is anticipated to include the substantial rehabilitation of additional market rate and affordable housing units.
It is anticipated that financing for the redevelopment project will be provided through a pay-as-you-go note
and an interfund loan from the HRA.
(As Modified May 28, 2019)
The proposed development in the Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District is being modified to
include the Lakewinds Co-op, approximately 8 units of rental townhomes, approximately 66 units of
rental apartment units, approximately 6,000 square feet of commercial / retail space and approximately 30
units of owner occupied townhomes.
It is anticipated that two pay-as-you-go notes will be issued to the Master Developer and Secondary
Developer.
Appendix A-1
Appendix B
Map of the Richfield Redevelopment Project Area and the District
Appendix B-1
]72.17[
]94.96[]30.54[[82.16][33.89]]51.06[[25.31][53.64]
]26.75[[53.64][36.47]
]9
2.08[
[36.43]
]78.64[
]82.211[
[74]
[134.34]
[388.25]]6.16[=C[38.6]C=[49.8]
]94.96[]30.54[[82.16][33.89]]51.06[[25.31]71st 1/2
70th 1/2
LOGAN75th
VINCENTUPTONTHOMASWASHBURNXERXESI - 494
78th
77th
76th
OLIVERNEWTONMORGANSHERIDANRUSSELLQUEENPENN74th
72nd
73th
71st
69th
70th
DUPONTKNOXJAMESIRVINGHUMBOLDTGIRARDFREMONTEMERSONCOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDGRANDHARRIETLYNDALECROSSTOWN HWY
62nd
67th
68th
66th
65th
64th
63rd SHERIDANWASHBURNXERXESVINCENTUPTONTHOMASRUSSELLQUEENPENNOLIVERNEWTONMORGANLOGANDUPONTHUMBOLDTKNOXJAMESIRVINGGIRARDEMERSONFREMONTLYNDALECOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDHARRIETGRAND69th
71st
72nd
73th
74th
75th
78th
70th
76th
77th
COLUMBUS2nd1stSTEVENSPLEASANTPILLSBURYBLAISDELLWENTWORTHNICOLLET3rdCLINTON4th5thPORTLANDOAKLANDPARK10th11th12th13th14thELLIOTCHICAGO15th16th17th18thCEDARBLOOMINGTONI-494
62nd
63rd
64th
65th
67th
68th
66thCOLUMBUSPLEASANTPILLSBURYWENTWORTHBLAISDELLSTEVENSNICOLLET1st2nd5thCLINTON3rd4thOAKLANDPARKPORTLAND15th11thCHICAGOELLIOT10th13th12th14thBLOOMINGTON16th17thCEDAR18th
19008009001000110012001300180060050040030020050100124200300324400500620700720800900100011001300140015001600170018001001524190060012000007001400290028002700260025002200210020003000150016001700240031002300´
May 2011
PROPOSED LYNDALE GARDENS TIF DISTRICT
Legend
Richfield R edevelopment Project area boundary
Proposed TIF Redevelopment District
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District
At the time of approval, the District encompassed all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting
roadways identified by the parcels listed below.
Parcel Numbers Address Owner
28-028-24-11-0080 6400 Lyndale Ave. S.Rancho Richfield, LLC
28-028-24-11-0002 6330 Lyndale Ave. S.Roy E. Peterson
27-028-24-23-0064 6430 Lyndale Ave. S.Rancho Richfield, LLC
27-028-24-23-0065 840 65th St. W.800 Company, LLP
After adoption of the TIF Plan, the area was replatted. Parcel 27-028-24-23-0065 was combined with
adjacent parcels resulting in parcel 27-028-24-23-0110.
The following is a list of the parcels after replatting and as certified for the District.
Parcel Numbers Address
28-028-24-11-0088 6400 Lyndale Ave. S.
28-028-24-11-0002 6330 Lyndale Ave. S.
27-028-24-23-0064 6430 Lyndale Ave. S.
(As Modified May 28, 2019)
The following is a list of the parcels after replatting:
Secondary Developer Property: PID : 28-028-24-11-0090 (portion for Apartments)
PID : 28-028-24-11-0089 (portion for Apartments)
Master Developer Property: PID : 27-028-24-23-0114 (Lakewinds)
PID : 27-028-24-23-0115 (Lakewinds Parking)
PID : 28-028-24-11-0090 (portion for Retail)
PID : 28-028-24-11-0089 (portion for Condominiums)
Appendix C-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District
Appendix D-1
6/24/2011Base Value Assumptions - Page 1Lyndale Garden Center - 4.0% InflationCity of Richfield95 Units of Rental Housing with Commercial and Public Space in Phase I and Phase II(Information based on project information received 5/24/2011 plus estimates for housing in Phase III )ASSUMPTIONS AND RATESDistrictType:RedevelopmentMaximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 138.568% Pay 2011 District Name/Number:TDBCurrent Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.)138.568% Pay 2011 County District #:TBDState-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes)49.0430% Pay 2011 First Year Construction or Inflation on Value2012Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes)0.14886% Pay 2011 Existing District - Specify No. Years RemainingInflation Rate - Every Year:4.00%PROPERTY TAX CLASSES AND CLASS RATES:Developer's Interest Rate:5.50%Exempt Class Rate (Exempt)0.00%Present Value Date:1-Feb-12Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.)First Period Ending1-Aug-12First $150,0001.50%Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2012Over $150,0002.00%Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For District:2014Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/I)2.00%Years of Tax Increment26Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental)1.25%Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment2039Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental)0.75%Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res.)1.25%Incremental or Total Fiscal DisparitiesIncrementalHomestead Residental Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.)Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio41.5461% Pay 2011 First $500,0001.00%Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate129.3270% Pay 2011 Over $500,0001.25%Agricultural Non-Homestead1.00%PercentageTax Year Property CurrentClassAfterLandBuildingTotal Of Value Used Original Original Tax OriginalAfter ConversionMap # PIDOwner Address Market Value Market Value Market Value for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap. Area/Phase28-028-24-11-0080Rancho Richfield 6400 Lyndale Ave. S.2,675,0001,000 2,676,00050% 1,338,000 Pay 2012 C/I Pref.26,010C/I Pref.26,010128-028-24-11-0080Rancho Richfield 6400 Lyndale Ave. S.2,675,0001,000 2,676,00030% 802,800 Pay 2012 C/I16,056Rental10,035228-028-24-11-0080Rancho Richfield 6400 Lyndale Ave. S.2,675,0001,000 2,676,00020% 535,200 Pay 2012 C/I10,704Aff. Rental4,014228-028-24-11-0002Roy Peterson 6330 Lyndale Ave. S. 216,000 128,000344,000100% 344,000 Pay 2012 C/I Pref.6,130Rental4,300227-028-24-23-0064Rancho Richfield 6430 Lyndale Ave. S.249,0000249,000100% 249,000 Pay 2012 C/I Pref.4,230C/I Pref.4,230227-028-24-23-0065800 Company LLP 840 65th St. 264,000 887,000 1,151,000100% 1,151,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res.14,388Rental14,38838,754,000 1,018,000 9,772,0004,420,00077,51862,977Note:1. Base values are based upon Hennepin County website for Pay 2012. Percent for development is based on estimates. BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\Richfield\Housing-ED-Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Lyndale Garden Center Site\TIF cashflow 6-22-2011 for TIF Plan
6/24/2011Base Value Assumptions - Page 2Lyndale Garden Center - 4.0% InflationCity of Richfield95 Units of Rental Housing with Commercial and Public Space in Phase I and Phase IIPropertyPercentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First YearTotal Market Value Market Tax Project Completed Completed Completed Completed Full TaxesArea/Phase New Use Sq. Ft./Units Sq. Ft./UnitsValueClass Tax Capacity2012201320142015Payable2 Market Rent 69169,72411,710,956 Rental 146,3870%75%100%100%20162Affordable Rent 26169,7244,412,824Aff. Rental 33,0960%75%100%100%20161Anchor 28,0001253,500,000 C/I Pref. 69,250100% 100%100%100%20141Flex space 15,0001251,875,000C/I37,500100% 100%100%100%20141Common5,968110656,480C/I13,130100% 100%100%100%20141Office/Edu 9,2251251,153,125C/I23,063100% 100%100%100%20143Housing802,877,500 Rental 35,9690%0%0%100%2017TOTAL26,185,885358,394Subtotal Residential17519,001,280215,452Subtotal Commercial/Ind.58,1937,184,605142,942Note:1. Market values are based upon estimates from the developer. Phase 3 values are estimates for rehabilitation of existing units.2. Assumes 20% affordable housing, per Cornerstone.3. Developer has requested first increment in 2014. District is anticipated to be certified with Pay 2012 values.Total FiscalLocalLocalFiscal State-wide MarketTax Disparities TaxPropertyDisparities PropertyValueTotal Taxes PerNew UseCapacityTax CapacityCapacityTaxesTaxes TaxesTaxesTaxes Sq. Ft./UnitMarket Rent 146,3870146,387 202,8450017,433 220,278 3,192.44Affordable Rent 33,096033,09645,861006,56952,430 2,016.52Anchor 69,250 28,771 40,47956,09137,208 33,9625,210 132,472 4.73Flex space 37,500 15,580 21,92030,37420,149 18,3912,79171,706 4.78Common 13,1305,4557,67510,6357,0556,43997725,106 4.21Office/Edu 23,0639,58213,48118,68012,392 11,3111,71744,099 4.78Housing 35,969035,96949,841004,28354,125 676.56TOTAL 358,394 59,387 299,007 414,32876,803 70,10338,980 600,215Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary signficantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factorswhich cannot be predicted.Total Property Taxes600,215Current Market Value - Est.4,420,000less State-wide Taxes(70,103)New Market Value - Est.26,185,885less Fiscal Disp. Adj.(76,803) Difference21,765,885less Market Value Taxes(38,980)Present Value of Tax Increment6,302,782less Base Value Taxes(69,856) Difference15,463,103Annual Gross TIF 344,472Value likely to occur without Tax Increment is less than:15,463,103 WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM TIF?MARKET VALUE BUT / FOR ANALYSISTAX CALCULATIONSPROJECT INFORMATION (Project Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\Richfield\Housing-ED-Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Lyndale Garden Center Site\TIF cashflow 6-22-2011 for TIF Plan
6/24/2011Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3Lyndale Garden Center - 4.0% InflationCity of Richfield95 Units of Rental Housing with Commercial and Public Space in Phase I and Phase IITAX INCREMENT CASH FLOWProject OriginalFiscal CapturedLocal Annual Semi-Annual State Admin. Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD% of TaxTax Disparities TaxTax Gross Tax Gross Tax AuditoratNet Tax Present ENDING Tax PaymentOTC Capacity Capacity Incremental CapacityRate Increment Increment 0.36%10% Increment Value Yrs. Year Date-- --08/01/12-- --02/01/13-- --08/01/13-- --02/01/14100% 142,942 (62,977) (46,823) 33,142 139% 45,925 22,962(83) (2,288)20,592 17,980 0.5 2014 08/01/14100% 142,942 (62,977) (46,823) 33,142 139% 45,925 22,962(83) (2,288)20,592 35,478 1 2014 02/01/15100% 283,272 (62,977) (46,823) 173,472 139% 240,377 120,189 (433) (11,976)107,780 124,617 1.5 2015 08/01/15100% 283,272 (62,977) (46,823) 173,472 139% 240,377 120,189 (433) (11,976)107,780 211,370 2 2015 02/01/16100% 334,089 (62,977) (46,823) 224,289 139% 310,793 155,397 (559) (15,484)139,354 320,535 2.5 2016 08/01/16100% 334,089 (62,977) (46,823) 224,289 139% 310,793 155,397 (559) (15,484)139,354 426,777 3 2016 02/01/17100% 383,422 (62,977) (46,823) 273,622 139% 379,152 189,576 (682) (18,889)170,004 552,919 3.5 2017 08/01/17100% 383,422 (62,977) (46,823) 273,622 139% 379,152 189,576 (682) (18,889)170,004 675,685 4 2017 02/01/18100% 398,758 (62,977) (48,696) 287,086 139% 397,809 198,904 (716) (19,819)178,370 801,045 4.5 2018 08/01/18100% 398,758 (62,977) (48,696) 287,086 139% 397,809 198,904 (716) (19,819)178,370 923,049 5 2018 02/01/19100% 414,709 (62,977) (50,644) 301,088 139% 417,212 208,606 (751) (20,785)187,069 1,047,579 5.5 2019 08/01/19100% 414,709 (62,977) (50,644) 301,088 139% 417,212 208,606 (751) (20,785)187,069 1,168,777 6 2019 02/01/20100% 431,297 (62,977) (52,670) 315,651 139% 437,391 218,696 (787) (21,791)196,117 1,292,436 6.5 2020 08/01/20100% 431,297 (62,977) (52,670) 315,651 139% 437,391 218,696 (787) (21,791)196,117 1,412,785 7 2020 02/01/21100% 448,549 (62,977) (54,777) 330,796 139% 458,377 229,189 (825) (22,836)205,527 1,535,533 7.5 2021 08/01/21100% 448,549 (62,977) (54,777) 330,796 139% 458,377 229,189 (825) (22,836)205,527 1,654,996 8 2021 02/01/22100% 466,491 (62,977) (56,968) 346,547 139% 480,203 240,101 (864) (23,924)215,313 1,776,797 8.5 2022 08/01/22100% 466,491 (62,977) (56,968) 346,547 139% 480,203 240,101 (864) (23,924)215,313 1,895,339 9 2022 02/01/23100% 485,151 (62,977) (59,246) 362,928 139% 502,902 251,451 (905) (25,055)225,491 2,016,161 9.5 2023 08/01/23100% 485,151 (62,977) (59,246) 362,928 139% 502,902 251,451 (905) (25,055)225,491 2,133,750 10 2023 02/01/24100% 504,557 (62,977) (61,616) 379,964 139% 526,508 263,254 (948) (26,231)236,076 2,253,563 10.5 2024 08/01/24100% 504,557 (62,977) (61,616) 379,964 139% 526,508 263,254 (948) (26,231)236,076 2,370,170 11 2024 02/01/25100% 524,739 (62,977) (64,081) 397,682 139% 551,059 275,530 (992) (27,454)247,084 2,488,948 11.5 2025 08/01/25100% 524,739 (62,977) (64,081) 397,682 139% 551,059 275,530 (992) (27,454)247,084 2,604,547 12 2025 02/01/26100% 545,729 (62,977) (66,644) 416,108 139% 576,592 288,296 (1,038) (28,726)258,532 2,722,265 12.5 2026 08/01/26100% 545,729 (62,977) (66,644) 416,108 139% 576,592 288,296 (1,038) (28,726)258,532 2,836,832 13 2026 02/01/27100% 567,558 (62,977) (69,310) 435,271 139% 603,147 301,573 (1,086) (30,049)270,439 2,953,468 13.5 2027 08/01/27100% 567,558 (62,977) (69,310) 435,271 139% 603,147 301,573 (1,086) (30,049)270,439 3,066,982 14 2027 02/01/28100% 590,260 (62,977) (72,082) 455,201 139% 630,763 315,382 (1,135) (31,425)282,822 3,182,517 14.5 2028 08/01/28100% 590,260 (62,977) (72,082) 455,201 139% 630,763 315,382 (1,135) (31,425)282,822 3,294,959 15 2028 02/01/29100% 613,870 (62,977) (74,966) 475,928 139% 659,484 329,742 (1,187) (32,856)295,700 3,409,375 15.5 2029 08/01/29100% 613,870 (62,977) (74,966) 475,928 139% 659,484 329,742 (1,187) (32,856)295,700 3,520,729 16 2029 02/01/30100% 638,425 (62,977) (77,964) 497,484 139% 689,354 344,677 (1,241) (34,344)309,093 3,634,011 16.5 2030 08/01/30100% 638,425 (62,977) (77,964) 497,484 139% 689,354 344,677 (1,241) (34,344)309,093 3,744,261 17 2030 02/01/31100% 663,962 (62,977) (81,083) 519,903 139% 720,419 360,209 (1,297) (35,891)323,021 3,856,395 17.5 2031 08/01/31100% 663,962 (62,977) (81,083) 519,903 139% 720,419 360,209 (1,297) (35,891)323,021 3,965,529 18 2031 02/01/32100% 690,521 (62,977) (84,326) 543,218 139% 752,726 376,363 (1,355) (37,501)337,507 4,076,505 18.5 2032 08/01/32100% 690,521 (62,977) (84,326) 543,218 139% 752,726 376,363 (1,355) (37,501)337,507 4,184,510 19 2032 02/01/33100% 718,142 (62,977) (87,699) 567,466 139% 786,326 393,163 (1,415) (39,175)352,573 4,294,317 19.5 2033 08/01/33100% 718,142 (62,977) (87,699) 567,466 139% 786,326 393,163 (1,415) (39,175)352,573 4,401,186 20 2033 02/01/34100% 746,867 (62,977) (91,207) 592,683 139% 821,270 410,635 (1,478) (40,916)368,241 4,509,816 20.5 2034 08/01/34100% 746,867 (62,977) (91,207) 592,683 139% 821,270 410,635 (1,478) (40,916)368,241 4,615,538 21 2034 02/01/35100% 776,742 (62,977) (94,855) 618,910 139% 857,611 428,806 (1,544) (42,726)384,536 4,722,984 21.5 2035 08/01/35100% 776,742 (62,977) (94,855) 618,910 139% 857,611 428,806 (1,544) (42,726)384,536 4,827,555 22 2035 02/01/36100% 807,812 (62,977) (98,650) 646,185 139% 895,406 447,703 (1,612) (44,609)401,482 4,933,811 22.5 2036 08/01/36100% 807,812 (62,977) (98,650) 646,185 139% 895,406 447,703 (1,612) (44,609)401,482 5,037,224 23 2036 02/01/37100% 840,124 (62,977) (102,596) 674,552 139% 934,713 467,356 (1,682) (46,567) 419,107 5,142,288 23.5 2037 08/01/37100% 840,124 (62,977) (102,596) 674,552 139% 934,713 467,356 (1,682) (46,567) 419,107 5,244,539 24 2037 02/01/38100% 873,729 (62,977) (106,700) 704,053 139% 975,592 487,796 (1,756) (48,604) 437,436 5,348,406 24.5 2038 08/01/38100% 873,729 (62,977) (106,700) 704,053 139% 975,592 487,796 (1,756) (48,604) 437,436 5,449,493 25 2038 02/01/39100% 908,678 (62,977) (110,967) 734,734 139% 1,018,106 509,053 (1,833) (50,722) 456,499 5,552,162 25.5 2039 08/01/39100% 908,678 (62,977) (110,967) 734,734 139% 1,018,106 509,053 (1,833) (50,722) 456,499 5,652,083 26 2039 02/01/40 Total15,669,219 (56,409) (1,561,281) 14,051,529 Present Value From 02/01/2012 Present Value Rate 5.50%6,302,782 (22,690) (628,009) 5,652,083 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\Richfield\Housing-ED-Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\Lyndale Garden Center Site\TIF cashflow 6-22-2011 for TIF Plan
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form
(Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development)
A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar
year's activity by April 1 of the following year.
Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at
http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms.
Appendix E-1
Appendix F
Redevelopment Qualifications for the District
Appendix F-1
REPORT OF
INSPECTION PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
FOR
DETERMINING QUALIFICATIONS OF A
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
AS A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Lyndale Garden TIF District
Richfield, Minnesota
LHB Project No. 110189
July 22, 2011
Prepared For The
City of Richfield HRA
Pr epared by
LHB, Inc.
250 Third Avenue North, Suite 450
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PART 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................ 3
Purpose of Evaluation ............................................................. 3
Scope of Work ........................................................................ 4
Conclusion .............................................................................. 4
PART 2 Minnesota Statute 469.174, Subdivision 10 Requirements .................. 4
PART 3 Procedures Followed........................................................................... 6
PART 4 Findings .............................................................................................. 6
A.Coverage Test ......................................................................... 6
B.Condition of Building Test ...................................................... 8
1.Building Inspection ........................................................... 8
2.Replacement Cost .............................................................. 8
3.Code Deficiencies ............................................................. 8
4.System Condition Deficiencies .......................................... 9
C. Distribution of Substandard Structures ................................... 10
PART 5 Team Credentials .............................................................................. 11
APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
Page 3
PART 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF EVALUATION
LHB was hired by the City of Richfield HRA to inspect and evaluate the properties within a Tax
Increment Financing Redevelopment District (“TIF District”) proposed to be established by the
HRA. The proposed TIF District is located on and immediately adjacent to the Lyndale Garden
Center property, between Richfield Lake and Lyndale Avenue (Diagram 1). The purpose of
LHB’s work was to determine whether the proposed TIF District meets the statutory
requirements for coverage, and whether three buildings on four parcels, located within the
proposed TIF District, meet the qualifications required for a Redevelopment District.
D iagram 1 – Proposed TIF District
Page 4
SCOPE OF WORK
The proposed TIF District consists of four (4) parcels with three (3) structures.
The buildings received an on-site interior and exterior inspection on March 31, 2011. The
building on map parcel no. 3 was not inspected as it did not appear likely to be found
substandard. Building code and Condition Deficiency reports are located in Appendix B.
CONCLUSION
After inspecting and evaluating the properties within the proposed TIF District and applying
current statutory criteria for a Redevelopment District under Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 10, it is our professional opinion that the proposed TIF District qualifies as
a Redevelopment District because:
•The proposed TIF District has a coverage calculation of 100 percent which is above the
70 percent requirement.
•66.7 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard which is above the 50 percent
requirement.
•The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area of
the proposed TIF District.
The remainder of this report describes our process and findings in detail.
PART 2 – MINNESOTA STATUTE 469.174, SUBDIVISION 10 REQUIREMENTS
The properties were inspected in accordance with the following requirements under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), which states:
Interior Inspection
“The municipality may not make such determination [that the building is structurally
substandard] without an interior inspection of the property...”
Exterior Inspection and Other Means
“An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that
(1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to the property after using its best
efforts to obtain permission from the party that owns or controls the property; and
(2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally
substandard.”
Documentation
“Written documentation of the findings and reasons why an interior inspection was not
conducted must be made and retained under section 469.175, subdivision 3(1).”
Page 5
Qualification Requirements
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 (a) (1) requires two tests for occupied
parcels:
A. Coverage Test
…“parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings,
streets, utilities, or paved or gravel parking lots”
The coverage required by the parcel to be considered occupied is defined under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which states: “For purposes of
this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or paved or gravel
parking lots unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains building, streets, utilities,
or paved or gravel parking lots.”
B. Condition of Buildings Test
…“and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally
substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance;”
1. Structurally substandard is defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
Subdivision 10(b), which states: “For purposes of this subdivision, ‘structurally
substandard’ shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of
deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection
including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar
factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.”
a. We do not count energy code deficiencies toward the thresholds required by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b)) defined as “structurally
substandard”, due to concerns expressed by the State of Minnesota Court of
Appeals in the Walser Auto Sales, Inc. vs. City of Richfield case filed November
13, 2001.
2. Buildings are not eligible to be considered structurally substandard unless they meet
certain additional criteria, as set forth in Subdivision 10(c) which states:
“A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building
code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a
cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same
square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not
disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of
reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the
average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs, or other similar reliable
evidence.”
Page 6
“Items of evidence that support such a conclusion [that the building is not
disqualified] include recent fire or police inspections, on-site property appraisals or
housing inspections, exterior evidence of deterioration, or other similar reliable
evidence.”
LHB counts energy code deficiencies toward the 15 percent code threshold required
by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c)) for the following reasons:
• The Minnesota energy code is one of ten building code areas highlighted by
the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry website where minimum
construction standards are required by law.
• The index page of the 2007 Minnesota Building Code lists the Minnesota
Energy Code as a “Required Enforcement” area compared to an additional
list of “Optional Enforcement” chapters.
• The Senior Building Code Representative for the Construction Codes and
Licensing Division of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry
confirmed that the Minnesota Energy Code is being enforced throughout the
State of Minnesota.
• In a January 2002 report to the Minnesota Legislature, the Management
Analysis Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration confirmed
that the construction cost of new buildings complying with the Minnesota
Energy Code is higher than buildings built prior to the enactment of the code.
• Proper TIF analysis requires a comparison between the replacement value of
a new building built under current code standards with the repairs that would
be necessary to bring the existing building up to current code standards. In
order for an equal comparison to be made, all applicable code chapters should
be applied to both scenarios. Since current construction estimating software
automatically applies the construction cost of complying with the Minnesota
Energy Code, energy code deficiencies should also be identified in the
existing structures.
PART 3 – PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
LHB was able to schedule interior and exterior inspections for two buildings on March 31,
2011, and made the following findings:
PART 4 – FINDINGS
A. Coverage Test
1. The total square foot area of each parcel in the proposed TIF District was obtained
from City records, GIS mapping and site verification.
Page 7
2. The total square foot area of buildings and site improvements on the parcels in the
proposed TIF District was obtained from City records, GIS mapping and site
verification.
3. The percentage of coverage for each parcel in the proposed TIF District was
computed to determine if the 15 percent minimum requirement was met. The total
square footage of parcels meet ing the 15 percent requirement was divided into the
total square footage of the entire district to determine if the 70 percent requirement
was met.
Finding:
The proposed TIF District met the coverage test under Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 10(e), which resulted in parcels consisting of 100 percent of the
area of the proposed TIF District being occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved
or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures (Diagram 2). This exceeds the 70
percent area coverage requirement for the proposed TIF District under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision (a) (1).
Diagram 2 – Coverage Diagram
Shaded area depicts a parcel more than 15 percent occupied by buildings, streets, utilities,
Paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures
Page 8
B. Condition of Building Test
1. Building Inspection
The first step in the evaluation process is the building inspection. After an initial
walk-thru, the inspector makes a judgment whether or not a building “appears” to
have enough defects or deficiencies of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance. If it does, the inspector documents with notes and
photographs code and non-code deficiencies in the building.
2. Replacement Cost
The second step in evaluating a building to determine if it is substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance is to determine its replacement cost.
This is the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on
site. Replacement costs were researched using R.S. Means Cost Works square foot
models for 2011.
A replacement cost was calculated by first establishing building use (office, retail,
residential, etc.), building construction type (wood, concrete, masonry, etc.), and
building size to obtain the appropriate median replacement cost, which factors in the
costs of construction in Richfield, Minnesota.
Replacement cost includes labor, materials, and the contractor’s overhead and profit.
Replacement costs do not include architectural fees, legal fees or other “soft” costs
not directly related to construction activities. Replacement cost for each building is
tabulated in Appendix A.
3. Code Deficiencies
The next step in evaluating a building is to determine what code deficiencies exist
with respect to such building. Code deficiencies are those conditions for a building
which are not in compliance with current building codes applicable to new buildings
in the State of Minnesota.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), specifically provides that a
building cannot be considered structurally substandard if its code deficiencies are not
at least 15 percent of the replacement cost of the building. As a result, it was
necessary to determine the extent of code deficiencies for each building in the
proposed TIF District.
The evaluation was made by reviewing all available information with respect to such
buildings contained in City Building Inspection records and making interior and
exterior inspections of the buildings. LHB utilizes the current Minnesota State
Building Code as the official code for our evaluations. The Minnesota State Building
Code is actually a series of provisional codes written specifically for Minnesota only
requir ements, adoption of several international codes, and amendments to the adopted
international codes.
Page 9
After identifying the code deficiencies in each building, we used R.S. Means Cost
Works 2011; Unit and Assembly Costs to determine the cost of correcting the
identified deficiencies. We were than able to compare the correction costs with the
replacement cost of each building to determine if the costs for correcting code
deficiencies meet the required 15 percent threshold.
Finding:
Two (2) out of three (3) buildings (66.7 percent) in the proposed TIF District
contained code deficiencies exceeding the 15 percent threshold required by Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c). A complete Building Code and
Condition Deficiency report for each building in the proposed TIF District can be
found in Appendix B of this report.
4. System Condition Deficiencies
If a building meets the minimum code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), then in order for such building to be “structurally
substandard” under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b), the
building’s defects or deficiencies should be of sufficient total significance to justify
“substantial renovation or clearance.” Based on this definition, LHB re -evaluated
each of the buildings that met the code deficiency threshold under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(c), to determine if the total deficiencies warranted
“substantial renovation or clearance” based on the criteria we outlined above.
System condition deficiencies are a measurement of defects or substantial
deterioration in site elements, structure, exterior envelope, mechanical and electrical
components, fire protection and emergency systems, interior partitions, ceilings,
floors and doors.
The evaluation of system condition deficiencies was made by reviewing all available
information contained in City records, and making interior and exterior inspections of
the buildings. LHB only identified system condit ion deficiencies that were visible
upon our inspection of the building or contained in City records. We did not consider
the amount of “service life” used up for a particular component unless it was an
obvious part of that component’s deficiencies.
After identifying the system condition deficiencies in each building, we used our
professional judgment to determine if the list of defects or deficiencies are of
sufficient total significance to justify “substantial renovation or clearance.”
Finding:
In our professional opinion, two (2) out of three (3) buildings (66.7 percent) in the
proposed TIF District are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial
renovation or clearance, because of defects in structural elements or a combination of
deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection
Page 10
including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar
factors which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance. This exceeds the 50 percent requirement of
Subdivision 10a(1).
C. Distribution of substandard structures
Much of this report has focused on the condition of individual buildings as they relate
to requirements identified by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10. It
is also important to look at the distribution of substandard buildings throughout the
geographic area of the proposed TIF District (Diagram 3).
Finding:
The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed throughout the geographic area
of the proposed TIF District.
Diagram 3 – Substandard Buildings
Shaded area depicts parcels with substandard buildings
Page 11
PART 5 - TEAM CREDENTIALS
Michael A. Fischer, AIA LEED AP - Project Principal/TIF Analyst
Michael has twenty-four years of architectural experience as project principal, project manager,
project designer and project architect on municipal planning, educational, commercial and
governmental projects. He is a Senior Vice President at LHB and currently leads the
Minneapolis office. Michael completed a two-year Bush Fellowship at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in 1999, earning Masters Degrees in City Planning and Real Estate
Development. Michael has served on over 35 committees, boards and community task forces,
including a term as City Council President and Chair of the Duluth/Superior Metropolitan
Planning organization. He is currently Chair of the Planning Commission in Edina, Minnesota.
He was one of four architects in the country to receive the National "Young Architects Citation"
from the American Institute of Architects in 1997.
Ben Trousdale, AIA - Project Manager/Inspector
Ben is a project architect in LHB’s Minneapolis office with 20 years of experience working on a
var iety of multi-family housing and commercial projects. He has extensive skills in creating
quality construction documents that convey a building’s fundamentals and unique design
details. His responsibilities include project management, code analysis, and o verseeing
document production. Ben is a licensed architect in Minnesota and is involved with AIA
activities including Search for Shelter charrettes.
Lydia Major, MLA, ASLA – GIS/Mapping
Lydia brings a passion for design that benefits the client, the community, and the environment.
Her experience includes designing and drafting commercial and residential properties at a
variety of scales. Lydia integrates her skills with AutoCAD, ArcGIS, and the Adobe Creative
Suite to produce plans, color renderings, booklets, and other presentation materials.
Communication is a critical component in all projects, and Lydia’s uses her education as a
writer to create compelling project documents, including proposals, requests for variance, and
other public-relations materials.
M:\11Proj\110189\400 Design\406 Reports\TIF\Final Report\Lyndale Gardens Redevelopment TIF Final Report 7-18-11.doc
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
APPENDIX B Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
APPENDIX C Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
APPENDIX A
Property Condition Assessment Summary Sheet
7/22/11 Lyndale Garden Redevelopment TIF AnalysisSUMMARY SPREADSHEETTIF Map No.PID #Owner/BusinessProperty AddressImproved or VacantSurvey Method UsedSite Area(S.F.)Coverage Area of Improvements(S.F.)Coverage Percent of ImprovementsCoverageQuantity(S.F.)No. of BuildingsBuildingReplacementCost15% of Replacement CostBuilding Code DeficienciesNo. of Buildings Exceeding 15% CriteriaNo. of buildings determined substandard1 28-028-24-11-0002Roy E. Peterson6330 Lyndale Avenue SouthImproved Interior/Exterior 17,70816,89295.4% 17,708 1$889,000 $133,350 $316,700112 28-028-24-11-0080Rancho Richfield LLC6400 Lyndale Avenue SouthImproved Interior/Exterior 401,494 149,93237.3% 401,494 1 $4,687,000 $703,050 $2,023,826113 27-028-24-23-0065800 Company LLC840 65th Street WestImproved Exterior 48,95530,27061.8% 48,955 1Note 1Note 1Note 1004 27-028-24-23-0064Rancho Richfield LLC6430 Lyndale Avenue SouthVacantExterior 27,96327,963100.0% 27,963 0TOTALS 496,120496,120 3 22 Note 1: This building was not inspected because it did not appear substandard from the exterior. 100.0% 66.7%M:\11Proj\110189\400 Design\406 Reports\TIF\Summary Spreadsheet\[Lyndale Garden Spreadsheet.xls]Property Info66.7%Total Coverage Percent:Percent of buildings exceeding 15 percent code deficiency threshold: Percent of buildings determined substandard: M:\11Proj\110189\400 Design\406 Reports\TIF\Summary Spreadsheet\[Lyndale Garden Spreadsheet.xls]Property Info66.7%Percent of buildings determined substandard: LHB Project No. 110189Page 1 of 1
APPENDIX B
Building Code and Condition Deficiencies Reports
LYNDALE GARDEN REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT
CODE/CONDITION DEFICIENCY REPORT
July 18, 2011
Map No. & Building Name: Map No. 1 – Multi-Tenant Office Building
Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): March 31, 2011, 1:30pm
Inspection Type: Interior/Exterior
Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard because:
- Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of replacement cost.
- Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found.
Estimated Replacement Cost: $ 889,000
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $ 316,700
Percentage of Replacement Cost: 36%
Description of Condition Deficiencies
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, states that a building is Structurally Substandard if i t
contains “defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light
and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar
factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or
clearance.”
A. Defects in Structural Elements
1. Major visible cracking in structural walls and columns.
2. Visible cracks in concrete floor structure (visible from below).
B. Combination of Deficiencies
1. Essential Utilities and Facilities
a. Upgraded mechanical system required in basement offices.
b. Bathrooms not adequate.
c. New GFI outlets required in wet spaces.
2. Light and Ventilation
a. Basement offices require improved ventilation.
b. Basement offices require windows and/or egress windows.
c. Lighting should be improved in corridors and stairs.
3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress
a. Stairs from basement are not code compliant.
b. One stairway has mechanical equipment intruding into walking space.
c. Doors and door hardware are not code compliant.
4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials
a. Mildew present in basement spaces.
b. All interior finishes (wall, ceiling, floor) require updating.
c. Visible cracking on underside of floor (basement ceiling).
5. Exterior Construction
a. Fascia, soffit and siding requires sanding and painting.
b. Concrete stoops and stairs and sidewalk requires replacement.
c. Exterior concrete walls require significant patching and waterproofing.
d. Major visible cracking on exterior walls.
e. Parking lot surface should be repaired, sloping away from building.
Overview of Condition Deficiencies
Most of the interior and exterior finishes are in need of upgrading and repair. The site and all entrances require
improvements to prevent further water damage. This building definitely requires substantial renovation to
correct the existing condition deficiencies.
Description of Code Deficiencies
This multi-tenant office building was converted from an animal kennel building and has never met ADA
requirements, or many other basic code requirements for a multi-tenant office building.
1. Tenant spaces are not accessible. Four in basement, four on upper floor.
2. Three sets of stairs do not meet current codes.
3. 66’ Dead-end corridor in basement.
4. No windows or means of egress from basement office spaces.
5. Ventilation not adequate in basement spaces.
6. Roof leaks on north wing allowing water intrusion into building.
7. Doors and hardware are not ADA compliant.
8. Water is penetrating building at base at rear perimeter.
9. Four bathrooms are not accessible or code compliant.
M:\11Proj\110189\400 Design\406 Reports\TIF\Building Reports\Office Building.doc
LYNDALE GARDEN REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT
CODE/CONDITION DEFICIENCY REPORT
July 18, 2011
Map No. & Building Name: Map No. 2 – Lyndale Garden Center and Hardware Store
Inspection Date(s) & Time(s): March 31, 2011, 3:00pm
Inspection Type: Interior/Exterior
Summary of Deficiencies: It is our professional opinion that this building is Substandard because:
- Building Code deficiencies total more than 15% of replacement cost.
- Substantial renovation is required to correct Conditions found.
Estimated Replacement Cost: $ 4,687,000
Estimated Cost to Correct Building Code Deficiencies: $ 2,023,826
Percentage of Replacement Cost: 43%
Description of Condition Deficiencies
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, states that a building is Structurally Substandard if it
contains “defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light
and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar
factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or
clearance.”
A. Defects in Structural Elements
1. Exterior Walls and Roof are damaged.
B. Combination of Deficiencies
1. Essential Utilities and Facilities
a. New plumbing fixtures and domestic water distribution required.
b. New electrical system required.
c. New GFI outlets required in wet spaces.
2. Light and Ventilation
a. Several windows and storefront glass are broken.
b. New ventilation/furnace system required.
3. Fire Protection/Adequate Egress
a. Debris in building would make egress difficult.
b. Doors are non-functional.
4. Layout and Condition of Interior Partitions/Materials
a. Remove all interior surface materials in order to eliminate mold and mildew.
b. Replace all interior surfaces.
c. Graffiti painted throughout building.
5. Exterior Construction
a. Exterior wood siding severely damaged, needs replacement.
b. Replace storefront system and all windows.
c. Concrete block walls retaining moisture, require tuck pointing.
d. Site requires general cleanup to prevent damage to Richfield Lake.
e. Damage at rear loading dock, overhead door and man door.
f. Retaining walls near loading dock are damaged and should be replaced.
g. Exterior building signage is damaged and should be replaced.
h. Building is not accessible from parking lots.
Overview of Condition Deficiencies
This building has been closed for a long period of time and has been vandalized to the point where it is not safe
for occupancy. Almost every system in this building will require complete replacement, making it easy to
determine that substantial renovation would be required to correct the condition deficiencies.
Description of Code Deficiencies
1. The roof is allowing water intrusion and should be repaired with proper slope.
2. The domestic water system has been damaged due to freezing temperatures in the building.
3. New plumbing fixtures and domestic water distribution required.
4. Replace existing furnace and ventilation distribution system.
5. Mold development has made the building unsafe for occupancy.
6. Remove all interior surfaces in the building to eliminate the mold and mildew.
7. All glass storefronts, windows and doors require replacement to prevent water intrusion and rodents.
8. Electrical distribution system is non-functional and does not meet current code.
9. Building is not accessible from parking.
10. Building lighting is non-functional.
11. Sprinkler system is non-functional.
M:\11Proj\110189\400 Design\406 Reports\TIF\Building Reports\Lyndale Garden Center.doc
APPENDIX C
Building Replacement Cost Reports
Code Deficiency Cost Reports
Photographs
Stories Count (L.F.):
Building Type:
Square Foot Cost Estimate Report
Location:
Stories Height
Data Release:
Basement Included:
Year 2011 Quarter 2
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
4,000.00Floor Area (S.F.):
LaborType
1.00
12.00
Open Shop
Office 1 Story with Tiltup Concrete Panel / Steel Roof Deck
Untitled
Yes
Cost Per Square Foot $222.25
Total Building Cost $889,000
Estimate Name:
Costs are derived from a building model with basic components. Scope
differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly.
Cost
Cost Per
SF
% of
Total
A Substructure $142,00035.5018.4%
A1010 Standard Foundations $28,0007.00
Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 11.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 6 KSF, 12" deep x 24" wide
Spread footings, 3000 PSI concrete, load 100K, soil bearing capacity 6 KSF, 4' - 6" square x 15" deep
A1030 Slab on Grade $21,5005.38
Slab on grade, 4" thick, non industrial, reinforced
A2010 Basement Excavation $14,5003.62
Excavate and fill, 10,000 SF, 8' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on site storage
A2020 Basement Walls $78,00019.50
Foundation wall, CIP, 12' wall height, pumped, .444 CY/LF, 21.59 PLF, 12" thick
B Shell $260,50065.1233.7%
B1010 Floor Construction $90,00022.50
Cast-in-place concrete column, 12" square, tied, 200K load, 12' story height, 142 lbs/LF, 4000PSI
Flat slab, concrete, with drop panels, 6" slab/2.5" panel, 12" column, 15'x15' bay, 75 PSF superimposed load, 153 PSF total load
B1020 Roof Construction $37,5009.38
Floor, steel joists, beams, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on columns, 25'x30' bay, 25" deep, 40 PSF superimposed load, 60 PSF total load
Floor, steel joists, beams, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on columns, 25'x30' bay, 25" deep, 40 PSF superimposed load, 60 PSF total load, add for column
B2010 Exterior Walls $53,50013.38
Tilt-up concrete panels, vertical rib and light sandblast, 6" thick, 3000 PSI
B2020 Exterior Windows $24,5006.12
Windows, aluminum, awning, insulated glass, 4'-5" x 5'-3"
B2030 Exterior Doors $12,0003.00
Door, aluminum & glass, with transom, narrow stile, double door, hardware, 6'-0" x 10'-0" opening
Door, aluminum & glass, with transom, bronze finish, hardware, 3'-0" x 10'-0" opening
Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'-0" x 7'-0" opening
B3010 Roof Coverings $41,50010.38
Roofing, single ply membrane, EPDM, 45 mils, loosely laid, stone ballast
Insulation, rigid, roof deck, extruded polystyrene, 25 PSI compressive strength, 3" thick, R15
1
Cost
Cost Per
SF
% of
Total
Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face
Flashing, aluminum, no backing sides, .019"
Gravel stop, aluminum, extruded, 8", duranodic, .050" thick
B3020 Roof Openings $1,5000.38
Roof hatch, with curb, 1" fiberglass insulation, 2'-6" x 4'-6", aluminum curb and cover, 150lbs
C Interiors $113,50028.3814.7%
C1010 Partitions $23,0005.75
Metal partition, 5/8" water resistant gypsum board face, no base layer, 3-5/8" @ 24" OC framing ,same opposite face, no insulation
1/2" fire ratedgypsum board, taped & finished, painted on metal furring
C1020 Interior Doors $21,5005.38
Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality, flush, 3'-0" x 7'-0" x 1-3/8"
C1030 Fittings $2,0000.50
Toilet partitions, cubicles, ceiling hung, plastic laminate
C3010 Wall Finishes $6,0001.50
Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, walls & ceilings, roller work, primer & 2 coats
Vinyl wall covering, fabric back, medium weight
C3020 Floor Finishes $32,5008.12
Carpet, tufted, nylon, roll goods, 12' wide, 36 oz
Carpet, padding, add to above, minimum
Vinyl, composition tile, maximum
Tile, ceramic natural clay
C3030 Ceiling Finishes $28,5007.12
Acoustic ceilings, 3/4"mineral fiber, 12" x 12" tile, concealed 2" bar & channel grid, suspended support
D Services $257,00064.2533.3%
D2010 Plumbing Fixtures $24,0006.00
Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung
Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung
Lavatory w/trim, vanity top, PE on CI, 20" x 18"
Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20"
Water cooler, electric, floor mounted, dual height, 14.3 GPH
D2020 Domestic Water Distribution $7,5001.88
Gas fired water heater, commercial, 100< F rise, 75.5 MBH input, 63 GPH
Gas fired water heater, commercial, 100< F rise, 100 MBH input, 91 GPH
D3050 Terminal & Package Units $82,50020.62
Rooftop, multizone, air conditioner, offices, 10,000 SF, 31.66 ton
D4010 Sprinklers $13,5003.38
Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, light hazard, 1 floor, 10,000 SF
D4020 Standpipes $5,0001.25
Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 4" diam pipe, 1 floor
D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution $43,00010.75
Service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit & wire, 3 phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 400 A
Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 400 A
Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, 600 A
D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring $52,00013.00
Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 16.5 per 1000 SF, 2.0 W per SF, with transformer
Miscellaneous power, 1.2 watts
Central air conditioning power, 4 watts
Motor installation, three phase, 460 V, 15 HP motor size
Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 1.6 watt per SF, 40 FC, 10 fixtures @32watt per 1000 SF
D5030 Communications and Security $28,5007.12
2
Cost
Cost Per
SF
% of
Total
Telephone wiring for offices & laboratories, 8 jacks/MSF
Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 25 detectors, includes outlets, boxes, conduit and wire
Fire alarm command center, addressable without voice, excl. wire & conduit
Internet wiring, 8 data/voice outlets per 1000 S.F.
D5090 Other Electrical Systems $1,0000.25
Generator sets, w/battery, charger, muffler and transfer switch, gas/gasoline operated, 3 phase, 4 wire, 277/480 V, 7.5 kW
E Equipment & Furnishings $00.000.0%
E1090 Other Equipment $00.00
F Special Construction $00.000.0%
G Building Sitework $00.000.0%
Sub Total
Contractor's Overhead & Profit
Architectural Fees
User Fees
Total Building Cost
$773,000100%
15.0%$116,000
0.0%$0
0.0%$0
$889,000
$193.25
$29.00
$0.00
$0.00
$222.25
3
Lyndale Garden Redevelopment TIF District
Cost Worksheet
Multi-Tenant Office Building
Item Description Cost Unit Quantity Total
Replace Roof Membrane Removal of existing membrane 2.00$ SF 4,000 8,000$
Insulation and new membrane 8.00$ SF 4,000 32,000$
Elevator required for basement tenants Demolition 7,000.00$ Ea 1 7,000$
Elevator Installation 35,000.00$ Ea 1 35,000$
Accessible Entrances at upper offices Demolition 1,500.00$ Ea 4 6,000$
New Ramps 7,500.00$ Ea 4 30,000$
New Doors and hardware Demolition 100.00$ Ea 12 1,200$
New Door and Hardware 1,500.00$ Ea 12 18,000$
Reconstruct Basement Stairs Demolition 5,000.00$ Ea 4 20,000$
New Construction 20,000.00$ Ea 4 80,000$
Reconstruct Bathrooms for ADA Demolition 3,000.00$ Ea 4 12,000$
New Construction 7,000.00$ Ea 4 28,000$
Install Egress Windows in Basement Demolition 500.00$ Ea 4 2,000$
Installation of Egress Windows 2,500.00$ Ea 4 10,000$
Remove Dead end Corridor in basement Demolition 500.00$ Ea 1 500$
New Construction 5,000.00$ Ea 1 5,000$
Improve ventilation in office spaces Demolition 250.00$ Ea 8 2,000$
New Construction 2,500.00$ Ea 8 20,000$
Total Costs 316,700$
Stories Count (L.F.):
Building Type:
Square Foot Cost Estimate Report
Location:
Stories Height
Data Release:
Basement Included:
Year 2011 Quarter 2
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
48,968.00Floor Area (S.F.):
LaborType
1.00
15.00
Open Shop
Store, Department, 1 Story with Face Brick with Concrete Block Back-up / Steel Frame
Untitled
No
Cost Per Square Foot $95.72
Total Building Cost $4,687,000
Estimate Name:
Costs are derived from a building model with basic components. Scope
differences and market conditions can cause costs to vary significantly.
Cost
Cost Per
SF
% of
Total
A Substructure $409,5008.3610.1%
A1010 Standard Foundations $58,0001.18
Strip footing, concrete, reinforced, load 5.1 KLF, soil bearing capacity 3 KSF, 12" deep x 24" wide
spread footings, 3000 PSI concrete, load 75K, soil bearing capacity 3 KSF, 5' - 6" square x 13" deep
A1030 Slab on Grade $264,5005.40
Slab on grade, 4" thick, non industrial, reinforced
A2010 Basement Excavation $14,5000.30
Excavate and fill, 100,000 SF, 4' deep, sand, gravel, or common earth, on site storage
A2020 Basement Walls $72,5001.48
Foundation wall, CIP, 4' wall height, direct chute, .148 CY/LF, 7.2 PLF, 12" thick
B Shell $1,330,50027.1732.7%
B1010 Floor Construction $22,0000.45
Fireproofing, gypsum board, fire rated, 1 layer, 1/2" thick, 14" steel column, 2 hour rating, 18 PLF
B1020 Roof Construction $481,0009.82
Floor, steel joists, beams, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on columns, 30'x30' bay, 28" deep, 40 PSF superimposed load, 62 PSF total load
Floor, steel joists, beams, 1.5" 22 ga metal deck, on columns, 30'x30' bay, 28" deep, 40 PSF superimposed load, 62 PSF total load, add for column
B2010 Exterior Walls $427,0008.72
Brick wall, composite double wythe, standard face/CMU back-up, 8" thick, perlite core fill
B2020 Exterior Windows $93,0001.90
Aluminum flush tube frame, for 1/4"glass, 1-3/4" x 4-1/2", 5'x6' opening, 1 intermediate horizontal
Glazing panel, plate glass, 3/8" thick, tinted
B2030 Exterior Doors $20,5000.42
Doors, stainless steel & glass, balanced, standard, premium, 3'-0" x 7'-0" opening
Door, steel 18 gauge, hollow metal, 1 door with frame, no label, 3'-0" x 7'-0" opening
B3010 Roof Coverings $280,5005.73
Roofing, asphalt flood coat, gravel, base sheet, 3 plies 15# asphalt felt, mopped
Insulation, rigid, roof deck, composite with 2" EPS, 1" perlite
Roof edges, aluminum, duranodic, .050" thick, 6" face
1
Cost
Cost Per
SF
% of
Total
Gravel stop, aluminum, extruded, 4", mill finish, .050" thick
B3020 Roof Openings $6,5000.13
Roof hatch, with curb, 1" fiberglass insulation, 2'-6" x 3'-0", galvanized steel, 165 lbs
Smoke hatch, unlabeled, galvanized, 2'-6" x 3', not incl hand winch operator
C Interiors $1,092,00022.3026.8%
C1010 Partitions $108,0002.21
Metal partition, 5/8"fire rated gypsum board face, 1/4" sound deadening gypsum board, 2-1/2" @ 24", same opposite face, no insulation
1/2" fire ratedgypsum board, taped & finished, painted on metal furring
C1020 Interior Doors $87,0001.78
Door, single leaf, kd steel frame, hollow metal, commercial quality, flush, 3'-0" x 7'-0" x 1-3/8"
C3010 Wall Finishes $14,0000.29
Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, walls & ceilings, roller work, primer & 2 coats
C3020 Floor Finishes $670,50013.69
Carpet tile, nylon, fusion bonded, 18" x 18" or 24" x 24", 35 oz
Tile, ceramic natural clay, marble, synthetic 12" x 12" x 5/8"
C3030 Ceiling Finishes $212,5004.34
Acoustic ceilings, 5/8" plastic coated mineral fiber, 12" x 12" tile, 25 ga channel grid, adhesive back support
D Services $1,243,50025.3930.5%
D2010 Plumbing Fixtures $74,0001.51
Water closet, vitreous china, bowl only with flush valve, wall hung
Urinal, vitreous china, wall hung
Lavatory w/trim, vanity top, PE on CI, 20" x 18"
Service sink w/trim, PE on CI,wall hung w/rim guard, 24" x 20"
Water cooler, electric, wall hung, dual height, 14.3 GPH
D2020 Domestic Water Distribution $17,0000.35
Gas fired water heater, commercial, 100< F rise, 500 MBH input, 480 GPH
D2040 Rain Water Drainage $35,5000.72
Roof drain, CI, soil,single hub, 6" diam, 10' high
Roof drain, CI, soil,single hub, 6" diam, for each additional foot add
D3050 Terminal & Package Units $375,0007.66
Rooftop, single zone, air conditioner, department stores, 10,000 SF, 29.17 ton
D4010 Sprinklers $142,5002.91
Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, light hazard, 1 floor, 50,000 SF
D4020 Standpipes $11,5000.23
Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 6" diam pipe, 1 floor
Wet standpipe risers, class III, steel, black, sch 40, 6" diam pipe, additional floors
D5010 Electrical Service/Distribution $105,0002.14
Service installation, includes breakers, metering, 20' conduit & wire, 3 phase, 4 wire, 120/208 V, 1200 A
Feeder installation 600 V, including RGS conduit and XHHW wire, 1200 A
Switchgear installation, incl switchboard, panels & circuit breaker, 1200 A
D5020 Lighting and Branch Wiring $420,5008.59
Receptacles incl plate, box, conduit, wire, 2.5 per 1000 SF, .3 W per SF, with transformer
Miscellaneous power, to .5 watts
Central air conditioning power, 3 watts
Fluorescent fixtures recess mounted in ceiling, 1.6 watt per SF, 40 FC, 10 fixtures @32watt per 1000 SF
D5030 Communications and Security $60,5001.24
Communication and alarm systems, fire detection, addressable, 100 detectors, includes outlets, boxes, conduit and wire
Fire alarm command center, addressable with voice, excl. wire & conduit
Internet wiring, 2 data/voice outlets per 1000 S.F.
D5090 Other Electrical Systems $2,0000.04
2
Cost
Cost Per
SF
% of
Total
Generator sets, w/battery, charger, muffler and transfer switch, gas/gasoline operated, 3 phase, 4 wire, 277/480 V, 7.5 kW
E Equipment & Furnishings $00.000.0%
E1090 Other Equipment $00.00
F Special Construction $00.000.0%
G Building Sitework $00.000.0%
Sub Total
Contractor's Overhead & Profit
Architectural Fees
User Fees
Total Building Cost
$4,075,500100%
15.0%$611,500
0.0%$0
0.0%$0
$4,687,000
$83.23
$12.49
$0.00
$0.00
$95.72
3
Lyndale Garden Redevelopment TIF District
Cost Worksheet
Lyndale Garden Center and Hardware Store
Item Description Cost Unit Quantity Total
Roof and Skylight repairs Demolition 3.00$ SF 48,968 146,904$
New insulation for roof slope 2.00$ SF 48,968 97,936$
Membrane Adhered w/ Flashings 3.75$ SF 48,968 183,630$
Replace all storefront, windows and doors Demolition 30,000.00$ Ea 1 30,000$
New Construction 140,000.00$ Ea 1 140,000$
Remove and replace elect. System Demolition 1.00$ SF 48,968 48,968$
Electrical Service/Distribution 2.00$ SF 48,968 97,936$
Domestic Water Supply and plumbing Demolition 1.00$ SF 48,968 48,968$
New Domestic Water distribution 0.50$ SF 48,968 24,484$
plumbing fixtures 74,000.00$ Ea 1 74,000$
Rain water drainage Demolition 5,000.00$ Ea 1 5,000$
New Construction 35,500.00$ Ea 1 35,500$
Mechanical System code compliance Demolition 15,000.00$ Ea 1 15,000$
New Construction 375,000.00$ Ea 1 375,000$
Sprinkler System and Standpipes Demolition 5,000.00$ Ea 1 5,000$
New Construction 150,000.00$ Ea 1 150,000$
Electrical Service/Distribution Demolition 5,000.00$ Ea 1 5,000$
New Construction 105,000.00$ Ea 1 105,000$
Lighting and Branch wiring Demolition 15,000.00$ Ea 1 15,000$
New Construction 420,500.00$ Ea 1 420,500$
Total Costs 2,023,826$
Appendix G
Findings Including But/For Qualifications
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF
Plan) for the Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District (District) as required pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that the District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.
10(a)(1).
The District consists of 4 parcels and it is proposed that these parcels be redeveloped for housing
and commercial purposes. All parcels within the District are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures, and the occupied parcels make
up more than 70% of the area of the District. More than 50% of the buildings within the District
(2 of 3 buildings), not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree of requiring
substantial renovation or clearance. The substandard buildings are reasonably distributed
throughout the District. The Council has specifically relied on a study conducted by LHB, Inc.,
dated July 22, 2011, and entitled "Report of Inspections and Results for Determining
Qualifications of a Tax Increment Financing District as a Redevelopment District (Lyndale
Gardens TIF District, Richfield, Minnesota)," which is included in the TIF Plan at Appendix F, to
make these determinations.
2. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur
solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future.
The anticipated development consists of three phases. The first phase will include the acquisition
of property and the substantial rehabilitation of the Lyndale Garden Center in order to make it
suitable for commercial use, including possible restaurant, retail, office, and community space.
The second and third phases will include construction of approximately 100 units of rental
housing, some of which will be affordable housing. The redevelopment project requires
acquisition of several parcels of property, demolition of one building, environmental remediation,
site improvements, and substantial rehabilitation of the Lyndale Garden Center building. Current
estimates of redevelopment costs are more than $30,000,000. The cost and scope of the proposed
redevelopment make it unlikely to occur solely through private investment.
The developer has submitted a pro forma to the City demonstrating that the costs of acquiring the
land for all phases of the redevelopment project, demolition costs, environmental remediation
costs, site improvements, and construction of certain public improvements are economically
infeasible without the assistance provided in the TIF Plan. The developer has certified to the City
that it would not acquire the property and construct the housing and commercial development
without the requested assistance. In order to make the redevelopment of this blighted area
feasible, and provide affordable housing to persons of moderate income within the City, TIF
assistance is required to reduce the price of redevelopment costs.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use
of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result
from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax
increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan.
The City believes that the comprehensive nature of the proposed commercial and housing
development, which requires significant time and expense to acquire parcels necessary for the
Appendix G-1
development and the substantial renovation of a structurally substandard building, would not
occur without the requested TIF assistance. Specifically, the proposed combination of housing
and commercial development in the District is necessary in order to make the redevelopment of
the Lyndale Garden Center economically feasible for the developer. The Lyndale Garden Center
is currently vacant and in very poor condition, has been cited for numerous code violations, and
has attracted trespassers. The property has remained vacant for many years without any
successful proposals to redevelop the site. Providing assistance to the developer for all three
phases of the proposed development will ensure that the Lyndale Garden Center is rehabilitated
and the site is incorporated into the surrounding development.
Therefore, the City reasonably determines that no other development of similar scope is
anticipated on this site without substantially similar assistance being provided for the
development. To summarize the basis for the City's findings, the City makes the following
determinations:
a. The City's estimate of the amount by which the market value of the site will increase
without the use of tax increment financing is $0 (for the reasons described above), except
some unknown amount of appreciation.
b.If the proposed development to be assisted with tax increment occurs in the District, the
total increase in market value would be approximately $21,765,885. The increase in
market value would be due primarily to substantial building rehabilitation and new
construction within the District. (See Appendix D of TIF Plan and the table below.)
c.The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the
district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be no more than $6,302,782. (See
Appendix D of TIF Plan and the table below.)
d.Even if some development other than the proposed development were to occur, the
Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase
greater than $15,463,103 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax
increment assistance.
But-For Analysis
Current Market Value 4,420,000
New Market Value - Estimate 26,185,885
Difference 21,765,885
Present Value of Tax Increment 6,302,782
Difference 15,463,103
Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 15,463,103
3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District conforms to the general plan for the development or
redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the
general development plan of the City.
Appendix G-2
4. Finding that the TIF Plan for the District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the
sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Lyndale Garden Center project by
private enterprise.
The commercial and housing projects to be developed within the District and assisted with tax
increment financing from the District will result in the redevelopment of blighted and
underutilized land which currently has obsolete land use and substandard buildings, promotion of
the development of affordable housing, promotion of commercial development, and preservation
and enhancement of the tax base of the City.
Appendix G-3
Appendix H
Prior Planned Improvements
Appendix G-4
Appendix I
2017 Special Legislation
Laws of Minnesota 2017, 1st Special Session, Chapter 1, Article 6, Section 19
CITY OF RICHFIELD; LYNDALE GARDENS TIF DISTRICT; FIVE-YEAR RULE EXTENSION.
The requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1763, subdivision 3, that activities must be
undertaken within a five-year period from the date of certification of a tax increment financing district,
are considered to be met for the Lyndale Gardens Tax Increment Financing District established by the city
of Richfield and the housing and redevelopment authority in and for the city of Richfield if the activities
are undertaken within seven years from the date of certification.
EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day after the city of Richfield and its chief clerical
officer comply with Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.1782, subdivision 2, and 645.021, subdivisions 2
and 3.
Appendix G-5
AGENDA SECTION:CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM #6.D.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 74
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
5/28/2019
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Matt B rillhart, A ssociate P lanner
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
5/22/2019
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
5/22/2019
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider adoption of a resolution granting a one-year extension of land use approvals for a planned
unit development at 101 66th Street East.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
On J une 26, 2018, the City Council approved development plans for a mixed use building with retail space
and 31 apartments at 66th Street and 1st Avenue. Due to a delay in securing financing and identifying a
general contractor, commencement of construction has been delayed until mid-2019. Land use approvals
expire one year after being issued, unless substantial work on the project has begun, or the applicant requests
an extension. P LH & Associates (Applicant) submitted the attached letter requesting an extension of land use
approvals related to this project. The Applicant anticipates submitting Building Permit applications to the
I nspections Division in J une 2019 and beginning substantial work on the project this summer.
I f an extension is not granted, the Applicant would have to begin the land use approval process anew;
however, applicable land use regulations remain unchanged from the time of approval.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion: Adopt a resolution granting a one-year extension of a conditional use permit and final
development plan for a planned unit development at 101 66th Street East.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
Historically, land-use approval extensions have been approved unless some aspect of the project
has changed significantly, City ordinances/regulations have been changed or the applicant has
already sought a prior extension; none of those issues are pertinent in this case.
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The term of City approvals is one year. I f a project for which approvals have been granted is not
substantially underway within one year, the applicant must request an extension from the City
Council.
The City Council may grant an extension of up to one year.
I f the extension is not granted, the Applicant would have to begin the land use approval process
anew.
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
The land use approvals for this project are scheduled to expire on J une 26, 2019.
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
The required processing fee has been paid.
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
None
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
None
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
Paul Lynch, P L H & Associates
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Resolution Resolution L etter
E xtension request letter B ackup Material
Resolution No. 11513 (project approval)B ackup Material
RESOLUTION NO. _______
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF
A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT
101 66TH STREET EAST
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 11513, adopted on June 26, 2018, the City Council
approved a final development plan and conditional use permit for a planned unit
development to allow construction of a mixed use building containing 31 apartments and
approximately 6,000 square feet of commercial space at 101 66th Street East; and
WHEREAS, Subsection 547.09, Subdivision 9 of the Richfield City Code requires
that substantial construction be completed within one year of approval, less the approval
expire or the applicant requests and is granted an extension; and
WHEREAS, City staff has received a request from PLH & Associates, LLC (the
“Applicant”) for a one-year extension; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to provide the additional time requested.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
as follows:
1. The City Council extends the approvals granted by Resolution No. 11513 for a
period not to exceed one year.
2. The deadline for “substantial construction” is hereby extended to June 26,
2020.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of May,
2019.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
PLH & Associates, LLC
PO BOX 390157, Minneapolis, MN 55439
608-206-7596
lynchp@plh-associates.com
May 5, 2019
Matt Brilliant,
I am writing to formally ask for additional time to get the Richfield project (The EMI) substantially started at
1st and 66th Street. After reviewing the timeline and subcontractor availability we have determined an
additional 4 months will be needed to get the proje ct substantially started.
After receiving City Council approval for this project, PLH & Associates, LLC acquired a property in Edina,
MN. After the Edina project started our bank suggested we hold off from a fall start date in Richfield to a
spring start date. We are excited to say the Richfield project has started.
We are currently finalizing the plans with the ISG Group which should be submitted for City review in the
next couple of weeks. I have hired Rob Copland Building Corporation to be the General Contractor and they
need additional time to finish a job before moving onto this project.
Additionally, we have been working with Xcel Energy to get the overhead power lines removed and
informed they plan to bury the overhead lines the week of May 13th. Aims Construction is currently using
the property to complete the 66th Street reconstruction project, but will be done using the parcel in two
weeks. Once Aims Construction is done with using the parcel we plan to demo the houses and church.
Please accept our request to extend the start date for this exciting new project in Richfield.
Any questions please contact Paul Lynch.
Thank you,
PLH & Associates, LLC
Managing Member
AGENDA SECTION:PROPOSED
ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM #8.
STAFF RE P ORT NO. 75
CIT Y COUNCIL ME E T ING
5/28/2019
RE P O RT P RE PA RE D B Y: Matt B rillhart, A ssociate P lanner
D E PA RTME NT D IRE C TO R RE V IE W: John S tark, C ommunity D evelopment D irector
5/22/2019
O THE R D E PA RTM E NT RE V IE W: N/A
C ITY MA NA G E R RE V IE W: K atie Rodriguez, C ity Manager
5/22/2019
I T E M F O R C O UNC IL C O NS ID E RAT I O N:
Consider approval of an ordinance amending Zoning Code Section 537: Mixed Use Districts and
Section 512: Districts and adopt a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance.
E X E C UT IV E S UM M ARY:
Planning staff routinely reviews zoning ordinances to ensure consistency, identify issues as they arise, and
make adjustments as needed. I n reviewing the Mixed Use Zoning Districts (Section 537), staff found a
number of inconsistencies in the table of uses between the Mixed Use Districts and other zoning districts, as
well as other issues that warranted review.
T he Mixed Use Districts were first implemented in 2006, following adoption of the I-494 Corridor
Master Plan, and were initially tailored specifically for the types of large lots that have frontage on
both 77th Street and on I-494 (494). T here are numerous text references to 494 in the code. T hese
regulations were modified in early 2009 to allow greater flexibility for the redevelopment of small lots
(less than 2 acres). Since that time, the Mixed Use designation has been applied to both the Penn
and Cedar Avenue Corridors; however, rather than amending the Mixed Use District language,
Overlay Districts were created. Most recently, Mixed Use zoning has been implemented for
approved developments such as Lyndale Gardens and T he Emi, and could be extended to
additional sites in the Lyndale-H U B-Nicollet area that are guided for Mixed Use development in the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that it is now time to remove most of the 494-specific language
from Section 537 so that the Mixed Use District regulations can be more easily applied across the
city.
T he goal of this ordinance amendment is to address inconsistencies between districts by replacing
the table of uses (Table 1), amend language specific to the 494 Corridor, and make other code
adjustments based on lessons learned from recent and approved development projects.
Table 1: Uses of the Mixed Use District
A table of permitted, conditional, and accessory uses appears in both Section 537 —Mixed Use and Section
512—Districts, but had major inconsistencies in how the tables were arranged and sorted. These tables will
be replaced with identical versions. Additional changes are outlined in the 'Policy' section of this report.
Table 2: Mix ed Use Bulk and Dime nsional Standards
T he Mixed Use Districts are the only district citywide that implements a maxi mum rear setback,
meaning that under current regulations, a building cannot be placed more than 15 feet away from the
rear lot line. A major goal of the Mixed Use Districts is to locate new buildings as close to the
front/primary street as possible. Given building coverage and impervious surface maximums, it is
often not practicable to have buildings extend entirely across a lot from the front to rear lot lines.
T his regulation was aimed at getting buildings in the 494 Corridor to have meaningful frontage along
both 77th Street and 494, but would not necessarily be a desired outcome along 66th Street or
Penn Avenue, where the goal is to have buildings pulled up to sidewalks (front/corner lot lines) and
be located away from adjacent residential properties (rear lot lines). Additionally, staff proposes to
eliminate a section of Table 2 regarding 'zero lot line setbacks' for residential developments. While it
makes sense to allow commercial and vertical mixed use developments to be built right up to
front/corner lot lines, it is more desirable for residential-only developments to provide some amount
of setback (10'-20') from front lot lines, to allow for entry/amenity plazas, hanging balconies,
landscaping and buffering from busy streets.
Table 3: Minimum Parking Standards for Mix ed Use Districts
Current residential parking requirements in the Mixed Use Districts are 1.5 spaces per unit,
whereas the high-density residential (MR-3) district allows parking ratios to be lowered to 1.25
spaces per unit. Staff proposes to adopt that 1.25 space standard in the Mixed Use Districts. T his
would improve consistency between zoning districts, and is consistent with the parking ratios at
several recently approved development projects. T he Chamberlain, Emi, and NOVO apartment
developments have parking ratios ranging from 1.24 to 1.3 spaces per unit, while the Henley
apartments at Lyndale Gardens will have 1 space per unit. Lyndale Plaza operates with 1.4 spaces
per unit. Structured or underground parking spaces come with a considerable cost to build
(estimated at $25,000 or more per underground space), and are a significant factor in the cost of
new housing development. Higher parking requirements drive up the cost of building new housing,
thereby raising rent or purchase prices. T hese are city's minimum requirements, and developers may
opt to build more parking than is required.
The amendments described herein and in the attached ordinance text will better align use tables between
districts, while updating and clarifying other regulations for the Mixed Use Districts. I n the coming months,
staff anticipates studying the Bulk and Dimensional Standards in Table 2 in greater detail, along with a
thorough review of the performance/design standards in Subsection 537.11 for potential updates to those
regulations.
RE C O M M E ND E D AC T I O N:
By motion:
1. Approve an ordinance amending Zoning Code Section 537: Mixed Use and Section 512:
Districts.
2. Adopt a resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance.
B AS IS O F RE C O M M E ND AT I O N:
A.H IS TOR IC AL C ON T E X T
None
B.P OL IC IE S (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, etc):
The purpose of the Mixed Use districts is to guide future development in a manner that adapts to
market and transportation changes while promoting greater pedestrian, bicycle and transit
connections; reducing impervious surface; and ensuring high-quality architectural design. These
changes will help to ensure that the mixed use zoning districts can continue to be implemented in
appropriate locations throughout the city (in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan), rather
than being specifically tailored to the 494 Corridor.
I n addition to replacing Table 1 with identical versions, the following changes were made to
specific uses:
Offices/clinics, spas, health clubs, and yoga studios are proposed to be permitted uses in
the Mixed Use—Neighborhood district. These types of businesses are identified as
'accessory' or 'not permitted' in the current table of uses. However, these businesses fall
under the umbrella definition of 'Neighborhood retail & services' which are permitted.
Commercial uses in the Mixed Use—Neighborhood district are limited to 10,000 square feet
maximum, which ensures that commercial offerings are at a neighborhood scale, not a
regional one. Staff proposes to raise the allowed percentage of nonresidential use from
10% to 15%, to allow for greater flexibility in smaller-scale developments. The lower figure
of 10,000 square feet or 15% of the total floor area would apply.
Service station/convenience store (i.e. gas stations) are proposed to be conditional uses in
the Mixed Use—Regional and Mixed Use—Community districts rather than simply
permitted, as they are today. This will eliminate an inconsistency with the General Business
(C-2) District, which regulates service stations as conditional uses. Conditions from that
district (537.04 Subd. 11) regarding setbacks and buffering from adjacent properties are
proposed to be adopted in the Mixed Use Districts. Service stations are not permitted in
the Mixed Use—Neighborhood District.
'Parks' were removed from the table, as Section 512.03 already states that parks are
permitted in all districts. 'Police substation' was removed from the table, as this type of use
would be permitted as 'office' or 'government building'. These changes are aimed at
reducing redundancy in the code.
See the attached ordinance for all proposed changes to Zoning Code Sections 537 (Mixed Use
Districts) and 512 (Districts).
C.C R IT IC AL T IMIN G IS S U E S:
None
D.F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
E.L E GAL C ON S ID E R AT ION:
A public hearing to consider this ordinance was held before the Planning Commission on April 22,
2019. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper on April 11, 2019.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the attached ordinance (6-0), with the
exception of the proposed change to Table 3 (parking requirements), on which there was a split
vote (3-3) resulting in no recommendation. Staff had initially proposed allowing residential parking
requirements to be lowered to 1 space per unit in areas near high-frequency public transit service
or if a shared vehicle was provided on the premises, but that change has been removed at this
time. Planning staff anticipates studying parking requirements in greater detail along with
retail/restaurant parking requirements, which have not been adjusted in many years.
The Council discussed this item and approved a first reading of the ordinance on May 14, 2019.
ALTE R N AT IV E R E C O MME N D ATIO N(S):
Approve the ordinance with modifications.
P R IN C IPAL PAR TIE S E X P E C TE D AT ME E TIN G:
N/A
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Ordinance Ordinance
Resolution Resolution L etter
Zoning map B ackup Material
C omprehensive P lan map B ackup Material
BILL NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
TO UPDATE REGULATIONS IN MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Section 537 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows:
SECTION 537 - MIXED-USE DISTRICT (MU)
(Added, Bill No. 2007-19)
537.01. - Mixed Use Districts (MU).
Subdivision 1. Sub-districts defined. A mixed use district is an area that supports multiple land uses
that are complementary to one another and support the ability to live, work, shop and play within a
development pattern of horizontally mixed or vertically mixed uses. There are three sub-districts of mixed
use as follows:
a) Mixed Use Regional (MU-R). Regional mixed use supports destination oriented commercial and
office uses at a high density/intensity of development. Limited higher density residential uses
would be encouraged to support major employment concentrations. Vertical mixing of uses
would be encouraged to create building mass along primary arterials.
b) Mixed Use Community (MU-C). Community mixed use includes shops and services that support
the surrounding community. A balanced mix of commercial, office and higher density residential
uses would be included in this district. Vertical mixing of uses would be encouraged to create
building mass along primary arterials.
c) Mixed Use Neighborhood (MU-N). Neighborhood mixed use emphasizes residential
development with supporting retail and commercial service uses. Commercial services are
emphasized at key transportation nodes/corners and are intended to be of a smaller scale and
oriented to the neighborhood.
Subd. 2. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of the Mixed Use Districts shall be to:
a) Guide future development along the I-494 corridor in order to adapt to market and transportation
changes;
b) Encourage vertical mixed-uses clustered at primary (regional) and secondary (community)
transportation nodes to build identity within the district;
c) Provide a mix of residential densities along the corridor;
d) Provide appropriate transitions between uses;
e) Promote greater pedestrian and bicycle access and connections throughout the corridor and
along the length of the corridor;
f) Discourage auto oriented uses in favor of pedestrian friendly mixed-use development;
g) Encourage reductions in impervious surface, while adding well landscaped and attractive public
and private spaces with a pedestrian and bicycle friendly character and environment by
minimizing surface parking and enhancing pedestrian corridors (sidewalks and trails) through
reinforcing build-to lines, getting new buildings to address the street and emphasize enticing
street level architecture;
h) Encourage public and quasi-public open spaces within the corridor by allowing and encouraging
taller buildings for high-density uses;
i) Ensure high quality architectural design and materials;
j) Promote increased use of transit; and
k) Encourage redevelopment in a manner that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and any
applicable corridor master plan or small area plan. redevelopment plan(s) that exist for the
district.
Subd. 3. Review Criteria. In evaluating development proposals, the Planning Commission and City
Council shall consider compliance with the following:
a) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the City's development guides, including the
Comprehensive Plan and any redevelopment plans established for the area;
b) Consistency with this Subsection;
c) Creation of a design for structures and site features which promotes the following:
(i) An internal sense of order among the buildings and uses;
(ii) The adequacy of vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of
interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking;
(iii) Energy conservation through the design of structures and the use of landscape materials
and site grading; and
(iv) The minimization of adverse environmental effects on persons using the development and
adjacent properties.
537.03. - Permitted Uses.
Subdivision 1. The following table establishes permitted, conditionally permitted and accessory
uses for the Mixed Use Districts:
Table 1. Uses of the Mixed-Use District
Note —The following abbreviations are used within the use table:
P= permitted use
A= accessory use
C= conditionally permitted
N= not permitted
Land Use MU-N MU-C MU-R
Residential
Assisted living facilities, nursing, rest homes P P N
Dwelling, multifamily (min. 3 units) P P
P (but see
537.07,
Subd. 2a)
Dwelling, townhouse P N N
Live-work units P P N
Commercial, Institutional and Public
Adult business establishments as defined and regulated under City Code
Subsection 1196 N P P
Animal kennels C C C
Assembly and manufacturing accessory and subordinate to a retail use N A A
Auto detailing N C C
Auto mechanical or body repair shops N C C
Auto rental facilities accessory to a primary office or hotel use N A A
Auto sales or lease - new vehicles N N C
Convenience store P P P
Day care facilities P P P
Drive-up window or teller service N C C
Firearms related uses N N C
Funeral homes, mortuaries N P N
Government buildings A P A
Health or athletic clubs, spas, yoga studios P P P
Hospitals N N P
Hotel/motel (defined as 6 or more rooms) N P P
Libraries, public P P N
Marijuana (medical) dispensaries N N N
Marijuana (recreational) sales outlets N N N
Micro-production facility (micro-brewery/micro-distillery) N C C
Offices and clinics P P P
Public utilities, major N C C
Public utilities, minor A A A
Religious institutions P P A
Restaurant Class I (serving alcohol) N C P
Restaurant Class II (traditional/cafeteria) P P P
Restaurant Class III (fast food with drive-thru) N C C
Restaurant Class IV (take out only) P P P
Retail services, General C P P
Retail services, Neighborhood P P P
Retail services, Regional N C P
Schools, public or private P P C
Service station/Convenience store N C C
Taproom/Cocktail room N A/C A/C
Tattoo shops N P P
Theaters, movie, or live entertainment N N P
Transit Facilities A A A
Use MU-
R
MU-
C MU-N
COMMERCIAL
Regional retail services P C N
General retail services P P C
Neighborhood retail services P P P
Restaurant Class I (serving alcohol) P C N
Restaurant Class II (traditional/cafeteria) P P P
Restaurant Class III (fast food/convenience) C C N
Restaurant Class IV (take out only) P P P
Micro-production facility (micro-brewery/micro-distillery) C C N
Taproom/Cocktail room A/C A/C N
Service Station/convenience store P P N
Convenience store P P P
Offices and clinics P P A
Hotel/motel (defined as 6 or more rooms) P P N
Mortuaries and funeral chapels N P N
Health or athletic clubs, spas, yoga studios P P N
Theaters, movie or live entertainment P N N
Auto sales or lease—new vehicles C N N
Auto mechanical or body repair shops C C N
Auto detailing C C N
Auto rental facilities accessory to a primary office or hotel use A A N
Assembly and manufacturing accessory and subordinate to a retail
use A A N
Drive-up window or teller service C C N
Adult business establishments as defined and regulated under
Subsection 1196 of the City Code P P N
Tattoo shops P P N
Firearms related uses C N N
Licensed day care facilities P P P
Animal kennels C C C
RESIDENTIAL
Dwelling, townhouse N N P
Dwelling, multifamily (min. 3 units) P P
P
(but see 537.07,
Subd. 2a)
Live - work units N P P
Assisted living facilities, nursing, rest homes N P P
INSTITUTIONAL/PUBLIC
Places of worship A P P
Government offices A P A
Police sub-station P P P
Schools C P P
Library N P P
Parks P P P
Hospitals P N N
Transit facilities A A A
Public utility A A A
(Amended, Bill No. 2011-13; 2011-19; 2014-4; 2015-15; 2019-__)
Subd. 2. Any land use not listed as Permitted, Accessory or Conditional in this section or Subsection
512.09 is prohibited in the Mixed-Use Districts unless the use is found to be substantially similar to a use
listed, as determined by the City in accordance with Subsection 509.23 of this Code.
537.05. - Conditional Uses.
Subdivision 1. [Generally.] Conditional uses listed in Table 1 are subject to the conditional use
permit provisions outlined in Subsection 547.09 of this Code and the following conditions: (Amended, Bill
No. 2011-21)
Subd. 2. Regional retail services in MU-C. Regional retail services in the MU-C district provided that
retail uses with over 50,000 square feet of gross floor area, are located within a multi-tenant or multi-use
shopping area or other multi-tenant development and meet the mixed use requirements of Subsection
537.07, Subd. 2.
Subd. 3. General retail services in MU-N. General retail services in the MU-N district provided the
following conditions are met: The retail uses front on an arterial street and meet the area requirements of
Subsection 537.07, Subd. 2.
Subd. 4. Restaurant Class I in MU-C. Class I restaurants in the MU-C district provided that alcoholic
beverages shall not be served unless the lot abuts an arterial or collector street.
Subd. 5. Restaurant Class III or Drive-Up Window or Teller Service. Uses with drive-up window or
teller service provided the following conditions are met:
a) A minimum distance of 500 feet must be maintained between substantially similar uses with
drive-up window or teller service (as measured from property line to property line);
b) Uses with drive-up window or teller service may not be located adjacent to a property with an
existing drive-up window or teller service unless an applicant can demonstrate that the use will
not be detrimental to pedestrian, bicycle or vehicle movements;
c) No drive-up window or lane shall be adjacent to a public street;
d) Drive-up uses shall be limited to one (1) service window which is part of a primary structure and
a single queuing lane and order board/station;
(i) The content portion of order boards is limited to 40 square feet;
(ii) Order board content may not extend above eight (8) feet in height on the supporting
structure;
(iii) Order boards/stations must be located within 60 feet of the business which they serve.
e) The City may consider one (1) additional service lane for automated teller machines (ATMS) or
similar facilities;
f) Drive-up facilities must be designed to minimize impacts to the pedestrian environment and
adequately address circulation issues and potential noise or light pollution;
g) Drive-through canopies and other structures, where present, shall be constructed from the
same materials as the primary building and with a similar level of architectural quality and
detailing;
h) There shall be no curb cuts on public streets exclusively for the use of drive-up queuing or exit
lanes. Drive-up traffic shall enter and exit from internal circulation drives;
i) Queuing space for at least four (4) cars (70 feet) shall be provided as measured from, but not
including, the first drive-up service window or teller station. Such queuing space shall not
interfere with parking spaces or traffic circulation;
j) Any drive-up service window, teller or order station, or exterior loudspeaker shall be located at
least 150 feet from any parcel with residential uses on the first floor;
k) The applicant shall demonstrate that such use will not significantly lower the existing level of
service on streets and intersections;
l) The City shall encourage operators to permit bicyclist use of sales and service windows;
m) Alcoholic beverages shall not be served through a drive-up window; and
n) Exterior speakers shall comply with the noise control limits set by Subsection 930 of the City
Code.
(Amended, Bill No. 2015-1)
Subd. 6. New auto sales or lease businesses. Motor vehicle sales of new vehicles provided the
following conditions are met:
a) Motor vehicle repair and service and sales of used vehicles are allowed when accessory to new
vehicle sales. Used auto sales shall be permitted only as an integral part of a new auto sales
business (from the same land parcel and in close proximity to the new cars).
b) The business shall be licensed under Subsection 1155 of the City Code;
c) The use site shall not abut a lot which is in the R or R-1 District. For the purpose of this
subdivision, a lot which merely adjoins the use site at one (1) corner shall not be deemed to
abut the use site;
d) A buffer yard of not less than 15 feet in width shall be provided to separate all aspects of such
use from abutting parcels;
e) Landscaping for the site, including display areas, shall comply with the Performance Standards
described in Section 544 of this Code;
f) Inoperable vehicles shall not be stored on the premises, except in appropriately designed and
screened areas as approved by the City;
g) Parking of vehicles for sale or lease on public right-of-way shall be prohibited;
h) All repair, assembly, disassembly, maintenance, and detailing of vehicles shall occur within an
enclosed building, except minor maintenance such as tire inflation or adding windshield wiper
fluid; and
i) Any exterior speaker shall comply with the noise control limits set by Subsection 930 of the City
Code.
Subd. 7. Service station / Convenience store. Service station / Convenience store provided the
conditions detailed in the C-2 District are met (534.07 Subd. 11).
Subd. 87. Auto mechanical or body repair shops. Auto mechanical or body repair shops provided the
conditions detailed in the C-2 District are met (534.07 Subd. 12).
Subd. 98. Auto detailing shops. Auto detailing shops provided the conditions detailed in the C-2
District are met (534.07 Subd. 13).
Subd. 109. Firearms Related Uses. Firearms related uses provided the conditions detailed in the C-
2 District are met (534.07 Subd. 17).
Subd. 1110. Schools in MU-R. Schools in the MU-R district provided the following: the school has a
regional orientation, be oriented to secondary, post-secondary, business or vocational learning and be
part of a mixed-use development.
Subd. 1211. School-based health centers. School-based health centers as accessory uses within
currently operating schools provided the following conditions are met:
a) The health center must primarily serve students;
b) Total square footage of the health center may not exceed 3,000 square feet or ten (10) percent
of the total building square footage, whichever is less;
c) Designated parking equal to staff plus one (1) per exam room must be provided and designated
for clinic use;
d) Because of the focus on students and the associated sharing of parking, advertising shall be
limited to directional and identification signs. The maximum sign area and height shall not
exceed the limits set for nonresidential uses per Subsection 549.23. The total square footage of
all freestanding signage for the property shall be governed by the underlying zoning district.
(Added, Bill No. 2015-7)
Subd. 1312. Animal kennels. (Added, Bill No. 2011-19)
a) MU-N: Animal kennels shall be permitted in the MU-N District provided the following conditions
are met: That full soundproofing is installed on all interior walls (including ceiling) and that the
area requirements of Subsection 537.07, Subd. 2 are met.
b) MU-C: Animal kennels shall be permitted in the MU-C District provided the following conditions
are met: That if located in a multi-tenant building, soundproofing is installed on all walls
(including ceiling) that are adjacent to another tenant or residential common area.
c) MU-R: Animal kennels shall be permitted in the MU-R District provided the following conditions
are met: That if located in a multi-tenant building, soundproofing is installed on all walls
(including ceiling) that are adjacent to another tenant or residential common area.
d) Outdoor relief areas in MU Districts: Outdoor relief areas shall be permitted in the MU Districts
provided that the conditions listed in 534.07, Subd. 24 are met.
Subd. 1413. Micro-production facilities in the MU-C and MU-R Districts provided that the following
conditions are met:
a) Licensing. The owner of the micro-production facility qualifies for and receives all federal, state
and city licenses necessary for the operation of the micro-production facility, including a brewer
license and a malt liquor wholesale license (if wholesale of malt liquor is an intended activity);
and/or a distiller's license from the State of Minnesota.
b) Taproom/Cocktail Room Location in MU-C District. Micro-production facilities with an accessory
taproom or cocktail room in the Mixed Use - Community District must be on a lot abutting an
arterial or collector street.
c) Taproom/Cocktail Room Operations. Taprooms/cocktail rooms must either make food available
on-site or expressly allow patrons to carry in food.
d) Taproom/Cocktail Room License. An accessory taproom or cocktail room for the sale of beer or
spirits produced on-site shall require a taproom/cocktail room license from the City of Richfield
in accordance with Section 1202 of the City Code.
e) Off-sale. A micro-production facility may sell their product for off-sale consumption through their
taproom or cocktail room. Any on-site sale of beer in the form of growlers shall require a Micro-
brewery Off-sale License in accordance with Section 1202 of the City Code.
f) Production of Beer. Annual production of malt liquor for a micro-brewery with an accessory
taproom shall not exceed 3,500 barrels, and only 500 barrels may be sold off-sale as growlers.
Production at micro-breweries without a taproom shall not exceed 1,750 barrels annually.
g) Production of Spirits. Annual production of spirits for a micro-distillery with an accessory cocktail
room shall not exceed 40,000 proof gallons annually. Production at micro-distilleries without a
cocktail room shall not exceed 20,000 proof gallons annually.
h) Off-street Loading. The micro-production facility shall provide adequate space for off-street
loading and unloading of all trucks greater than 22 feet in length. In the absence of off-street
loading, the City may impose limits on deliveries or shipments using the public right-of-ways,
including regulating the number of trucks per day and the hours that deliveries are permitted.
i) Odors. No odors from the micro-production facility shall be perceptible beyond the property line.
The micro-production facility operator shall take appropriate measures to reduce or mitigate any
odors generated from the operation and be in compliance with any applicable Minnesota
Pollution Control Standards.
j) Hours of Operation. Micro-production facility operation hours shall be limited to the hours
specified in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A for off-sale intoxicating liquor unless further
limited by the City Council as part of a Conditional Use Permit. (Added, Bill No. 2015-15)
537.07. - Bulk and Dimensional Standards.
Subdivision 1. The following table establishes certain bulk standards for the MU Districts:
Table 2.
Mixed Use Bulk and Dimensional Standards
(Amended, Bill No. 2009-6, 2017-6, 2019-__)
Standard MU-R MU-C MU-N
Building Stories 1 2 min No max 2 min 12 max 2 min 8 max
Building Coverage 50% min 75%
max 30% min 50%
max 25% min 50%
max
Sites 2 acres or
less
Sites 2 acres or
less
30% min 75%
max 25% min 50%
max
Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage 85% of gross
parcel area
80% of gross
parcel area
75% of gross
parcel area
Usable Open Space Requirement 5% of gross parcel
area
5% of gross parcel
area
10% of gross
parcel area
Street Level Active Use Building Frontage
2 60% minimum 50% minimum No minimum
Residential Setbacks 3 (standard setbacks) MU-R MU-C MU-N
Front 10' min 20' max 10' min 20' max 15' min 25' max
Side 5' min 5' min 5' min
Rear 5' min 20' max 5' min 20' max 5' min 25' max
Residential Setbacks 3 (zero lot line
setbacks) MU-R MU-C MU-N
Front 10' min 20' max 10' min 20' max 15' min 25' max
Side 0' min 0' min 0' min
Rear 0' min 20' max 0' min 20' max 0' min 25' max
Commercial and Mixed Use Setbacks 3
(standard setbacks) MU-R MU-C MU-N
Front 0' min 15' max 0' min 15' max 5' min 15' max
Side 5' min 5' min 5' min
Rear 5' min 15' max 5' min 15' max 5' min 15' max
Commercial and Mixed Use Setbacks 3
(zero lot line setbacks) MU-R MU-C MU-N
Front - build to line 0' min 15' max 0' min 15' max 5' min 15' max
Side 0' min 0' min 0' min
Rear 0' min 15' max 0' min 15' max 0' min 15' max
Front yard setback for upper stories after
the 3rd story 20' min 20' min 20' min
Setbacks and landscape area (front yard
parking) 5' min 5' min 5' min
Setbacks and landscape area to I-494 15' min 15' min 15' min
1 Parking structures shall not be included in calculation of building stories. Single story portions of
structures may be allowed provided they are attached to a principal structure that is two (2) or more
stories in height and that the footprint of the single story portion of the structure is no more than 40
percent of the total structure's footprint.
2 For buildings with multiple street frontages, the Street Level Active Use Building Frontage requirement
shall apply to the primary street and other pedestrian oriented streets as determined by the Director. In
cases where active use, pedestrian-oriented building frontage along secondary streets is not supportive
of the purposes and intent of the mixed use districts (Subsection 537.01, Subd. 2) the Director may waive
or reduce the required minimum percentage of Street Level Active Use Building Frontage on those
secondary streets.
3 Standard setbacks apply to all uses except zero lot line developments. The front setback is a build-to
line designed to locate buildings in close proximity to the public street. A 3’ minimum setback to public
sidewalks/trails may be required. Zero lot line setbacks allow buildings to be placed on an interior
property line if that structure and the adjacent structure are designed with that placement in mind and a
compatible relationship of uses results, including consideration of circulation drives, open space,
easements, utility parking areas and glazed facades.
Subd. 2. Mix of Uses Required. A mix of uses within a building is required in the MU-C district and
other building use criteria apply to the MU-R and MU-N districts.
a) In the MU-R district a mix of uses is not required, however, residential uses are permitted up to
25 percent of the total building floor area on the site. i.e. if a site contains 100,000 square feet of
building floor area, no more than 25,000 square feet of building area can be devoted to
residential units and the common areas or associations that serve residential units.
b) In the MU-C district a mix of uses is required for development sites that exceed two (2) acres in
size. No single use type (retail, office, service, hotel, residential, etc.) can exceed 75 percent of
the total building floor area on the site.
c) In the MU-N district a mix of uses is not required, however, no more than 1510% of the total
building floor area on the site or within the development can be devoted to nonresidential uses.
Total nonresidential floor area in a residential development or building shall not exceed 10,000
square feet.
(Amended, Bill No. 2017-6)
537.09. - Parking Standards .
Subdivision 1. Off Street Parking Ratios. The following table establishes minimum parking
standards for uses within the Mixed Use Districts.
Table 3
Minimum Parking Standards for Mixed Use Districts
(Amended, Bill 2009-6)
Land Use Type Off Street Parking Ratio
MU-R and MU-C MU-N
Commercial Retail * 4 3
Commercial Services * 3 2
Office * 3.3 2
Civic * 3 2
Hotel or motel (per room) 1 1
Residential Townhouse ** 1.5 1.5
Residential Multifamily ** 1.25 1.5 1.25 1.5
Other Uses As determined by the Zoning Administrator
* Per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
**Per dwelling unit.
Subd. 2. Other Parking Requirements. All other parking requirements shall be dictated by Section
544 of this Code.
537.11. - Other Performance Standards.
Subdivision 1. Development shall comply with the provisions of Section 544 and the following
standards.
Subd. 2. Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting should be used to provide illumination for the security and
safety of entry drives, parking, service and loading areas, pathways, courtyards and plazas, without
intruding on nonadjacent properties. Exterior lighting shall comply with 544.09 and the following
standards:
a) Poles and fixtures shall be architecturally compatible with structures and lighting on- site and on
adjacent properties.
b) Security lighting shall be adequate for visibility, but not overly bright.
c) Lighting Metal halide lighting shall be used with a concealed light source of the "cut-off" variety
to prevent glare and "light trespass" onto adjacent buildings and sites.
d) Separate pedestrian scale lighting or other low level fixtures, such as bollards, shall be
incorporated for all pedestrian ways through parking lots and drop-off areas at entrances to
buildings.
e) All primary walkways, steps or ramps along pedestrian routes shall be illuminated.
Subd. 3. Architectural Standards. Exterior windows shall not be flush with the exterior walls. The
windows shall utilize window trim with a minimum relief of 1" from the exterior wall or other similar
articulation.
Subd. 4. Building Relationship to Street and Pedestrian Areas. All new retail, commercial, office, and
mixed-use buildings are to provide a variety of active uses along a public street and/or major pedestrian
area. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of multiple street front shops or businesses, multiple
entrances into large single tenant buildings and design treatments of entrances, windows, facades etc.
New buildings and developments shall comply with the following standards for building orientation and
primary entrance:
a) All buildings shall have at least one (1) primary patron entrance facing an abutting public street,
rather than the parking area. Buildings abutting a major pedestrian circulation area as defined in
Subsection 537.11, Subdivision 8 shall have at least one (1) primary entrance facing and
accessing the major pedestrian circulation way. Primary entrance is defined as the principal
entry through which people enter the building. A building may have more than one (1) primary
entrance. Primary entrances shall be open to the public during all business hours.
b) Primary building entrances shall be architecturally emphasized and visible from the street.
Principal patron entrances should be clearly defined and highly visible utilizing such design
features as awnings, canopies, pillars, special building materials or architectural details.
c) Commercial or mixed-use structures that have over 60 linear feet of frontage on a major
pedestrian area, public sidewalk or major street shall have a principal patron entrance onto the
major pedestrian area, public sidewalk or major street. For building facades over 200 feet in
length facing a street, two (2) or more building entrances on the street must be provided.
d) Building entrances shall incorporate arcades, roofs, porches, alcoves, porticoes and awnings
that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun.
e) Buildings shall include changes in relief on 15 percent of their street facades such as cornices,
bases, window treatments, fluted masonry or other designs for pedestrian interest and scale.
f) Building facades greater than 100 feet in length shall have offset jogs, using elements such as
bay windows and recessed entrances or other articulation so as to provide for pedestrian scale
to the first floor and to avoid long continuous unbroken building facades.
Subd. 5. Windows, Window Walls, Blank Walls and Design of the Ground Floor of Nonresidential
Buildings.
a) All development shall provide ground floor windows along street facades, parks, plazas or other
public outdoor spaces. Required window areas must be either windows that allow views into
working areas or lobbies or pedestrian entrances or display windows. Required windows shall
have a sill no higher than four (4) feet above grade, except as follows. Where interior floor levels
prohibit such placement, the sill height maybe raised to allow it to be no more that two (2) feet
above the finished floor level up to a maximum sill height of six (6) feet above grade.
b) For any wall within 30 feet of a street or a major pedestrian area, at least 20% of the ground
floor wall area facing the street or pedestrian area shall be display areas, windows, or
doorways. Blank walls along streets, public outdoor spaces and major pedestrian areas are
prohibited.
c) Darkly tinted, frosted windows or any windows that block two-way visibility are prohibited as
ground floor windows along street facades.
Subd. 6. Upper Story Setbacks. Upper story setbacks shall be required for structures over three (3)
stories that are adjacent or across a street from residential or public parklands. Upper story setbacks shall
be achieved by:
a) Floors above the third floor or 50 feet shall be stepped back a minimum of 20 feet, and
b) All buildings shall be stepped back such that the height of the building façade does not exceed
an angle greater than 45 degrees from the average street elevation beginning at a point at the
curb on the opposite side of the street.
c) Exception. The Director may waive the building step-back requirements of this Subsection
provided that the applicant clearly demonstrates the proposed project:
(i) Includes window treatments, entry placement, façade relief and other architectural
treatments to provide visual interest and pedestrian-sensitive design at the street level and
to maintain a human scale in the streetscape; and
(ii) Extends the same architectural features above the ground floor level through variations in
design, detail and proportion and by avoiding designs featuring a monolithic street facade
and Is designed as not to obstruct sunlight from falling on a given point on the back of the
sidewalk on the opposite side of the street for more than four (4) hours in any given day
between September 21 and March 21.
Subd. 7. Vehicular Circulation and Parking. Parking and vehicular circulation shall comply with the
standards in Subsections 544.11, 544.13 and the following standards:
a) Parking drives should be located away from building entrances, be designed to minimize
pedestrian conflicts and shall not be located between the main building entrance and the street;
b) Surface parking lots shall be oriented behind or to the side of buildings;
c) Driveway access and parking lots shall be shared as much as possible;
d) Above grade parking ramps shall be located to the rear of a lot (towards I-494 in the 494
Corridor to provide shielding or buffering of I-494 from other uses on site);
e) Parking ramps shall be designed to be architecturally integrated into the overall site and be
made of comparable materials and decorative elements;
f) For parking lots within pedestrian corridors, refer to Subdivision 8;
g) Bicycle racks or storage shall be provided; and
h) Cross access and circulation across adjoining parcels is required, where appropriate and
feasible. Joint circulation shall be documented in a cross access and circulation easement and
agreement.,
Subd. 8. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation and access shall
comply with the standards in Subsection 544.15 and the following standards:
a) Developments shall implement an on-site pedestrian and bicycle circulation system that
complies with the Vision Plan for the district as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan or any other
redevelopment plan for the district; and
b) Sidewalks are required along both sides of all public rights-of-way.
Subd. 9. Required Open Space in the 494 Corridor. Within the mixed-use districts, a "major
pedestrian area" of usable open space is to be the central organizing element that links the different parts
of the corridor into a whole. The major pedestrian area is to be a continuous central spine of pedestrian
circulation along the length of the I-494 corridor roughly midway between 77th Street and I-494. This
pedestrian area shall be designed for pedestrian circulation and may include gathering and event space.
Landscape setback areas and other impervious areas are to be landscaped to enhance the
aesthetics of the area and to define outdoor space. The landscape setback area next to I-494 is to
be a green edge of landscaping that may include, but not be limited to trees, shrubs, vines and
herbaceous plants. Open space can shape and serve as a transition between different uses and
provide focal points and anchors for pedestrian activity. The required open space shall:
a) Abut a public sidewalk or major pedestrian circulation area and shall be accessible to the
public during daylight hours;
b) Include a combination of public and semi-public gathering spaces, such as plazas, tied
together through a linear green corridor along its center;
c) Include a buffer of landscape plantings along I-494 or other physical barriers to enhance
the community's image and to buffer uses from noise or other nuisances;
d) Be used for treatment of stormwater, only if it is designed as part of the overall open space
system such that the stormwater treatment or storage is used as a decorative element, and
has no negative impact on recreation or the enjoyment of the open space;
e) Include plazas, or patios that are integrally designed to accentuate the architecture on-site
and to tie off-site elements into an overall theme or character by use of decorative pavers,
public art, decorative lighting, seating, planters, or other features. Usable open space shall
be a minimum of 1,000 square feet in size and a minimum of 20 feet wide in any direction;
f) Be designed to have good public visibility to encourage pedestrian use of the on site
outdoors amenities, while at the same time enhancing the security of such places by
placing public entrances on the open space and ground floor windows along the open
space; and
g) Be designed such that, in the City's judgment, the spaces adequately enhance such
development and serve as gathering places for visitors, customers, residents, and
employees and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or any redevelopment plan for
the district.
Subd. 10. Use Transitions. The following options should be used as use transitions:
a) When multifamily, office, small-scale retail, pedestrian intensive retail, civic or public uses are
planned as part of a mixed use development, the lesser intensive uses or the more community
serving uses may be used as transitions to adjacent residential uses.
b) Larger commercial or office buildings may be mitigated with building façade articulation, by
locating parking lots or structures or other potential nuisances away from residential uses, or by
stepping down building height in the area immediately adjacent residential uses.
c) Streets and streetscape can be used as a transition between uses. The distance and separation
afforded by the public right-of way, together with streetscape improvements on both sides of the
street may be utilized as a transition to adjacent development.
d) Green spaces, courts, squares, parks, plazas, etc. may be used to create a meaningful
transition between uses.
e) In situations where the above do not provide adequate transition, additional landscaping may be
required as determined by the Director.
537.13. - Nonconformities.
Subdivision 1. Expansion of Nonconforming Uses. Existing legal nonconforming uses may be
maintained according to City Code Subsection 509.25. The City Council may allow expansion of legal
nonconforming uses through issuance of a conditional use permit. Expansion may be allowed up to ten
(10) percent of the gross floor area provided the expansion meets all other applicable City requirements.
Any expansion or modification of a legal nonconforming use should not significantly impede
implementation of goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 2. Expansion of Dimensional or Bulk Nonconformities. Legally nonconforming buildings
existing prior to February 19, 2006, that do not meet dimensional or bulk standards of the Mixed Use
zoning district may be expanded through review and approval of a conditional use permit-Subsection
547.09. Expansion or modification of a legally nonconforming building shall:
a) Not increase the overall, site-wide degree of nonconformity,
b) Demonstrate that zoning and Comprehensive Plan requirements are met to the greatest
degree practical. These requirements include, but are not limited to: parking, landscaping,
architectural design and façade treatment, and site design;
c) Off-set departures from zoning and Comprehensive Plan requirements through superior
design and/or additional community/site amenities;
d) Not significantly impede implementation of goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
e) Not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring residential properties;
f) Not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or
proposed improvements; and
g) Not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety or welfare.
(Amended, Bill No. 2011-13, 2011-28)
Section 2 Subsection 512.09 of the Richfield City Code relating to Permitted, Conditional,
Accessory and Prohibited Uses in Mixed-Use Districts is amended by repealing
the current table and replacing it with the following:
Land Use MU-N MU-C MU-R
Residential
Assisted living facilities, nursing, rest homes P P N
Dwelling, multifamily (min. 3 units) P P
P (but see
537.07,
Subd. 2a)
Dwelling, townhouse P N N
Live-work units P P N
Commercial, Institutional and Public
Adult business establishments as defined and regulated under City Code
Subsection 1196 N P P
Animal kennels C C C
Assembly and manufacturing accessory and subordinate to a retail use N A A
Auto detailing N C C
Auto mechanical or body repair shops N C C
Auto rental facilities accessory to a primary office or hotel use N A A
Auto sales or lease - new vehicles N N C
Convenience store P P P
Day care facilities P P P
Drive-up window or teller service N C C
Firearms related uses N N C
Funeral homes, mortuaries N P N
Government buildings A P A
Health or athletic clubs, spas, yoga studios P P P
Hospitals N N P
Hotel/motel (defined as 6 or more rooms) N P P
Libraries, public P P N
Marijuana (medical) dispensaries N N N
Marijuana (recreational) sales outlets N N N
Micro-production facility (micro-brewery/micro-distillery) N C C
Offices and clinics P P P
Public utilities, major N C C
Public utilities, minor A A A
Religious institutions P P A
Restaurant Class I (serving alcohol) N C P
Restaurant Class II (traditional/cafeteria) P P P
Restaurant Class III (fast food with drive-thru) N C C
Restaurant Class IV (take out only) P P P
Retail services, General C P P
Retail services, Neighborhood P P P
Retail services, Regional N C P
Schools, public or private P P C
Service station/Convenience store N C C
Taproom/Cocktail room N A/C A/C
Tattoo shops N P P
Theaters, movie, or live entertainment N N P
Transit Facilities A A A
*Conditions apply, see section 537 for complete regulations.
(Amended, Bill No. 2011-13; 2011-19; 2014-4; 2015-5; 2015-15; 2019-__)
Section 3 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City
Charter.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of May,
2019.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION
OF AN ORDINANCE TO UPDATE REGULATIONS
IN MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above-referenced amendment of the Richfield
City Code; and
WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense
of publication of the complete text is not justified.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication:
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
BILL NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
TO UPDATE REGULATIONS IN MIXED USE DISTRICTS
This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the
Richfield City Charter.
This ordinance revised Zoning Code Section 537 – Mixed Use Districts. The
ordinance corrected inconsistencies between districts by replacing a table of permitted
uses, amended language specific to the 494 Corridor, and made adjustments to setback
regulations and minimum parking requirements. The table of permitted uses was also
replaced in Section 512.09 –Districts.
Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office
during normal business hours or upon request by calling the Department of Community
Development at (612) 861-9760.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of May,
2019.
Maria Regan Gonzalez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elizabeth VanHoose, City Clerk
]72.17[
]94.96[]30.54[[82.16][33.89]]51
.06[[25.31][53.64]
]26.75[[53.64][36.47]]92.0
8[
[36.43]]78.64[
]82.211[[74][134.34]
[388.25]]6.16[=C [38.6]C=[49.8]
]94.96[]30.54[[82.16][33.89]]51
.06[[25.31]LOGAN75th
VINCENTUPTONTHOMASWASHBURNXERXESI - 494
78th
77th
76th
OLIVERNEWTONMORGANSHERIDANRUSSELLQUEENPENN74th
72nd
73th
71st
69th
70th
DUPONTKNOXJAMESIRVINGHUMBOLDTGIRARDFREMONTEMERSONCOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDGRANDHARRIETLYNDALECROSSTOW N HW Y
62nd
67th
68th
66th
65th
64th
63rd
COLUMBUS2nd1stSTEVENSPLEASANTPILLSBURYBLAISDELLWENTWORTHNICOLLET3rdCLINTON4th5thPORTLANDOAKLANDPARK10th11th12th13th14thELLIOTCHICAGO15th16th17th18thCEDARBLOOMINGTONI-494
19008009001000110012001300180060050040030020050100124200300324400500620700720800900100011001300140015001600170018001001524190060012000007001400290028002700260025002200210020003000150016001700240031002300Richfield Zoning Map - Mixed Use Zones Highlighted
LAST UPDATED: 5/1/2019
Zoning Designation
Park (Zoning District is R)
R Single-Family
R-1 Low-Density Single-Family
MR-1 Two-Family
PMR Planned Multi-Family
MR-2 Multi-Family
MR-2/CAC Multi-Fam + Cedar Overlay
MR-3 High-Density Multi-Family
SO Service Office
C-1 Community Commercial
C-2 General Commercial
PC-2 Planned General Commercial
PMU Planned Mixed Use
MU-C Mixed Use-Community
MU-C/CAC Mixed Use + Cedar Overlay
MU-C/PAC Mixed Use + Penn Overlay
MU-N Mixed Use-Neighborhood
MU-R Mixed Use-Regional
I Industrial
±0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles
LOGAN75th
VINCENTUPTONTHOMASWASHBURNXERXESI - 494
78th
77th
76th
OLIVERNEWTONMORGANSHERIDANRUSSELLQUEENPENN74th
72nd
73th
71st
69th
70th
DUPONTKNOXJAMESIRVINGHUMBOLDTGIRARDFREMONTEMERSONCOLFAXBRYANTALDRICHGARFIELDGRANDHARRIETLYNDALECROSSTOW N HW Y
62nd
67th
68th
66th
65th
64th
63rd
COLUMBUS2nd1stSTEVENSPLEASANTPILLSBURYBLAISDELLWENTWORTHNICOLLET3rdCLINTON4th5thPORTLANDOAKLANDPARK10th11th12th13th14thELLIOTCHICAGO15th16th17th18thCEDARBLOOMINGTONI-494
190080090010001100120013001800600500400300200501001242003003244005006207007208009001000110013001400150016001700180010015241900600120000070014002900280027002600250022002100200030001500160017002400310023002040 Comprehensive Plan - Planned Land Use
2040 Planned Land Use
Mixed Use
Regional Commercial
Community Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
High Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Park
Quasi-Public
Right-of-W ay (ROW )
±0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 MilesAdopted by City Council on 11/13/2018
I:\GIS\Community Development\Core Data\Projects\Com p Plan\2040 Com p Plan Map.m xd