HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-15_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 15, 1982
ROLLCALL
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON ZONING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by
Clerk. Presentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First
Reading of Zoning Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 fav-
orable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading or if Second Reading should be
waived. Lot Divisions, Flood Plain Permits, Plats, Appeals from Administra-
tive or Board of Appeals and Adjustments decisions require action by Reso-
lution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass.
A. Leo Evans Property - Generally located South of Vernon Ave., East of
Olinger Rd. and North of Merold Dr. (Part of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4
of Sec. 32, T. 117, R. 21 (Continued from 11/1/82)
1. R -1 Residential District to R -2 Residential District - First Read-
ing
2. Evans Subdivision - Preliminary Plat
B. Mikulay's Addition, Block l Replat - Lots 5, 6, 7, Block 1, Mikulay's
Addition and Lots 1 and 7, Block 1, Kesler's Hilltop - Generally
located East of Wilryan Ave. and North of Crosstown Hwy. - Preliminary
Plat Approval
II. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
III. AWARD OF BIDS AND QUOTES Tabulations and Recommendations by City Manager.
Action of Council by Motion.
A. Dump Trucks
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of November 9, 1982
B. Parking /Use of Community Center
C. Notice of Claim - Dennis L. Olson
D. 1983 A.M.M. Legislative Policies (Continued from 11/1/82)
E. Sign Ordinance Amendment - Discussion on Political Signs
F. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council
G. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items
V. RESOLUTIONS
A. Funding Agreement with South Hennepin Human Services
VI. FINANCE
A. Liquor Fund as of 9/30/82
B. Claims paid: Motion of seconded by for
payment of the following claims as per Pre -List dated November 15, 1982:
General Fund, $227,502.78; Park Fund, $22,294.63; Art Center,
$1,944.65; Golf Course, $4,283.70; Recreation, $2,933.72; Water Fund,
7,340.20; Sewer Fund, $151,473.78; Liquor Fund, $1,916.11; Construc-
tion, $145,716.32; IBR Fund, $527,680.00; Total, $1,093,085.89
RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL FOR MIKULAY'S 2ND ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that that certain plat known as Mikulay's
2nd Addition, platted by Frank Cardarelle and presented at the Edina City Council
Meeting of November 15, 1982, be and is hereby granted Preliminary and Final
Plat Approval.
ADOPTED this 15th day of November, 1982.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS
CITY OF EDINA
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina,
do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted
by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of November 15, 1982, and as
recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 26th day of October, 1983.
City Clerk
8 November 1982
TO: Edina Council
FROM: Roger Clemence on behalf of Leo Evans
RE: November 15 Proposal
The subdivision plat and request for rezoning which accompanies this memo-
randum responds to many concerns expressed by Council, Planning Staff,
Planning Commission, City Manager, City Engineer, Hennepin County Highway
Department and neighboring property owners over a series of meetings while
also recognizing the objectives of the owner. It is presented in the spirit
of compromise.
While I would certainly not wish to suggest that the proposed plan will equally
satisfy owner, Council, staff and all neighbors in all of its parts, I believe
it offers the best response we can make in the face of the many, hard -to- reconcile
desires of many people.
Let me identify the concerns I have heard in the series of meetings associated
with previous presentations. Then let me note how the plan responds to those
concerns.
Concern #1: Neck Lots and Variances
These concerns have generated relatively limited discussion in Planning
Commission and Council meetings, but they-have come up in Planning Staff
reports.
Plan response to Concern #1
Neither neck lots nor set -back variances will need to be debated with
the current plan. It contains no parcels which could be described as
neck lots and no lot shapes which would require variances for building
construction.
Concern #2: Lot Sizes
This issue has not been a dominant concern but it has been mentioned.
Single family detached homes in the neighboring portion of the Edina
Highlands Lakeside Addition average about 11,500 square feet each.
The nearest double (on the west side of Olinger is about 16,000 square
feet). The minimum required size for doubles in Edina is 15,000 square
feet. For singles it is 9,000.
Plan Response to Concern #2
Our single lots range in size from 10,300 square feet to 16,200 square feet
with the average being 12,700 or more than 1,000 square .feet greater than
the average, neighboring,single detached lot. Our doubles run from a low
of 15,300 to a high of 18,400 square feet with the average just under
16,500. We believe the sizes and shapes will offer building sites which
should allow for good retention of existing, major trees and a pleasing
relationship of homes. Visually, one can expect less crowding of homes
than is now found along Merold Drive.
Page Two
Concern #3: Cul de Sacs and the Vernon- Wycliffe Connection
Wycliffe Road as a Cul de Sac
Residents of yc i e Road would like to eliminate traffic movement
from Vernon to Wycliffe: They naturally favor the cul de sac . which supports
this objective. We presented a plan incorporating their desire which was
supported by a majority.vote at the October 28 Planning Commission meeting.
But strong opposition to that particular cul de sac has been voiced by
the City Manager, by four Council members and by the Planning Staff as
well as some Planning Commission members. It seems very clear that Wycliffe
must connect in some fashion with Vernon.
Wycliffe Court as a Cul de Sac
Mr. Roslund objected strenuously to this cul de sac, too, urging that
Wycliffe Court connect with Vernon opposite Heather Lane. This approach
also was attractive to Mrs. Schmidt. Wycliffe Road residents felt that
if Wycliffe Road had to connect with Vernon, this type of connection would
help to discourage the use of Wycliffe as a short cut to Good Samaritan Church
and Country Side Elementary School at the south. Gordon Hughes had reser-
vations about a second, four way intersection near the Olinger /Vernon /High-
wood crossing but could accept it if there.were another access from Vernon
to the site farther to the east.
P1an.Response to Concern #3
Two access points are shown on Vernon. Both allow ingress and egress be-
tween Vernon and existing Wycliffe Road but both are designed in a way
which should also discourage the use of Wycliffe as a short cut between
Vernon and the southerly church or school locations. Wycliffe as proposed
may actually come to be viewed as a beneficial link between newer and older
homes in the years ahead as well as a desirable connector between Merold
and Vernon. In any case, the Council's desires on this issue seem to have
been clearly stated. The plan recognizes the Council position.
Concern #4: Unit Counts plus Numbers and Types of Lots
Residents have expressed varying opinions about unit counts and about
numbers of R -1 vs. R -2 lots but have generally seemed to favor 28 or fewer
dwellings with a large part of the property in single family detached homes.
Dennis Wegner has consistently pressed for an R -1 designation north of his
property. The Planning Commission has reaffirmed its commitment to the
"single family attached residential" designation for this site, has twice
recommended designs showing 28 units and has endorsed seven double lots
along Vernon.
At the same time, throughout the deliberations, Mr. Richards has made it
known he is not ready to support more than 25 or 26 units on this site.
Other members of the Council, on the other hand, have indicated that they
range from being comfortable with 28 units to wishing for a slightly lower
figure to only wishing for fewer than the seven R -2 lots proposed on
November 1.
Page Three
Leo Evans had hoped for t units when we were working with townhouse
designs but had been willing to come down to 31 or 32. With the current
lotting pattern he understands that the unit count will not exceed the
28 recommended twice by the Planning Commission. Furthermore he realizes
that Council support from four members may only be gained at 27 or even
26 units. He fervently hopes to keep 21 lots. I personally believe --
given the lot sizes of the latest plan and the Edina guide Plan commit-
ment to attached units on this property -- that the Council should be pre-
pared to support 28 units on 21 lots.
Plan Response to Concern 1#4
Despite Planning Commission support for 28 units on.21 lots and despite
my belief that these figures are resonable, Mr. Evans has endorsed a
proposal for 27 units on 21 lots, i.e. 6 doubles and 15 singles. This
has been a long and difficult effort. I believe these figures show Leo
Evans' willingness to compromise and feel this should be an acceptable
compromise for the Council, also.
CONCLUSION
Before completing this memorandum, let me say that I personally still feel
disappointed when I realize that the Evans gardens /park will probably become a
fully developed subdivision within the next few years with little to remind us
of its present character. There will still be some of the alignment of old
highway 169 and certainly, there will•be the green space along Hawks Lake. But
the major, green central open space of roughly 1.5 acres I had hoped might be
retained will not exist -- unless, of course present and future owners join
together to purchase it as their own, cooperatively owned green space.
In any case, the Leo Evans family has made a commitment to see this property
developed and, when development does occur, the City of Edina can expect to
receive significantly increased tax revenues from the land while present resi-
dents can expect to be joined by a number of fine families in 27 (or fewer)
handsome homes.
The planning journey associated with this project has been long and often dif-
ficult. There have been some sharp disagreements, but there have been honest
efforts to reach a compromise. On November 1st I even heard applause after
some of my comments (a delightful and much appreciated sound, I must say).
But, despite the applause, we fell short of Council approval.
Tonight, members of the Edina Council, you have before you a plan I think can
be called "The Council Plan ". I urge you to give it your unanimous endorsement
and hope others will do the same.
RDC /cd
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
:( P �/
T, 0: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Francis Hoffman, Director of Public Works
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Ptanager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $5,000
DATE: November 12, 1982
Material Description (General Specifications):
3 Dump Trucks with box
Quotations /Bids:
Company
1.
see attached tabulation
2.
3.
Amount of Quote or Bid.
Department Recommendation: North Star International $ 37,723.00 /truck
113,169.00 (total)
Finance Director's Endorsement:
The recommended bid is -at_
Public Works
SignatV,Lf Department
within the amount budget for the purchase.
u. ii. ua ien, r1.nance` Di rector
CityManaaer's Endorsement:
/ 1. �I concur with the recommendation of the Department p and recommend Council approve
the purchase.
2. I recommend as an alternative:
eth Rosland,. City Manager
QUOTATIONS /BIDS
Company
Astleford Equipment Company
North Star International Truck
Brookdale Ford
Lakeland Ford
Boyer Ford
Superior Ford
Amount of Quote.or Bid
$37,690.00.per unit (Midland Body)
The above bid does not meet s ecificatio!
38,236.00 per unit Crysteel body
$37,723.00 per unit
$37,992.00 per unit
$38,167.00 per unit
$38,328.00 per unit
$38,333.00 per unit
CITY OF EDINA
4801 W. 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
TITTMP TRTTf'.KS
BIDS CLOSE NOVEMBER 3, 1982
SEALED BIDS will be received and opened in the Council Chambers, Edina City
Hall, 4801 W. 50th Street, at 11:00 A.M., Thursday, November 4, 1982, and
the Edina City Council will meet at 7;00 P.M., Monday, November 15, 1982,
at the City Hall to consider bids being for the following, but not limited to:
3 Dump Trucks with Boxes
Bids shall be in a sealed envelope with'a statement thereon showing the items
covered by the bid. Bids should be addressed to the City Clerk, City of Edina,
4801 W. 50th Street, Edina, Minnesota 55424, and may be mailed or submitted
personally to the City Clerk. Bids received by the City Clerk; either through
the mail or by personal submission, after the time set for receiving them
may be returned unopened.
Bids must be in conformance with specifications which are available at the
Edina City Hall. No bids will be considered unless sealed and accompanied by
cash deposit, bid bond or certified check payable to the City of Edina in the
amount of at least ten (10) percent of amount of net bid. The City Council
reserves the right to reject any or all bids or any part of any bid, and will
accept the bid that is deemed to be in the best interest of the City.
BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL.
Florence B. Hallberg
City Clerk
Please publish in the Edina Sun on October 13, 1982.
Please send us two Affidavits of Publication.
CITY OF EDINA
4801 W. 50TH STREET
EDINA,,MINNESOTA 55424
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
DUMP TRUCKS
BIDS CLOSE NOVEMBER.3, 1982
SEALED BIDS will be received and opened in the Council Chambers, Edina City
Hall, 4801 W. 50th Street, at 11:00 A.M., Thursday, November 4, 1982, and
the Edina City Council will meet at 7;00 P.M., Monday, November 15, 1982,
at the City Hall to consider bids being for the following, but not limited to:
3 Dump Trucks with Boxes
Bids shall be in a sealed envelope with a statement thereon showing the items
covered by the bid. Bids should be addressed to the City Clerk, City of Edina,
4801 W. 50th-Street, Edina, Minnesota 55424, and may be mailed or submitted
personally to the. City Clerk. Bids received by the.City Clerk, either through
the mail or by personal submission, after the time set for receiving them
may be returned unopened.
Bids must be in conformance with specifications which are available at the
Edina City Hall. No bids will be considered unless sealed and accompanied by
cash deposit, bid bond or certified check payable to the City of Edina in the
amount of at least ten (10) percent of amount of net bid. The City Council
reserves the right to reject any or all bids or any part of any bid, and will
accept the bid that is deemed to be in the best interest of the City.
BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL.
Florence B. Hallberg
City Clerk
Please publish in the Construction Bulletin on October 14, 1982
Please send us two affidavits of publication.
V
MEWORAN DUM
TO: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
FROM: Gordon Hughes, City Planner
DATE: November 15, 1982
SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding
for H.O.M.E.
You will recall that the City Council approved a CDBG budget in April, 1982
that included $6,000 to be used for public services. It was anticipated that
this funding would be provided to South Hennepin Human Services Council
for use for its H.O.M.E. program. H.O.M.E. provides repair and maintenance
services to senior citizen homeowners. Our funds would be used to pay for
services provided to income eligible Edina homeowners.
I have attached an agreement that would establish conditions for delivery
of our CDBG funds to H.O.M.E. The agreement sets forth the assurances
and documentation needed to receive reimbursement from the City. Staff
recommends approval of the agreement.
GH /Ide
6 oOMCnl4�'J
AGREEMENT
This agreement made and entered into by and between the City of
, herein after referred to as the "City"
and South Hennepin Human Services Council, a public service agency, here-
in after referred to as the "Agency ",
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City is an authorized subgrantee participant in
tne Urban Hennepin County Community.Development Block Grant program by
virtue of a joint cooperation agreement executed between the City and
Hennepin County pursuant to MSA 471.59, and
WHEREAS, the City has allocated Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant funds in program year , project number
, for the purpose of supporting the H.O.M.E. program adminis-
tered by the Agency,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
promises contained in this Agreement, the parties hereto mutually agree
to the following terms and conditions:
The City agrees to provide dollars in Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant funds to the Agency in support
of the H.O.M.E. program.
II
The Agency agrees to provide the City:
1. Affidavit of Agency service fee schedule.
2. A financial statement for the past full year.
3. A statement of public revenue sources for the period June
1, 1981 through June 1, 1982.
III
The Agency provides assurance that it will comply with:
I. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL88 -352)
(Nondiscrimination in programs or activities receiving
Federal financial assistance.)
2. Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 as amended. (Nondiscrimination in any program or
activity subject to provision of the HCDA.)
3. OMB Circular A -102 Attachment 0, Section 14, paragraph (h)
by assuring the grantee, federal grantor agency, the Comp-
troller General of the United States or any duly authorized
representative access to all records directly pertinent to
this contract for the purpose of making audit examinations,
excerpts and transcriptions.
4. OMB Circular A- 102.Attachment C (2), and maintain all
required records for a period of three years after receiv-
ing final payment.
IV
The Agency, prior to financial reimbursement from the City shall provide
the City with:
1. H.O.M.E. Service Request /Chore Maintenance
2. Individual'Data Confidentiality form
3. Client Income Verification
4. Maintenance Service Plan /Service Evaluation
u
7nis Agreement is effective as of July 1, 1982, and shall continue in
full force and effect until all funds made available under this agree -
anent have been expended in accordance with paragraphs I -IV, but no later
than July 1, 1984.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands
and affixed their seals this day of 1982.
Upon proper execution,
this Agreement will be
legally valid and binding.
By
Chair, South Hennepin Human
Services Council
and
Executive Director, South
Hennepin Human Services
Council
City of
State of Minnesota
City of
LZ
Mayor
and
City Manager
G9GWfn1(?�BGiI
COdG�ji�J
LIQUOR FUND
BALANCE SHEET
CITY OF EDINA
As at September 30, 1982
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS:
Cash:
Demand Deposits
Working Fund
Accounts Receivable
Contracts Receivable
Loan To Other Funds
Inventory:
Liquor
Wine
Beer and Mix .
Prepaid Expenses:
Unexpired Insurance
Supplies Inventory
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
FIXED ASSETS:
Land
Land Improvements
Buildings
Furniture and Fixtures
Leasehold Improvements
Less: Allowance for Depreciation
and Amortization
Construction in Progress
CURRENT LIABILITIES:
Trade Accounts Payable
Accrued Payroll
Due To Other Funds
SURPLUS:
Invested in Fixed Assets
Unappropriated
$ 22,136.07
727 488.27
293,719.64
3 035.55
$1,046 379.53
$ 208,093.93
3,800.00
$ 487,966.97
331,339.64
84,735.27
$ 211,893.93
921.60
49,733.35
415,000.00
904,041.88
$ (1 848.50)
400.00 (1,448.50)
$1,580,142.26
$ 233,784.60
365,378.58 681,000.95
700.00 915,485.55
TOTAL ASSETS $2,495,627.81
LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES
$ 172,331.87
7.105.65
$ 179,437.52
1,550.00
180,987.52
$ 915,485.55
1,399,154.74 23,314,640.29
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $2,495 627.81
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
e COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE
s CITY OF EDINA
Nine Months Ending September 30, 1982 and September 30, 1981
1982 1981 INCREASE- DECREASE*
50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total 50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total 50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total
SALES:
155,697.00 $
303,662.54 $
236,826.86 $
696,186.40 $
140,504.54 $
275,756.78 $
208,901.22 $
625,162.54
$ 15,192.46
$ 27,905.76 $
27,925.64
$ 71,023.86
Liquor $
440,232.86
$ 897,114.29
$ 759,210.15
$2,096,557.30
$ 480,141.59
$ 937,766.99
$ 804,715.58
$2,222,624.16
$ 39,908.73*
$ 40,652.70*
$ 45,505.43*
$126,066.86*
Wine
261,429.28
484,978.53
392,286.25
1,138,694.06
254,155.56
481,849.58
374,646.13
1,110,651.27
7;273.72
3,128.95
17,640.12
28,042.79
'Beer
201,114,91
377,320.74
307,451.77
885,887.42
175,547.15
384,772.71
312,808.12
873,127.98
25,567.76
7,451.97*
5,356.35*
12,759.44
Mix and Miscellaneous
14 232.66
27 138.33
25 316.47
66 687.46
15 401.54
28 415.56
25 320.65
69 137.75
1,168.88*
1.277.23*
4,18*
2,450.29*
TOTAL OPERATING 4
917,009.71
$1,786,551.89
$1,484,264.64
,187,826.24
925,245.84
$1,832,804.84
$1,517,490.48
$4,275,541.16
$ 8,236.13*
6,252.95*
33,225.84 *.
87,714.92*
Less bottle refunds
24 035.64
58 613.14
49 501.08
132 149.86
24 343.93
60,399 2 02
52 642.16
137 385.11
308.29*
1,785.88*
3,141.08*
5,235.25*
NET SALES
892.974.07
41,727,938.75
$1,434,763.56
,055,676.38
4 900,901.91
$1,772,405.82
41,464,848.32
,138,156.05
7,927.84*
44,467.07*
30,084.76*
$ 82,479.67*
COST OF SALES:
Inventory - January 1
254,569.38
394,458.82
275,210.64
924,238.84
266,610.05
334,835.48
257,259.85
858,705.38
12,040.67*
59,623.34
17,950.79
65,533.46
Purchases
732 404.74
1,401,524.93
1 205 363.35
3,339,293.02
832 554.00
1,675.526 i 93
1 383 408.48
3 891 489.4 1
100,149.26*
274,002.00*
178,045.13*
552.196.39*
Cash over or under
986,974.12
41,795,983.75
$1,480,573.99
4,263,531.86
1,099,164.05
$2,010,362.41
$1,640,668.33
$4,750,194.79
4112,189.93
4214,378.66
160,094.34*
486,662.93*
InventorySept. 30
249,697 05
371,707.54
282,637 29
904,041 88
338,766.68
513,713.37
384,721.23
1,237,201.28
89,069.63*
142,005.83*
102,083.94*
333,159.40*
GROSS PROFIT $
155,697.00 $
303,662.54 $
236,826.86 $
696,186.40 $
140,504.54 $
275,756.78 $
208,901.22 $
625,162.54
$ 15,192.46
$ 27,905.76 $
27,925.64
$ 71,023.86
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Selling
53,127.73
92,163.47
75,315.48
220,606.68
48,603.26
88,062.61
74,066.63
210,732.50
4,524.47
4,100.86
1,248.85
9,874.18
Overhead
27,096.94
39,924.34
27,870.40
94,891.68
28,891.08
36,747.20
28,525.82
94,164.10
1,794.14*
3,177.14
655.42*
727.58
Administrative
49 757.40
67 652.40
54 023.97
171 433.77
40 753.06
58 447.54
48 763.71
147 963.71
9,004.34
9.204.86
5 260.86
23 470.06
TOTAL OPERATING 4
129,982.07
199,740.21 4
157,209 85
486,932.13
118,247,40 4
183,257.35
151,355.56
452,860.31
4 11,734.67
16,482.86 4
5,854.29 -$
34,071.82
EXPENSES
NET OPERATING
25,714.93
103,922.33
79,617.01
209,254.27
22,257.14
92,499.43
57,545.66
172,302.23
3,457.79
11,422.90
22,071.35
36,952.04
PROFIT
OTHER INCOME:
Cash Discount
12,958.56
26,298.65
20,450.15
59,707.36
13,171.92
27,842.24
24,110.73
65,124.89
213.36*
1,543.59*
3,660.58*
5,417.53*
Cash over or under
33.06
250.69*
183.48
34.15*
5.71
450.41*
353.75
90.95*
27.35
199.72
170.27*
56.80
Income on investments
-0-
-0-
1,594.75
1,594.75
1,594.75*
1,594.75*
Other
532.83
227.64
224.62
985.09
449.03
216.67
204.91
870.61
83.80
10.97
19.71
114.48
13,524.45
260 275 60
20,858 25
60,658 30 $
15,221.41
27,608 50
24,669.39
67,499.30
1,696.96*
1,332.90* S
3,811.14*
$ 6.8T1,00*
N ETINCOM E $
39,239 38 $
130,197 93 $
100,475 26 $
269,912 57 $
S4,478.55-$
120,107 93 $
82,215.05 $
239,801.53
$ 1,760.83
$ 10,090.00 _$
18,260.21
$ 30,111.04
PERCENT TO NET SALES:
Gross profit
17.44%
17.57%
16.51%
17.17%
15.60%
15.56%
14.26%
15.11%
Operating expenses
14.56
11.56
10.96
12.01
13.13
10.34
10.33
10.94
Operating profit
2.88%
6.01%
5.55%
5.16%
2.47%
5.22%
3.93%
4.17%
Other income
1.51
1.52
1.45
1.50
1.69
1.56
1.68
1.62
NET INCOME
4.39%
7.53%
7.00%
6.66%
4,16%
6.78%
5.61%
5.79%