Performance Measurement Report & SMART Goals 2018PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
& SMART GOALS
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 21, 2018
In an effort to better measure and continually improve overall levels of service and quality of
life, the city of New Hope developed the Performance Measurement Report and SMART goals
document. The Performance Measurement Report compares top tier indicators, which capture
the state of the city, while SMART goals track Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and
Timely objectives set forth by department heads.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OVERVIEW & HISTORY............................................................................................................................3
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT............................................................................................4
COMMUNITY SAFETY & SECURITY.............................................................................................................5
PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY & COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY.................................................................9
GENERAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION....................................................................13
ATTRACTIVE, HIGH QUALITY NEIGHBORHOODS & BUSINESS DISTRICTS .........................................19
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION & COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.................................................................23
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS TO SIMILAR CITIES.........................................................................................24
SMART GOALS.......................................................................................................................................25
GENERAL FUND.........................................................................................................................................26
PUBLIC SAFETY .........................................................................................................................................29
STREETS......................................................................................................................................................32
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND..........................................................................................................................33
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND.........................................................................................................................34
ENTERPRISE FUNDS...................................................................................................................................35
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS.......................................................................................................................37
PAGE 2
OVERVIEW & HISTORY
CITY OF NEW HOPE OVERVIEW & HISTORY
LOCATION
The city of New Hope is a suburb located northwest
of Minneapolis with strong neighborhoods, an
abundance of parks and recreational opportunities,
excellent schools, and great shopping nearby. The
city has easy access to the entire Twin Cities area
with major arterials of Highway 169, Highway 100,
Interstate 694, and Interstate 394 all nearby.
POPULATION (2010 CENSUS)SIZE/AREA YEAR FORMED
20,339 5.1 square miles 1953
BUSINESSES JOBS SHOPPING CENTERS
480 11,080 5
SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOLS PARKS/ACREAGE
Robbinsdale Area (281)5 18/200
HISTORY
In the early 1900s, New Hope was a farming-rich
community. The area was settled as part of Crystal
Lake Township and became the home for many
family farms. As housing developments spread west
from Minneapolis in the 1930s, the residents of Crystal Lake Township began the movement to
incorporate the township. In 1936, the city of Crystal was incorporated. Forming a city, though,
was not supported by all residents in the township. The rural residents in the western half of
the township broke away from the city of Crystal and formed their own township. The resistant
residents, mostly farmers, were unhappy about paying taxes for projects such as street lighting
and sanitary sewer. The name the farmers selected for their new township was a reflection of
the time, New Hope.
Many residents along the New Hope-Crystal border formed groups and requested to be
annexed by Crystal in order to receive what were the most modern city services at the time.
Others, however, were happy to be part of New Hope township and remained separate from
Crystal. Therefore, pockets of New Hope residents were created along the eastern boundary.
By the early 1950s, the rapidly developing township of New Hope chose the fate it had eluded
just over 15 years earlier. In 1953, New Hope incorporated as a city to prevent losing more of
its land and residents to Crystal via annexation. This move was again opposed by the farming
community of New Hope, but housing developments between 1936 and 1953 had made farmers
a minority in New Hope.
When the township was incorporated, it had 600 residents. The city grew rapidly and was home
to over 2,500 people by 1958. This rapid population growth continued through the 1960s, and by
1971, there were 24,000 residents in New Hope. The population of the community has declined
slightly since 1971.
PAGE 3
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
The city of New Hope Performance Measurement Report is a cumulative summary report
compiled from various sources, primarily the City Services Survey, an annual paper and
web-based survey, and the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, an extensive professional
community-wide phone survey. SMART goals that appear within the report are denoted with a
light bulb symbol (💡).
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 1, 2018
COMPARISON OF TOP TIER INDICATORS
COMMUNITY SAFETY & SECURITY
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
1. SAFETY (CITIZEN RATING)
20131 20141 20152 20161 20171
Very or somewhat safe1/Excellent or good2 92%91%91%93%91%
Somewhat or very unsafe1/Fair or poor2 7%8%9%7%8%
Unknown1,2 1%1%1%1%2%
PAGE 5
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 92%67%N/A 85%N/A
Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 7%33%N/A 15%N/A
Unknown 1%0%N/A 0%N/A
Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or
Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 91%81%N/A N/A N/A
Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 8%18%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 1%2%N/A N/A N/A
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 91%86%98%85%N/A
Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 9%13%2%15%N/A
Unknown 1%1%1%0%N/A
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 93%77%N/A N/A N/A
Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 7%21%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 1%1%N/A N/A N/A
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 91%82%N/A 86%N/A
Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 8%18%N/A 14%N/A
Unknown 2%0%N/A 0%N/A
1 Data for citizens’ rating of safety in the community from 2013-2014 and 2016-2017 was compiled from the City Services Survey,
an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in the state’s
Performance Measurement Program.
2 Data for citizens’ rating of quality of service for police protection from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman
Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
2. CRIME RATE
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Part I crimes 526 495 548 543 558
Part II crimes 787 1,176 1,188 1,265 1,839
Crime rate data for 2013-2017 was compiled by the city’s police department. Part I crimes include murder, rape, aggravated
assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Part II crimes include other assaults, forgery/counterfeiting,
embezzlement, stolen property, vandalism, weapons, prostitutions, other sex offenses, narcotics, gambling, family/children
crime, DUI, liquor laws, and disorderly conduct.
PAGE 6
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Part I crimes 526 550 473 566 1,070
Part II crimes 787 989 650 457 1,419
Comparison data was compiled from reports posted on official city websites or requested and supplied directly by city staff.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Part I crimes 495 632 546 559 958
Part II crimes 1,176 1,024 570 529 1,132
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Part I crimes 548 563 515 516 995
Part II crimes 1,188 996 651 574 1,100
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Part I crimes 543 518 515 545 997
Part II crimes 1,265 925 571 628 1,283
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Part I crimes 558 613 508 624 1,007
Part II crimes 1,839 847 753 628 1,289
3. TRAFFIC ACCIDENT RATE
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Accidents 365 448 410 428 422
Number per 1,000 population 17.95 22.03 20.16 21.04 20.98
Traffic accident data for 2013-2017 was compiled by the city’s police department.
4. POLICE RESPONSE
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Priority 1 call response time (average minutes)3.93 5.03 4.36 4.34 4.32
Police response data for 2013-2017 was compiled by the city’s police department.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
5. EMERGENCY SERVICES
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Calls for service 658 812 758 795 979
Calls per 1,000 population 32.35 39.92 37.27 39.09 48.13
Emergency services data for 2013-2017 was compiled by the West Metro Fire-Rescue District. Calls for service include fire,
hazardous conditions, target hazards, EMS, rescue, weather, police assistance, service, good intent, and false alarms, amongst
others.
PAGE 7
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Calls per 1,000 population 32.35 29.39 38.53 14.00 112.59
Comparison data was compiled from reports posted on official city websites or requested and supplied directly by city staff.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Calls per 1,000 population 39.92 31.69 30.50 12.00 115.96
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Calls per 1,000 population 37.27 34.13 34.34 13.36 114.31
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Calls per 1,000 population 39.09 31.46 36.67 14.09 114.31
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Calls per 1,000 population 48.13 39.64 31.38 14.05 121.52
6. CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES (CITIZEN RATING)
20151 20162 20172
Excellent or good 69%45%N/A
Fair 11%16%N/A
Poor 1%30%N/A
Too tough N/A N/A 7%
About right N/A N/A 47%
Not tough enough N/A N/A 36%
Unknown 20%42%10%
1 Data for citizens’ rating of quality of code enforcement services from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman
Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported.
2 Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of code enforcement services from 2016-2017 was compiled from the City Services
Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in
the state’s Performance Measurement Program. Potential responses to the survey were changed in 2017 to better correlate
with how the survey question was worded. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
7. FIRE PROTECTION (CITIZEN RATING)
20131 20141 20152 20161 20171
Excellent or good 70%68%92%68%67%
Fair 2%2%5%2%2%
Poor 0%0%0%0%0%
Unknown 28%29%3%30%31%
PAGE 8
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of fire protection services from 2013-2014 and 2016-2017 was compiled from the
City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s
participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program.
2 Data for citizens’ rating of quality of service for fire protection from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company
Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 70%61%N/A 96%N/A
Fair 2%6%N/A 4%N/A
Poor 0%0%N/A 0%N/A
Unknown 28%33%N/A 0%N/A
Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or
Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 68%61%N/A N/A N/A
Fair 2%2%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 0%0%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 29%38%N/A N/A N/A
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 92%63%94%97%N/A
Fair 5%7%1%3%N/A
Poor 0%1%0%0%N/A
Unknown 3%29%5%0%N/A
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 68%61%N/A N/A N/A
Fair 2%10%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 0%2%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 30%27%N/A N/A N/A
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 67%66%N/A 97%N/A
Fair 2%4%N/A 3%N/A
Poor 0%1%N/A 0%N/A
Unknown 31%29%N/A 0%N/A
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
8. CITY SERVICES/QUALITY OF LIFE (CITIZEN RATING)
20131 20141 20152 20161 20171
Excellent or good 80%77%98%87%84.5%
Fair 13%16%2%10%10.5%
Poor 3%2%0%1%1%
Unknown 3%5%0%3%4%
PAGE 9
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the overall quality of city services from 2013-2014 and 2016-2017 was compiled from the City Services
Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in
the state’s Performance Measurement Program.
2 Data for citizens’ rating of quality of life from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional
community-wide phone survey.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 80%53%N/A 90%N/A
Fair 13%42%N/A 9%N/A
Poor 3%0%N/A 1%N/A
Unknown 3%5%N/A 0%N/A
Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or
Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 77%80%N/A N/A N/A
Fair 16%13%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 2%2%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 5%5%N/A N/A N/A
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 98%72%98%90%N/A
Fair 2%18%2%10%N/A
Poor 0%6%0%0%N/A
Unknown 0%4%0%0%N/A
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 87%62%N/A N/A N/A
Fair 10%27%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 1%8%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 3%3%N/A N/A N/A
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 84.5%78%N/A 91%N/A
Fair 10.5%14%N/A 9%N/A
Poor 1%4%N/A 0%N/A
Unknown 4%4%N/A 0%N/A
PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY & COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
9. CREDITWORTHINESS
PAGE 10
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Bond rating 💡AA AA AA AA AA
The city’s bond rating for 2013-2017 was determined by Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services. Standard & Poor’s rating definitions
state that “an issuer rated ‘AA’ has very strong capacity to meet its financial commitments and differs from the highest-rated
issuers only to a small degree.” The rating reflects an assessment of various factors for the city, including strong economy;
very strong management with “strong” financial policies; strong budgetary performance, with an operating surplus in the
general fund; very strong budgetary flexibility; very strong liquidity; very weak debt and contingent liability profile; and a strong
institutional framework score.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Bond rating AA AA2 AAA AA AA+
Comparison data was compiled from reports posted on official websites for each city. The AAA rating represents minimum
credit risk and signifies that the insurer has extremely strong capacity to meet its financial commitments. It is the highest rating
assigned by Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s. Moody’s AA1 rating and Standard & Poor’s AA+ rating are the
second highest ratings assigned by each agency and indicate a slightly higher rating as compared to Standard & Poor’s AA rating
and Moody’s AA2 rating.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Bond rating AA AA2 AA1 AA AA+
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Bond rating AA AA2 AA1 AA AA+
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Bond rating AA AA2 AA1 AA AA+
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Bond rating AA AA2 AA1 AA AA+
10. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Unqualified audit on financial statements 💡
Unqualified financial audits for 2012-2017 were performed by Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A.
11. FINANCIAL CONDITION
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Property taxes (general fund)$7,803,838 $7,928,813 $8,308,447 $8,954,626 $9,541,667
Personnel costs (general fund)$6,592,257 $6,697,939 $7,409,500 $7,429,564 $7,771,859
Ratio of tax revenues to personnel costs 1.18 1.18 1.12 1.21 1.23
Property tax payment rate 99.96%99.85%99.73%99.48%99.40%
Financial condition data for 2013-2017 was compiled by the city’s financial consultant, Abdo, Eick and Meyers, LLP, as a part of
the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
💡SMART Goal
💡SMART Goal
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 11
12. PROPERTY VALUES
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Taxable market value 💡$1,235,267,314 $1,334,517,728 $1,430,939,117 $1,535,054,114 $1,697,092,365
Percent change in taxable market value 0.93%8.03%7.23%7.28%10.56%
Data for taxable market values of properties in New Hope for 2013-2017 was determined by Hennepin County. Taxable market
value for 2013 was payable in 2014, value for 2014 was payable in 2015, etc.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Taxable market value $1,235,267,314 $1,135,611,852 $2,719,232,050 $1,747,585,600 $2,308,801,930
Percent change in taxable market value 0.93%-0.10%-0.92%0.74%-0.79%
Data for taxable market values was compiled from comprehensive market value reports posted on Hennepin County’s website.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Taxable market value $1,334,517,728 $1,293,693,713 $2,934,477,667 $1,838,979,100 $2,541,853,432
Percent change in taxable market value 8.03%13.92%7.92%5.23%10.09%
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Taxable market value $1,430,939,117 $1,339,237,404 $3,097,563,064 $1,927,158,300 $2,670,879,248
Percent change in taxable market value 7.23%3.52%5.56%4.80%5.08%
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Taxable market value $1,535,054,114 $1,482,067,331 $3,271,878,353 $2,058,438,500 $2,897,764,130
Percent change in taxable market value 7.28%10.67%5.63%6.81%8.49%
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Taxable market value $1,697,092,365 $1,637,892,494 $3,523,108,955 $2,233,653,900 $3,079,159,709
Percent change in taxable market value 10.56%10.51%7.68%8.51%6.26%
13. EMPLOYEE RETENTION
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Turnover rate 💡11.9%8.4%10.4%10.7%9.4%
Employee turnover rate data for 2013-2017 was compiled by the city’s human resources department.
💡SMART Goal
💡SMART Goal
14. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Number of insurance claims 29 23 26 28 20
Experience modification rate 💡1.41 1.24 1.30 1.30 1.40
Insurance claims and Experience Modification Rate (EMR) data for 2013-2017 was compiled by the city’s human resources
department. The EMR gauges the past cost of injuries and future chances of risk, impacting the cost of the city’s worker
compensation insurance premiums. The industry benchmark average EMR is 1.0. An EMR of less than 1.0 would effectively
reduce the premium paid, where an EMR greater than 1.0 would increase the premium paid. The EMR for 2013-2014 is
calculated using 2009, 2010, and 2011 data, the EMR for 2014-2015 is calculated using 2010, 2011, and 2012 data, etc.
💡SMART Goal
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 12
15. ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
2015 2016 2017
Minnesota GreenStep Cities step level Step 2 Step 3 Step 3
Best practices completed 15 18 21
Best practice actions completed 65 70 75
The Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program is a voluntary challenge, assistance, and recognition program that helps cities
achieve their sustainability and quality-of-life goals. This free continuous improvement program, managed by a public-private
partnership, is based upon 29 best practices comprised of 175 best practice actions. The program recognizes cities for their
accomplishments by assigning a step level ranging from 1 to 5, which is determined by Minnesota GreenStep Cities.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES
Comparison data was compiled from the Minnesota GreenStep Cities’ website. “N/A” signifies that the city had not yet joined
the program.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Minnesota GreenStep Cities rating N/A Step 1 N/A N/A Step 1
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Minnesota GreenStep Cities rating Step 2 Step 2 N/A N/A Step 1
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Minnesota GreenStep Cities rating Step 3 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 2
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Minnesota GreenStep Cities rating Step 3 Step 2 Step 2 Step 2 Step 2
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
16. CITY ROADS (CITIZEN RATING)
20131 20141 20152 20161 20171
Excellent or good 54%43%70%63%76%
Fair 30%37%22%30%20%
Poor 16%21%9%6%4%
Unknown 0%1%0%1%0%
PAGE 13
1 Data for citizens’ rating of city roads from 2013-2014 and 2016-2017 was compiled from the City Services Survey, an annual
paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in the state’s
Performance Measurement Program.
2 Data for citizens’ rating of pavement repair and patching from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company
Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 54%53%N/A 70%N/A
Fair 30%37%N/A 25%N/A
Poor 16%11%N/A 5%N/A
Unknown 0%0%N/A 0%N/A
Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or
Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 43%80%N/A N/A N/A
Fair 37%15%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 21%5%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 1%0%N/A N/A N/A
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 70%70%84%62%N/A
Fair 22%23%10%29%N/A
Poor 9%6%7%9%N/A
Unknown 0%1%0%0%N/A
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 63%63%N/A N/A N/A
Fair 30%25%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 6%12%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 1%0%N/A N/A N/A
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 76%75%N/A 63%N/A
Fair 20%19%N/A 30%N/A
Poor 4%5%N/A 7%N/A
Unknown 0%0%N/A 0%N/A
GENERAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
17. PAVEMENT
PAGE 14
20131 20142 20152 20162 20172
Pavement condition rating 💡63 (fair)61 (fair)73 (good)75 (good)76 (good)
1 Data for pavement condition rating for 2013 was compiled by GoodPointe Technology.
2 Data for pavement condition ratings from 2014-2017 was compiled by the city engineer.
18. ROAD SNOWPLOWING (CITIZEN RATING)
20131 20141 20152 20161 20171
Excellent or good 79%78%88%84%84%
Fair 15%15%12%10%12%
Poor 5%6%1%4%2%
Unknown 1%1%0%2%2%
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of snowplowing of city streets from 2013-2014 and 2016-2017 was compiled from the
City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s
participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program.
2 Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of snowplowing of city streets from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman
Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 79%47%N/A 71%N/A
Fair 15%21%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 5%32%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 1%0%N/A N/A N/A
Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or
Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 78%44%N/A N/A N/A
Fair 15%35%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 6%20%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 1%2%N/A N/A N/A
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 88%67%98%75%N/A
Fair 12%18%2%19%N/A
Poor 1%14%0%6%N/A
Unknown 0%2%0%0%N/A
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 84%43%N/A N/A N/A
Fair 10%35%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 4%17%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 2%6%N/A N/A N/A
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 84%69%N/A 81%N/A
Fair 12%19%N/A 12%N/A
Poor 2%9%N/A 7%N/A
Unknown 2%3%N/A 0%N/A
💡SMART Goal
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 15
19. WATER UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Water main breaks 29 28 20 19 12
Water main break data for 2013-2017 was compiled by the city’s public works department.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Water main breaks 29 6 11 22 28
Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or
requested and supplied directly by city staff.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Water main breaks 28 9 27 28 21
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Water main breaks 20 9 27 11 30
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Water main breaks 19 9 14 28 16
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Water main breaks 12 13 11 14 11
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 16
20. WATER QUALITY (CITIZEN RATING)
20131 20141 20152 20161 20171
Excellent or good 88%85%81%88%90%
Fair 8%10%18%7%6%
Poor 2%2%1%2%2%
Unknown 2%3%1%3%2%
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the dependability and quality of the city water supply from 2013-2014 and 2016-2017 was compiled
from the City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the
city’s participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program.
2 Data for citizens’ rating of the taste and quality of drinking water from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman
Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 88%79%N/A 70%N/A
Fair 8%11%N/A 21%N/A
Poor 2%0%N/A 9%N/A
Unknown 2%11%N/A 0%N/A
Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey
or Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported. The cities of New Hope, Crystal, and
Golden Valley are members of the Joint Water Commission (JWC), a joint powers board that was formed in 1963 with the intent
of providing its member cities with a secure, reliable, cost-effective water supply. The JWC purchases water from the city of
Minneapolis, which draws its water supply from the Mississippi River in Fridley, where it is treated and purified.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 85%93%N/A N/A N/A
Fair 10%5%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 2%0%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 3%2%N/A N/A N/A
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 81%81%96%69%N/A
Fair 18%13%3%19%N/A
Poor 1%3%1%11%N/A
Unknown 1%3%0%0%N/A
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 88%85%N/A N/A N/A
Fair 7%9%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 2%1%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 3%5%N/A N/A N/A
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 90%89%N/A 53%N/A
Fair 6%6%N/A 29%N/A
Poor 2%3%N/A 18%N/A
Unknown 2%2%N/A 0%N/A
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 17
21. SANITARY SEWER (CITIZEN RATING)
20131 20141 20152 20161 20171
Excellent or good 81%80%82%84%86%
Fair 6%8%8%6%5%
Poor 1%2%1%1%1%
Unknown 11%12%9%10%8%
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the dependability and quality of the city sanitary sewer service from 2013-2014 and 2016-2017 was
compiled from the City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as
part of the city’s participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program.
2 Data for citizens’ rating of the sanitary sewer service from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a
professional community-wide phone survey.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 81%79%N/A 86%N/A
Fair 6%11%N/A 13%N/A
Poor 1%5%N/A 1%N/A
Unknown 11%5%N/A 0%N/A
Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or
Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 80%90%N/A N/A N/A
Fair 8%0%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 2%0%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 12%11%N/A N/A N/A
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 82%77%100%86%N/A
Fair 8%9%0%13%N/A
Poor 1%1%0%1%N/A
Unknown 9%13%0%0%N/A
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 81%70%N/A N/A N/A
Fair 6%11%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 1%7%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 11%12%N/A N/A N/A
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 86%82%N/A 77%N/A
Fair 5%6%N/A 20%N/A
Poor 1%0%N/A 3%N/A
Unknown 8%12%N/A 0%N/A
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 18
23. EASE OF GETTING PLACE TO PLACE (CITIZEN RATING)
20151 20162 20172
Excellent or good 91%89%90%
Fair 7%10%8%
Poor 1%1%1%
Unknown 1%1%1%
2 Data for citizens’ rating of the ease of getting place to place from 2016-2017 was compiled from the City Services Survey, an
annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in the state’s
Performance Measurement Program.
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the ease of getting place to place from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company
Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
22. SEWER UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Blockages 2 1 0 0 0
Blockages per 1,000 connections (5,400 total).370 .185 .000 .000 .000
Sewer blockages data for 2013-2017 was compiled by the city’s public works department.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Blockages per 1,000 connections .370 .770 .134 .168 .093
Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the Performance
Measurement Program or requested and supplied directly by city staff.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Blockages per 1,000 connections .185 1.150 .401 .168 .463
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Blockages per 1,000 connections .000 .640 .134 .000 .000
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Blockages per 1,000 connections .000 1.020 .000 .000 .278
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Blockages per 1,000 connections .000 1.010 .267 .168 .000
ATTRACTIVE, HIGH QUALITY NEIGHBORHOODS & BUSINESS
DISTRICTS
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
24. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Permits Issued 2,212 2,141 2,169 2,607 2,652
Fees Collected 💡$356,242 $485,371 $512,461 $602,391 $867,289
Valuation of Work 💡$17,069,459 $32,802,509 $33,976,062 $37,740,765 $71,895,249
PAGE 19
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Permits Issued 2,212 3,128 4,429 1,711 4,599
Fees Collected $356,242 $411,100 $1,480,997 $388,407 $700,503
Valuation of Work $17,069,459 $9,162,312 $82,536,093 $12,798,218 $37,062,739
Comparison data was requested and supplied directly by city staff.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Permits Issued 2,141 2,843 4,348 1,736 5,306
Fees Collected $485,371 $542,958 $1,543,913 $607,758 $838,248
Valuation of Work $32,802,509 $34,148,244 $93,039,155 $33,759,482 $53,657,313
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Permits Issued 2,169 2,883 4,813 2,527 5,918
Fees Collected $512,461 $390,165 $1,763,474 $987,518 $708,047
Valuation of Work $33,976,062 $10,182,327 $124,962,804 $44,930,313 $33,286,214
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Permits Issued 2,607 2,757 4,814 2,586 4,993
Fees Collected $602,391 $386,630 $1,748,614 $881,527 $973,395
Valuation of Work $37,740,765 $11,466,999 $107,882,740 $29,340,095 $75,795,522
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Permits Issued 2,652 2,808 5,018 2,335 5,185
Fees Collected $867,289 $432,094 $3,096,517 $941,559 $902,259
Valuation of Work $71,895,249 $17,035,179 $277,026,108 $41,167,266 $116,226,763
Permit data for 2013-2017 was compiled by the city’s community development department.
💡SMART Goal
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 20
25. RECREATION PROGRAMS & FACILITIES (CITIZEN RATING)
20131 20141 20152 20161 20171
Excellent or good 74%71%90%74%73%
Fair 10%11%9%10%8%
Poor 2%3%1%1%2%
Unknown 13%15%1%16%17%
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of city recreational programs and facilities from 2013-2014 and 2016-2017 was compiled
from the City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the
city’s participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program.
2 Data for citizens’ rating of recreation facilities from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a
professional community-wide phone survey.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 74%68%N/A 70%N/A
Fair 10%32%N/A 25%N/A
Poor 2%0%N/A 5%N/A
Unknown 13%0%N/A 0%N/A
Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or
Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 71%75%N/A N/A N/A
Fair 11%14%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 3%5%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 15%5%N/A N/A N/A
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley1 New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 85%70%93%/97%67%N/A
Fair 5%15%0%29%N/A
Poor 1%11%0%3%N/A
Unknown 10%4%7%/3%0%N/A
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 74%61%N/A N/A N/A
Fair 10%19%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 1%14%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 16%7%N/A N/A N/A
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 73%71%N/A 70%N/A
Fair 8%19%N/A 26%N/A
Poor 2%5%N/A 4%N/A
Unknown 17%6%N/A 0%N/A
1 Survey separated questions for recreation programs and recreation facilities.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
26. RECREATION PARTICIPATION & ATTENDANCE
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Participants in recreation programs 💡25,962 25,229 25,257 23,717 25,043
Pool attendance 💡20,102 18,259 17,210 19,755 18,761
Pool passes 💡732 693 591 665 657
Golf rounds 💡16,782 16,431 18,175 20,375 18,662
Open skating attendance 💡1,170 1,229 1,646 1,728 1,962
Ice hours rented 💡3,739 3,734 3,682 3,567 4,030
PAGE 21
Recreation program participant data for 2013-2017 was compiled by the city’s parks and recreation department.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Pool attendance 20,102 30,184 N/A N/A 15,047
Pool passes 732 629 N/A N/A 491
Comparison data was requested and supplied directly by city staff. “N/A” signifies that the city does not operate a pool.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Pool attendance 18,259 28,042 N/A N/A 9,146
Pool passes 693 611 N/A N/A 683
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Pool attendance 17,210 30,745 N/A N/A 12,155
Pool passes 591 608 N/A N/A 766
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Pool attendance 19,755 26,769 N/A N/A 15,743
Pool passes 665 801 N/A N/A 397
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Pool attendance 18,761 27,098 N/A N/A 8,275
Pool passes 657 622 N/A N/A 321
💡SMART Goal
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 22
27. CITY/NEIGHBORHOOD APPEARANCE (CITIZEN RATING)
20131 20141 20152 20161 20171
Excellent or good 69%65%94%78%82%
Fair 27%29%5%20%16%
Poor 4%6%1%2%2%
Unknown 0%0%0%0%0%
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the overall appearance of the city from 2013-2014 and 2016-2017 was compiled from the City
Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s
participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program.
2 Data for citizens’ rating of the overall general appearance of their neighborhood from 2015 was compiled from the Morris
Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2013
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 69%39%N/A 82%N/A
Fair 27%56%N/A 16%N/A
Poor 4%6%N/A 2%N/A
Unknown 0%0%N/A 0%N/A
Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or
Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported.
2014
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 65%60%N/A N/A N/A
Fair 29%36%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 6%4%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 0%0%N/A N/A N/A
2015
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 94%55%97%78%N/A
Fair 5%37%3%20%N/A
Poor 1%6%1%2%N/A
Unknown 0%2%0%0%N/A
2016
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 78%50%N/A N/A N/A
Fair 20%43%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 2%7%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 0%0%N/A N/A N/A
2017
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 82%69%N/A 82%N/A
Fair 16%26%N/A 19%N/A
Poor 2%4%N/A 1%N/A
Unknown 0%0%N/A 0%N/A
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
28. DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION (CITIZEN RATING)
20151 20162 20172
Excellent or good 86%78%77%
Fair 13%16%19%
Poor 1%1%2%
Unknown 1%5%2%
PAGE 23
1 Data for citizens’ rating of overall performance in communicating key local issues to residents in its publications, website,
mailings, and on cable television from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional
community-wide phone survey.
2 Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of communication/distribution of information from 2016-2017 was compiled from the
City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s
participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION & COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
29. WEBSITE TRAFFIC
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Unique visitors 92,290 94,868 114,357 115,356 98,049
Website hit data for 2013-2017 was compiled by the city’s communications department.
30. MEETING VIEWERSHIP
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Online views of city meetings 796 1,397 3,013 1,197 1,429
Online viewership data for 2013-2017 was compiled by Northwest Community Television, the organization that broadcasts city
meetings. Viewership numbers include City Council, Economic Development Authority, and Planning Commission meetings as
well as candidate forums and state of the city events.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 24
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS TO SIMILAR CITIES
31. TAX RATE
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
New Hope1 57.04%58.69%55.98%57.41%59.93%
New Hope without street infrastructure levy2 49.75%49.59%47.42%48.57%51.43%
Crystal 56.15%54.81%50.50%53.21%50.36%
Golden Valley 58.20%61.82%54.63%54.45%56.11%
Champlin 44.77%44.73%42.71%44.28%43.00%
Hopkins 62.42%62.42%62.50%65.58%64.49%
Brooklyn Center 71.07%54.34%71.29%73.29%71.90%
Tax rate data for 2013-2017 was compiled by the city’s financial consultant, Abdo, Eick and Meyers, LLP, from the county rate
cards.
1 New Hope’s total tax capacity rate does not take into account that New Hope does not levy special assessments for street
infrastructure improvement projects.
2 Removing New Hope’s street infrastructure levy from the tax capacity rate puts it on an equal playing field with neighboring
communities. The city funds street infrastructure improvement projects through its annual street infrastructure levy with the
cost of street improvements spread across all taxpaying properties.
32. DEBT PER CAPITA
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
New Hope 732 513 957 1,160 2,040
Crystal 703 607 666 696 884
Golden Valley 3,935 3,777 3,424 2,965 4,134
Champlin 614 527 417 404 184
Hopkins 1,610 1,897 2,320 2,812 3,518
Brooklyn Center 865 798 1,103 1,663 1,757
Debt per capita data for New Hope from 2013-2017 was compiled by the city’s financial consultant, Abdo, Eick and Meyers, LLP,
as a part of the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
33. RESPONSE RATE
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
New Hope 1,114 1,062 400 646 632
Crystal 19 56 179 89 530
Golden Valley N/A N/A N/A 400 N/A
Richfield N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
New Brighton 372 N/A 370 N/A 330
All comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey,
with the exception of New Hope and Golden Valley in 2015. Data for New Hope and Golden Valley in 2015 was compiled from the
Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no survey was conducted.
SMART GOALS
The city developed SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely) goals in 2016
based on sections of the annual budget. The objective of a SMART goal is to tell exactly what is
expected, why it is important, who is involved, when it is going to happen, and which attributes
are important. Such goals have a much greater chance of being accomplished as compared to
general goals.
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 1, 2018
GOALS ESTABLISHED IN 2016
GENERAL FUND
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
CITY MANAGER
Goal: Coordinate with department heads to ensure an average of $500,000 per year in grants or
outside funding sources for city programs over the next five years.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$647,126 $280,597 TBD TBD TBD
Status: Not completed. The city received 24 grants for $647,126 in 2016 and 26 grants for $280,597 in
2017 for an average of $463,862 per year. In 2017, no large infrastructure/capital improvement
projects qualified for significant grant funding. The city has secured more than $2.15 million in
grants for 2018, which will result in meeting this goal in the future. The Minnesota legislature
approved a request by the city for $2 million to help pay for a new 50-meter outdoor pool.
ASSESSING
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$1,430,939,117 $1,535,054,114 $1,697,092,365 TBD TBD TBD
COMMUNICATIONS
2016 2017 2018
12 12 TBD
ELECTIONS
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
80.31%N/A TBD TBD TBD
Goal: Increase number of best practice actions completed through Minnesota GreenStep Cities
sustainability program by 5% for 2018.
Status: New for 2018.
Goal: Increase total city taxable property market value by $50 million per year over the next five years.
Status: On track. Taxable property market value for the city increased by $104 million (7.28%) between
2015 and 2016 and $162 million (10.56%) between 2016 and 2017.
Goal: Write and coordinate distribution of 12 In the Pipeline utility bill inserts annually over the next
three years.
Status: On track. In the Pipeline is a monthly news brief that is distributed each month with city utility bills.
Goal: Execute 50 reader board updates annually over the next three years.
2016 2017 2018
67 139 TBD
Status: On track. The electronic reader board was activated in June 2016, and 67 updates were made
throughout the year. In 2017, 139 reader board updates were made throughout the year.
Goal: Achieve at least 55% voter turnout rate for gubernatorial races and at least 80% voter turnout
rate for presidential races over the next five years.
Status: On track. The city had an 80.31% voter turnout rate for the 2016 presidential election. No
elections were held in the city in 2017.
PAGE 26
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
FINANCE
Goal: Increase bond rating from AA to AA+ in the next five years.
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
AA AA AA TBD TBD TBD
Status: In progress. The city’s bonds are rated by Standard and Poor’s (S&P) and remained stable at “AA”
in 2016, signifying that the city has very strong capacity to meet its financial commitments and is
just two rankings below the highest-rated AAA insurers. The city’s financial consultant developed
and implemented a Comprehensive Financial Management Plan in 2016. The plan includes a
debt management plan, revenue management, capital assets, and an update to the investment
policy. City staff also published an economic development report, which was submitted with the
financial management plan in an effort to increase the city’s bond rating. These efforts improved
the city’s “Management” score from “Strong” to “Very Strong,” which is the highest value assigned
by S&P for this portion of the rating, but the overall rating did not change. According to S&P, if
the city’s economic indicators improve to a level commensurate with higher rated peers and
the debt profile improves, a higher rating is possible. The economic indicators used by S&P
include per capita income in the city relative to the nation and the market value of property in
the city on a per capita basis. While these factors are largely outside the city’s control, continued
redevelopment efforts can help contribute to movement on these measures.
Goal: Conduct unqualified audit on prior year’s financial statements with clean findings annually over
the next five years.
PAGE 27
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
1 finding 0 findings TBD TBD TBD
Status: Not completed. Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A., completed unqualified
audits on financial statements for 2016 and 2017. The 2016 audit revealed that certain vendor
claims were not paid within the time frame required by state statute. The issue from 2016 was
corrected and the 2017 audit revealed no findings.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 28
HUMAN RESOURCES
2016 2017 2018
10.7%9.4%TBD
Goal: Maintain employee turnover rate of 12% or below over the next three years.
Status: On track. Between 2011 and 2015, the average employee turnover rate was 8.6%. It increased to
10.7% in 2016, and 9.4% in 2017. The SMART Goals report included part-time staff in the turnover
calculation for 2016. The calculation has been amended to only include full-time staff.
Goal: Maintain or decrease average historic experience modification rate from 2013-2017 for 2018-
2022.
2013-2017 2018-2022
1.33 TBD
Status: New for 2018.
PLANNING
Goal: Increase population reported by 2010 census at least 3% by 2020 census.
2010 2020
20,339 TBD
Status: In progress. The 2016 American Community Survey estimates the city’s population at 20,819. The
U.S. census is conducted every 10 years and is scheduled to take place in 2020.
Goal: Increase median household value by at least 3% over the next five years.
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$188,500 $196,000 $213,000 TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. Median household value for the city increased by 3.98% between 2015 and 2016 and
8.67% between 2016 and 2017.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 29
PUBLIC SAFETY
Goal: Increase training time department-wide by 5% per year over the next three years to
accommodate societal expectations of police response.
2015 2016 2017 2018
48 hours 58 hours 70 hours TBD
Status: On track. Training time department-wide increased by 20.83% between 2015 and 2016 and
20.69% between 2016 and 2017.
Goal: Increase the number of inter/intra-jurisdictional traffic details over the next three years.
2015 2016 2017 2018
20 8 8 TBD
Status: Not completed. The city’s traffic officer was pulled from regular duty in 2016 due to personnel
issues/shortages. The officer will return to traffic enforcement duty in the fall of 2018.
Goal: Increase efforts to recruit and retain police officers in a growing competitive climate.
Status: On track. The police department hired three new officers, two of which had experience, at the
beginning of 2017. All three hires successfully passed probation in 2018 and the department is
now fully staffed. Officer contracts were renewed in 2017 for three years with more competitive
wages.
RESERVES/EXPLORERS
Goal: Increase and maintain number of police reserves by at least 5% over the next three years.
2015 2016 2017 2018
8 10 11 TBD
Status: On track. The number of police reserves increased by 37.5% between 2015 and 2017.
Goal: Increase number of police explorers by at least 5% over the next three years.
2015 2016 2017 2018
3 4 6 TBD
Status: On track. The number of police explorers increased by 100% between 2015 and 2017.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Goal: Increase number of community education and outreach programs.
2015 2016 2017 2018
33 33 33 TBD
Status: Not completed. The number of community education and outreach programs remained stable at
33 between 2015 and 2017.
ANIMAL CONTROL
Goal: Maintain average number of goose nests in city from 2013-2015 at same level for 2016-2018.
2013-2015 2016-2018
12.33 9 (through 2017)
Status: On track. The number of goose nests in the city remained stable between 2016 and 2017, at nine
per year.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 30
FIRE & EMS
Goal: Complete a minimum of 30 Home Safety Surveys annually over the next three years.
2016 2017 2018
30 44 TBD
Status: On track. The West Metro Fire-Rescue District completed 44 Home Safety Surveys in 2017. The
voluntary program is a free service for residential homeowners in which firefighters evaluate
for hazards by completing a room-by-room walk-through of the home. If a hazard is found, the
firefighter provides recommendations on how to fix it. Firefighters check all smoke and carbon
monoxide (CO) detectors to verify they are located in the proper location and are functioning
properly. If needed, they will provide and install new smoke and CO detectors. The Home Safety
Survey takes about an hour to complete. If the home-owner’s family is present, firefighters will
discuss escape planning, meeting places, and sleeping with closed doors. The Home Safety
Survey also provides fire extinguishers, a night-light/flashlight, a cooking timer, and a fire safety
booklet.
Goal: Increase EMS stand-by shifts by one shift per year over the next three years.
2015 2016 2017 2018
116 119 156 TBD
Status: On track. A Sunday shift from 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. was added to the existing Friday and
Saturday 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. shifts in October of 2016. An EMS stand-by crew consists of two
firefighters who respond to all medical calls for service in the cities of Crystal and New Hope. The
stand-by crew supports the police departments by freeing up a squad that no longer needs to
respond to medical calls for service.
Goal: Attract a minimum of 50 firefighter candidates each year recruiting takes place over the next 10
years.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
47 N/A TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Status: Not completed. The West Metro Fire-Rescue District had 47 applicants in 2016, nearly reaching it’s
goal of 50, and hired 11 recruit firefighters. The next potential hiring year is 2018.
Goal: Receive $50,000 in grants, reimbursements, and donations annually over the next five years.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$42,526 $91,067 TBD TBD TBD
Status: Not completed. The SMART Goals report included grants and reimbursements in 2016 and was
amended in 2017 to include donations. Data from 2016 and 2017 reflects the change. Three
training reimbursements were received from the Minnesota Board of Fire Training and Education
(MBFTE) in 2017, for a total of $34,667. The West Metro Fire-Rescue District also received
reimbursements of $2,399 from Hennepin County for participating in a radiation emergency drill
at the Monticello Nuclear Power Plant. The West Metro Fire-Rescue District received a grant from
CenterPoint Energy for $2,500 and $51,500 in donations. While the West Metro Fire-Rescue did
not reach its goal of $50,000 in 2016, it has averaged $66,796.50 in grants, reimbursements, and
donations between 2016 and 2017.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 31
PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS
Goal: Without increasing permit fee schedule, increase fees collected for permits from 2013-2015 by
10% for 2016-2018.
2013-2015 2016-2018
$1,354,074 $1,469,680 (through 2017)
Status: In progress. The city has generated $1,469,680 in permit fees between 2016 and 2017 (2 years),
which represents an 8.54% increase in total fees collected between 2013 and 2015 (3 years). The
city must collect at least $19,801 in permits fees in 2018 to complete this goal.
Goal: Increase valuation of work for permits from 2013-2015 by 10% for 2016-2018.
2013-2015 2016-2018
$83,848,030 $109,636,014 (through 2017)
Status: Completed. Total valuation of work completed in city between 2016 and 2017 (2 years) was
$109,636,014, which represents a 30.76% increase in total valuation of work between 2013 and
2015 (3 years).
Goal: Perform at least 600 code compliance investigations annually over the next five years.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020
955 1,147 TBD TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. City inspectors completed 955 code compliance investigations in 2016 and 1,147 code
compliance investigations in 2017.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 32
ENGINEERING
Goal: Input new assets into asset management program relative to infrastructure projects upon project
completion and availability of record drawings.
Status: In progress. Data from completed projects between 2016 and 2017 has been compiled and will be
inputted into the asset management program in 2018.
STREETS
Goal: Develop a set of standard construction details for reference and direction on all development
projects.
Status: Completed. A standard set of construction details was created in 2016. Staff reviews and updates
the document annually.
Goal: Complete and deliver record plan drawings from the past five years of projects in 2018.
Status: New for 2018.
STREETS
Goal: Increase Pavement Rating Index (PRI) for city roads over the next five years, while maintaining an
average of 70 or higher.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
75 76 TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. It is anticipated that the city’s Pavement Rating Index (PRI) will continue to increase after
completion of the 2018 infrastructure and maintenance projects.
Goal: Update pavement management plan annually over the next five years.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. A 10-year pavement management plan was created in 2016. The plan extends through
2027 and will be updated annually.
Goal: Establish a level of street sweeping to lower phosphorus levels from storm water runoff.
Status: Completed. Sweeping contractors are hired in the spring and fall of each year. The contractor
works with city staff to remove debris from city streets.
RECREATION
Goal: Increase overall program registrations from 2017 by 3% for 2018, not counting the loss of
registrations due to the pool closure.
2017 2018
7,077 TBD
Status: New for 2018.
PARKS
Goal: Replace minimum of one playground structure per year over the next five years.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
1 1 TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. In 2016, the playground at Northwood Park was replaced. The playground structure at
Fred Sims Park was replaced in 2017.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 33
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA)
Goal: Facilitate the demolition and construction or renovation of at least six scattered site single-family
homes per year over the next three years.
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
2016 2017 2018
2 3 TBD
Status: Not completed. The EDA acquired two single-family homes in 2016, including 4511 Boone Avenue
North and 5400 Yukon Avenue North. The EDA acquired three single-family homes in 2017,
including 7303 62nd Avenue North, 3751 Louisiana Avenue North, and 3984 Zealand Avenue
North. Four of the five homes that have been acquired in the last two years were demolished, the
lots were sold, and new homes were constructed. The other home was rehabilitated and sold.
The market for distressed properties was highly competitive in 2017, as home prices increased
steadily over the year. Market conditions have made rehabilitation a more favorable option
within the scattered site housing program. In total, the EDA made offers to purchase seven
homes throughout the year. Staff has developed a proactive approach to engage potential sellers
of distressed and/or functionally obsolete properties in an effort to secure purchase contracts
before homes are offered on the open market. The city is on track to facilitate the construction of
at least six scattered site single-family homes in 2018.
Goal: Attract at least 10 new businesses per year over the next five years.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
31 26 TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. The city attracted 31 new business in 2016 and 26 new businesses in 2017.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Goal: Maintain 80% or greater recycling participation rate over the next five years.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
92%92.5%TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. The city achieved a 92% recycling participation rate in 2016 and 92.5% rate in 2017.
Goal: Average 450 pounds recycled per household per year over the next five years.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
592 pounds 519.6 pounds TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. Households in New Hope recycled an average of 592 pounds of materials in 2016 and
519.6 pounds of materials in 2017.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 34
PARK INFRASTRUCTURE
Goal: Increase levy by 3% per year over the next five years to increase funds available for various park
improvements.
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$304,880 $314,026 $323,447 TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. The park infrastructure levy increased by 3% between 2015 and 2016 and between 2016
and 2017.
STREET INFRASTRUCTURE
Goal: Reconstruct or mill and overlay streets as proposed in five-year Capital Improvement Plan.
Status: In progress. A total of 1.4 miles of streets were reconstructed, 0.22 miles were reclaimed, 0.83
miles received mill and overlay, 5.36 were seal coated/fog sealed, and 11 miles were crack filled in
2017, for a total of 18.81 miles of improved streets.
Goal: Increase resident awareness of projects in the next five years.
Status: In progress. The city is in the process of redesigning its website, which will include a link on the
homepage to information about all construction projects.
Goal: Update five-year Capital Improvement Plan and expand to 10-year period.
Status: New for 2018.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 35
SANITARY SEWER
Goal: Clean all city sewers at least every four years, as required by the League of Minnesota Cities.
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
2016 2017 2018 2019
24 miles 17 miles TBD TBD
Status: On track. City staff cleaned 17 of the city’s 70 miles of sewer in 2017, as scheduled. Staff has
developed a system to track and monitor cleanings through the city’s asset management
program. Training multiple new staff on the cleaning procedures and additional stormwater
duties limited the amount of mileage accomplished this year.
Goal: Implement inflow and infiltration program for private residences in the next five years.
Status: In progress. Public Works staff completed various maintenance projects in 2017 to keep sump
water off streets.
Goal: Implement two-year sewer lining contracts and increase feet per year installed of lining.
Status: On track. The 2017 and 2018 sewer lining projects were bid on the same contract. Prices came
in lower than expected, allowing for the potential to either line more footage or save Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) funds. Lining the pipes involves fixing the aging sanitary system from
the inside by installing a new liner to stabilize the pipe walls.
WATER
Goal: Increase involvement with Joint Water Commission (JWC) water supply system with supervisor or
staff working one day per month at each ground reservoir.
Status: Not completed. It was not feasible for staff to devote one day per month at each ground reservoir.
Staff stays informed and involved by attending monthly JWC technical advisory meetings.
Goal: Continue involvement with Joint Water Commission (JWC) water supply system by attending
regular meetings in 2018.
Status: New for 2018.
Goal: Develop a tracking system for asset management to record the progress of citywide valve
exercising in 2018.
Status: New for 2018.
Goal: Exercise 10% of water valves annually over the next five years.
Status: New for 2018.
Goal: Increase maintenance efficiency of staff by using portable computing equipment in the next two
years.
Status: Completed. Staff began using tablets in 2016 to access record plans in the field.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 36
STORM WATER
Goal: Improve water quality in Northwood Lake in the next five years.
Status: In progress. As part of the 2017 Northwood North Infrastructure project, phosphorus treatment
was installed directly north of the lake.
Goal: Database Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and inventory public and private
systems in the next two years.
Status: In progress. All new public and private systems will be entered into the city’s MS4 database.
Goal: Database and enforce annual private storm water permit agreements.
Status: Completed. Staff coordinates with the city clerk and legal team to keep record of and enforce all
private agreements.
STREET LIGHTING
Goal: Coordinate with Xcel Energy to convert streetlights to LED in the next five years.
Status: Completed. As of 2016, all lights had been converted to LED lighting.
Goal: Replace aging city-owned lighting infrastructure on 42nd Avenue and convert to LED in 2018.
Status: New for 2018.
GOLF COURSE
Goal: Increase number of golf rounds purchased in 2015 by 3% per year from 2016-2018.
2015 2016 2017 2018
18,175 20,375 18,662 TBD
Status: Not completed. The number of golf rounds purchased increased by 12.1% between 2015 and
2016 but decreased by 8.41% between 2016 and 2017 due in part to poor weather conditions.
ICE ARENA
Goal: Increase ice hours rented in 2017 by 3% for 2018.
2017 2018
4,030 TBD
Status: New for 2018.
Goal: Increase open skating attendance in 2017 by 10% for 2018.
2017 2018
1,962 TBD
Status: New for 2018.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 37
CENTRAL GARAGE
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Goal: Increase replacement fund for general fund budgets from 75% to 100% in the next three years.
Status: Completed. The replacement fund for general fund budgets increased from 75% to 100% in 2016.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Goal: Retire 25% of desktop/laptop computers each year in conjunction with the four-year replacement
schedule.
Goal: Evaluate goals and needs for potential central garage expansion in 2018.
Status: New for 2018.
2016 2017 2018 2019
24%27.5%TBD TBD
Status: Not completed. Staff replaced 23 of the 96 city-owned computers in 2016, one short of meeting
the 25% replacement goal. The city added two computers to its fleet in 2017 and replaced 27 of
the 98 machines.