041921 Work Session Meeting Packet
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION MEETING
New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Civic Center Conference Room
Monday, April 19, 2021
6:30 p.m.
Mayor Kathi Hemken
Council Member John Elder
Council Member Andy Hoffe
Council Member Michael Isenberg
Council Member Jonathan London
Governor Walz has declared a peacetime emergency (Emergency Executive Order 20‐01). City Hall
will be open to the public for this meeting; however due to the current COVID‐19 pandemic, the
city is also conducting the meeting by electronic means in accordance with Minnesota Statutes
section 13D.021. The public may participate in this meeting by phone by calling 415‐655‐0001 and
entering meeting/access code 133 971 8453 followed by the # sign. When prompted for a password,
simply press #. If you have comments about a matter on the agenda, please submit an email to
cityhall@newhopemn.gov or call the city clerk at 763‐531‐5117.
1. CALL TO ORDER – April 19, 2021
2. ROLL CALL
11. UNFINISHED & ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
11.1 Update from West Metro‐Fire Rescue District
11.2 Receive presentation on Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) Point of Sale Programs
11.3 Discuss participation in 2021 performance measures survey program
12. OTHER BUSINESS
13. ADJOURNMENT
I:\RFA\City Manager\2021\WMFRD\WS 041921\11.1 Q ‐ West Metro Fire‐Rescue District Update 04.19.21.docx
Request for Action
April 19, 2021
Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Originating Department: City Manager
By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Agenda Title
Update from West Metro‐Fire Rescue District
Requested Action
Staff requests the City Council receive an update from Chief Larson on West Metro Fire‐Rescue District
operations. The chief will be presenting updates to both the New Hope and Crystal city councils in the month
of April. Council Member Elder serves as the New Hope council representative on the board, and Marc Berris
serves as the New Hope citizen representative on the board. The city manager also serves on the board.
Policy/Past Practice
West Metro Fire‐Rescue District was formed in 1998 as a joint powers agreement between the cities of New
Hope and Crystal. The agreement was updated and approved by both city councils in 2011 and updated in
2017 and 2019. One of the items in the board’s work plan and in the chief’s goals is for the chief to provide
periodic updates to the city councils to keep the lines of communication open between the fire district and the
two cities. The last update was provided at the January work session.
Background
Chief Larson will be discussing routine items with the City Council along with a review of the preliminary
2022 West Metro Fire‐Rescue District budget. The Fire Board also requested that the city managers ask their
respective city councils if they feel a joint work session with the Board in August is necessary. Information on
discussion items is attached.
1. Routine Items
Calls for Service Report
Duty Crew
Civil Unrest
Engine Development Project
2020 Audit
FEMA Public Assistance Grant
Home Inspection Program
2. Preliminary West Metro Fire‐Rescue District Budget
The fire board reviewed the preliminary budget at their April meeting and have not recommended any
changes to date. Prior to the board meeting, the city managers reviewed the budget in detail with the chief
and several minor adjustments were made.
The total 2022 budget is $2,782,100, which is a $108,050 increase or 4.04% over the 2021 budget of $2,674,050.
The general operating budget increase is $88,050 or 4.15%, based on increases in salaries, PERA, health
insurance, workers comp. insurance, communications and equipment and vehicle repairs. There is a $20,000
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.1
Request for Action, Page 2
increase to the capital plan to offset a future deficit. The budget includes a $20,000 increase to the special
pension fund, which is offset by a $20,000 decrease to the special revenue insurance fund. The contributions
to the budget from cities include a $103,600 lease payment for the new aerial truck (tower). The 2022 budget
does not include the replacement and leasing of four (4) new engines; that cost will be integrated into the
2023 budget (2 new engines) and the 2024 budget (2 additional engines).
The costs of the budget are split between the two cities based on a cost sharing formula that includes average
number of calls over a five‐year period, population and taxable market value. Based on the 2022 preliminary
budget, New Hope’s increase is $65,859 or 4.9% (the increase for 2021 was $54,673.33 or 4.2%). New Hope’s
share of the total budget is $1,418,222.38 or 50.9767%. Crystal’s share of the budget is 1,363,877.62 or
49.0233%. Per the chart below, New Hope’s market values increased more than the market values in Crystal
between 2020 and 2021, and the average number of calls for service were greater.
Market Values in Millions
2021 Budget 2022 Budget Change
New Hope 2,106 2,257 +151
Crystal 2,123 2,214 +91
Average Calls Over 5 Years
2021 Budget 2022 Budget Change
New Hope 920 965 +45
Crystal 782 803 +21
The Fire Board is requesting that the city councils advise the city managers if there are any concerns with
the budget, so the city managers can report back to the Board.
The Joint Powers Agreement requires the board to approve the budget at their annual meeting scheduled for
July 8. Both city councils are required to act on the budget by August 31, either accepting the budget or
making recommendations for changes. The cost for New Hope’s portion of the Joint Powers Agreement is
included in the Fire and Emergency Management budget in the General Fund budget.
3. Discuss August 11 Tentative Joint Council/Board Work Session
There is currently a tentative joint council/board work session scheduled for August 11. During the city
council work sessions in 2012 to discuss the future of the West Metro Fire‐Rescue District (WMFRD), it was
agreed the two city councils should meet with the WMFRD Board annually to keep the lines of
communication open. Due to lack of agenda items, low attendance at these meetings and improved
communication with the Chief’s quarterly updates, this work session has been cancelled in recent years.
At the April 14 Fire Board meeting the Board requested that the city managers inquire whether their
respective city councils feel that a joint council/board work session is necessary and bring that
information back to a future Board meeting. The Board does not feel a joint work session is necessary,
pending feedback from the city councils in each city.
Request for Action, Page 3
Attachments:
Modified Chief’s Report
Preliminary 2022 West Metro Fire‐Rescue District Budget
2021 Fire Board Meeting Schedule
Modified
Chief’s Report
2022
Preliminary
Budget
84000 -Building Maintenance & Cleaning 12,000 1 3,095 13 .000 10.645• 13,000 13,317 13,000 11,911 14,000 12,861 14.000 12,9011.40 15,000 15:000
84200 -Building Repairs 10.000 10.349 10 :000, §,030 10.000 7,934 10,000 9.�.03 10,000 9,343 10.000 :7,800:89 10,000 10,0.0.0
84400 -Equipment Repairs 22,000 21,218 16.000 17,749 16.000 15,184 16.000 19,794 16,000 49,949 16,000 22,385.34 20,000 24,000 4,000
84600 -Vehicle Repairs 52,000 32,596 35,000 2!>,172 35,000 31,856 33:ooo 30,569 35,000 3 --\,084 35,000 ij5,718.44 36.000 41,000 5,000
84700 -Grounds Maintenance
84800 -Information Technology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0
Rent
85400 -Office Equipment Rent 7,000 4,350 1-,_000 5,655 6.500 5,271 6.000 4,942 6,000 2,481 6,000 2,786.10 4,000 3,000 -1,000
85600 -Service Contracts
Dues, Subscriptions, & Training
86200 -Dues & Subscriptions 2,000 2,918 2,6,00 3,3�5 2,500 2,114 2;600 2,485 2,500 2,800 2,500 2,966.61 3,000 3 ,000
86400 -Awards 3,000 3,009 3iOOO 3 .27.5 3,000 2,954 3,000 2.9$1 3.000 2,792 3,000 1,675.,33 3,000 a:ooo·
86600 -Books 1,500 1.264 0 568 0 0 0 0 0 0 o.oo 0 0
86800 -Training 30,00 0 36,169 30.000 27,693 30,000 56,392 B0,000 31,631 30.000 42,332 30,000 10;864.61 30,000 30,000
86900 -licenses & Permits 5,000 4,000 9 0 0 5.000 3,375.00 0 '0
Miscellaneous
87200 -Advertising -Employee 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87400 -Printing 1,000 173 ,500 105 300 360 3 .00 150 300 153 300 0.00 300 300
87500 -General Insurance 33,000 27.401 37,000 38,068 37,000 21,506 40,(100 27,651 40,000 12.898 0 0.00 0 0
87700 -Financial Services 37,000 46,117 40,000 54,421 40,000 47,134 ,47,000 53,049 50,000 53,838 53,0"00 60,884.40 60.000 60;000
87900 -Debt Service Principal
87901 -Debt Service Interest
87999 -Reserve 20000 0.00 20.000 0 -20,000
Total General Operating Expenditures 1,667,000 1,613,233 1,646,800 1,714.380 1,736,900 1,866,030 1,822,250 1,840.055 1,928,700 1,998,755 2,030.650 2, 178,526i�9 2,120.450 2.20'8,500
Special Revenue Pension Expenditures 200,000 197.485 �0.000 15.5.062 200,000 199,027 200,000 147 522 200,000 1.80 000 19,1 192:60 180,000
Total General and Pension Expenditures 1,867,000 1,810,718 1,.866,8.00 1,869,442 1,936,900 2,065,056 2,022,250 1.�87,577' 2,128,700 2,210.650
Capital Fund Expenditures 378,500 418,731 241,00.0 1_3_3,327· 217,745 291,001 265.030 244,589 370,100 696.�00 731,361.89
Total General, Pension, Capital 2,245,500 2,229,449 2,107,800 2,002,769 2,154,645 2,356,057 2,287,280 2,232,166 2,498,800 2,906,750
Sp.ecial Revenue Fund Expenditures 31,932 34 87,7 38,269 47 856
Total Expenditures 2,245,500 2,261,381 2,037,059 2,394,326
2021 Fire Board
Meeting Schedule
SMTWTFS SMTWTFS SMTWTFS
12 1 1234
3456789 2345678 567891011
10111213141516 9 101112131415 12131415161718
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 26 27 28 29 30
31 30 31
SMTWTFS SMTWTFS SMTWTFS
123456 12345 12
78910 111213 6789101112 3456789
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
28 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
SMTWTFS SMTWTFS SMTWTFS
123456 123 123456
78910111213 45678910 78910111213
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 28 29 30
SMTWTFS SMTWTFS SMTWTFS
123 1234567 1234
45678910 891011121314 5678 91011
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 31
KEY:
#Board Meeting #Work Session #Joint Council/Board Work Session (tentative)
March July November
April August December
January May September
February June October
West Metro Fire-Rescue District Board of Directors
2021 Meeting Schedule
G:\City Manager\Calendar City Annual\2020\2021 West Metro Calendar.xlsx 110920 VT
I:\RFA\PUBWORKS\2020\Work Session\2‐18 Discuss Meadow Lake Management Plan
Request for Action
April 19, 2021
Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Originating Department: Public Works
By: Brandon Bell , CD Assistant; &
Bernie Weber, Director of Public Works; &
Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development
Agenda Title
Receive presentation on Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) Point of Sale Programs
Requested Action
Staff is recommending Council receive a presentation from the staff, the City Engineer and the Principal
Engineer from Metropolitan Council’s Environmental Services department
Policy/Past Practice
The city has previously reviewed programs that can potentially help improve the overall infrastructure in the
city. The City Council has inquired about I/I point of sale programs during discussions about other I/I
subjects with staff at previous work sessions.
Background
Inflow and infiltration, also known as I/I or I and I, is the flow of stormwater into a city’s main sewer system.
There is public I/I, where I/I occurs on public property or public facilities; and private I/I where I/I occurs on a
private residential or commercial property. Inflow, which is where a private owner has their sump pump
empty directly into their sewer line. Infiltration means a sewer line, either private or public, has cracks and/or
roots growing through the pipe that allows stormwater to penetrate into the sewer line. The wastewater in
the sewer has to be treated at the regional wastewater treatment center, while stormwater does not. This
means that the stormwater that penetrates into the sewer system has to be treated as sewage water. The cost
for treating this excess stormwater is passed on to cities in the metro area via the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES), and treating the excess stormwater as sewer water is also an immense
burden on the water treatment system.
I/I point of sale programs focus on residential I/I. These programs function by requiring all homeowners to
have an inspection performed of their sewer line connecting their house to the city main line before they can
close on the sale of their property. If the inspection finds that the property owner’s sewer line has cracks or
roots that would require either a new pipe or a sewer lining, then it is required the seller to correct that
problem before they close on their home. Cities also have an alternative where the buyer and seller can sign a
temporary maintenance agreement. This requires that money be placed in an escrow account and the buyer
then takes responsibility of the repair and has a certain number of days to complete it. The reason the I/I point
of sale method is used most often to address residential infiltration problems, is cities have concluded that the
cost of these repairs would be easiest on homeowners at the time of a sale, when they typically have access to
funding from home equity.
Several cities in the metro area have enacted I/I point of sale programs: Golden Valley, Mounds View and
Orono. Golden Valley has had their program in place since 2013, Mounds View has had their system in place
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.2
since the beginning of 2020 and Orono just started their point of sale program in January, 2021. These three
cities have all taken slightly different approaches to operating their point of sale programs.
Golden Valley
Golden Valley, which has been conducting I/I point of sales the longest of the three, has one full time
maintenance worker that conducts private sewer line point of sale inspections and one administrative
employee that spends about half of their time on the point of sale program. The fee for the permit and
inspection is approximately $300.
Mounds View
Mounds View has a system in which they contracted through Paul Bunyan Plumbing, through a bidding
process, to conduct all of their private sewer scoping videos for a flat rate fee to residents. The video is then
analyzed by staff to determine if corrections are needed to be made under the I/I point of sale regulations.
The fee for the sewer line scoping is $140, and the I/I point of sale permit fee is $150.
Orono
Orono, like Golden Valley, has their own maintenance staff conduct all the inspections, although the task is
spread out over all of their maintenance workers currently. They are planning on transitioning to having a
full‐time employee conduct all of the I/I point of sale inspections in the future. The fee for the permit and
inspection is $250.
Typical sewer line repairs for residential properties in city like New Hope would be $3,000 to $5,000. This
price changes depending on the length of the lateral line connecting the house to the main sewer line. All
three cities mentioned above offer assistance to residents to help pay for this cost. This is done through a tax
assessment. Once the correction is made or the property has passed an I/I point of sale inspection, each city
typically grants a 10‐15 year period where that property will not need to apply for another I/I point of sale.
Results
Numbers for the precise reduction in I/I flowage are difficult to calculate, since there are so many different
elements that combine into factoring the overall numbers. The Mounds View and Orono programs are too
new to have any real data on how their flowage numbers have changed. Mounds View did find that through
their first year of the program, 113 of the 171 I/I point of sale inspections resulted in those properties needing
corrections. Golden Valley, which has a more extensive number of years with an I/I point of sale program has
noted a reduction of 25% in the base flows of their sewers and a 20% reduction in their peak flows (times
when there is heavy stormwater flowage). The Golden Valley numbers also match up with what West Saint
Paul has experienced, another city that has a more extensive usage of an I/I point of sale program.
In addition to private I/I flowage, the city of New Hope does take steps to prevent public I/I. Per the attached
memo from the City Engineer, New Hope has 377,178 feet of sanitary mainline sewer pipe in the city. Since
the sewer relining program began, 68,423 feet, or 18.07%, has been lined with Cure in Place Pipe (CIPP). Staff
plans to obtain quotes for additional sanitary sewer lining work in the northwest corner of the city in 2021.
The city has obtained a Green Infrastructure Grant for $50,000 to help study I/I reduction in that area once the
lining work is completed. New Hope’s wastewater flow charges increased in 2021, resulting in a 7.14%, or
$130,944, increase in annual charges to New Hope from 2020 to 2021. Reducing I/I flow into the sanitary
sewer system would help reduce charges from MCES. The last surcharge (I/I flow exceedance) to New Hope
was in May of 2019. The exceedance flow volumes has decreased over the last few events compared to the
exceedance volumes in 2013 and 2014 due to the public I/I measures taken.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss I/I point of sale programs and advise staff if the matter
should be pursued further.
Attachments
Memo from the City Engineer
2021 Metropolitan Council Environmental Services 2021 Municipal Wastewater Charge correspondence
Protecting Your Health and Home: Reducing Inflow and Infiltration
Met Council I/I Point of Sale Program for Cities Sheet
Golden Valley I/I point of sale informational packet
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
April 13, 2021
File: 193805235
Attention: Bernie Weber
Director of Public Works,
City of New Hope
5500 International Parkway
New Hope, MN 55428
Reference: Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) Update
Dear Bernie,
An update was given to the Council in March and December 2020 on sanitary sewer Inflow and
Infiltration (I/I) work as well as the Green Grant Program. As part of the upcoming discussions on
the I/I Point of Sale Inspection Program, the following is an update on some of the various sanitary
sewer and I/I items. We can discuss these in more detail at the April 19, 2021 City Council Work
Session.
Discussion Items:
·Sanitary Sewer Pipe and Information
o Total mainline Sanitary Sewer Pipe in New Hope = 377,178 feet.
o Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP) lining = 68,423 (18.07%).
o A map of the Sanitary Sewer and lined pipes is attached.
o Benefits of Lining:
§Reduces I/I flows and fees.
§Adds +/- 50 years of life to sanitary sewer.
§Less expensive than open cut replacement.
§% of the costs are credited in City’s Work Plan with MCES.
·MCES 2020/2021 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project
o The 2020 Segment of the 2-year sanitary sewer lining project is completed.
o The 2021 Segment will start in Fall 2021.
o Due to the bids in 2020 coming in well under the 2021 Sanitary Sewer Lining budget,
Staff plans to obtain quotes for additional sanitary sewer lining work for 2021. Staff
will concentrate on the northwest corner of the city where the current 2020/2021
lining work is being done
o The estimated construction cost is $100,000 for this additional lining work.
·Green Infrastructure Grant and I/I 2020 Grant
o The Green Infrastructure Grant is providing $50,000 for studying I/I reduction in the
northwest corner of New Hope.
April 13, 2021
Mr. Bernie Weber
Page 2 of 2
Reference: Sanitary Sewer Inflow and Infiltration (I/I), Green Grant, & Flow Monitoring Discussion
– May 13 City Council Meeting Presentation
o Both the 2020 and 2021 Sanitary Sewer Lining Projects are part of this Green Grant.
o Once that lining work is completed, the City will do flow monitoring and analysis on
I/I reduction for the Green Grant.
o City Staff has submitted +/- $179,162 for the 2020 I/I Grant (Due 4/16/2021).
·MCES Municipal Wastewater Charges (MWC)
o 2021 MWC estimated budget increased 2.0% overall for all communities (see
attached MCES 2021 MWC dated May 7, 2020)
§Each city’s annual charge was calculated by multiplying the city’s
percentage of regional flow by the total MWC for the region.
o Annual MWC Charge trends are generally increasing (see attached MWC History
Chart for New Hope)
§New Hope’s wastewater flow charges increased in 2021, resulting in a 7.14%
or $130,944 increase in annual charges to New Hope from 2020 to 2021.
§It should be noted that New Hope’s MWC decreased slightly from 2019 to
2020, which resulted in a 0.40% or $7,375.64 decrease in annual charges.
§Reducing I/I flow into the system will reduce charges from MCES.
·MCES Surcharge Status
o The last surcharge (I/I flow exceedance) to New Hope was in May of 2019.
o As discussed in past meetings, the exceedance volume has decreased over the
last few events as compared to the exceedance volumes in 2013 and 2014.
o A Work Plan Assignment value of $355,933 is assigned to New Hope by the MCES.
§City staff plan to complete this assignment with past eligible I/I mitigation
projects and with planned I/I projects in 2021.
If you have any questions or require further information, please call me at (651)604-4808.
Sincerely,
STANTEC
Dan D. Boyum, P.E.
Attachments: Sanitary Sewer and Lining Map; MCES 2021 MWC; New Hope MWC History Chart.
Cc: Kirk McDonald, Valerie Leone, Jeff Sargent, Jeff Alger, Brandon Bell, Megan Hedstrom, Dave
Lemke, Andrew Kramer, Matt Rowedder – New Hope; Lucas Miller, Ann Dienhart - Stantec.
Ply mo uth Crystal
1:18,000 (At original document size of 11x17)Revised: 2021-04-13 By: dmericksonV:\1938\Clients\New_Hope\Projects\Sanitary_CIPP_Lining_Map.mxd
Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied inelectronic format. The recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers, employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claims arising in any way from the content or provisionof the data.
Sanitary SewerCIPP LiningNew Hope, MNNew HopePlymouth
Crystal
Robbinsdale
BrooklynCenter
Ü
Sanitary Pipe
2020 Lined
Future Pipe CIPP Lining
CIPP Lining
Trunk Sanitary Sewer Lines
PVC
2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet
May 7, 2020
City of New Hope
For 2021, the estimated wastewater service fee for your community is
$1,966,021.18, a change of 7.14% from 2020. The table below details your
wastewater flow, in millions of gallons (mg), and allocated cost of service:
Community Allocation 2021 2020 2019
Metered flow (mg) 793.20 684.50 729.00
Unmetered flow (mg) 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total flow (mg) 793.20 684.50 729.00
Percent of regional flow 0.82% 0.78% 0.81%
Municipal wastewater charge $1,966,021 $1,835,077 $1,842,453
Cost change from prior 7.14% -0.40% 4.74%
Your fee is based on the portion of wastewater flow discharged from your
community to the regional system in the past year (2019) multiplied by the
regional wastewater charge for the next year (2021). Year-to-year changes
are affected by growth, water conservation, and inflow and infiltration.
Region 2021 2020 2019
Regional allocated flow (mg) 96,967.05 87,891.72 89,991.18
Flow change from prior 10.33% -2.33% -0.83%
Regional wastewater charge $240,342,000 $235,629,000 $227,441,000
Cost change from prior 2.0% 3.6% 3.5%
Community Map; see next page for details.
Some wastewater may enter or leave your community but not be included in the metered flow total. These unmetered flows are
shown below. Assigned wastewater volumes per unit, such as single-family unit (SFU) or residential equivalent connection (REC),
vary based on past flow response to wet weather, age of services, and other available data.
Flow from New Hope = 0.00 mg; added to allocated flow:
Flow to New Hope = 0.00 mg; deducted from allocated flow:
Unmetered flow total = 0.00 mg
To: Calculation/ Description 1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q 4th Q Notes
From: Calculation/ Description 1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q 4th Q Notes PRELIMINARY
May 7, 2020
City of New Hope
PRELIMINARY
$1,292,232.72
$1,339,833.60
$1,537,767.00
$1,368,357.36
$1,384,295.64
$1,512,425.04
$1,373,257.56
$1,515,423.60
$1,759,006.32
$1,842,452.64 $1,835,077.00
$1,966,021.00
$600,000.00
$800,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,400,000.00
$1,600,000.00
$1,800,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$2,200,000.00
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022MWCAmount
Year
MWC Annual Charge - New Hope
MWC Annual Charge
Linear (MWC Annual Charge)
Protecting your health and home:
reducing inflow and infiltration
Protecting your health and home, while reducing utility fees, starts with you.
This handout provides information on inflow and infiltration, how it costs
property owners and their communities, and what you can do to identify and
correct problems on your property.
Inflow and infiltration is clear water – such as groundwater and surface water – that enters the wastewater
system from sources such as defective sewer service laterals, sump pumps, downspouts, building drains, and
aged or broken sewer mains and maintenance holes. Clear water, on its own, does not need to be treated at a
wastewater treatment plant. However, once clear water enters the wastewater system, it needs to be treated.
During rain events, I/I adds significant amounts of clear water to the wastewater system, which can lead to
sewage overflows into basements and waterways.
Sanitary Sewer
Deterioration
Cracks Joints
Root Intrusion
Inflow Infiltration
Uncapped
Sewer
Cleanouts
Improperly Connected
Sump Pumps Improperly
Connected
Gutters
Sanitary Sewer
Web: www.metrocouncil.org/iandi | Email: i.i@metc.state.mn.us
Here is what you can do
As a property owner, you can reduce I/I and the risk of sewage backups into your property in three key ways.
Check your sump pump connection
A sump pump can discharge as much water during rainfall
events as 40 homes on a typical day. If you have a sump pump
that discharges to the wastewater system, that excessive flow
can cause sewage backups to your or your neighbor’s home.
Not only is that a problem for your neighborhood, it is also
illegal to discharge clear water to the wastewater system.
Sump pumps should discharge water to the ground outside
of your building. You can do a quick inspection of your sump
pump piping to ensure that the water is going outside. This
will help you and your neighbors avoid sewage backups.
Insurance does not always cover sewage backups, so the
costs of repairs can fall on property owners.
Right Way Wrong Way
Inspect your sewer service lateral
Save money and future stress by having your sewer service lateral inspected
now. Your sewer service lateral is the pipe that connects your home to the
city sewer main under your street. It is likely as old as your home and – like
all parts of a home – it needs regular maintenance to work properly. Having
your service sewer lateral inspected gives you the information to make an
informed decision on what to do next – before it fails. If small repairs are not
made, the pipe becomes weaker and can eventually collapse, causing costly
repairs without warning.
Many plumbers can inspect your sewer service lateral using a camera and give you the information you need
to make repairs. If detected early, small repairs to minor defects can be done from within the pipe, without
having to dig in the yard or street. If the minor repairs are not made, the costs to dig out and replace a sewer
service lateral are much higher and might include fixing the sidewalk or street if the plumber needs to excavate
below ground. Inspecting and repairing defective service laterals can reduce the likelihood of a sewage backup
into your building, reduce costs and hassles of backups or collapses, reduce utility fees for your community,
and increase the value of your home.
To
sanitary
sewer
To sanitary sewer
Sewer service
lateral
City sewer main
Disconnect your gutters
Some older properties have downspouts that discharge
stormwater to the sewer service lateral. Discharging this
water to the wastewater system is illegal and needs to
be addressed. Gutters and downspouts should drain
onto your property or into the city stormwater system,
not the wastewater system.
Right Way Wrong Way
Web: www.metrocouncil.org/iandi | Email: i.i@metc.state.mn.us
What you should know about I/I
There are numerous reasons why property owners should care about I/I.
These include impacts to your home and environment, increases in fees or
utility rates, and tradeoffs with other investments in your community.
Property impacts
Property owners can be directly impacted in terms of health and property
damage. A sewer system that is over capacity because of I/I can lead to
sewer backups into basements. Sewer backups can result in health risks
from wet and contaminated basements as well as thousands of dollars of
damage that can take weeks or longer to repair. Insurance does not always
cover sewer backups, so the costs of repairs can fall onto property owners.
Would your service lateral pass inspection? When it comes time to sell your
property, damaged sewer service laterals - the sewer pipe from your building to the city
sewer main - can be a big risk that buyers may want fixed before buying. Having the service lateral inspected
(and repaired if needed) can be included in the building inspection report and help increase the value of the
property. Some communities require an inspection of sewer service laterals to inform buyers and sellers as part
of the real estate transaction process. Savvy purchasers will appreciate having a completed inspection, and it
can result in higher home values for the seller.
Environmental impacts
Wastewater treatment systems that are in place today were built to keep
waterways clean for you to use. Preventing sewage overflows keeps
Minnesota’s waters clean and healthy. Keeping I/I out of your wastewater
system can reduce negative impacts to the environment. When the
wastewater system becomes over capacity due to I/I, there is not only
the potential for sewage to back up into homes and businesses, but also
for overflows into wetlands, lakes, rivers, and streams.
What your community has done to address sources of I/I
Communities in the Twin Cities region have been working for decades to address sources of I/I in the city sewer
infrastructure. For many, this started in the 1970s with inspecting their system using cameras to find sources
of I/I and making the necessary repairs. By regularly inspecting the local sewer systems and making needed
repairs to the sewer mains and maintenance holes, communities have been able to reduce I/I to some degree.
Even with increasing population and rainfall, most communities have been able to reduce the amount of
wastewater sent to the regional system and extend the life of those systems.
Web: www.metrocouncil.org/iandi | Email: i.i@metc.state.mn.us
Increased fees/utility rates
Like our roads, wastewater systems are designed to handle the peak capacity –
rush hour for roads is like a heavy rainfall for sewers. To provide enough sewer
capacity for now and future generations, the sewer pipes and treatment facilities
are designed for those peak flows. The more clear water entering the system, the bigger all those facilities
need to be and the more they cost. Reducing the peak flow caused by excessive I/I means communities and
the region can spend less on those larger pipes and treatment plants.
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services provides wholesale wastewater service to most communities in
the Twin Cities region, and those communities collect fees from users to pay for the service. By keeping costs
low at the local and regional levels, ratepayers like you can continue to have some of the lowest wastewater
fees in the country.
Tradeoffs in community investments
Wastewater is just one service a community provides to residents. A
community that discharges excessive amounts of wastewater due to clear
water entering the local system may have less money to invest in other
programs that are likely a higher priority for residents because they are
paying higher utility costs. In smaller communities with high rates of I/I,
utility fees can consume a large portion of the budget that could be used
for other purposes.
Up to 80 percent of clear water entering the local sewer systems comes from private infrastructure at homes,
businesses, and institutions. Many cities locally and across the country have initiated programs to inspect and
repair damaged sewer service laterals, replaced older clay pipes that are beyond their service life, implemented
sump pump inspection programs, and have developed programs to clean out public sewer systems of debris,
roots and other items that come from homes and businesses feeding into the sewer system. That is a lot of
work going on underground to keep your sewers working for you.
Web: www.metrocouncil.org/iandi | Email: i.i@metc.state.mn.us
Page - 1
CITIES ADOPT POINT-OF-SALE PROGRAMS TO
PREVENT INFLOW AND INFILTRATION
FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 2021
Much like roads and bridges, sewers are designed to
handle daily “flush-hour” traffic. Unlike roads, wastewater
traffic jams in sewers don’t cause a standstill; the water
keeps coming from homes and businesses and the water
levels keep rising.
Avoiding extremely high peak flows is one way we reduce
the likelihood of a basement backup or overflow of
sewage to our lake and rivers. That’s why reducing peak
flows from inflow and infiltration (I/I) is so important to the
health of the wastewater system and its users.
Recently, the cities of Tonka Bay, Mounds View, Newport,
Orono, and St. Anthony Village adopted point-of-sale
sewer inspection ordinances. They are among the
growing number of cities and townships across the region
that are taking action to prevent I/I, which is when
stormwater or groundwater enters the wastewater
collection system.
Stormwater doesn’t need to be treated like wastewater, and groundwater belongs in underground aquifers.
Keeping this water out of the wastewater system keeps it where it belongs in the environment and prevents costly
upgrades to the system to accommodate higher flows. I/I can cause backups or unintentional sewage releases
into the environment when the water volume gets too high.
Point-of-sale programs help property buyers and sellers find and repair any issues with the sewer service when a
home or business is sold. Repairs to the sewers can be costly, so buyers and sellers can negotiate that cost, if
needed, as part of the sale price of the home. In 2007, Golden Valley was the first community in the region to
adopt a sanitary sewer point-of-sale program as part of their I/I reduction program. Learn about Golden Valley's I/I
inspection program.
Local study shows private sewer repairs reduce I/I
A study of wastewater flows in West St. Paul over the last 15 years shows that a comprehensive approach of
reducing I/I from both public sewers and private sewer services from homes or businesses can reduce the peak
amounts of I/I by 20% to 40%. By prioritizing the locations and sources of I/I that require the most attention, West
St. Paul has reduced I/I flows, kept wastewater costs steady with inflation, and reduced sewer overflows to
basements and waterways.
How do we know that repairing sewer service laterals are a key part of I/I reduction? Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services partnered with West St. Paul to evaluate the city's sewers through a two-part study:
• Prior to 2013, the city repaired public sewers in two small areas, but there was little reduction in peak
flows from this I/I work. After repairs to private service laterals were completed in those areas in 2017, an
evaluation of wastewater flow data indicated that between 20% and 25% of peak I/I flow had been
eliminated.
• In another study, we designed a model to use 2004-2013 flow data from the old,
unrepaired system to predict what would happen between 2018 and 2020. The
Repair of private sewer service pipes leading from a home or
business to local sewer mains is reducing inflow and
infiltration.
Page - 2 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
predicted flows were then compared to actual 2018-2020 flows in the new, repaired system. The graphic
below shows how actual flows (the blue line) during a sample period in 2018 were lower than the
predicted flows (the red line), mostly due to the repairs to the sewer service laterals that were part of the
point-of-sale program.
Flow model shows evidence of reduced inflow and infiltration as a result of West St. Paul’s point-of-sale program.
The study results show that the largest sewered area of West St. Paul, called the M058 basin, has the most
significant I/I reduction corresponding to sewer service lateral repairs dating back to 2008. The estimated peak I/I
rate was reduced by about 40% from 2008 through 2017. With more sewer service repairs in the M056 and M057
basins, peak I/I flows can continue to decline.
Financing private sewer repairs for property owners
Some townships and cities with programs to inspect and repair sewer service laterals are offering ways to finance
the repairs through loans, grants, or property assessments. Inspections and repairs to sewer service laterals can
be expensive, and we continue to seek ways to help offset that burden on property owners and communities.
The repairs are just one part of decades of investments by townships and cities across the region to stop
groundwater and stormwater from entering the wastewater system. These efforts have led to:
• Sewer fees that are roughly 40% lower than the national average
• No overflows to our rivers and lakes
• Fewer sewer backups into homes and businesses
Since 2007, communities have reported more than $180 million of sewer-related repairs, including more than $25
million in investments by cities and property owners on service lateral repairs and sump pump disconnections.
More information about I/I
• Reduce inflow and infiltration (I/I)
• Protecting your health and home: reducing inflow and infiltration (PDF)
Considering an inspection program?
Cities and townships considering an inspection program can use a model ordinance by the League of Minnesota
Cities or contact the MCES I/I Team at i.i@metc.state.mn.us for assistance and resources.
I:\RFA\City Manager\2021\Performance Measures Survey Program\4‐19 WS Performance Measures Survey\11.3 Q ‐ Performance Measures Program 4‐19‐21.docx
Request for Action
April 19, 2021
Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Originating Department: Community Development
By: Brandon Bell, CD Assistant &
Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Agenda Title
Discuss participation in 2021 performance measures survey program
Requested Action
Staff requests input from the City Council on participating in the statewide 2021 performance measures
survey program.
Policy/Past Practice
This matter was last discussed at the February 2021 work session and the City Council agreed to postpone
the Morris Leatherman survey for an additional year due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. The Council directed
staff to prepare an updated city services survey and provide input on questions to be added or deleted.
In 2011, the Minnesota Legislature’s Council on Local Results and Innovation released a standard set of ten
performance measures for cities to aid residents, taxpayers, and state and local officials in determining the
effectiveness of cities in providing services and to measure the residents’ opinions of those services. The city
has participated in the program since 2011 to evaluate residents’ satisfaction with city services. Cities that
participate in the program are eligible for a reimbursement of $0.14 per capita, resulting in approximately
$3,133 per year for New Hope.
Background
Participation in the performance measures survey program requires that the City Council and/or city staff
take the following actions:
1. Reaffirm values/mission statement.
2. Review performance measures survey questions.
3. Approve a resolution adopting and implementing the state performance measures (by July 1).
4. Notify the state of the city’s intention to participate in program for the subsequent year and report
results from the previous year.
5. Conduct the survey.
6. Report the survey results from the current year to the community and discuss in conjunction with
approval of the city’s budget.
The city must notify the state of its intent to participate in the program by July 1. The program requires
establishment of community goals/strategic objectives. The “New Hope Values and Vision” statement was
adopted by the City Council in August 2006, and has been reviewed annually. It was last reaffirmed at the
February 16, 2021 work session.
The city must also establish specific performance measures/survey questions. The recommended model that
measures performance outcomes for cities includes the following categories: General, Police Services, Fire
Services, Streets, Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Parks and Recreation. In 2020, the City Council adopted the
following performance measures, which were a combination of survey questions and specific outcome
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.3
Request for Action, Page 2
measures that are quantifiable:
Category # Measure (2020)
General 1 Rating of the overall quality of services in New Hope
2 Percent change in the taxable property market value
3 Citizens’ rating of the overall appearance of the city
4 Bond rating
5 Citizens’ rating of the quality of city recreational programs and facilities
6 Citizens’ likelihood of using public transit if readily available
Police Services 7 Part I and II crime rates
8 Citizens’ rating of safety in the community
9 Average police response time
Fire & EMS 10 Insurance industry rating of fire services
11 Citizens’ rating of the fire protection services
12 Fire calls per 1,000 population
Streets 13 Average city pavement rating index
14 Citizens’ rating of overall condition of county roads
15 Citizens’ rating of overall condition of city streets
16 Citizens’ rating of the quality of snowplowing on city streets
Water 17 Citizens’ rating of the dependability and overall quality of city water supply
Sanitary Sewer 18 Citizens’ rating of the dependability and overall quality of city sanitary sewer service
19 Number of sewer blockages on city system per 1,000 connections
Code Enforcement 20 Citizens’ rating of the quality of code enforcement
Communications 21 Citizens’ rating of the quality of communication/distribution of information
* Quantifiable performance measures are shaded
The 2020 performance measures survey results were reviewed at the November 16, 2020, work session,
posted on the city’s website, and shared at the budget hearing. The 2020 survey added three new questions
to the survey: One regarding how long residents planned on living in the city, another asking how residents
would like to receive the city newsletter, and a third inquiring how residents felt about their opportunities
to provide input and feedback to the city about issues.
Staff has prepared a draft 2021 survey (attached), which is similar to the 2020 survey, with the removal of
two questions and the addition of three questions. The questions removed were a question inquiring about
how residents felt about the new appearance of City Hall, and the question asking residents how they
would like to receive their newsletter. Staff felt that enough feedback had been received for these questions
to justify their removal and make room for new questions. The three new questions ask residents how they
rate the new Civic Center Park and Aquatic Park, how they obtain the majority of their city information and
how they feel the city reacted to the COVID‐19 pandemic in different fields. New questions are highlighted
in yellow in the attached preliminary 2021 survey.
Request for Action, Page 3
Recommendation
Staff requests that the City Council review and provide feedback on the draft 2021 survey. Once Council has
provided feedback, staff will present a resolution and final version of the survey for approval at an
upcoming City Council meeting prior to the July 1 deadline. The survey will be made available on the city’s
website and at city hall and will be distributed at city events such as the Farmers Market, City Day, and
National Night Out. Staff will report the performance measures results to the state, incorporate them into
the Performance Measurement Report/SMART Goals document, and include the information in the annual
budget presentation.
Attachments
2021 New Hope City Services Survey (draft)
2020 City of New Hope Performance Measures table
2020 New Hope City Services Survey
New Hope Values and Vision
2021 New Hope City Services Survey
You have the option of completing this survey on paper or by visiting newhopemn.gov/survey. If you choose to fill out
the paper version, mail it back to the city with your utility bill or drop it off at New Hope City Hall (either inside or in the
utility drop box) by Oct. 1, 2021. Please submit only one copy of the survey per adult resident, per year. Thank you.
1. How many years have you lived in New Hope?
O 0‐1 Year O 2‐5 Years O 6‐10 Years O 11‐20 Years O More than 20 Years
2. As things now stand, how long in the future do you expect to live in New Hope?
O 0‐1 Year O 2‐5 Years O 6‐10 Years O 11‐20 Years O More than 20 Years
3. How would you rate the overall appearance of the city?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
4. How would you rate the appearance and function of the Civic Center Park, including the new Aquatic Park?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
5. Do you think the city is too tough, about right or not tough enough in enforcing the City Code on such nuisance
issues as trash can screening, exterior storage and inoperable vehicles?
O Too Tough O About Right O Not Tough Enough
6. How would you describe your overall feeling of safety in the city?
O Very Safe O Somewhat Safe O Somewhat Unsafe O Very Unsafe
7. What is your perception of the quality of fire education, inspection and response services provided by West Metro
Fire‐Rescue District?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
8. How would you rate the overall condition of county roads (Winnetka Avenue south of Bass Lake Road, Bass Lake
Road, 42nd Avenue and Medicine Lake Road)?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
9. How would you rate the overall condition of city streets (not including county roads)?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
10. How would you rate the overall quality of snowplowing of city streets?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
11. How likely would you be to use public transit if it was readily available?
O Very Likely O Somewhat Likely O Somewhat Unlikely O Very Unlikely
12. How would you rate the dependability and overall quality of the city sanitary sewer service?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
13. How would you rate the dependability and overall quality of the city water supply?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
‐Over‐
14. How would you rate the overall quality of stormwater management in the city?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
15. How would you rate the overall quality of city recreational programs and facilities (parks, trails, recreation facilities,
classes, etc.)?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
16. How would you rate the quality of communication/distribution of information?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
17. Of these sources, how do you obtain the majority of your city information?
O City Website O City Publications O Social Media O Sun Post/CCX Media
18. If the city offered financial assistance for home repair and improvement projects, would this interest you?
O Yes O No
19. How would you rate the overall quality of services provided by the city?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
20. How do you feel about your opportunities to provide input and feedback about issues of New Hope?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
21. How do you feel the city reacted to the COVID‐19 pandemic in the following areas?
Overall
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
Parks & Rec
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
Elections
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
Permits and Inspections
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
Additional comments or concerns (please print):
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
If you would like someone from the city to contact you about your comments/concerns, please provide your
name and phone number and a staff member will contact you.
Name ____________________________________
Daytime Phone ___________________________
City of New Hope Performance Measures Quantifiable performance measures are shaded and Summaries of Survey Questions are attached Category # Measure Comparison of results between online and paper city services surveys from 2018 (679 responses), 2019 (610 responses) and 2020 (839 responses) General 1. Rating of the overall quality of city services 2018: 23% excellent; 58% good; 11% neutral; 5% fair, 1% poor; 2% don’t know/blank (81% excellent or good) 2019: 20% excellent; 61% good; 12% neutral; 5% fair, 1% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (81% excellent or good) 2020: 20% excellent; 61% good; 10% neutral; 6% fair, 1% poor; 2% don’t know/blank (81% excellent or good) 2. Percent change in the taxable property market value Payable 2018: 10.56% (total taxable market value: $1,697,092,365) Payable 2019: 7.92% (total taxable market value: $1,831,436,951) Payable 2020: 10.37% (total taxable market value: $2,021,382,123) 3. Citizens’ rating of the overall appearance of the city 2018: 13% excellent; 66% good; 12% neutral, 8% fair; 1% poor (79% excellent or good) 2019: 15% excellent; 64% good; 9% neutral; 10% fair, 1% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (79% excellent or good) 2020: 15% excellent; 65% good; 11% neutral; 7% fair, 1% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (80% excellent or good) 4. Bond rating 2018: AA 2019: AA 2020: AA 5. Citizens’ rating of the quality of city recreational programs and facilities 2018: 28% excellent; 47% good; 17% neutral; 5% fair; 1% poor; 2% don’t know/blank (75% excellent or good) 2019: 25% excellent; 49% good; 17% neutral; 7% fair, 1% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (74% excellent or good) 2020: 23% excellent; 49% good; 19% neutral; 5% fair, 1% poor; 2% don’t know/blank (72% excellent or good) 6. Would use public transit if readily available 2018: 10% very likely; 22% somewhat likely; 29% somewhat unlikely; 37% very unlikely; 2% don’t know/blank (32% very likely or somewhat likely) 2019: 10% very likely; 22% somewhat likely; 26% somewhat unlikely; 42% very unlikely; 0% don’t know/blank (32% very likely or somewhat likely) 2020: 8% very likely; 21% somewhat likely; 24% somewhat unlikely; 46% very unlikely; 2% don’t know/blank (29% very likely or somewhat likely) 7. Citizens’ support of funding home repair and improvement programs 2019: 50% Yes; 48% No; 2% Blank 2020: 51% Yes; 46% No; 3% Blank Police Services 8. Part I and II crime rates 2017: Part 1: 581; Part 2: 628 2018: Part 1: 682; Part 2: 721 2019: Part 1: 611; Part 2: 680 *Full crime stats for current year compiled after January 1 to ensure accuracy 9. Citizens’ rating of safety in the community 2018: 47% very safe; 45% somewhat safe: 6% somewhat unsafe; 1% very unsafe; 1% don’t know/blank (92% very safe or somewhat safe) 2019: 39% very safe; 54% somewhat safe: 6% somewhat unsafe; <1% very unsafe; <1% don’t know/blank (93% very safe or somewhat safe) 2020: 45% very safe; 47% somewhat safe: 7% somewhat unsafe; 1% very unsafe; <1% don’t know/blank (92% very safe or somewhat safe) 10. Average police response time 2017: 4.32 minutes for priority 1 calls 2018: 4.36 minutes for priority 1 calls 2019: 4.35 minutes for priority 1 calls *Full police stats for current year compiled after January 1 to ensure accuracy
Fire & EMS Services 11. Insurance industry rating of fire services 2018: 3 2019: 3 2020: 3 12. Citizens’ rating of the quality of fire protection services 2018: 36% excellent; 43% good; 16% neutral; 1% fair; <1% poor; <4% don’t know/blank (79% excellent or good) 2019: 39% excellent; 41% good; 17% neutral; <1% fair, <1% poor; 2% don’t know/blank (80% excellent or good) 2020: 36% excellent; 42% good; 18% neutral; 1% fair, 1% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (78% excellent or good) 13. Fire calls per 1,000 population 2018: 47.79 (972 calls for service; population 20,339) 2019: 53.94 (1097 calls for service; population 20,339) 2020: 677; calls for service through 9/29/20; population 20,339) Streets 14. Average city pavement condition rating 2018: 76 2019: 76 2020: 76 15. Citizens’ rating of county roads 2018: 11% excellent; 60% good; 16% neutral; 10% fair; 3% poor (71% excellent or good) 2019: 8% excellent; 54% good; 15% neutral; 16% fair, 6% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (62% excellent or good) 2020: 5% excellent; 48% good; 18% neutral; 20% fair, 8% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (53% excellent or good) 16. Citizens’ rating of city streets 2018: 10% excellent; 60% good; 13% neutral; 10% fair; 2% poor; 5% don’t know/blank (70% excellent or good) 2019: 9% excellent; 57% good; 14% neutral; 17% fair, 3% poor; <1% don’t know/blank (64% excellent or good) 2020: 6% excellent; 58% good; 17% neutral; 15% fair, 3% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (64% excellent or good) 17. Citizens’ rating of the quality of snowplowing on city streets 2018: 30% excellent; 50% good; 6% neutral; 9% fair; 4% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (80% excellent or good) 2019: 33% excellent; 45% good; 8% neutral; 10% fair, 4% poor; 0% don’t know/blank (78% excellent or good) 2020: 33% excellent; 48% good; 7% neutral; 9% fair, 2% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (81% excellent or good) Water 18. Citizens’ rating of the dependability and quality of city water supply 2018: 42% excellent; 44% good; 8% neutral; 4% fair; 1% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (86% excellent or good) 2019: 39% excellent; 48% good; 8% neutral; 3% fair, 1% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (87% excellent or good) 2020: 41% excellent; 47% good; 7% neutral; 3% fair, 1% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (88% excellent or good) 19. Citizens’ rating of the quality of stormwater management in the city 2019: 20% excellent; 50% good; 20% neutral; 6% fair, 3% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (70% excellent or good) 2020: 19% excellent; 53% good; 19% neutral; 6% fair, 2% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (72% excellent or good) Sanitary Sewer 20. Citizens’ rating of the dependability and quality of city sanitary sewer service 2018: 30% excellent; 50% good; 13% neutral; 3% fair; 1% poor; 3% don’t know/blank (80% excellent or good) 2019: 28% excellent; 53% good; 14% neutral; 3% fair, 1% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (81% excellent or good) 2020: 27% excellent; 53% good; 16% neutral; 2% fair, 1% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (80% excellent or good) 21. Number of sewer blockages on city system per 1000 connections 2018: 0 2019: 1 2020: 0 (as of 9/29/20) Code Enforcement 22. Citizens’ rating of the quality of code enforcement services 2018: 7% too tough; 53% about right; 34% not tough enough; 6% don’t know/blank 2019: 7% too tough; 58% about right; 34% not tough enough; 1% don’t know/blank 2020: 8% too tough; 63% about right; 28% not tough enough; 1% don’t know/blank Communi‐cations 23. Citizens’ rating of the quality of communication/ distribution of information 2018: 24% excellent; 52% good; 14% neutral; 6% fair; 3% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (77% excellent or good) 2019: 17% excellent; 55% good; 16% neutral; 8% fair, 3% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (72% excellent or good) 2020: 18% excellent; 53% good; 16% neutral; 9% fair, 3% poor; 1% don’t know/blank (71% excellent or good)
2020 New Hope City Services Survey
You have the option of completing this survey on paper or by visiting newhopemn.gov/survey. If you choose to fill out
the paper version, mail it back to the city with your utility bill or drop it off at New Hope City Hall (either inside or in the
utility drop box). Please submit only one copy of the survey per adult resident, per year. Thank you.
1. How many years have you lived in New Hope?
O 0-1 Year O 2-5 Years O 6-10 Years O 11-20 Years O More than 20 Years
2. As things now stand, how long in the future do you expect to live in New Hope?
O 0-1 Year O 2-5 Years O 6-10 Years O 11-20 Years O More than 20 Years
3. How would you rate the overall appearance of the city?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
4. How would you rate the appearance of the new City Hall?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
5. Do you think the city is too tough, about right or not tough enough in enforcing the City Code on such
nuisance issues as trash can screening, exterior storage and inoperable vehicles?
O Too Tough O About Right O Not Tough Enough
6. How would you describe your overall feeling of safety in the city?
O Very Safe O Somewhat Safe O Somewhat Unsafe O Very Unsafe
7. What is your perception of the quality of fire education, inspection and response services provided by
West Metro Fire-Rescue District?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
8. How would you rate the overall condition of county roads (Winnetka Avenue south of Bass Lake Road,
Bass Lake Road, 42nd Avenue and Medicine Lake Road)?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
9. How would you rate the overall condition of city streets (not including county roads)?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
10. How would you rate the overall quality of snowplowing of city streets?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
11. How likely would you be to use public transit if it was readily available?
O Very Likely O Somewhat Likely O Somewhat Unlikely O Very Unlikely
12. How would you rate the dependability and overall quality of the city sanitary sewer service?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
-Over-
13. How would you rate the dependability and overall quality of the city water supply?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
14. How would you rate the overall quality of stormwater management in the city?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
15. How would you rate the overall quality of city recreational programs and facilities (parks, trails, recreation
facilities, classes, etc.)?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
16. How would you rate the quality of communication/distribution of information?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
17. How would you prefer to receive the city’s newsletter?
O Electronically O Print O Both
18. If financial assistance for home repair and improvement projects were available, would you be interested
in obtaining it through the city?
O Yes O No
19. How would you rate the overall quality of services provided by the city?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
20. How do you feel about your opportunities to provide input and feedback about issues to the City of New
Hope?
O Excellent O Good O Neutral O Fair O Poor
Additional comments or concerns:
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
If you would like someone from the city to contact you about your comments/concerns
check here and provide your name and phone number (below). O
Name ____________________________________
Daytime Phone ___________________________
New Hope Values and Vision
City Mission
Strong local government that is proactive in responding to the community needs and issues by delivering quality
public service to all city residents, businesses, property owners, and organizations in a prudent and e cient manner.
Values
Excellence and Quality in the Delivery of Services
We believe that service to the public is our reason for being and strive to deliver quality services in a
highly professional and cost-e ective manner.
Fiscal Responsibility
We believe that fi scal responsibility and the prudent stewardship of public funds and city assets is essential if
residents are to have confi dence in government.
Ethics, Integrity and Professionalism
We believe that ethics, integrity, and professionalism are the foundation blocks of public trust and confi dence and
that all meaningful relationships are built on these values.
Respect for the Individual
We believe in the uniqueness of every individual, and welcome, appreciate, and respect diversity and the di ering
of opinions.
Open, Honest, and Respectful Communication
We believe that open, honest, and respectful communication is essential for an informed and involved citizenry
and to foster a positive environment for those interacting with our city.
Cooperation and Teamwork
We believe that the public is best served when all work cooperatively.
Visionary Leadership and Planning
We believe that the very essence of leadership is to be responsive to current goals and needs, and visionary in
planning for the future.
Vision
e city is a great place to grow as a family, individual, or business.
All within our city are safe and secure.
Essential services will be those that promote a safe and healthy environment for all residents.
Essential services and programs will be enhanced and streamlined, and will be provided in an economical manner
and with measurable results.
e city views residents as its greatest asset and seeks their input and participation.
e city will meet the communication needs of citizens, elected o cials, and city sta .
Strategic Goals
e city will maintain and improve its infrastructure (water distribution, storm water, sewer, roads, parks,
lighting, and city facilities).
e city will use frugal spending and resourceful fi nancial management to maintain its fi scal health.
e city will encourage maintenance, redevelopment, and reinvestment of existing properties to improve
or enhance its tax base.
e city will provide core services with a professional sta who are equipped with the necessary tools and
equipment and given necessary direction.
e city will facilitate and improve communications to promote e ective intergovernmental cooperation
between sta , citizens, and Council.
Adopted by the New Hope City Council, August 2006
Reaffirmed by the New Hope City Council, February 2021