2016 Special Purpose Report
CITY OF NEW HOPE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Special Purpose Audit Reports
Year Ended
December 31, 2016
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and
on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements
Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards 1–2
Independent Auditor’s Report on Minnesota Legal Compliance 3
Schedule of Findings and Responses 4
CITY OF NEW HOPE
Table of Contents
Special Purpose Audit Reports
Year Ended December 31, 2016
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
C ERTIFIED
A CCOUNTANTS
P UBLIC
PRINCIPALS
Thomas A. Karnowski, CPA
Paul A. Radosevich, CPA
William J. Lauer, CPA
James H. Eichten, CPA
Aaron J. Nielsen, CPA
Victoria L. Holinka, CPA/CMA
Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A.
5353 Wayzata Boulevard • Suite 410 • Minneapolis, MN 55416 • Phone: 952-545-0424 • Fax: 952-545-0569 • www.mmkr.com
-1-
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER
FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS
BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
To the City Council and Management
City of New Hope, Minnesota
We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental
activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of
the City of New Hope, Minnesota (the City) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, and the
related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements,
and have issued our report thereon dated May 10, 2017.
INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control
over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the
purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do
not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or
detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination
of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement
of the City’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A
significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less
severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with
governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this
section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material
weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any
deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses
may exist that have not been identified.
(continued)
-2-
COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free from
material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations,
contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the
determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those
provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The
results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be
reported under Government Auditing Standards.
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance
and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal
control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly,
this report is not suitable for any other purpose.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
May 10, 2017
C ERTIFIED
A CCOUNTANTS
P UBLIC
PRINCIPALS
Thomas A. Karnowski, CPA
Paul A. Radosevich, CPA
William J. Lauer, CPA
James H. Eichten, CPA
Aaron J. Nielsen, CPA
Victoria L. Holinka, CPA/CMA
Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A.
5353 Wayzata Boulevard • Suite 410 • Minneapolis, MN 55416 • Phone: 952-545-0424 • Fax: 952-545-0569 • www.mmkr.com
-3-
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
ON MINNESOTA LEGAL COMPLIANCE
To the City Council and Management
City of New Hope, Minnesota
We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America, and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental
activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of
the City of New Hope, Minnesota (the City) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, and the
related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements,
and have issued our report thereon dated May 10, 2017.
MINNESOTA LEGAL COMPLIANCE
The Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Cities, promulgated by the State Auditor pursuant to
Minnesota Statute § 6.65, contains seven categories of compliance to be tested: contracting and bidding,
deposits and investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness, claims and disbursements,
miscellaneous provisions, and tax increment financing. Our audit considered all of the listed categories.
In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the City failed to
comply with the provisions of the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Cities, except as
described in the Schedule of Findings and Responses as item 2016-001. However, our audit was not
directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of such noncompliance. Accordingly, had we performed
additional procedures, other matters may have come to our attention regarding the City’s noncompliance
with the above referenced provisions.
CITY’S RESPONSE TO FINDING
The City’s response to the legal compliance finding identified in our audit has been included in the
Schedule of Findings and Responses. The City’s response was not subject to the auditing procedures
applied in our audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it.
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the results of
that testing, and not to provide an opinion on compliance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any
other purpose.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
May 10, 2017
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
-4-
CITY OF NEW HOPE
Schedule of Findings and Responses
Year Ended December 31, 2016
FINDINGS – MINNESOTA LEGAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT
2016-001 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
Criteria – Minnesota Statute § 471.425, Subd. 2.
Condition – Minnesota Statutes require prompt payment of local government claims within a
standard payment period of 35 days from the receipt of goods and services, or the invoice for
goods or services, for cities with governing boards that meet at least once a month. Two
disbursements tested were not paid within the statutory time limit.
Context – Two of twenty-five disbursements tested were not in compliance. This is a current
year finding.
Cause – This was an oversight by city personnel.
Effect – Certain vendor claims were not paid within the timeframe required by state statute.
Recommendation – We recommend that the City of New Hope, Minnesota (the City) review
current procedures with personnel responsible for approving and processing claims to ensure
statutory requirements for the prompt payment of claims are understood and complied with in
the future.
Management Response – There is no disagreement with the finding. The City will review its
procedures to ensure future compliance with the requirements of this statute.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK