Performance Measurement Report & SMART Goals 2017
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT REPORT
& SMART GOALS
9/1/2017 New Hope, Minnesota
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. The Performance
Measurement Report compares top tier indicators, which capture the state
of the city, while SMART goals track Specific, Measureable, Achievable,
Realistic, and Timely objectives set forth by department heads.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT & SMART GOALS
Page 2
INDEX
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 .............. 21
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION & COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ...................................... 25
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS TO SIMILAR CITIES ................................................................ 26
FOOTNOTES ........................................................................................................................... 27
SMART GOALS ...................................................................................................... 28
GENERAL FUND .................................................................................................................... 29
PUBLIC SAFETY ...................................................................................................................... 32
STREETS ................................................................................................................................... 35
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ..................................................................................................... 37
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND .................................................................................................. 38
ENTERPRISE FUNDS ............................................................................................................... 39
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS .................................................................................................. 42
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT & SMART GOALS
Page 3
CITY OF NEW HOPE
O V E R V I E W & H I S T O R Y
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, with 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)
20,339
YEAR FORMED
1953
AREA
5.1 square miles
JOBS
11,080
BUSINESSES
490
PARKS/ACREAGE
18/200
SCHOOL DISTRICT
ROBBINSDALE AREA/281
SCHOOLS
5
CITY FACILITIES
Ice Arena, Swimming Pool, Golf Course, Outdoor Theater, Fire Station
HISTORY
1900s: Farming-rich community, settled as part of Crystal Lake Township
1930s: Residents of Crystal Lake Township began movement to incorporate township
1936: City of Crystal formed, rural residents in western half broke away and formed township
known as New Hope
1936-1953: Housing developments led to farmers being a minority in New Hope
1953: Rapidly developing township of New Hope incorporated as a city to prevent losing more
of its land and residents to Crystal via annexation
1953: Population of 600
1958: Population of 2,500
1971: Population of 24,000
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT REPORT
9/1/2017 New Hope, Minnesota
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 (đź’ˇ).
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 5
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT REPORT
C O M P A R I S O N OF T O P T I E R IN D I C A T O R S
COMMUNITY SAFETY & SECURITY
New Hope
1. Safety (Citizen Rating) 20121 20131 20141 20152 20161
Very or somewhat safe1/Excellent or good2 89% 92% 91% 91% 93%
Somewhat or very unsafe1/Fair or poor2 9% 7% 8% 9% 7%
Unknown1,2 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%
1Data for citizens’ rating of safety in the community from 2012-2014 and 2016 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.
2Data 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.
Comparison to Other Cities – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 89% 95% N/A 85% 86%
Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 9% 4% N/A 15% N/A
Unknown 2% 2% N/A 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2013 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 92% 67%
N/A N/A N/A
Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 7% 33% N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 1% 0% N/A N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2014 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 91% 81% N/A 85% N/A
Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 8% 18% N/A 15% N/A
Unknown 1% 2% N/A 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 91% 86% 98% N/A N/A
Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 9% 13% 2% N/A N/A
Unknown 1% 1% 1% N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 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
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.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 6
New Hope
2. Crime Rates 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Part I crimes 831 526 495 548 543
Part II crimes 1,106 787 1,176 1,188 1,265
Crime rate data for 2012-2016 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.
Comparison to Other Cities – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Part I crimes 831 762 575 615 1,001
Part II crimes 1,106 1,092 751 538 1,417
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 to Other Cities – 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
Comparison to Other Cities – 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
Comparison to Other Cities – 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
Comparison data was compiled from reports posted on official city websites or requested and supplied
directly from city staff.
New Hope
3. Traffic Accident Rate 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Accidents 358 365 448 410 428
Number per 1,000 population 17.60 17.95 22.03 20.16 21.04
Traffic accident data for 2012-2016 was compiled by the city’s police department.
New Hope
4. Police Response 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Priority 1 call response time (average minutes) 3.60 3.93 5.03 4.36 4.34
Police response data for 2012-2016 was compiled by the city’s police department.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 7
New Hope
5. Emergency Services 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Calls for service 642 658 812 758 795
Calls per 1,000 population 31.56 32.35 39.92 37.27 39.87
Emergency services data for 2012-2016 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.
Comparison to Other Cities – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Calls per 1,000 population 31.56 25.64 31.39 14.43
112.32
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 to Other Cities – 2014 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Calls per 1,000 population 39.92 31.69 30.50 12.00 115.96
Comparison to Other Cities – 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Calls per 1,000 population 37.27 34.13 34.34 13.36 114.31
Comparison to Other Cities – 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Calls per 1,000 population 39.87 31.46 36.67 14.09 114.31
Comparison data was compiled from reports posted on official city websites or requested and supplied
directly from city staff.
New Hope
6. Code Enforcement Services (Citizen Rating) 20152 20161
Excellent or good 69% 45%
Fair 11% 16%
Poor 1% 30%
Unknown 20% 42%
1Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of code enforcement services from 2016 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.
2Data 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.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 8
New Hope
7. Fire Protection (Citizen Rating) 20121 20131 20141 20152 20161
Excellent or good 72% 70% 68% 92% 68%
Fair 7% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Poor 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Unknown 24% 28% 29% 3% 30%
1Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of fire protection services from 2012-2014 and 2016 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.
2Data 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 – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 72% 91% 99% 96% 100%
Fair 7% 1% 0% 4% 0%
Poor 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Unknown 24% 8% 1% 0% 0%
Comparison to Other Cities – 2013 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 70% 61% N/A N/A N/A
Fair 2% 6% N/A N/A N/A
Poor 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 28% 33% N/A N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2014 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 68% 61% N/A 96% N/A
Fair 2% 2% N/A 4% N/A
Poor 0% 0% N/A 0% N/A
Unknown 29% 38% N/A 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 92% 63% 94% N/A N/A
Fair 5% 7% 1% N/A N/A
Poor 0% 1% 0% N/A N/A
Unknown 3% 29% 5% N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 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
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.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 9
PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY & COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY
New Hope
8. City Services/Quality of Life (Citizen Rating) 20121 20131 20141 20152 20161
Excellent or good 81% 80% 77% 98% 87%
Fair 12% 13% 16% 2% 10%
Poor 2% 3% 2% 0% 1%
Unknown 5% 3% 5% 0% 3%
1Data for citizens’ rating of the overall quality of city services from 2012-2014 and 2016 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.
2Data 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 – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 81% 91% 86% 90% 86%
Fair 12% 8% 8% 9% N/A
Poor 2% 1% 1% 1% N/A
Unknown 5% 0% 5% 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2013 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 80% 53% N/A N/A N/A
Fair 13% 42% N/A N/A N/A
Poor 3% 0% N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 3% 5% N/A N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2014 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 77% 80% N/A 90% N/A
Fair 16% 13% N/A 10% N/A
Poor 2% 2% N/A 0% N/A
Unknown 5% 5% N/A 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 98% 72% 98% N/A N/A
Fair 2% 18% 2% N/A N/A
Poor 0% 6% 0% N/A N/A
Unknown 0% 4% 0% N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 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
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.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 10
New Hope
9. Creditworthiness 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Bond rating đź’ˇ AA AA AA AA AA
The city’s bond rating for 2012-2016 was determined by Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services. Standard &
Poor's rating definitions state that “an insurer rated 'AA' has very strong capacity to meet its financial
commitments and differs from the highest-rated insurers only to a small degree.” The rating reflects an
assessment of various factors for the city, including adequate economy; strong management with “good”
financial policies; adequate budgetary performance, with an operating surplus in the general fund; very strong
budgetary flexibility; very strong liquidity; adequate debt and contingent liability position; and a strong
institutional framework score.
Comparison to Other Cities – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Bond rating AA AA2 AAA AA AA+
Comparison to Other Cities – 2013 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Bond rating AA AA2 AAA AA AA+
Comparison to Other Cities – 2014 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Bond rating AA AA2 AA1 AA AA+
Comparison to Other Cities – 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Bond rating AA AA2 AA1 AA AA+
Comparison to Other Cities – 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Bond rating AA AA2 AA1 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.
New Hope
10. Financial Management 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Unqualified audit on financial statements đź’ˇ âś“ âś“ âś“ âś“ âś“
Unqualified financial audits for 2012-2016 were performed by Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich
& Co., P.A.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 11
New Hope
11. Financial Condition 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Property taxes (general fund) $7,423,273 $7,803,838 $7,928,813 $8,308,447 $8,954,626
Personnel costs (general fund) $6,292,866 $6,592,257 $6,697,939 $7,409,500 $7,429,564
Ratio of tax revenues to personnel costs 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.12 1.21
Property tax payment rate 99.96% 99.96% 99.85% 99.73% 99.48%
Financial condition data for 2012-2016 was compiled by the city’s financial consultant, Abdo, Eick and
Meyers, LLP, as a part of the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
New Hope
12. Property Values 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Taxable market value đź’ˇ $1,223,862,183 $1,235,267,314 $1,334,517,728 $1,430,939,117 $1,535,054,114
Percent change in taxable market value -7.98% 0.93% 8.03% 7.23% 7.28%
Data for taxable market values of properties in New Hope for 2012-2016 was determined by Hennepin
County. Taxable market value for 2012 was payable in 2013, value for 2013 was payable in 2014, etc.
Comparison to Other Cities – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Taxable market value $1,223,862,183 $1,136,761,834 $2,744,389,240 $1,746,296,100 $2,327,199,260
Percent change in taxable market value -7.98% -12.07% -3.00% -4.57% -5.71%
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%
Comparison to Other Cities – 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%
Comparison to Other Cities – 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%
Comparison to Other Cities – 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%
Data for taxable market values was compiled from comprehensive market value reports posted on Hennepin
County’s website.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 12
New Hope
13. Employee Retention 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Turnover rate đź’ˇ 6.3% 11.9% 8.4% 10.4% 14.3%
Employee turnover rate data for 2012-2016 was compiled by the city’s human resources department.
New Hope
14. Risk Management 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Number of insurance claims 31 29 23 26 28
Employee turnover rate data for 2012-2016 was compiled by the city’s human resources department.
New Hope
15. Environmental Stewardship 2014 2015 2016
Minnesota GreenSteps Cities rating Step 2 Step 3 Step 3
Minnesota GreenStep Cities’ is a voluntary program offered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
and its partners, offering cities a cost-effective, step-wise path to implement sustainable development best
practices. The rating ranges from Step 1 to Step 5 and was determined by Minnesota GreenStep Cities.
Comparison to Other Cities – 2014 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Minnesota GreenSteps Cities rating Step 2 Step 1 N/A N/A Step 1
Comparison to Other Cities – 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Minnesota GreenSteps Cities rating Step 3 Step 2 N/A N/A Step 1
Comparison to Other Cities – 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Minnesota GreenSteps Cities rating Step 3 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 2
Comparison data was compiled from the Minnesota GreenStep Cities’ website. “N/A” signifies that the city
had not yet joined the program.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 13
GENERAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION
New Hope
16. City Roads (Citizen Rating) 20121 20131 20141 20152 20161
Excellent or good 65% 54% 43% 70% 63%
Fair 27% 30% 37% 22% 30%
Poor 8% 16% 21% 9% 6%
Unknown 1% 0% 1% 0% 1%
1Data for citizens’ rating of city roads from 2012-2014 and 2016 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.
2Data 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 – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 65% 77% 80% 70% 89%
Fair 27% 20% 13% 25% N/A
Poor 8% 4% 7% 5% N/A
Unknown 1% 0% 0% 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2013 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 54% 53% N/A N/A N/A
Fair 30% 37% N/A N/A N/A
Poor 16% 11% N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2014 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 43% 80% N/A 62% N/A
Fair 37% 15% N/A 29% N/A
Poor 21% 5% N/A 9% N/A
Unknown 1% 0% N/A 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 70% 70% 84% N/A N/A
Fair 22% 23% 10% N/A N/A
Poor 9% 6% 7% N/A N/A
Unknown 0% 1% 0% N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 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
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.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 14
New Hope
17. Pavement đź’ˇ 20121 20131 20142 20152 20162
Pavement condition rating 67 (fair) 63 (fair) 61 (fair) 73 (good) 75 (good)
1Data for pavement condition rating for 2012-2013 was compiled by GoodPointe Technology.
2Data for pavement condition ratings from 2014-2016 was compiled by the city’s public works/
engineering department.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 15
New Hope
18. Road Snowplowing (Citizen Rating) 20121 20131 20141 20152 20161
Excellent or good 77% 79% 78% 88% 84%
Fair 11% 15% 15% 12% 10%
Poor 4% 5% 6% 1% 4%
Unknown 8% 1% 1% 0% 2%
1Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of snowplowing of city streets from 2012-2014 and 2016 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.
2Data 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 – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 77% 85% 95% 98% 82%
Fair 11% 13% 3% 2% N/A
Poor 4% 3% 2% 0% N/A
Unknown 8% 0% 0% 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2013 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 79% 47% N/A N/A 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 to Other Cities – 2014 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 78% 44% N/A 75% N/A
Fair 15% 35% N/A 19% N/A
Poor 6% 20% N/A 6% N/A
Unknown 1% 2% N/A 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 88% 67% 98% N/A N/A
Fair 12% 18% 2% N/A N/A
Poor 1% 14% 0% N/A N/A
Unknown 0% 2% 0% N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 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
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.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 16
New Hope
19. Water Utility Infrastructure 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Water main breaks 28 29 28 20 19
Water main break data for 2012-2016 was compiled by the city’s public works department.
Comparison to Other Cities – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Water main breaks 28 8 26 17 7
Comparison to Other Cities – 2013 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Water main breaks 29 6 11 22 28
Comparison to Other Cities – 2014 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Water main breaks 28 9 27 28 21
Comparison to Other Cities – 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Water main breaks 20 9 27 11 30
Comparison to Other Cities – 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Water main breaks 19 9 14 28 16
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 from city staff.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 17
New Hope
20. Water Quality (Citizen Rating) 20121 20131 20141 20152 20161
Excellent or good 85% 88% 85% 81% 88%
Fair 7% 8% 10% 18% 7%
Poor 2% 2% 2% 1% 2%
Unknown 6% 2% 3% 1% 3%
1Data for citizens’ rating of the dependability and quality of the city water supply from 2012-2014 and 2016 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.
2Data 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 – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 85% 85% 99% 70% 97%
Fair 7% 14% 1% 21% N/A
Poor 2% 2% 0% 9% N/A
Unknown 6% 0% 0% 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2013 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 88% 79% N/A N/A N/A
Fair 8% 11% N/A N/A N/A
Poor 2% 0% N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 2% 11% N/A N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2014 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 85% 93% N/A 69% N/A
Fair 10% 5% N/A 19% N/A
Poor 2% 0% N/A 11% N/A
Unknown 3% 2% N/A 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 81% 81% 96% N/A N/A
Fair 18% 13% 3% N/A N/A
Poor 1% 3% 1% N/A N/A
Unknown 1% 3% 0% N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 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
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.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 18
New Hope
21. Sewer Utility Infrastructure 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Blockages 1 2 1 0 0
Blockages per 1,000 connections (5,400) .185 .370 .185 .000 .000
Sewer blockages data for 2012-2016 was compiled by the city’s public works department.
Comparison to Other Cities – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Blockages per 1,000 connections .185 .900 .125 .168 .185
Comparison to Other Cities – 2013 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Blockages per 1,000 connections .370 .770 .125 .168 .093
Comparison to Other Cities – 2014 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Blockages per 1,000 connections .185 1.150 .375 .168 .463
Comparison to Other Cities – 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Blockages per 1,000 connections .000 .640 .125 .000 .000
Comparison to Other Cities – 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Blockages per 1,000 connections .000 1.020 .000 .000 .278
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 from city staff.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 19
New Hope
22. Sanitary Sewer (Citizen Rating) 20121 20131 20141 20152 20161
Excellent or good 78% 81% 80% 82% 81%
Fair 4% 6% 8% 8% 6%
Poor 1% 1% 2% 1% 1%
Unknown 17% 11% 12% 9% 11%
1Data for citizens’ rating of the dependability and quality of the city sanitary sewer service from 2012-2014
and 2016 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.
2Data 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 – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 78% N/A 97% 86% 96%
Fair 4% N/A 2% 13% N/A
Poor 1% N/A 0% 1% N/A
Unknown 17% N/A 1% 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2013 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 81% 79% N/A N/A N/A
Fair 6% 11% N/A N/A N/A
Poor 1% 5% N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 11% 5% N/A N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2014 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 80% 90% N/A 86% N/A
Fair 8% 0% N/A 13% N/A
Poor 2% 0% N/A 1% N/A
Unknown 12% 11% N/A 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 82% 77% 100% N/A N/A
Fair 8% 9% 0% N/A N/A
Poor 1% 1% 0% N/A N/A
Unknown 9% 13% 0% N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 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
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.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 20
New Hope
23. Ease of Getting Place to Place (Citizen Rating) 20152 20161
Excellent or good 91% 89%
Fair 7% 10%
Poor 1% 1%
Unknown 1% 1%
1Data for citizens’ rating of the ease of getting place to place from 2016 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.
2Data 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.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 21
ATTRACTIVE, HIGH QUALITY NEIGHBORHOODS & BUSINESS DISTRICTS
New Hope
24. Development Activity 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Permits Issued 2,167 2,212 2,141 2,169 2,607
Fees Collected đź’ˇ $300,967 $356,242 $485,371 $512,461 $602,391
Valuation of Work đź’ˇ $12,813,093 $17,069,459 $32,802,509 $33,976,062 $37,740,765
Permit data for 2012-2016 was compiled by the city’s community development department.
Comparison to Other Cities – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Permits Issued 2,167 2,996 4,112 1,735 4,237
Fees Collected $300,967 $342,548 $1,144,906 $348,952 $814,951
Valuation of Work $12,813,093 $10,402,989 $64,648,443 $10,162,643 $51,226,807
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 to Other Cities – 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
Comparison to Other Cities – 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
Comparison to Other Cities – 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
Comparison data was requested and supplied by each individual city.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 22
1
New Hope
25. Recreation Programs & Facilities (Citizen Rating) 20121 20131 20141 20152 20161
Excellent or good 74% 74% 71% 85% 74%
Fair 10% 10% 11% 5% 10%
Poor 3% 2% 3% 1% 1%
Unknown 13% 13% 15% 10% 16%
1Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of city recreational programs and facilities from 2012-2014 and
2016 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.
2Data for citizens’ rating of recreation programs from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman
Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
Comparison to Other Cities – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 74% 85%/88% 96% 70% 71%
Fair 10% 5%/10% 2% 25% N/A
Poor 3% 0% 0% 5% N/A
Unknown 13% 10%/3% 3% 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2013 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 74% 68% N/A N/A N/A
Fair 10% 32% N/A N/A N/A
Poor 2% 0% N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 13% 0% N/A N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2014 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 71% 75% N/A 67% N/A
Fair 11% 14% N/A 29% N/A
Poor 3% 5% N/A 3% N/A
Unknown 15% 5% N/A 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley1 New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 85% 70% 93%/97% N/A N/A
Fair 5% 15% 0% N/A N/A
Poor 1% 11% 0% N/A N/A
Unknown 10% 4% 7%/3% N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 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
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.
1Surveys separated questions for recreation programs and recreation facilities.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 23
New Hope
26. Recreation Participation & Attendance 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Participants in recreation programs đź’ˇ 32,307 25,962 25,229 25,257 23,717
Pool attendance đź’ˇ 27,190 20,102 18,259 17,210 19,755
Pool passes đź’ˇ 863 732 693 591 665
Golf rounds đź’ˇ 19,568 16,782 16,431 18,175 20,375
Open skating attendance đź’ˇ 1,059 1,170 1,229 1,646 1,728
Ice hours rented đź’ˇ 3,558 3,739 3,734 3,682 3,567
Recreation program participant data for 2012-2016 was compiled by the city’s Parks and Recreation
department.
Comparison to Other Cities – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Pool attendance 27,190 31,127 N/A N/A N/A
Pool passes 863 667 N/A N/A N/A
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 to Other Cities – 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
Comparison to Other Cities – 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
Comparison to Other Cities – 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
Comparison data was requested and supplied directly from city staff. “N/A” signifies that the city does not
operate a pool.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 24
New Hope
27. City/Neighborhood Appearance (Citizen Rating) 20121 20131 20141 20152 20161
Excellent or good 73% 69% 65% 94% 78%
Fair 20% 27% 29% 5% 20%
Poor 5% 4% 6% 1% 2%
Unknown 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
1Data for citizens’ rating of the overall appearance of the city from 2012-2014 and 2016 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.
2Data 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 – 2012 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 73% 91% 95% 81% 43%
Fair 20% 9% 5% 16% N/A
Poor 5% 1% 0% 2% N/A
Unknown 2% 0% 0% 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2013 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 69% 39% N/A N/A N/A
Fair 27% 56% N/A N/A N/A
Poor 4% 6% N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2014 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 65% 60% N/A 78% N/A
Fair 29% 36% N/A 20% N/A
Poor 6% 4% N/A 2% N/A
Unknown 0% 0% N/A 0% N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 94% 55% 97% N/A N/A
Fair 5% 37% 3% N/A N/A
Poor 1% 6% 1% N/A N/A
Unknown 0% 2% 0% N/A N/A
Comparison to Other Cities – 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
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.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 25
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION & COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
New Hope
28. Distribution of Information (Citizen Rating) 20152 20161
Excellent or good 86% 78%
Fair 13% 16%
Poor 1% 1%
Unknown 1% 5%
1Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of code enforcement services from 2016 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.
2Data 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.
New Hope
29. Website Traffic 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Unique visitors 78,175 92,290 94,868 114,357 115,356
Website hit data for 2012-2016 was compiled by the city’s communications department.
New Hope
30. Meeting Viewership 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Online views of city meetings 948 796 1,397 3,013 1,197
Online viewership data for 2012-2016 was compiled by Northwest Community Television, the
organization that broadcasts city meetings. Viewership numbers include City Council, EDA, and Planning
Commission meetings as well as candidate forums and state of the city events.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 26
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS TO SIMILAR CITIES
31. Tax Rate 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
New Hope1 54.80% 57.04% 58.69% 55.98% 57.41%
New Hope without street infrastructure levy2 46.07% 49.75% 49.59% 47.42% 48.57%
Crystal 51.34% 56.15% 54.81% 50.50% 53.21%
Golden Valley 55.80% 58.20% 61.82% 54.63% 54.45%
Champlin 41.20% 44.77% 44.73% 42.71% 44.28%
Hopkins 58.68% 62.42% 62.42% 62.50% 65.58%
Brooklyn Center 64.36% 71.07% 54.34% 71.29% 73.29%
Tax rate data for 2012-2016 was compiled by the city’s financial consultant, Abdo, Eick and Meyers, LLP,
from the county rate cards.
1New Hope’s total tax capacity rate does not take into account that New Hope does not levy special
assessments for street infrastructure improvement projects.
2Removing 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 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
New Hope1 717 732 513 957 1,160
Crystal 604 703 607 666 696
Golden Valley 3,789 3,935 3,777 3,424 2,965
Champlin 485 614 527 417 404
Hopkins 1,636 1,610 1,897 2,320 2,812
Brooklyn Center 594 865 798 1,103 1,663
Debt per capita data for New Hope from 2012-2016 was compiled by the city’s financial consultant,
Abdo, Eick and Meyers, LLP, as a part of the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
Page 27
FOOTNOTES
League of Minnesota Performance Measurement Survey responses by year:
2012 – 189 residents
2013 – 1,114 residents
2014 – 1,062 residents
2016 – 646 residents (140 online, 506 paper)
Morris Leatherman Company Survey responses by year:
2015 – 400 residents
Comparisons to other cities:
Crystal – 400 responses per question in 2012, 19 responses per question in 2013, 160 responses per
question in 2014, 80 responses per question in 2015, and 115 responses per question in 2016.
New Brighton – 350-370 responses per question.
Golden Valley and Richfield – Unknown number of responses (per city staff).
All comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of
the Performance Measurement Program with the exception of Crystal in 2012 and Golden Valley in
2015. Decision Resources (now known as Morris Leatherman Company) administered the 2012 Crystal
survey and the Morris Leatherman Company administered the 2015 Golden Valley survey. The cities of
Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield did not administer a survey in 2014. The city of Richfield did
not administer a survey in 2015. Surveys for 2012 were conducted in early 2013, surveys for 2013
were conducted in early 2014, etc.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
SMART GOALS
9/1/2017 New Hope, Minnesota
The city developed SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable,
Realistic, and Timely) goals in 2016 based off of 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, where 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 SMART GOALS
Page 29
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
G O A L S E S T A BL I S H E D I N 2 01 6
GENERAL FUND
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 TBD TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. The city received 24 grants for $647,126 in 2016.
Assessing
Goal: Increase total city taxable property market value by $50 million per year over the next
five years.
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$1,430,939,11
7
$1,535,054,11
4
TBD TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. Taxable property market value for the city increased by $104 million
($7.28%) between 2015 and 2016.
Communications
Goal: Write and coordinate distribution of 12 In the Pipeline utility bill inserts annually over the
next three years.
2016 2017 2018
12 TBD TBD
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 TBD TBD
Status: On track. The electronic reader board was activated in June 2016, and 67 updates were
made throughout the year.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
Page 30
Elections
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.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
80.31% TBD TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. The city had an 80.31% voter turnout rate for the 2016 presidential election.
Finance
Goal: Increase bond rating from AA to AA+ in the next five years.
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
AA AA TBD 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 wa s
submitted with the financial management plan in an effort 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 part of the rating, but the overall rating did not change.
Goal: Conduct unqualified audit on prior year’s financial statements with clean findings annually
over the next five years.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
1 finding TBD TBD TBD TBD
Status: Not completed. Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A., completed an
unqualified audit on financial statements for 2016 . The audit revealed that certain vendor
claims were not paid within the timeframe required by state statute.
Human Resources
Goal: Maintain employee turnover rate of 12% or below over the next three years.
2016 2017 2018
14.3% TBD TBD
Status: Not completed. Between 2011 and 2015, the employee turnover average was 8.6%. It
increased to 14.3% in 2017, due to 14 staff members leaving the city.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
Page 31
Planning
Goal: Increase population recorded from 2010 census by at least 3% by 2020 census.
2010 2020
20,339 TBD
Status: In progress. The 2015 American Community Survey estimates the city’s population at
20,775. 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 32
PUBLIC SAFETY
Police
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 TBD TBD
Status: On track. Training time department-wide increased by 20.83% between 2015 and 2016.
Goal: Increase the number of inter/intra-jurisdictional traffic details over the next three years.
2015 2016 2017 2018
20 8 TBD TBD
Status: Not completed. The city’s traffic officer was pulled from regular duty in 2016 due to
personnel issues/shortages.
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. Officer contracts were renewed for three years with more competitive
wages.
Reserves/Explorers
Goal: Increase number of police reserves by at least 5% over the next three years.
2015 2016 2017 2018
8 10 TBD TBD
Status: On track. The number of police reserves increased by 25% between 2015 and 2016.
Goal: Increase number of police explorers by at least 5% over the next three years.
2015 2016 2017 2018
3 4 TBD TBD
Status: On track. The number of police explorers increased by 33.33% between 2015 and 2016.
Goal: Increase number of community education and outreach programs.
2015 2016 2017 2018
33 33 TBD TBD
Status: Not completed. The number of community education and outreach programs did not
change between 2015 and 2016.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
Page 33
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 2016)
Status: On track. The number of goose nests in the city remained stable between 2015 and
2016, at nine.
Fire & EMS
Goal: Complete a minimum of 30 Home Safety Surveys annually over the next three years.
2016 2017 2018
30 TBD TBD
Status: On track. The West Metro Fire-Rescue District completed 30 Home Safety Surveys in
2016. The voluntary program is a free service for residential homeowners in which firefighters
search 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 homeowner’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 nightlight/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 TBD 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. 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.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
Page 34
Goal: Attract a minimum of 50 firefighter candidates each year recruiting takes place over the
next ten 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, and hired
11 recruit firefighters. The next potential hiring year is 2018.
Goal: Receive $50,000 in grants and reimbursements annually over the next five years.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$19,870 TBD TBD TBD TBD
Status: Not completed. Four training reimbursements were received from the Minnesota Board of
Fire Training and Education (MBFTE) in 2016, for a total of $18,150. The West Metro Fire -
Rescue District also received a reimbursement of $1,720 from Hennepin County for participating
in a radiation emergency drill at the Monticello Nuclear Power Plant. The West Metro Fire-
Rescue District applied for, but did not receive grants , through CenterPoint Energy and the
Fireman’s Fund.
Protective Inspections
Goal: Increase fees collected for permits from 2013-2015 by 10% for 2016-2018.
2013-2015 2016-2018
$1,354,074 $602,391 (through 2016)
Status: In progress. The city is generated $602,391 in permit fees in 2016, which equates to
44.5% of the total fees collected between 2013 and 2015.
Goal: Increase valuation of work for permits from 2013-2015 by 10% for 2016-2018.
2013-2015 2016-2018
$83,848,030 $37,740,765 (through 2016)
Status: In progress. Total valuation of work completed in city in 2016 was $83,848,030, which
equates to 45% of the total valuation of work for permits between 2013 and 2015.
Goal: Perform at least 600 code compliance investigations annually over the next five years.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
955 TBD TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. City inspectors completed 955 code compliance investigations in 2016.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
Page 35
STREETS
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 has been compiled and will be inputted into
the asset management program in 2017.
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 will review
and update the document annually.
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 TBD 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 2017 infrastructure and maintenance projects.
Goal: Update pavement management plan annually over the next five years.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
âś“ TBD 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 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 staff to remove debris from city streets.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
Page 36
Recreation
Goal: Increase overall program participation from 2015 by 5% for 2016.
2015 2016
25,257 23,717
Status: Not completed. Registrations for parks and recreation programs decreased by
approximately 6.1% between 2015 and 2016. This number does not include special events or
full attendance numbers.
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 previous
equipment was last replaced in 1995. The playground structure at Fred Sims Park was replaced
in 2017.
Swimming Pool
Goal: Increase attendance at pool from 2015 by 10% for 2016.
2015 2016
17,210 19,755
Status: Completed. Pool attendance increased by 14.79% between 2015 and 2016. Staff
attributes this to the weather and completion of the adjacent street construction project.
Goal: Increase number of pool passes sold from 2015 by 5% for 2016.
2015 2016
591 665
Status: Completed. The number of pool passes sold increased by 12.52% between 2015 and
2016. Staff attributes this to the good weather just before the pool opened and the first several
weeks of the season.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
Page 37
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
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.
2016 2017 2018
2 TBD TBD
Status: Not completed. The EDA acquired two single-family homes for demolition in 2016. Both
homes were demolished, the lots were sold, and new homes were constructed on the newly vacant
lots. In total, the EDA made offers to purchase 11 homes throughout the year. However, the
market for distressed properties proved to be very competitive. In response, staff is developing
new strategies that focus on the proactive acquisition of distressed homes before they reach the
open market.
Goal: Attract at least 10 new businesses per year over the next five years.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
31 TBD TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. The city attracted 31 new business in 2016.
Solid Waste Management
Goal: Maintain 80% or greater recycling participation rate over the next five years.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
92% TBD TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. The city achieved a 92% recycling participation rate in 2016.
Goal: Average 450 pounds recycled per household per year over the next five years.
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
592 pounds TBD TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. Households in New Hope recycled an average of 592 pounds of materials in
2016.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
Page 38
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Park Infrastructure
Goal: Increase levy by 3% per year over the next five years to increase funds available for
various park improvements.
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$304,880 $314,026 TBD TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. The park infrastructure levy increased by 3% between 2015 and 2016.
Street Infrastructure
Goal: Reconstruct or mill and overlay streets as proposed in five-year Capital Improvement
Plan.
Status: In progress. A total of 2.2 miles of streets were reconstructed, 0.77 miles were reclaimed,
3.27 miles received mill and overlay, and 0.2 miles received edge mill and overlay in 2016, for
a total of 6.44 miles of improved streets.
Goal: Increase resident awareness of projects in the next five years.
Status: In progress. The city hired a project coordinator in 2016, with a goal of increasing
resident outreach and awareness. The city is in the process of redesigning its website, which will
include a link on the homepage to information about all construction projects.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
Page 39
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Sanitary Sewer
Goal: Clean all city sewers at least every four years, as required by the League of Minnesota
Cities.
2016 2017 2018 2019
24 miles TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. City staff cleaned 24 of the city’s 70 miles of sewer in 2016, as scheduled.
Staff is in the process of developing a system to track and monitor cleanings through the city’s
asset management program.
Goal: Implement inflow and infiltration program for private residences in next five years.
Status: In progress. The city has implemented a policy for all new infrastructure improvement
projects for which streets undergoing a full reconstruction will have drain tile stubs installed to
residential properties. Additionally, the city is completing various maintenance projects in 2017 to
keep sump water off of 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: Increase maintenance efficiency of staff by using portable computing equipment in the
next two years.
Status: Completed. Staff began using tablets in 2016 in order to access record plans in the field.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
Page 40
Storm Water
Goal: Improve water quality in Northwood Lake in the next five years.
Status: In progress. As part of the 2016 Northwood Lake stormwater project, phosphorus
treatment was installed directly south of the lake. Additionally, a large stormwater treatment
tank was installed to collect and treat 110 acres of runoff. The water will be used to irrigate the
athletic fields at Northwood Park. The 2017 infrastructure project includes treatment of runoff in
the neighborhood 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. Staff is working to identify the ponds and old systems that do not have adequate
records or agreements on file.
Goal: Database and enforce annual private storm water permit agreements.
Status: Completed. Staff coordinates with the City Clerk and legal department 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.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
Page 41
Golf Course
Goal: Increase number of golf rounds purchased in 2015 by 3% per year from 2016-2018.
2015 2016 2018 2019
18,175 20,375 TBD TBD
Status: On track. The number of golf rounds purchased increased by 12.1% between 2015 and
2016.
Ice Arena
Goal: Increase ice hours rented in 2015 by 5% for 2016.
2015 2016
3,682 3,567
Status: Not completed. Ice hours rented decreased by 3.12% between 2015 and 2016. Staff
attributes the decrease to the cancellation of tournaments due to low registration.
Goal: Increase open skating attendance in 2015 by 10% for 2016.
2015 2016
1,646 1,728
Status: Not completed. Open skating attendance increased by 4.98% between 2015 and 2016.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
Page 42
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Central Garage
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.
2016 2017 2018 2019
24% TBD TBD TBD
Status: Not completed. Staff replaced 23 of the 96 city-owned computers in 2016, one short of
meeting the 25% replacement goal.