The URL can be used to link to this page

092120 Work Session Meeting Packet CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North Civic Center Conference Room Monday, September 21, 2020 6:30 p.m. Mayor Kathi Hemken Council Member John Elder Council Member Cedrick Frazier Council Member Andy Hoffe Council Member Jonathan London City Hall will be open to the public for this meeting; however due to the current COVID -19 pandemic, the meeting is also available via Webex. The public may participate in this meeting by phone by calling 415-655-0001 and entering meeting/access code 133 589 4550 followed by the # sign. When prompted for a password, simply press #. 1. CALL TO ORDER – September 21, 2020 2. ROLL CALL 11. UNFINISHED & ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 11.1 Discuss concept plan for C-Axis Inc. campus at 7100 27th Avenue North 11.2 Discussion regarding reduced pressure zone device (RPZ) monitoring throughout the city 11.3 Update on Performance measurement Report and SMART goals 11.4 Update on Economic Development Report 11.5 Discuss FEMA and CARES Act Funding for COVID-19 Pandemic Expenses 11.6 Discussion of 2021 general fund budgets with city manager and department heads 12. OTHER BUSINESS 13. ADJOURNMENT I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2020\Work Sessions\9-21-20 C-Axis\11.1 Q WS - C-Axis Concept 09-21-20.docx Request for Action September 21, 2020 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: Community Development By: Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist; Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development Agenda Title Discuss concept plan for C-Axis Inc. campus at 7100 27th Avenue North Requested Action Staff requests a discussion with the City Council to review a concept plan for the construction of a new industrial campus for C-Axis Inc., a medical manufacturing company, at 7100 27th Avenue North. A representative of C-Axis Inc. will be in attendance at the meeting. Similar to the St. Therese expansion, the applicant requested to review the concept with the City Council prior to preparing detailed plans for the Planning Commission process. Policy/Past Practice The City Council has reviewed proposed plans in the past to provide conceptual support prior to submission of a formal land use application. Background Over the last several months, staff has held multiple meetings with representatives of C-Axis Inc. in regards to the possible construction of a new industrial campus at 7100 27th Avenue North. C-Axis Inc. manufactures medical devices and has offices in Hamel, MN and Puerto Rico. The business is growing and in need of additional space and has been evaluating potential sites inside and outside of Minnesota, including New Hope, for its planned expansion. City staff and representatives of C-Axis Inc. have met with the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), which is offering potential assistance to the business if it elects to build in New Hope. DEED provided C-Axis Inc. with information on the type of assistance that may be available, including the Minnesota Investment Fund (MIF), Minnesota Job Creation Fund (MJCF), and Minnesota Job Skills Partnership (MJSP). Phase one of the project would involve constructing a 20,000 square foot building that would open in January of 2022. C-Axis Inc. would relocate 60 employees to the facility and another 40 jobs would be added within three years. The preliminary design would allow for C-Axis Inc. to expand the building by an additional 20,500 square feet in the future. There are currently two buildings located at 5.21-acre industrial site at 7100 27th Avenue North. C-Axis Inc. is proposing to add a third building to the site without subdividing the parcel, thus requiring approval of a variance or a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Planned Unit Development (PUD). There is a large, wooded area at the southwest corner of the lot that would accommodate the proposed building. Prior to committing to the site, making plans to relocate equipment and employees, and preparing a full set of plans, C-Axis Inc. requested a meeting with the City Council to gauge their level of support for the flexibilities that would be required in constructing on the site. C-Axis Inc. has prepared a conceptual plan for the New Hope site and a brief introduction on the business and its vision for the site, both of which are attached. C-Axis Inc. is also requesting that the city support the MIF and MJCF applications. It is required that a local municipality sponsor the MIF loan via resolution of support, and the local unit of government must hold a public hearing on the request. Funds are awarded to local units of government, who provide loans to assist Agenda Section Work Session Item Number 11.1 Request for Action, Page 2 expanding businesses. DEED does not provide money directly to businesses, it loans funds to a local unit of government. DEED and the local government unit enter into an agreement that specifies that the money must be used to assist the specified business. The funds are then loaned to the business by the local unit of government. The loan can either be forgiven (after the business meets its goals) or repaid to the local government agency. If repaid, the local government unit keeps 40% of the repayments, up to $100,000. If the local government unit elects to recoup the repayments, it must then create a revolving loan fund with the money retained from the repayment. The funds can only be administered to other businesses if the city follows the same project selection process and expenditure requirements that DEED utilizes when administering MIF loans. The city essentially serves as a pass through entity for the loan. In 2019, the City Council supported forgiving the portion of a MIF loan to Abel Conn that could be recouped by the city, though the project did not proceed. This practice is common amongst other cities and would make New Hope more competitive in its efforts to attract C-Axis Inc. as it evaluates potential locations for the project. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council review conceptual plans submitted for C-Axis Inc. at 7100 27th Avenue North and provide feedback. If the City Council supports the concept plan, staff will prepare a letter of support to be signed by Mayor Hemken. Attachments  Introduction and concept plan  Map C-Axis Business Introduction PAGE 1 C-Axis Business C-Axis is a contract manufacturer for the medical device markets. We utilize cutting edge technologies to supply components and sub-assemblies to all of the major medical device OEM’s in the industry. Our components service various disciplines in the medical field including orthopedics, cardiovascular, joint preservation, and drug administration to name a few. We have been operating for over 20 years in Minnesota and we have a sister company located in Puerto Rico. We offer a wide variety of manufacturing techniques with our focus on CNC machining. We also offer 3D metal and plastic printing along with various finishing processes. Our production ranges from R&D development small batch orders to production runs of hundreds of thousands of parts. We do all our processing and design in house with a dedicated engineering and automation team. NEW HOPE VISION C-Axis MN is currently located in Hamel, and has been since opening. We have had as a company major growth in the last 5 years and we are now faced with the need for more floor space. Our 10,000 square foot facility has no more room for expansion or new equipment. It is our hope to construct a new facility in New Hope that can meet our current needs, and also give us the flexibility in the future to grow and expand within the same location. Phase one of this vision is to construct a 20,000 square foot facility on the open portion of the plot without disturbing the current offices and businesses located on the land. With our developers we have come up with a preliminary design that will allow us to in the near future add another 20,000 square feet to the new building with relative ease. The major draw to this site is that after we have utilized the open space, we will still have the ability to update and expand on the current building in what envision as our MN campus. This will allow us to maintain our business in this location while centralizing all of our workers without having to operate multiple facilities throughout Minnesota. The current plan will have the groundbreaking at first thaw of 2021, with a completion date of late 2021. The moving process will put us at a January 2022 opening! We will be relocating 60 employees to this facility and we will create over 40 new position in the first 3 years. We are excited to partner with the City of New Hope and we are hoping that we can mutually benefit from this exciting project! PROPOSED BUILDING20,000 SQ. FT.EXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED BUILDING EXPANSION20,500 SQ. FT.351216816CAD FILE NAMEN30 60 He nn e pin Cou n ty P ro perty Ma p Da te : 9/3 /2 02 0 Comm en ts: 1 inc h = 2 00 fee t PAR CEL ID: 20 118 21 340 03 3 OWN ER N AME: Mo e Pro per t y C d Llc PAR CEL AD DRESS: 7 100 2 7t h Ave N, Ne w H ope M N 55 42 7 PAR CEL AR EA: 5.2 1 ac re s, 226 ,917 sq ft A-T-B: Bot h SAL E PR ICE: $1,60 0,00 0 SAL E D ATA: 0 1/20 19 SAL E C OD E: C on tr act Fo r D eed ASSESSED 20 19 , PAYABLE 202 0 PROPERT Y TYPE: Ind us tr ial-Pr efer re d H OM ESTEAD : N on -H ome stea d M AR KET VAL UE: $1,5 02,00 0 TAX TO TAL: $5 6,325 .64 ASSESSED 20 20 , PAYABLE 202 1 PRO PER TY TYPE: Ind us trial-pr ef er red HO MESTEAD: No n-h ome ste ad MARKET VALU E: $1 ,6 50 ,0 00 This data (i) is fur nish ed 'A S IS' wit h no represent at ion as t o com ple ten ess or acc urac y ; (ii) is furnis hed w it h n o war rant y of an y k ind; an d (ii i) is not sui tab le for lega l, engi neering or surv ey ing purposes . Hen nepin County s hall not be l iable fo r a ny damage, in jury or los s re sul ting f rom this dat a. COP YRIG HT © H EN N EPIN COU N TY 20 2 0 I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2020\Work Sessions\9-21-20 RPZ Discussion\11.2 Q WS - RPZ Discussion 9-21-2020.docx Request for Action September 21, 2020 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: Community Development By: Jeff Sargent, Director Agenda Title Discussion regarding reduced pressure zone device (RPZ) monitoring throughout the city Requested Action Staff requests the City Council to determine whether the city should hire a company to help with the monitoring of RPZs throughout the city. Policy/Past Practice It is a staff past practice to request the City Council to consider hiring outside companies to assist the city with on-going operations. Background The 2015 Minnesota Plumbing Code requires that all testable Reduced Pressure Zone devices (RPZs), or backflow prevention devises, be tested annually and the results submitted to the authority having jurisdiction. RPZs are required to ensure that water systems do not discharge pollution or contaminated water back into the drinking or city water supply. Currently, staff accepts and records permit applications for installing an RPZ and for testing/rebuilding one. Staff has tracked which properties have received an RPZ permit by entering the applicant’s information into a spreadsheet, including the name and address of the applicant, the date of installation, and the testing dates. Staff does not have monitoring program in place to guarantee the monitoring or testing of the private RPZs throughout the city takes place. This does not mean the RPZs haven’t been tested, only that the city has no record of it. In many cases, the testing company does not get a permit for testing, nor do they inform the city when the tests are performed. Most typically, RPZs are required for commercial and industrial uses, mostly for underground irrigation systems and boilers, however there are some residential irrigation systems that have RPZs as well. Just recently, there has been a larger push by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for cities to more closely monitor which properties have RPZs and whether or not they are being tested annually. City staff has been approached by Brycer, LLC, a company who could help the city monitor the RPZ permits and testing throughout the city. Brycer would enter into a contract with the city and would be given all of the spreadsheet information regarding the existing RPZ permits that have been issued. The company would then contact the permit holders and ask for any inspection records of the RPZs. If no testing has been conducted, Brycer would then require those inspections, on behalf of the city, and work with the testing agency to ensure the tests get complete. Brycer works directly with the testing agency and charges them for the testing results which are required by the state. The city benefits by obtaining the initial permit fee for the RPZ and the compliance with state requirements to ensure that the RPZs get tested on an annual basis. Recommendation At this time, the city does not have adequate internal staffing to dedicate to this process. For example, the city of St. Louis Park has one full-time employee whose sole responsibility is to monitor the RPZs throughout their Agenda Section Work Session Item Number 11.2 Request for Action, Page 2 city. There is little risk to the city to enter into a contract with a company to help monitor the RPZs on the city’s behalf, and no monetary commitment to the company either. The Public Works Director, Community Development Director and Building Official feel that entering into this partnership would be beneficial to the city and something worth pursuing. It should be noted that the City Attorney has reviewed the Brycer’s contract and feels that it is acceptable. If the City Council feels that this is something that the city should proceed with, staff will begin working with Brycer to finalize the contract. Once the terms are agreed upon, this contract will come back to the Council for approval. Attachments  Draft Contract  City Attorney email correspondence I:\RFA\City Manager\2020\Performance Measurement Report & SMART Goals\11.3 WS - Performance Measurement Report & SMART Goals 09-21-20.docx Request for Action September 21, 2020 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: Community Development By: Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist; Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Title Update on Performance Measurement Report and SMART goals Requested Action Staff requests to present the 2020 Performance Measurement Report and SMART goals document and authorization to publish the report on the city’s website. Policy/Past Practice In an effort to better measure and continually improve overall levels of service and quality of life, the city developed the Performance Measurement Report and SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) goals document. The Performance Measurement Report compares top tier indicators, which capture the state of the city, while SMART goals track objectives set forth by department heads. Staff updates each of the reports annually to present to the City Council. Background At the request of the City Council, the Performance Measurement Report and SMART goals documents were developed by staff and published in November of 2015. The 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. The objective of a SMART goal is to tell exactly what the city is striving for, why it is important, who is involved, where it is going to happen, and which attributes are important. It is said to have a much greater chance of being accomplished as compared to a general goal. In developing the initial SMART goals, staff collaborated with department heads to compile a list of recommended goals based on the various sections of the 2016 budget. It was noted at the June 20, 2016, work session that there would not be repercussions if SMART goals were not completed, which allowed department heads to set goals that were intended to challenge their department and staff. In August of 2016, the reports were combined into a single document, which was presented to the City Council and published on the city’s website. The report was most recently presented to the City Council in August of 2019. The 2020 Performance Measurement Report and SMART goals document includes data from 2016-2019. Some departments have also established new SMART goals that have been incorporated. Performance Measurement Report The Performance Measurement Report was expanded in 2019 to include data from similar cities for several top tier indicators that were not included in previous years’ reports. This included traffic accident rates, police response times, recreation participation and attendance, website traffic, and meeting viewership. One of the challenges that continues to exist is the frequency at which other cities administer citywide surveys. The cities of New Hope and Crystal administer surveys annually; however, the cities of Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield only do so every few years. This makes a comparative analysis between similar cities Agenda Section Work Session Item Number 11.3 Request for Action, Page 2 difficult. Additionally, it should be noted that New Hope’s citizen rating data for 2016-2019 in the Performance Measurement Report was obtained from the city services survey, whereas citizen rating data for 2015 derives from the Morris Leatherman Company survey. This explains some of the fluctuation in citizen ratings that appears between 2015 and 2016. The following updates have been made to the 2020 Performance Measurement Report: Community Safety & Security 1. Safety  Added 2019 data for New Hope and Crystal 2. Crime Rates  Added 2019 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield 3. Traffic Accident Rate  Added 2019 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield  Adjusted 2017-2018 per 1,000 population data for New Hope 4. Police Response  Added 2019 data for New Hope, Golden Valley, New Brighton (newly tracking), and Richfield 5. Emergency Services  Added 2019 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield  Adjusted 2015-2018 per 1,000 population data for New Brighton 6. Code Enforcement Services  Added 2019 data for New Hope 7. Fire Protection  Added 2019 data for New Hope and Crystal Public Service Delivery & Community Sustainability 8. City Services/Quality of Life  Added 2019 data for New Hope and Crystal 9. Creditworthiness  Added 2019 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield 10. Financial Management  Added 2019 data for New Hope 11. Financial Condition  Added 2019 data for New Hope 12. Property Values  Added 2019 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield 13. Employee Retention  Added 2019 data for New Hope 14. Workers’ Compensation  Added 2019 data for New Hope 15. Environmental Stewardship  Added 2019 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield General Government Infrastructure Condition 16. City Roads  Added 2019 data for New Hope and Crystal Request for Action, Page 3 17. Pavement  Added 2019 data for New Hope 18. Road Snowplowing  Added 2019 data for New Hope and Crystal 19. Water Utility Infrastructure  Added 2019 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield 20. Water Quality  Added 2019 data for New Hope and Crystal 21. Sanitary Sewer  Added 2019 data for New Hope and Crystal 22. Sewer Utility Infrastructure  Added 2019 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield  Adjusted 2015-2018 per 1,000 connection data for Crystal and New Brighton 23. Ease of Getting Place to Place  No updates as question was removed from 2018 city services survey Attractive, High Quality Neighborhoods & Business Districts 24. Development Activity  Added 2019 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield 25. Recreation Programs & Facilities  Added 2019 data for New Hope and Crystal 26. Recreation Participation & Attendance  Added 2019 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield 27. City/Neighborhood Appearance  Added 2019 data for New Hope and Crystal Public Communication & Community Involvement 28. Distribution of Information  Added 2019 data for New Hope 29. Website Traffic  Added 2019 data for New Hope and Crystal 30. Meeting Viewership  Added 2019 data for New Hope, Crystal, and Golden Valley Comparative Analysis to Similar Cities 31. Tax Rate  Added 2019 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, Champlin, Hopkins, and Brooklyn Center 32. Debt Per Capita  Added 2019 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, Champlin, Hopkins, and Brooklyn Center 33. Response Rate  Added 2019 data for New Hope and Crystal Request for Action, Page 4 SMART Goals The 2020 version of the report includes eight new goals. There were 23 goals that appeared in the 2019 report that have expired (goal was to be completed by 2018) and have been removed from the document. Many SMART goals set objectives for three to five years from the date of publication (2016) and are “on track” for completion in the future. Data for 2016-2019 is included within the report. The following status updates are included within the document for each of the SMART goals:  Completed: The SMART goal was completed before its deadline (color-coded green in document).  On track: The SMART was met in previous years and is on track for completion; however, it must continue to be met in future years (color-coded green in document).  In progress: The SMART goal was not met in previous years; however, additional time is allowed for the goal to be completed in future years (color-coded purple in document).  Not completed: The SMART goal was not completed before its deadline (color-coded red in document). Explanations for goals that were not completed are inserted within the document, when appropriate.  Newly added: The SMART goal was newly implemented for the most recent report (color-coded blue in document). The total number of goals for each status category is as follows: Completed On track In progress Not completed Newly added Total 2016 8 24 10 12 N/A 54 2017 7 23 9 10 12 61 2018 17 16 11 10 27 81 2019 9 25 14 8 8 64 Changes in the status of anticipated outcomes (on track changing to not completed, for example) or newly implemented SMART goals include the following: General Fund  City Manager implemented new goal to “complete or improve star rating for three or more best practices through the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program in 2020.”  Communications goal implemented in 2019 to “execute more than 100 reader board updates annually over the next three years” was not tracked in 2019 due to the departure of the communications coordinator. The starting year for the goal was changed from 2019 to 2020 (counted as new goal).  Communications implemented new goal to “write and coordinate distribution of four In Touch newsletters annually over the next three years.”  Communications implemented new goal to “update the city’s website with news features 100 times annually over the next three years.”  Communications implemented new goal to “increase the city’s social media following by 15% annually over the next three years.”  Communications implemented new goal to “increase the traffic to the city’s website by 10% annually over the next three years.” Request for Action, Page 5 Streets  Engineering implemented new goal to “dedicate engineering and public works staff time to inflow and infiltration (I and I) investigation.”  Recreation implemented new goal to “increase overall program registrations from 2018 by 3% for 2019.” Enterprise Funds  Water goal to “exercise 10% of water valves annually over the next five years” changed from on track to not completed. Staff originally intended to exercise 10% of valves per year, but the goal was reduced to 5% in 2019. Staff will be required to split time between efforts to exercise valves and cataloging residential service valves. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council accept the 2020 Performance Measurement Report and SMART goals document and authorize publication of the report on the city’s website. Attachments  City of New Hope Performance Measurement Report & SMART Goals (September 1, 2020) PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT & SMART GOALS CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 In an effort to better measure and continually improve overall levels of service and quality of life, the city of New Hope developed the Performance Measurement Report and SMART goals document. The Performance Measurement Report compares top tier indicators, which capture the state of the city, while SMART goals track Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely objectives set forth by department heads. TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW & HISTORY............................................................................................................................3 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT............................................................................................4 COMMUNITY SAFETY & SECURITY.............................................................................................................5 PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY & COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY...............................................................10 GENERAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION....................................................................14 ATTRACTIVE, HIGH QUALITY NEIGHBORHOODS & BUSINESS DISTRICTS .........................................20 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION & COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.................................................................24 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS TO SIMILAR CITIES.........................................................................................26 SMART GOALS.......................................................................................................................................27 GENERAL FUND.........................................................................................................................................28 PUBLIC SAFETY ..........................................................................................................................................31 STREETS......................................................................................................................................................35 SPECIAL REVENUE FUND..........................................................................................................................36 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND.........................................................................................................................37 ENTERPRISE FUNDS...................................................................................................................................38 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS.......................................................................................................................40 PAGE 2 OVERVIEW & HISTORY CITY OF NEW HOPE OVERVIEW & HISTORY LOCATION The city of New Hope is a suburb located northwest of Minneapolis with strong neighborhoods, an abundance of parks and recreational opportunities, excellent schools, and great shopping nearby. The city has easy access to the entire Twin Cities area with major arterials of Highway 169, Highway 100, Interstate 694, and Interstate 394 all nearby. POPULATION (2010 CENSUS)SIZE/AREA YEAR FORMED 20,339 5.1 square miles 1953 BUSINESSES JOBS SHOPPING CENTERS 480 11,080 5 SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOLS PARKS/ACREAGE Robbinsdale Area (281)5 18/200 HISTORY In the early 1900s, New Hope was a farming-rich community. The area was settled as part of Crystal Lake Township and became the home for many family farms. As housing developments spread west from Minneapolis in the 1930s, the residents of Crystal Lake Township began the movement to incorporate the township. In 1936, the city of Crystal was incorporated. Forming a city, though, was not supported by all residents in the township. The rural residents in the western half of the township broke away from the city of Crystal and formed their own township. The resistant residents, mostly farmers, were unhappy about paying taxes for projects such as street lighting and sanitary sewer. The name the farmers selected for their new township was a reflection of the time, New Hope. Many residents along the New Hope-Crystal border formed groups and requested to be annexed by Crystal in order to receive what were the most modern city services at the time. Others, however, were happy to be part of New Hope township and remained separate from Crystal. Therefore, pockets of New Hope residents were created along the eastern boundary. By the early 1950s, the rapidly developing township of New Hope chose the fate it had eluded just over 15 years earlier. In 1953, New Hope incorporated as a city to prevent losing more of its land and residents to Crystal via annexation. This move was again opposed by the farming community of New Hope, but housing developments between 1936 and 1953 had made farmers a minority in New Hope. When the township was incorporated, it had 600 residents. The city grew rapidly and was home to over 2,500 people by 1958. This rapid population growth continued through the 1960s, and by 1971, there were 24,000 residents in New Hope. The population of the community has declined slightly since 1971. PAGE 3 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT The city of New Hope Performance Measurement Report is a cumulative summary report compiled from various sources, primarily the City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey, and the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, an extensive professional community-wide phone survey. SMART goals that appear within the report are denoted with a light bulb symbol (💡). CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 COMPARISON OF TOP TIER INDICATORS COMMUNITY SAFETY & SECURITY CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 1. SAFETY (CITIZEN RATING) 20152 20161 20171 20181 20191 Very or somewhat safe1/Excellent or good2 91%93%91%92%93% Somewhat or very unsafe1/Fair or poor2 9%7%8%7%7% Unknown/Blank1,2 1%1%2%1%1% PAGE 5 COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 91%86%98%85%N/A Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 9%13%2%15%N/A Unknown 1%1%1%0%N/A 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. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 93%77%N/A N/A N/A Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 7%21%N/A N/A N/A Unknown 1%1%N/A N/A N/A 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 91%82%N/A 86%N/A Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 8%18%N/A 14%N/A Unknown 2%0%N/A 0%N/A 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 92%84%N/A N/A N/A Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 7%16%N/A N/A N/A Unknown 1%0%N/A N/A N/A 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 93%82%N/A N/A N/A Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 7%18%N/A N/A N/A Unknown 1%0%N/A N/A N/A 1 Data for citizens’ rating of safety in the community from 2016-2019 was compiled from the City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program. 2 Data for citizens’ rating of quality of service for police protection from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey. CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 2. CRIME RATE 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Part I crimes 548 583 581 682 611 Part II crimes 1,188 814 628 721 680 Crime rate data for 2015-2019 was compiled by the city’s police department. Part I crimes include murder, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Part II crimes include other assaults, forgery/counterfeiting, embezzlement, stolen property, vandalism, weapons, prostitutions, other sex offenses, narcotics, gambling, family/children crime, DUI, liquor laws, and disorderly conduct. PAGE 6 COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 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 data was compiled from reports posted on official city websites or requested and supplied directly by city staff. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Part I crimes 583 518 515 545 997 Part II crimes 814 925 571 628 1,283 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Part I crimes 581 613 508 624 1,007 Part II crimes 628 847 753 628 1,289 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Part I crimes 682 551 456 591 868 Part II crimes 721 786 623 556 1,332 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Part I crimes 611 666 490 473 864 Part II crimes 680 753 538 538 1,143 3. TRAFFIC ACCIDENT RATE 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Accidents 410 428 422 411 432 Accidents per 1,000 population 20.16 21.04 20.75 20.21 21.24 Traffic accident data for 2015-2019 was compiled by the city’s police department. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT PAGE 7 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Accidents per 1,000 population 20.16 12.82 16.64 13.28 24.58 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Accidents per 1,000 population 21.04 12.91 16.82 14.82 24.16 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Accidents per 1,000 population 20.75 16.67 20.14 12.72 24.89 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Accidents per 1,000 population 20.21 17.65 16.95 15.38 25.52 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Accidents per 1,000 population 21.24 15.08 15.52 17.67 27.88 Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the Performance Measurement Program or requested and supplied directly by city staff. 4. POLICE RESPONSE 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Priority 1 call response time (average minutes)4.36 4.34 4.32 4.36 4.35 Traffic accident data for 2015-2019 was compiled by the city’s police department. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Priority 1 call response time (average minutes)4.36 N/A N/A N/A 4.49 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Priority 1 call response time (average minutes)4.34 N/A N/A N/A 3.71 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Priority 1 call response time (average minutes)4.32 N/A N/A N/A 3.69 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Priority 1 call response time (average minutes)4.36 N/A N/A N/A 4.04 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Priority 1 call response time (average minutes)4.35 N/A 2.23 4.02 4.02 Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the Performance Measurement Program or requested and supplied directly by city staff. CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 5. EMERGENCY SERVICES 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Calls for service 758 795 979 972 1,097 Calls per 1,000 population 37.27 39.09 48.13 47.79 53.94 Emergency services data for 2015-2019 was compiled by the West Metro Fire-Rescue District. Calls for service include fire, hazardous conditions, target hazards, EMS, rescue, weather, police assistance, service, good intent, and false alarms, amongst others. PAGE 8 COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Calls per 1,000 population 37.27 34.13 34.34 13.70 114.31 Comparison data was compiled from reports posted on official city websites or requested and supplied directly by city staff. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Calls per 1,000 population 39.09 31.46 36.67 14.45 114.31 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Calls per 1,000 population 48.13 39.64 31.38 14.40 121.52 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Calls per 1,000 population 47.79 36.93 29.23 13.70 118.23 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Calls per 1,000 population 53.94 37.88 36.03 17.80 125.21 6. CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES (CITIZEN RATING) 20152 20161 20171 20181 20191 Excellent or good 69%45%N/A N/A N/A Fair 11%16%N/A N/A N/A Poor 1%9%N/A N/A N/A Too tough N/A N/A 7%7%7% About right N/A N/A 47%53%58% Not tough enough N/A N/A 36%34%34% Unknown/Blank 20%30%10%6%1% 2 Data for citizens’ rating of quality of code enforcement services from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported. 1 Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of code enforcement services from 2016-2019 was compiled from the City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program. Potential responses to the survey were changed in 2017 to better correlate with how the survey question was worded. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported. CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 7. FIRE PROTECTION (CITIZEN RATING) 20152 20161 20171 20181 20191 Excellent or good 92%68%67%79%80% Fair or neutral 5%2%2%17%18% Poor 0%0%0%1%1% Unknown or blank 3%30%31%4%2% PAGE 9 1 Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of fire protection services from 2016-2019 was compiled from the City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program. 2 Data for citizens’ rating of quality of service for fire protection from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 92%63%94%97%N/A Fair or neutral 5%7%1%3%N/A Poor 0%1%0%0%N/A Unknown or blank 3%29%5%0%N/A Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 68%61%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 2%10%N/A N/A N/A Poor 0%2%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 30%27%N/A N/A N/A 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 67%66%N/A 97%N/A Fair or neutral 2%4%N/A 3%N/A Poor 0%1%N/A 0%N/A Unknown or blank 31%29%N/A 0%N/A 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 79%71%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 17%3%N/A N/A N/A Poor 1%0%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 4%26%N/A N/A N/A 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 80%73%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 18%3%N/A N/A N/A Poor 1%1%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 2%23%N/A N/A N/A CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 8. CITY SERVICES/QUALITY OF LIFE (CITIZEN RATING) 20152 20161 20171 20181 20191 Excellent or good 98%87%84.5%81%81% Fair or neutral 2%10%10.5%16%17% Poor 0%1%1%1%1% Unknown or blank 0%3%4%2%1% PAGE 10 1 Data for citizens’ rating of the overall quality of city services from 2016-2019 was compiled from the City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program. 2 Data for citizens’ rating of quality of life from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 98%72%98%90%N/A Fair or neutral 2%18%2%10%N/A Poor 0%6%0%0%N/A Unknown or blank 0%4%0%0%N/A Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 87%62%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 10%27%N/A N/A N/A Poor 1%8%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 3%3%N/A N/A N/A 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 84.5%78%N/A 91%N/A Fair or neutral 10.5%14%N/A 9%N/A Poor 1%4%N/A 0%N/A Unknown or blank 4%4%N/A 0%N/A 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 81%76%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 16%15%N/A N/A N/A Poor 1%4%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 2%5%N/A N/A N/A 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 81%73%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 17%17%N/A N/A N/A Poor 1%5%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 1%5%N/A N/A N/A PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY & COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 9. CREDITWORTHINESS PAGE 11 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Bond rating 💡AA AA AA AA AA The city’s bond rating for 2015-2019 was determined by Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services. Standard & Poor’s rating definitions state that “an issuer rated ‘AA’ has very strong capacity to meet its financial commitments and differs from the highest-rated issuers only to a small degree.” The rating reflects an assessment of various factors for the city, including strong economy (an improvement from 2016); very strong management with “strong” financial policies; strong budgetary performance, with an operating surplus in the general fund; very strong budgetary flexibility; very strong liquidity; weak debt and contingent liability profile; and a strong institutional framework score. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 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. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Bond rating AA AA2 AA1 AA AA+ 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Bond rating AA AA2 AA1 AA AA+ 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Bond rating AA AA2 AA1 AA AA+ 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Bond rating AA AA2 AA1 AA+AA+ 10. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Unqualified audit on financial statements 💡 Unqualified financial audits for 2015-2019 were performed by Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. 11. FINANCIAL CONDITION 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Property taxes (general fund)$8,308,447 $8,954,626 $9,541,667 $9,971,064 $10,297,018 Personnel costs (general fund)$7,409,500 $7,429,564 $7,771,859 $8,156,899 $8,634,285 Ratio of tax revenues to personnel costs 1.12 1.21 1.23 1.22 1.19 Property tax payment rate 99.73%99.48%99.40%99.40%99.15% Financial condition data for 2015-2019 was compiled by the city’s financial consultant, Abdo, Eick and Meyers, LLP, as a part of the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 💡SMART Goal 💡SMART Goal CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT PAGE 12 12. PROPERTY VALUES 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Taxable market value 💡$1,430,939,117 $1,535,054,114 $1,697,092,365 $1,831,436,951 $2,021,382,123 Percent change in taxable market value 7.23%7.28%10.56%7.92%10.37% Data for taxable market values of properties in New Hope for 2015-2019 was determined by Hennepin County. Taxable market value for 2015 was payable in 2016, value for 2016 was payable in 2017, etc. 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% Data for taxable market values was compiled from comprehensive market value reports posted on Hennepin County’s website. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Taxable market value $1,535,054,114 $1,482,067,331 $3,271,878,353 $2,058,438,500 $2,897,764,130 Percent change in taxable market value 7.28%10.67%5.63%6.81%8.49% 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Taxable market value $1,697,092,365 $1,637,892,494 $3,523,108,955 $2,233,653,900 $3,079,159,709 Percent change in taxable market value 10.56%10.51%7.68%8.51%6.26% 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Taxable market value $1,831,436,951 $1,780,685,897 $3,842,319,483 $2,417,354,100 $3,421,012,095 Percent change in taxable market value 7.92%8.72%9.06%8.22%11.1% 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Taxable market value $2,021,382,123 $1,995,358,954 $4,136,243,370 $2,568,417,900 $3,688,345,783 Percent change in taxable market value 10.37%12.06%7.65%6.25%7.81% 13. EMPLOYEE RETENTION 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Turnover rate 💡10.4%10.7%9.4%6.5%5.4% Employee turnover rate data for 2015-2019 was compiled by the city’s human resources department. 💡SMART Goal 💡SMART Goal 14. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Number of insurance claims 26 28 20 41 19 Experience modification rate 💡1.30 1.30 1.40 1.08 1.05 Insurance claims and Experience Modification Rate (EMR) data for 2015-2019 was compiled by the city’s human resources department. The EMR gauges the past cost of injuries and future chances of risk, impacting the cost of the city’s worker compensation insurance premiums. The industry benchmark average EMR is 1.0. An EMR of less than 1.0 effectively reduces the premium paid, where an EMR greater than 1.0 increases the premium paid. The EMR for 2019-2020 is calculated using 2015, 2016, and 2017 data. 💡SMART Goal CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT PAGE 13 15. ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP The Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program is a voluntary challenge, assistance, and recognition program that helps cities achieve their sustainability and quality-of-life goals. This free continuous improvement program, managed by a public-private partnership, is based upon 29 best practices comprised of 175 best practice actions. The program recognizes cities for their accomplishments by assigning a step level ranging from 1 to 5, which is determined by Minnesota GreenStep Cities. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES Comparison data was compiled from the Minnesota GreenStep Cities’ website. “N/A” signifies that the city had not yet joined the program. 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Minnesota GreenStep Cities rating Step 2 Step 2 N/A N/A Step 1 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Minnesota GreenStep Cities rating Step 3 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 2 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Minnesota GreenStep Cities rating Step 3 Step 2 Step 2 Step 2 Step 2 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Minnesota GreenStep Cities rating Step 3 Step 3 Step 4 Step 4 Step 3 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Minnesota GreenStep Cities step level Step 2 Step 3 Step 3 Step 3 Step 3 Best practices completed 15 18 21 24 24 Best practice actions completed 💡65 70 76 83 88 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Minnesota GreenStep Cities rating Step 3 Step 2 Step 3 Step 3 Step 2 💡SMART Goal CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 16. CITY ROADS (CITIZEN RATING) 20152 20161 20171 20181 20191 Excellent or good 70%63%76%70%62% Fair or neutral 22%30%20%23%31% Poor 9%6%4%2%6% Unknown or blank 0%1%0%5%1% PAGE 14 1 Data for citizens’ rating of city roads from 2016-2019 was compiled from the City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program. 2 Data for citizens’ rating of pavement repair and patching from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 70%70%84%62%N/A Fair or neutral 22%23%10%29%N/A Poor 9%6%7%9%N/A Unknown or blank 0%1%0%0%N/A Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 63%63%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 30%25%N/A N/A N/A Poor 6%12%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 1%0%N/A N/A N/A 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 76%75%N/A 63%N/A Fair or neutral 20%19%N/A 30%N/A Poor 4%5%N/A 7%N/A Unknown or blank 0%0%N/A 0%N/A 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 70%73%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 23%23%N/A N/A N/A Poor 2%4%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 5%0%N/A N/A N/A 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 62%70%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 31%23%N/A N/A N/A Poor 6%7%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 1%0%N/A N/A N/A GENERAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 17. PAVEMENT PAGE 15 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Pavement condition rating 💡73 (good)75 (good)76 (good)76 (good)76 (good) Data for pavement condition ratings from 2015-2019 was compiled by the city engineer. 18. ROAD SNOWPLOWING (CITIZEN RATING) 20152 20161 20171 20181 20191 Excellent or good 88%84%84%80%78% Fair or neutral 12%10%12%15%18% Poor 1%4%2%4%4% Unknown or blank 0%2%2%1%0% 1 Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of snowplowing of city streets from 2016-2019 was compiled from the City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program. 2 Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of snowplowing of city streets from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 88%67%98%75%N/A Fair or neutral 12%18%2%19%N/A Poor 1%14%0%6%N/A Unknown or blank 0%2%0%0%N/A Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 84%43%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 10%35%N/A N/A N/A Poor 4%17%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 2%6%N/A N/A N/A 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 84%69%N/A 81%N/A Fair or neutral 12%19%N/A 12%N/A Poor 2%9%N/A 7%N/A Unknown or blank 2%3%N/A 0%N/A 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 80%63%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 15%23%N/A N/A N/A Poor 4%11%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 1%3%N/A N/A N/A 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 78%65%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 18%21%N/A N/A N/A Poor 4%13%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 0%1%N/A N/A N/A 💡SMART Goal CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT PAGE 16 19. WATER UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Water main breaks 20 19 12 24 14 Water main break data for 2015-2019 was compiled by the city’s public works department. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Water main breaks 20 9 27 11 30 Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or requested and supplied directly by city staff. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Water main breaks 19 9 14 28 16 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Water main breaks 12 13 11 14 11 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Water main breaks 24 12 17 21 12 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Water main breaks 14 10 14 15 10 CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT PAGE 17 20. WATER QUALITY (CITIZEN RATING) 20152 20161 20171 20181 20191 Excellent or good 81%88%90%86%87% Fair or neutral 18%7%6%12%11% Poor 1%2%2%1%1% Unknown or blank 1%3%2%1%1% 1 Data for citizens’ rating of the dependability and quality of the city water supply from 2016-2019 was compiled from the City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program. 2 Data for citizens’ rating of the taste and quality of drinking water from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 81%81%96%69%N/A Fair or neutral 18%13%3%19%N/A Poor 1%3%1%11%N/A Unknown or blank 1%3%0%0%N/A Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported. The cities of New Hope, Crystal, and Golden Valley are members of the Joint Water Commission (JWC), a joint powers board that was formed in 1963 with the intent of providing its member cities with a secure, reliable, cost-effective water supply. The JWC purchases water from the city of Minneapolis, which draws its water supply from the Mississippi River in Fridley, where it is treated and purified. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 88%85%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 7%9%N/A N/A N/A Poor 2%1%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 3%5%N/A N/A N/A 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 90%89%N/A 53%N/A Fair or neutral 6%6%N/A 29%N/A Poor 2%3%N/A 18%N/A Unknown or blank 2%2%N/A 0%N/A 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 86%91%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 12%6%N/A N/A N/A Poor 1%2%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 1%1%N/A N/A N/A 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 87%87%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 11%9%N/A N/A N/A Poor 1%2%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 1%2%N/A N/A N/A CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT PAGE 18 21. SANITARY SEWER (CITIZEN RATING) 20152 20161 20171 20181 20191 Excellent or good 82%84%86%80%81% Fair or neutral 8%6%5%16%17% Poor 1%1%1%1%1% Unknown or blank 9%10%8%3%1% 1 Data for citizens’ rating of the dependability and quality of the city sanitary sewer service from 2016-2019 was compiled from the City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program. 2 Data for citizens’ rating of the sanitary sewer service from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 82%77%100%86%N/A Fair or neutral 8%9%0%13%N/A Poor 1%1%0%1%N/A Unknown or blank 9%13%0%0%N/A Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 84%70%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 6%11%N/A N/A N/A Poor 1%7%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 10%12%N/A N/A N/A 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 86%82%N/A 77%N/A Fair or neutral 5%6%N/A 20%N/A Poor 1%0%N/A 3%N/A Unknown or blank 8%12%N/A 0%N/A 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 80%84%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 16%5%N/A N/A N/A Poor 1%1%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 3%10%N/A N/A N/A 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 81%80%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 17%6%N/A N/A N/A Poor 1%2%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 1%11%N/A N/A N/A CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT PAGE 19 23. EASE OF GETTING PLACE TO PLACE (CITIZEN RATING) 2 Data for citizens’ rating of the ease of getting place to place from 2016-2017 was compiled from the City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program. The question was removed from the 2018 and 2019 surveys. 1 Data for citizens’ rating of the ease of getting place to place from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey. 22. SEWER UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Blockages 0 0 0 0 1 Blockages per 1,000 connections (5,400 total).000 .000 .000 .000 .185 Sewer blockages data for 2015-2019 was compiled by the city’s public works department. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Blockages per 1,000 connections .000 .625 .134 .000 .000 Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the Performance Measurement Program or requested and supplied directly by city staff. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Blockages per 1,000 connections .000 1.000 .000 .000 .278 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Blockages per 1,000 connections .000 1.000 .267 .169 .000 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Blockages per 1,000 connections .000 1.000 .401 .674 .000 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Blockages per 1,000 connections .185 .375 .267 .169 .000 20151 20162 20172 2018 2019 Excellent or good 91%89%90%N/A N/A Fair 7%10%8%N/A N/A Poor 1%1%1%N/A N/A Unknown 1%1%1%N/A N/A ATTRACTIVE, HIGH QUALITY NEIGHBORHOODS & BUSINESS DISTRICTS CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 24. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Permits issued 2,169 2,607 2,652 2,441 2,459 Fees collected 💡$512,461 $602,391 $867,289 $506,883 $452,267 Valuation of work 💡$33,976,062 $37,740,765 $71,895,249 $46,952,876 $38,288,981 PAGE 20 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 data was requested and supplied directly by city staff. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Permits issued 2,607 2,757 4,814 2,586 4,993 Fees collected $602,391 $386,630 $1,748,614 $881,527 $973,395 Valuation of work $37,740,765 $11,466,999 $107,882,740 $29,340,095 $75,795,522 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Permits issued 2,652 2,808 5,018 2,335 5,185 Fees collected $867,289 $432,094 $3,096,517 $941,559 $902,259 Valuation of work $71,895,249 $17,035,179 $277,026,108 $41,167,266 $116,226,763 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Permits issued 2,441 2,562 4,811 2,087 5,384 Fees collected $506,883 $447,303 $1,799,287 $469,215 $1,326,046 Valuation of work $46,952,876 $13,912,369 $99,559,332 $17,164,550 $189,452,625 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Permits issued 2,459 2,833 4,842 2,215 4,971 Fees collected $452,267 $477,399 $1,633,897 $1,425,085 $2,336,391 Valuation of work $38,288,981 $26,654,088 $88,065,061 $85,540,662 $242,383,630 Permit data for 2015-2019 was compiled by the city’s community development department. 💡SMART Goal CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT PAGE 21 25. RECREATION PROGRAMS & FACILITIES (CITIZEN RATING) 20152 20161 20171 20181 20191 Excellent or good 85%74%73%75%74% Fair or neutral 5%10%8%22%24% Poor 1%1%2%1%1% Unknown or blank 10%16%17%2%1% 1 Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of city recreational programs and facilities from 2016-2019 was compiled from the City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program. 2 Data for citizens’ rating of recreation facilities from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley1 New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 85%70%93%/97%67%N/A Fair or neutral 5%15%0%29%N/A Poor 1%11%0%3%N/A Unknown or blank 10%4%7%/3%0%N/A Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 74%61%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 10%19%N/A N/A N/A Poor 1%14%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 16%7%N/A N/A N/A 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 73%71%N/A 70%N/A Fair or neutral 8%19%N/A 26%N/A Poor 2%5%N/A 4%N/A Unknown or blank 17%6%N/A 0%N/A 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 75%72%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 22%17%N/A N/A N/A Poor 1%5%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 2%6%N/A N/A N/A 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 74%71%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 24%15%N/A N/A N/A Poor 1%6%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 1%8%N/A N/A N/A 1 Survey separated questions for recreation programs and recreation facilities. CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 26. RECREATION PARTICIPATION & ATTENDANCE 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Participants in recreation programs 💡25,257 23,717 25,043 25,604 23,598 Pool attendance 17,210 19,755 18,761 Closed Closed Pool passes 591 665 657 Closed Closed Golf rounds 💡18,175 20,375 18,662 17,800 16,837 Open skating attendance 💡1,646 1,728 1,962 2,204 2,594 Ice hours rented 💡3,682 3,567 4,030 4,151 4,202 PAGE 22 Recreation program participant data for 2015-2019 was compiled by the city’s parks and recreation department. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley1 New Brighton Richfield Pool attendance 17,210 28,092 N/A N/A N/A Pool passes 591 759 (family)N/A N/A N/A Golf rounds 18,175 N/A 17,037 22,136 N/A Open skating attendance 1,646 N/A N/A N/A N/A Ice hours rented 3,682 N/A N/A N/A N/A Comparison data was requested and supplied directly by city staff. “N/A” signifies that the city does not operate a pool. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley1 New Brighton Richfield Pool attendance 19,755 26,769 N/A N/A 46,615 Pool passes 665 812 (family)N/A N/A N/A Golf rounds 20,375 N/A 16,364 22,072 N/A Open skating attendance 1,728 N/A N/A N/A 3,423 Ice hours rented 3,567 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley1 New Brighton Richfield Pool attendance 18,761 27,098 N/A N/A 36,288 Pool passes 657 626 (family)N/A N/A 1,856 Golf rounds 18,662 N/A 15,556 19,675 N/A Open skating attendance 1,962 N/A N/A N/A 4,796 Ice hours rented 4,030 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley1 New Brighton Richfield Pool attendance Closed 30,350 N/A N/A 42,480 Pool passes Closed 2,276 (ind.)N/A N/A 1,840 Golf rounds 17,800 N/A 15,723 18,128 N/A Open skating attendance 2,204 N/A N/A N/A 4,673 Ice hours rented 4,151 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley1 New Brighton Richfield Pool attendance Closed 26,631 N/A N/A 43,560 Pool passes Closed 2,024 (ind.)N/A N/A 1,961 Golf rounds 16,837 N/A 16,430 16,893 N/A Open skating attendance 2,594 N/A N/A N/A 4,448 Ice hours rented 4,202 N/A N/A N/A 5,702 💡SMART Goal 1 Data from par 3 golf course only, does not include rounds at 18-hole regulation course. CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT PAGE 23 27. CITY/NEIGHBORHOOD APPEARANCE (CITIZEN RATING) 20152 20161 20171 20181 20191 Excellent or good 94%78%82%79%79% Fair or neutral 5%20%15%20%19% Poor 1%2%2%1%1% Unknown or blank 0%0%1%0%1% 1 Data for citizens’ rating of the overall appearance of the city from 2016-2019 was compiled from the City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program. 2 Data for citizens’ rating of the overall general appearance of their neighborhood from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 94%55%97%78%N/A Fair or neutral 5%37%3%20%N/A Poor 1%6%1%2%N/A Unknown or blank 0%2%0%0%N/A Comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey or Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 78%50%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 20%43%N/A N/A N/A Poor 2%7%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 0%0%N/A N/A N/A 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 82%69%N/A 82%N/A Fair or neutral 15%26%N/A 19%N/A Poor 2%4%N/A 1%N/A Unknown or blank 1%0%N/A 0%N/A 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 79%63%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 20%31%N/A N/A N/A Poor 1%6%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 0%0%N/A N/A N/A 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Excellent or good 79%65%N/A N/A N/A Fair or neutral 19%30%N/A N/A N/A Poor 1%5%N/A N/A N/A Unknown or blank 1%0%N/A N/A N/A CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT 28. DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION (CITIZEN RATING) PAGE 24 1 Data for citizens’ rating of overall performance in communicating key local issues to residents in its publications, website, mailings, and on cable television from 2016-2019 was compiled from the City Services Survey, an annual paper and web-based survey hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities as part of the city’s participation in the state’s Performance Measurement Program. 2 Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of communication/distribution of information from 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION & COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 29. WEBSITE TRAFFIC 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Unique visitors 114,357 115,356 98,049 91,165 102,583 Website data for 2015-2019 was compiled by the city’s communications department. 20152 20161 20171 20181 20191 Excellent or good 86%78%77%77%72% Fair or neutral 13%16%19%20%24% Poor 1%1%2%3%3% Unknown or blank 1%5%2%1%1% COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Unique visitors 114,357 N/A N/A N/A N/A Comparison data was requested and supplied directly by city staff. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Unique visitors 115,356 98,839 N/A N/A N/A 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Unique visitors 98,049 90,037 N/A N/A N/A 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Unique visitors 91,165 91,105 N/A N/A N/A 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Unique visitors 102,583 96,539 N/A N/A N/A CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT PAGE 25 30. MEETING VIEWERSHIP 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Online views of city meetings 3,013 1,197 1,429 803 555 Online viewership data for 2015-2019 was compiled by CCX Media, the organization that broadcasts city meetings. Viewership numbers include city council, economic development authority, and planning commission meetings as well as candidate forums and state of the city events. A technical problem prevented Northwest Community Television from gathering data from November and December 2018, therefore viewership data for those two months is not included in the total. COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2015 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Online views of city meetings 3,013 1,501 2,566 N/A N/A Comparison data was requested and supplied directly by CCX Media. 2016 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Online views of city meetings 1,119 1,184 1,234 N/A N/A 2017 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Online views of city meetings 1,429 1,220 1,169 N/A N/A 2018 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Online views of city meetings 803 584 1,016 N/A N/A 2019 New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield Online views of city meetings 555 503 1,509 N/A N/A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS TO SIMILAR CITIES 31. TAX RATE 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 New Hope1 55.98%57.41%59.93%58.59%67.99% New Hope without street infrastructure levy2 47.42%48.57%51.43%50.29%59.23% Crystal 50.50%53.21%50.36%50.42%48.77% Golden Valley 54.63%54.45%56.11%55.15%53.78% Champlin 42.71%44.28%43.00%41.19%39.61% Hopkins 62.50%65.58%64.49%67.83%71.70% Brooklyn Center 71.29%73.29%71.90%68.43%71.86% Tax rate data for 2015-2019 was compiled by the city’s financial consultant, Abdo, Eick and Meyers, LLP, from the county rate cards. 1 New Hope’s total tax capacity rate does not take into account that New Hope does not levy special assessments for street infrastructure improvement projects. 2 Removing New Hope’s street infrastructure levy from the tax capacity rate puts it on an equal playing field with neighboring communities. The city funds street infrastructure improvement projects through its annual street infrastructure levy with the cost of street improvements spread across all taxpaying properties. 32. DEBT PER CAPITA 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 New Hope 957 1,160 2,040 2,448 2,605 Crystal 666 696 884 760 668 Golden Valley 3,424 2,965 4,134 2,808 3,938 Champlin 417 404 184 164 143 Hopkins 2,320 2,812 3,518 3,797 4,055 Brooklyn Center 1,103 1,663 1,757 1,921 1,954 Debt per capita data for New Hope from 2015-2019 was compiled by the city’s financial consultant, Abdo, Eick and Meyers, LLP, as a part of the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 33. RESPONSE RATE 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 New Hope 400 646 632 679 610 Crystal 179 89 530 362 399 Golden Valley 400 N/A N/A N/A N/A Richfield N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A New Brighton 370 N/A 330 N/A N/A All comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the state as part of the City Services Survey, with the exception of New Hope and Golden Valley in 2015. Data for New Hope and Golden Valley in 2015 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey. “N/A” signifies that no survey was conducted. CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT PAGE 26 SMART GOALS The city developed SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely) goals in 2016 based on sections of the annual budget. The objective of a SMART goal is to tell exactly what is expected, why it is important, who is involved, when it is going to happen, and which attributes are important. Such goals have a much greater chance of being accomplished as compared to general goals. CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 ESTABLISHED BETWEEN 2016 & 2019 GENERAL FUND CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS CITY MANAGER Goal: Coordinate with department heads to ensure an average of $500,000 per year in grants or outside funding sources for city programs over the next five years. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $647,126 $280,597 $2,266,459 $505,403 TBD Status: On track. The city received 24 grants for $647,126 in 2016, 26 grants for $280,597 in 2017, 32 grants for $2,266,459 in 2018, and 31 grants for $505,403 in 2019, for an average of $924,896 received per year. In 2017, no large infrastructure/capital improvement projects qualified for significant grant funding. In 2018, the Minnesota legislature approved a request by the city for $2 million to help pay for a new 50-meter outdoor pool. PAGE 28 Goal: Complete or improve star rating for three or more best practices through the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program in 2019. Status: Completed. The city completed five new best practice actions and increased its star rating for an additional three best practice actions between 2018 and 2019. 2018 2019 83 88 FINANCE Goal: Increase bond rating from AA to AA+ in the next five years. 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 AA AA AA AA AA TBD Status: In progress. The city’s bonds are rated by Standard and Poor’s (S&P) and remained stable at “AA” in 2019, signifying that the city has very strong capacity to meet its financial commitments and is just two rankings below the highest-rated AAA issuers. The city’s financial consultant developed and implemented a Comprehensive Financial Management Plan in 2016. The plan includes a debt management plan, revenue management, capital assets, and an update to the investment policy. City staff also published an economic development report, which was submitted with the financial management plan in an effort to increase the city’s bond rating. In 2017, S&P recognized these efforts by improving the city’s “Management” score from “Strong” to “Very Strong,” which is the highest value assigned by S&P for this portion of the rating, but the overall rating did not change. According to S&P, if the city’s economic indicators improve to a level commensurate with higher rated peers and the debt profile improves, a higher rating is possible. The economic indicators used by S&P include per capita income in the city relative to the nation and the market value of property in the city on a per capita basis. While these factors are largely outside the city’s control, continued redevelopment efforts can help contribute to movement on these measures. Goal: Conduct unqualified audit on prior year’s financial statements with clean findings annually over the next five years. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 1 finding 0 findings 0 findings 0 findings TBD Status: Not completed. MMKR completed unqualified audits on financial statements from 2016 to 2019. The 2016 audit revealed that certain vendor claims were not paid within the time frame required by state statute. The issue from 2016 was corrected and future audits revealed no findings. Goal: Complete or improve star rating for three or more best practices through the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program in 2020. Status: New for 2020. CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS PAGE 29 ELECTIONS 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 80.31%N/A 74.51%N/A TBD Goal: Achieve at least 55% voter turnout rate for gubernatorial races and at least 80% voter turnout rate for presidential races over the next five years. Status: On track. The city had an 80.31% voter turnout rate for the 2016 presidential election and a 74.51% turnout rate for the 2018 gubernatorial election. No elections were held in 2017 or 2019. ASSESSING 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $1,430,939,117 $1,535,054,114 $1,697,092,365 $1,831,436,951 $2,021,382,123 TBD COMMUNICATIONS Goal: Increase total city taxable property market value by $50 million per year over the next five years. Status: On track. Taxable property market value for the city increased by $104 million (7.28%) between 2015 and 2016, $162 million (10.56%) between 2016 and 2017, $134 million (7.92%) between 2017 and 2018, and $190 million (10.37%) between 2018 and 2019. Overall, taxable property market value for the city has increased by 41.26% since 2015. Goal: Write and coordinate distribution of 12 In the Pipeline utility bill inserts annually over the next three years. Status: On track. In the Pipeline was distributed monthly in 2019 with city utility bills. 2019 2020 2021 12 TBD TBD Goal: Execute more than 100 reader board updates annually over the next three years. Status: New for 2020. Data from 2019 was not tracked due to the departure of communications coordinator. Goal: Update the city’s website with news features 80 times in 2019. Status: Completed. There were 151 news feature updates made to the city’s website in 2019. Goal: Post to the city’s social media platforms five times per week in 2019. Status: Completed. There were 643 social media posts made in 2019, including 477 Facebook posts, 46 Instagram posts, and 120 NextDoor posts. This resulted in an average of 12.37 posts per week. Goal: Write and coordinate distribution of four In Touch newsletters annually over the next three years. Status: New for 2020. Goal: Update the city’s website with news features 100 times annually over the next three years. Status: New for 2020. Goal: Increase the city’s social media following by 15% annually over the next three years. Status: New for 2020. Goal: Increase the traffic to the city’s website by 10% annually over the next three years. Status: New for 2020. CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS PAGE 30 HUMAN RESOURCES 2019 2020 2021 5.4%TBD TBD Goal: Maintain full-time employee turnover rate of 12% or below over the next three years. Status: On track. The full-time employee turnover for 2019 was 5.4%. Goal: Maintain or decrease average historic Experience Modification Rate (EMR) from 2013-2017 for 2018-2022. 2013-2017 2018-2022 1.33 1.07 Status: On track. The city’s Experience Modification Rate (EMR) was 1.08 in 2018 and 1.05 in 2019. An EMR gauges the past cost of injuries and future chances of risk, impacting the cost of the city’s worker compensation insurance premiums. The industry benchmark average EMR is 1.0. An EMR of less than 1.0 would effectively reduce the premium paid, where an EMR greater than 1.0 would increase the premium paid. The EMR for 2019-2020 is calculated using 2015, 2016, and 2017 data. PLANNING Goal: Increase population as reported by the 2010 census by at least 3% by the 2020 census. 2010 2020 20,339 TBD Status: In progress. The American Community Survey estimated the city’s population at 20,907 in 2019. 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 $229,000 $244,000 TBD Status: On track. Median household value for the city increased by 3.98% between 2015 and 2016, 8.67% between 2016 and 2017, 7.51% between 2017 and 2018, and 6.55% between 2018 and 2019. CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS PAGE 31 PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC SAFETY Goal: Complete a minimum of 70 hours of department-wide training per year over the next three years. Status: On track. Officers receive a minimum of 60 hours of training per year. Each year the department receives additional training in de-escalation, implicit bias, and individual administrative and/or tactical training 2019 2020 2021 80+ hours TBD TBD Goal: Complete a minimum of eight inter/intra-jurisdictional traffic details over the next three years. Status: On track. In 2019, Officer Kaitlyn Baker participated in several details, some of which took place in New Hope. 2019 2020 2021 8 TBD TBD Goal: Implement new computer-based training for continuing education purposes in 2019. Status: Completed. “Patrol Online” begins in 2020. This computer-based learning program through the League of Minnesota Cities offers a variety of additional training in implicit bias, de-escalation, and other areas. CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS PAGE 32 RESERVES/EXPLORERS Goal: Maintain a minimum staffing level of eight active police reserves per year over the next three years. Status: On track. The reserve unit continues to recruit and train staff. 2019 2020 2021 8 TBD TBD Goal: Maintain a minimum staffing level of four police explorers per year over the next three years. Status: On track. In 2019 there were four explorers who achieved statewide recognition for their work. 2019 2020 2021 5 TBD TBD Goal: Complete at least 33 community education and outreach programs per year over the next three years. Status: On track. Community services continues to find innovative ways to provide services for residents. 2019 2020 2021 35 TBD TBD CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS PAGE 33 FIRE & EMS Goal: Attract a minimum of 50 firefighter candidates each year recruiting takes place over the next 10 years. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 47 N/A 54 N/A TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Status: Not completed. The West Metro Fire-Rescue District had 47 applicants in 2016, nearly reaching its goal of 50, and hired 11 recruit firefighters. In 2018, there were 54 applicants with 10 recruits hired. No recruiting took place in 2017 or 2019. Goal: Receive $50,000 in grants, reimbursements, and donations annually over the next five years. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $42,526 $91,067 $50,214 $136,156 TBD Status: Not completed. In 2019, $136,156 was received in grants, reimbursements, and donations. That included $38,500 in donations, four training reimbursements from the Minnesota Board of Fire Training and Education (MBFTE) for $56,938, a grant from the Minnesota State Fire Marshal for a gear washer and extractor in the amount of $5,307 reimbursements of $2,011 from Hennepin County for participating in a radiation emergency drill at the Monticello Nuclear Power Plant, and $33,400 in reimbursements from Hennepin County for the Life Safety Unit (LSU). The SMART Goals report was amended in 2017 to include donations. Goal: Complete a minimum of 30 Home Safety Surveys annually over the next five years. Status: On track. The West Metro Fire-Rescue District completed 41 Home Safety Surveys in 2019, 18 of which were in New Hope. The voluntary program is a free service for residential homeowners in which firefighters evaluate for hazards by completing a room-by-room walk-through of the home. If a hazard is found, the firefighter provides recommendations on how to correct the issue. Firefighters check all smoke and carbon monoxide (CO) detectors to verify they are properly located and functioning correctly. If needed, they will provide and install new smoke and CO detectors. The Home Safety Survey takes about an hour to complete. If the homeowners’ family is present, firefighters will discuss escape planning, meeting places, and sleeping with closed doors. The Home Safety Survey also provides fire extinguishers, a night-light/flashlight, a cooking timer, and a fire safety booklet. 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 41 TBD TBD TBD TBD Goal: Exceed the district firefighter minimum training requirement of 44 hours annually by an average of 44 hours per firefighter per year (88 hours total) for the next five years. 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 141 TBD TBD TBD TBD Status: On track. In 2019, 46 West Metro Fire-Rescue District paid, on-call firefighters each averaged 141 hours of training. Additionally, nine recruits each averaged 375 hours of training, including fire academy hours. CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS PAGE 34 PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS Goal: Perform at least 600 code compliance investigations annually over the next five years. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 955 1,147 1,546 1,419 TBD TBD Status: On track. City inspectors have completed an average of 1,267 code compliance investigations per year between 2016 and 2019. ANIMAL CONTROL Goal: Maintain average number of goose nests in city from 2016-2018 at same level for 2019-2021. 2016-2018 2019-2021 7.33 5 Status: On track. There were five nests recorded in 2019, lower than the average number recorded between 2016 and 2018. Goal: Collect $1,500,000 in permit fees between 2019 and 2021. Status: In progress. The city generated $452,267 in permit fees in 2019. 2019 2020 2021 $452,267 TBD TBD Goal: Generate $100,000,000 in value of work for permits issued between 2019 and 2021. Status: On track. Total valuation of work completed in city in 2019 was $38,064,766. 2019 2020 2021 $38,064,766 TBD TBD CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS PAGE 35 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 2018 has been uploaded and data from 2019 will be uploaded in 2020. STREETS Goal: Complete and deliver record plan drawings from the past five years of projects in 2018. Status: Completed. Staff has received and updated record plans from all 2018 projects. Goal: Dedicate engineering and public works staff time to inflow and infiltration (I and I) investigation. Status: In progress. Suspected infiltration areas have been investigated by staff and projects to reduce I and I have been identified for 2020. STREETS Goal: Increase Pavement Rating Index for city roads over the next five years, while maintaining an average of 70 or higher. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 75 76 76 76 TBD Status: On track. It is anticipated that the city’s Pavement Rating Index will continue to increase after completion of the 2020 infrastructure and maintenance projects. Goal: Update pavement management plan annually over the next five years. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TBD Status: On track. A 10-year pavement management plan was created in 2016. The plan extends through 2027 and is updated annually. RECREATION Goal: Increase overall program registrations from 2018 by 3% for 2019. 2018 2019 7,366 7,094 Status: Not completed. Registrations decreased by 3.69% due in large part to there not being a national dance competition. PARKS Goal: Replace minimum of one playground structure per year over the next five years. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 1 1 1 1 TBD Status: On track. In 2016, the playground at Northwood Park was replaced. The playground structure at Fred Sims Park was replaced in 2017. In 2018, the playground at Sunnyside Park was replaced. Jaycee Park was replaced in 2019. CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS PAGE 36 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) Goal: Facilitate the construction or renovation of an average of four scattered site single-family homes per year between 2019 and 2021. SPECIAL REVENUE FUND 2019 2020 2021 3 TBD TBD Status: In progress. Staff has developed a proactive approach to engage potential sellers of distressed and/or functionally obsolete properties in an effort to secure purchase contracts before homes are offered on the open market. In 2019, three EDA projects were completed, with new homes being sold to private owners. This included demolition and rebuild projects at 7215 62nd Avenue North and 7311 62nd Avenue North and new construction at 3856 Maryland Avenue North, parkland that was previously owner by the city of Crystal. In 2019 the EDA also sold the lot at 5201 Oregon Avenue North to a builder, approved a proposal for two new homes on EDA-owned lots at 5353 and 5355 Oregon Avenue North, and approved a rehabilitation contract for the EDA- owned home at 3924 Utah Avenue North. Projects will be included in the count upon completion and sale of the home. Since the scattered site housing program was re-instituted in 2014, the acquisition of distressed single-family homes and vacant lots has resulted in the construction or rehabilitation of 22 homes (some currently in progress). Goal: Attract at least 10 new businesses per year over the next five years. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 31 26 17 26 TBD Status: On track. The city has attracted an average of 25 new businesses per year between 2016 and 2019. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Goal: Maintain 80% or greater recycling participation rate over the next five years. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 92%92.5%91.2%92.4%TBD Status: On track. The city achieved a 92% recycling participation rate in 2016, a 92.5% rate in 2017, a 91.2% rate in 2018, and a 92.4% participation rate in 2019, for an average of 92.03%. The participation rate includes all residential properties, up to eight units, located in the city. Goal: Average 450 pounds recycled per household per year over the next five years. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 592 pounds 519.6 pounds 564.2 pounds 430.5 pounds TBD Status: On track. The city has averaged 526.6 pounds of material recycled between 2016 and 2019. CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS PAGE 37 PARK INFRASTRUCTURE Goal: Increase levy by 3% per year over the next five years to increase funds available for park improvements. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $304,880 $314,026 $323,450 $333,150 $349,800 TBD Status: On track. The park infrastructure levy increased by at least 3% each of the last four years. An additional $100,000 has been levied for the ice arena each of the last three years, for a total of $300,000. STREET INFRASTRUCTURE Goal: Reconstruct or mill and overlay streets as proposed in five-year Capital Improvement Plan. Status: In progress. A total of 0.5 miles were fully reconstructed and 9.5 miles were crack filled, seal coated, and fog sealed in 2019, for a total of 10 miles of improved streets. Goal: Increase resident awareness of projects in the next five years. Status: In progress. Construction websites have been maintained for all major construction and infrastructure projects in the city, including live updates for seal coat/fog seal activities that impact resident traffic. CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS PAGE 38 SANITARY SEWER Goal: Clean all city sewers at least every four years. ENTERPRISE FUNDS 2016 2017 2018 2019 24 miles 17 miles 21 miles 22.5 miles Status: Completed. City staff cleaned 22.5 of the city’s 70 miles of sewer in 2019, as scheduled. Staff created new sewer maps so that maintenance workers can view progress towards sewer cleaning completion goals. Goal: Implement inflow and infiltration program for private residences in the next five years. Status: In progress. Public works and engineering staff are working on a study with Metropolitan Council and other partners to target specific infiltration areas for effective educational campaigns. Target areas have been identified as projects in 2020. Goal: Implement two-year sewer lining contracts and increase feet per year installed of lining. Status: On track. City and engineering staff are studying infiltration patterns to increase the effectiveness of sewer lining in targeted areas. It is unlikely the 2019 project area will be known until this study is completed. Due to the timing of the study, staff will likely need to bid the 2019 project without knowing the 2020 lining area. WATER Goal: Continue involvement with Joint Water Commission (JWC) water supply system by attending regular meetings in 2019. Status: Completed. Staff attended all JWC meetings in 2019. Goal: Exercise 10% of water valves annually over the next five years. Status: Not completed. The city exercised 118 of its 1,118 water valves, or 10.6%, in 2018. It exercised 64 of its valves, or 5.7%. in 2019. Staff originally intended to exercise 10% of valves per year, but the goal was reduced to 5% in 2019. Staff will be required to split time between efforts to exercise valves and cataloging residential service valves. 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 10.6%5.7%TBD TBD TBD STORM WATER Goal: Improve water quality in Northwood Lake in the next five years. Status: In progress. In 2019 Bassett Creek Watershed evaluated Northwood Lake for a variety of environmental indicators. Phosphorus, chlorophyll, and water clarity improved from the last measurements taken in 2017. 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. Public systems have been entered and cataloging of private systems will be completed in 2020. Goal: Improve water quality in both the Shingle Creek and Bassett Creek watershed districts. Status: In progress. Projects were implemented in both watershed districts in 2019. Goal: Locate and catalog 20% of all residential service valves annually over the next five years. Status: New for 2020. When digitizing Public Works records, staff discovered that many property files do not have accurate information regarding the location of the water shut off valve to the home. CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS PAGE 39 STREET LIGHTING Goal: Replace aging city-owned lighting infrastructure on 42nd Avenue and convert to LED in 2018. Status: Completed. The lights along 42nd Avenue were replaced in 2019. Goal: Conduct improvements with the county at the signal lighting system at Boone and 42nd avenues. Status: In progress. The lighting system is scheduled to be replaced in the spring of 2021. GOLF COURSE ICE ARENA Goal: Increase number of golf rounds purchased in 2018 by 3% per year from 2019-2021. Status: Not completed. The number of rounds purchased decreased by 5.41% between 2018 and 2019. 2018 2019 2020 2021 17,800 16,837 TBD TBD Goal: Increase ice hours rented in 2018 by 2% for 2019. 2018 2019 4,151 4,202 Status: Not completed. The number of ice hours rented increased by 1.23% between 2018 and 2019. Goal: Increase open skating attendance in 2018 by 5% for 2019. 2018 2019 2,204 2,594 Status: Completed. Open skating attendance increased by 17.7% between 2018 and 2019. CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS PAGE 40 CENTRAL GARAGE INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Goal: Evaluate goals and needs for potential central garage expansion in 2018. Status: In progress. Engineering and design of the expansion began in the spring of 2019. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Goal: Recycle 25% of desktop/laptop computers each year in conjunction with the four-year replacement schedule. 2016 2017 2018 2019 24%27.5%24%26.4% Status: Not completed. Staff replaced 23 of the 96 city-owned computers in 2016, one short of meeting the 25% replacement goal. The city added two computers to its fleet in 2017 and replaced 27 of the 98 machines. In 2018, staff replaced 24 of the 99 city-owned computers. Goal: Recycle 20% of desktop/laptop computers each year in conjunction with the five-year replacement schedule. Status: New for 2020. I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2020\Work Sessions\9-21-20 Economic Development Report\11.4 WS - Economic Development Report 09-21-20.docx Request for Action September 21, 2020 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: Community Development By: Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist; Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development Agenda Title Update on Economic Development Report Requested Action Staff requests to present the 2020 Economic Development Report and authorization to publish the report on the city’s website. Policy/Past Practice The city’s Economic Development Authority promotes and facilitates business development and housing redevelopment activities. As part of the city’s ongoing effort to increase its bond rating, staff developed the Economic Development Report and Comprehensive Financial Management Plan in 2016. In 2017, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) recognized these efforts by improving the city’s “Management” score from “Strong” to “Very Strong,” which is the highest value assigned by S&P for this portion of the rating, but the overall bond rating did not change. According to S&P, if the city’s economic indicators improve to a level commensurate with higher rated peers and the debt profile improves, a higher rating is possible. The economic indicators used by S&P include per capita income in the city relative to the nation and the market value of property in the city on a per capita basis. While these factors are largely outside the city’s control, continued redevelopment efforts can help contribute to movement on these measures. The city’s bonds remained stable at “AA” in 2018, 2019, and 2020, signifying that the city has very strong capacity to meet its financial commitments and is just two rankings below the highest-rated AAA issuers. Background In 2015, the city sold $10 million in bank-qualified bonds for the City Center infrastructure/streetscape improvements and the 2016 Northwood South infrastructure improvements. Two bond rating reports were completed by S&P, both of which reaffirmed the city’s long-term AA/stable rating. The report indicated that if the city were able to improve its debt and contingent liability score and demonstrate and sustain improved economic indicators, the rating could be raised, which w ould be helpful in issuing additional debt in the future. In 2016, the city set a SMART goal of improving its bond rating from AA to AA+ by 2020. The city’s financial consultant, Abdo, Eick & Meyers (AEM), recommended that the city attempt to increase its bond rating by implementing a formalized debt management policy and by creating an Economic Development Report. AEM produced a Comprehensive Financial Management Plan, which incorporates a debt management plan, and city staff developed the Economic Development Report. The Economic Development Report highlights redevelopment projects throughout the city from the previous year and the tools that are in place to promote development activity. The report was also utilized in 2017, when bonds were issued for the new police station/city hall construction project and in 2019, when bonds were issued for the swimming pool complex. Although the city did not reach its goal of improving its bond rating to AA+ by 2020, implementation of the debt management policy and continued publication of the Economic Development Report will assist in efforts to improve that rating the next time the city issues bonds. Agenda Section Work Session Item Number 11.4 Request for Action, Page 2 The following updates have been made to the 2020 Economic Development Report: Business & Assistance Programs  Added information on Hennepin County loan program  Added 2019 update for Open to Business  Added 2019 data for new businesses  Updated list of major employers Planning & Development  Added 2019 permit count, fees collected, and valuation data and updated graph  Added and updated narratives and photos for major development projects Housing  Added 2019 CEE loan data  Added information on Hennepin County loan program and 2015-2019 loan data  Added 2019 scattered site housing data, photos, and graph  Added 2019 property value data and updated graph  Added 2019 median household value data and updated graph Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council accept the 2020 Economic Development Report and authorize publication of the report on the city’s website. Attachments  Economic Development Report (September 1, 2020) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 The New Hope Economic Development Report highlights redevelopment projects throughout the city from the previous year and the tools that are in place to promote development activity. The city’s Economic Development Authority promotes and facilitates business development and housing redevelopment activities. OVERVIEW & HISTORY CITY OF NEW HOPE OVERVIEW & HISTORY LOCATION The city of New Hope is a suburb located northwest of Minneapolis with strong neighborhoods, an abundance of parks and recreational opportunities, excellent schools, and great shopping nearby. The city has easy access to the entire Twin Cities area with major arterials of Highway 169, Highway 100, Interstate 694, and Interstate 394 all nearby. POPULATION (2010 CENSUS)SIZE/AREA YEAR FORMED 20,339 5.1 square miles 1953 BUSINESSES JOBS SHOPPING CENTERS 480 11,080 5 SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOLS PARKS/ACREAGE Robbinsdale Area (281)5 18/200 HISTORY In the early 1900s, New Hope was a farming-rich community. The area was settled as part of Crystal Lake Township and became the home for many family farms. As housing developments spread west from Minneapolis in the 1930s, the residents of Crystal Lake Township began the movement to incorporate the township. In 1936, the city of Crystal was incorporated. Forming a city, though, was not supported by all residents in the township. The rural residents in the western half of the township broke away from the city of Crystal and formed their own township. The resistant residents, mostly farmers, were unhappy about paying taxes for projects such as street lighting and sanitary sewer. The name the farmers selected for their new township was a reflection of the time, New Hope. Many residents along the New Hope-Crystal border formed groups and requested to be annexed by Crystal in order to receive what were the most modern city services at the time. Others, however, were happy to be part of New Hope township and remained separate from Crystal. Therefore, pockets of New Hope residents were created along the eastern boundary. By the early 1950s, the rapidly developing township of New Hope chose the fate it had eluded just over 15 years earlier. In 1953, New Hope incorporated as a city to prevent losing more of its land and residents to Crystal via annexation. This move was again opposed by the farming community of New Hope, but housing developments between 1936 and 1953 had made farmers a minority in New Hope. When the township was incorporated, it had 600 residents. The city grew rapidly and was home to over 2,500 people by 1958. This rapid population growth continued through the 1960s, and by 1971, there were 24,000 residents in New Hope. The population of the community has declined slightly since 1971. PAGE 2 SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT The city of New Hope’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) promotes and facilitates business development activities. It considers proposals on a case-by-case basis and utilizes a broad base of public financing options. Membership of the EDA is identical to that of the New Hope City Council. Council members are appointed to the commission for terms concurrent with the City Council terms and the mayor acts as president of the authority. The city manager serves as the executive director. The city employs various resources to help businesses grow and reach their goals. BUSINESSES & ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Local commercial and industrial businesses are extremely important to the city. The City Council has undertaken programs and initiatives to address both commercial and industrial properties. These programs focus on: • Retaining existing businesses. • Assisting with expansions. • Attracting new businesses to vacant available buildings. • Attracting new construction to a limited number of available vacant sites. • Improving communication with businesses and responding more effectively to business concerns and inquiries. BUSINESS SUBSIDY PROGRAM The city’s business subsidy program addresses policies related to the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF), tax abatement, and other business assistance programs for private development. It serves as a guide in reviewing applications requesting business assistance. All projects must meet mandatory minimum approval criteria and the level of assistance is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Assistance can cover project costs as allowed for under Minnesota Statutes. The EDA considers using a business assistance tool to assist private developments in circumstances in which the proposed private project meets one of the following uses: • Provides a diversity of housing not currently provided by the private market. • Provides a variety of housing ownership alternatives and housing choices. • Promotes affordable housing for low- or moderate-income individuals. • Promotes neighborhood stabilization and revitalization by the removal of blight and the upgrading in existing housing stock in residential areas. • Removes blight and encourages redevelopment in the commercial and industrial areas of the city in order to encourage high levels of property maintenance and private reinvestment in those areas; including façade improvement. • Increases the tax base of the city to ensure the long-term ability of the city to provide adequate services for its residents, while lessening the reliance on residential property tax. • Retains local jobs, increases the local job base, and provides diversity in that job base. • Increases the local business and industrial market potential of the city. • Encourages additional unsubsidized private development in the area, either directly or through secondary “spinoff” development. • Offsets increased costs of redevelopment over and above the costs that a developer would incur in normal development. • Accelerates the development process and achieves development on sites that would not be developed without this assistance. PAGE 3 CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT PAGE 4 LOAN PROGRAMS The city has partnered with the lending center at the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) to offer a convenient one-stop service that provides commercial and non-profit property owners in New Hope access to a comprehensive array of financing and rehabilitation services. The CEE Loan Program provides financing to New Hope businesses making cost-effective, energy efficiency improvements. Nonprofit organizations that are interested in reducing their energy costs are eligible to apply for funds through the CEE to help finance energy-efficient projects implemented in properties owned and/or occupied by nonprofit entities. Deferred home repair loans are also available to residents of New Hope through Hennepin County. Loans that address basic safety, maintenance, and health concerns, as well as home improvements are offered at 0% interest and deferred until the sale of the home, or forgiven after 15 years. OUTSTANDING BUSINESS AWARD PROGRAM The city’s Outstanding Business Award Program was initiated in 2006 to recognize contributions by businesses to the local community. The purpose of the award program is to recognize businesses for noteworthy accomplishments such as expanding or improving a building or property, creating new jobs for New Hope residents, reaching a milestone year in business, or providing outstanding community service. Nominations are accepted quarterly for the award. BUSINESS NETWORKING GROUP The New Hope Business Networking Group was started by New Hope business owners in 2010 to create an open forum for networking within the city. The group is open and free to all New Hope business owners. The Business Networking Group meets regularly at one of the participating businesses. The city is also a long-time member of the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce. OPEN TO BUSINESS Open to Business is a partnership between New Hope and the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD), an association of nonprofit community development organizations serving the Twin Cities. With the help of a matching grant from Hennepin County, the city works with MCCD to provide business consultation services and financial advice to small local business owners and aspiring business owners. The program offers help in several areas, including: • Business plan assistance • Financial management • Bookkeeping set-up and training • Loan packaging • Real estate analysis • Marketing assistance • Strategic planning • Professional referrals Entrepreneurs can meet with a business advisor one-on-one at New Hope City Hall by scheduling an appointment. Open to Business facilitated one loan of $105,000 and one credit building loan of $240 in 2013, one credit building loan of $240 in 2014, one direct loan of $12,035 in 2016, and two direct loans of $100,000 and $25,000 leveraging over $1,000,000 in outside capital in 2017. In 2018, one loan for $240 was facilitated and approved through the program. Open to Business provided services for three new businesses and one existing business in 2019. CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT PAGE 5 EMPLOYMENT There are approximately 480 commercial/industrial/service businesses in the city, 17 of which opened in 2018 and 26 of which opened in 2019. These businesses account for approximately 10,360 jobs in the city. The city’s 15 largest employers, which are listed below, account for nearly 4,900 of those jobs. MAJOR EMPLOYERS Employer Products/Services New Hope-Based Employees (Total Employees) Independent School District 281 Education 791 (1,852) Hy-Vee Grocery & convenience store 632 Minnesota Masonic Home/ North Ridge Care Center Skilled nursing care facility 560 St. Therese Home of New Hope Skilled nursing care facility 544 (1,117) Horwitz Mechanical contractor 345 Perrigo Pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing 323 Intermediate District 287 Education 266 (943) City of New Hope Government agency 262 including seasonal staff YMCA Health club 228 Liberty Diversified International Stationery supplies 200 Parker - Hannifin Oildyne Division Hydraulic component production 172 Dakota Growers Pasta Company Macaroni & spaghetti 159 Waymouth Farms, Inc.Salted & roasted nuts & seeds 150 Good Samaritan Society Skilled nursing care facility 136 Avtec Warehousing & metal finishing 102 CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT PAGE 6 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT The city continues to see sustained growth and development as major redevelopment projects come to fruition. Overall development activity has increased steadily since 2012 and the city anticipates that growth will continue over the next several years. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY From 2015-2019, $228,853,933 of reinvestment was approved in the city through construction permits. The city is striving to increase momentum to continually increase the tax base, while providing the highest level of services to residents, businesses, and property owners. Building permits for the construction of a new city center aquatic center and community theater were issued in 2019, accounting for nearly $18 million of the $38 million in work for the year. The large increase in valuation of work in 2017 can be attributed to IronWood, a 182-unit luxury apartment project valued at $43 million. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY BY YEAR 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Permits issued 2,169 2,607 2,652 2,441 2,459 Fees collected $512,461 $602,391 $867,289 $506,883 $452,267 Valuation of work $33,976,062 $37,740,765 $71,895,249 $46,952,876 $38,288,981 VALUATION OF WORK 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 $80,000,000 CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT PAGE 7 The following planning and development activities occurred in the last year: IronWood Alatus, LLC constructed a four-story, 182-unit luxury apartment building on the site previously owned by the city, adjacent to the New Hope Village Golf Course. The city completed a market feasibility study in the spring of 2015 to determine what type of redevelopment was best suited for the site and concluded that luxury apartments were the most viable option. The final plat and vacation of easements for the project were approved in February 2017 and construction of the $43 million building began in the summer of 2017. Residents began moving into the building in early 2019. Amenities include a pool deck, an indoor/outdoor entertainment suite, work-from- home spaces, create space/do-it-yourself workshops, panoramic views of the New Hope Village Golf Course, a fitness center, studio, an indoor sauna, a resident coffee bar, and a pet spa. The city created a redevelopment Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district in conjunction with the project that authorized the expenditures for land/building acquisition, site improvements and preparation, utilities, administrative costs, and other qualifying improvements. In 2007, the city purchased five, 12-unit buildings. With land acquisition, relocation costs, and demolition, the city invested nearly $2.2 million into the project. In 2017, the city sold the property to Alatus, LLC to facilitate the construction of the building for $1.443 million. The TIF district allows the city to recoup the land write-down costs and administrative fees associated with the development. Windsor Ridge SVK is constructing 32 new single-family homes on an 8.7-acre undeveloped site that was owned by the city for many years. In the fall of 2018, the city received six proposals from four developers for the site. After careful consideration, SVK was selected as the preferred developer for the site. SVK is in the process of developing 32 new single- family homes on 65-foot wide lots. The estimated sales prices for the homes range from the mid- $300,000’s to the low $400,000’s. At the end of 2019, eight homes were under construction or completed. SVK anticipates that the project will be completed in 2021. The city of Crystal is also working with another builder to develop 3 lots east of project. IRON HORSE PARK CITY OF CRYSTAL CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT PAGE 8 Police Department & City Hall A new police department and city hall for the city of New Hope was completed in 2019. The City Council approved a bid from Terra General Contractors for $14.78 million in December of 2017 for the new building. The sale of $18.435 in general obligation capital improvement plan bonds at the interest rate of 2.6339% was also approved to pay for project. The city began working with a consultant in 2013 to review the space needs of the police department and city hall, identify deficiencies of the existing building, and determine if an updated and expanded or new police station and city hall facility was needed. In September 2015, a space needs citizen’s task force recommended that a new police station and city hall be constructed to replace the existing facility. The task force evaluated several potential sites for the building and considered soil boring information. In September 2016, the task force recommended that the new municipal building be constructed on the civic center site where the existing swimming pool is located, due to the fact that the pool also needed to be replaced. In January 2017, the city entered into a five-phase contract for design and construction services with Wold Architects and Engineers for the new police station and city hall. In August 2017, the City Council approved design development phase plans and authorized Wold to proceed to the next phase of the design process – the preparation of construction documents. A groundbreaking for the building took place on January 5, 2018, and the building was substantially completed in July 2019. The new 66,000-square foot building provides much needed space for the police department and addresses many deficiencies of the previous city hall. It has more than twice the square footage of the previous building, most of which is in the police station/garage and public areas in city hall. It also resolved deficiencies of the previous building, such as a leaky roof, an HVAC system in poor condition, an inadequate electrical system, and exterior maintenance issues. The new police station includes a larger lobby with adequate seating and two adjacent interview rooms to provide privacy for victims, as well as a secure location to talk with suspects. It includes improved facilities for officers such as a larger roll call room equipped with technology, individual workstations, and ample locker room facilities. There are larger, more secure areas for the storage of evidence and records, and a 31-stall underground heated garage large enough to store all police squads. The new city hall provides additional public space, including two large meeting rooms equipped with technology and designed to adapt to a variety of uses, and two small conference rooms between three staff counters. The council chambers has been specifically designed to televise meetings and accommodate overflow crowds. Now Mart A 5,060-square foot gas station and convenience store opened in December 2018 and a 3,780-square foot car wash opened in August of 2019 at 7201 Bass Lake Road. The $8.471 million project replaced a previously underutilized retail building. The development includes several environmentally conscious improvements, including a stormwater collection system that retains all rainwater onsite and re-uses it for the car wash. A filtration system recycles and reuses water that is used by the car wash. CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT PAGE 9 Automotive Concepts In September of 2019, the New Hope City Council approved a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) contract for Automotive Concepts, located at 2919 Nevada Avenue North, to facilitate the construction of a 22,500 square foot building. Automotive Concepts specializes in vehicles customization, and the new building will serve as their “clean” facility, focusing on body work, and installation of tires and wheels, etc. The owner of the business anticipates the building will add about 35 new jobs. The TIF agreement would pay the developer $150,000 over the next nine years at an interest rate of 4.45%. The start of the project was delayed due to changing economic conditions. Cooper High School A $7.38 million renovation project was completed at Cooper High School in the summer of 2019. The project included substantial improvements to the school’s main entrance and the auditorium. The façade on the main entrance was replaced with more glass and the interior was reconfigured to improve security within the building. The theater and auditorium were also remodeled. The project was completed in the summer of 2020. CubeSmart Self Storage The previously vacant industrial building at 3216 Winnetka Avenue North was converted into a CubeSmart self-storage facility between 2018 and 2019. The $3.758 million project included a 23,000- square foot addition to the second floor at the southwest corner of the building. Building improvements included several exterior modifications and improvements, including the second floor addition, fresh paint on the existing building, new roofing, additional windows, parking area improvements, and a new outdoor storage area. The facility opened to the public in March of 2019, and includes around 800 storage units that are available for rent. Hy-Vee Aisles Online A 960-square foot drive-through kiosk with three drive-through grocery pick-up lanes was approved for construction in the Hy-Vee parking lot at 8200 42nd Avenue North in July 2019. The structure includes an overhead canopy and new curbing and landscaping around the building. The $550,000 addition is intended to reduce congestion and streamline the pick-up process for customers who purchase groceries online. The start of the project was delayed due to changing economic conditions. CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT PAGE 10 Holy Trinity Church Holy Trinity Church received approval in October 2018 to expand their school and daycare center at 4240 Gettysburg Avenue North by approximately 11,123 square feet with a second floor-addition over the existing school area. The addition adds more classrooms, a large playroom for students, and upgrades to the childcare center. The private school in New Hope has an infant through preschool program and a kindergarten through eighth grade school. The $1.85 million project also included a 1,140 square foot expansion of the main floor entryway. The expansion was completed in the fall of 2019. Arizona Taco Co. Arizona Taco Co. opened at 9428 36th Avenue North in September of 2019. It is located in the Post Haste Shopping Center at 36th Avenue North & Highway 169. After his first visit to Minnesota, Chef Ernie Mejia decided to relocate from Arizona and open an authentic taco restaurant in New Hope. He is “committed to bringing the authenticity of Arizona’s taco culture to Minnesota.” Approximately $130,000 was invested into the restaurant build-out, which features indoor seating and take-out options. AbelConn, LLC The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) approved a $100,000 Minnesota Investment Fund loan for AbelConn, LLC, in 2019. The business is located at 9210 Science Center Drive and has operated in New Hope since 1961. The loan was intended to help in completing approximately $860,000 in leasehold improvements to the building to accommodate 16 new jobs. AbelConn, LLC specializes in chassis, board, and component design for electronics used in the aviation and military industries. One criteria of the loan was that a local municipality sponsor the request by holding a public hearing and adopting a resolution of support. The city was to act as a pass through entity for the loan. A stipulation of loan being forgiven required the business to meet job creation and wage commitment goals within two years. The start of the project and issuance of the loan was delayed due to concerns about ceiling height and space limitations at the building. CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT PAGE 11 HOUSING LOAN PROGRAMS Loans and financing for home improvement projects are available to residents of New Hope through the Center for Energy and Environment and Hennepin County. Center for Energy and Environment The city has partnered with the lending center at the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) to offer a convenient one-stop service that provides residential property owners in New Hope access to a comprehensive array of financing and rehabilitation services. The Home Improvement Loan Program encourages and supports the preservation of existing housing by providing loans to improve the basic livability and/or energy-efficiency of the borrower’s home. The Low Interest Loan Program provides loans and funds to homeowners to make improvements to their properties. An emergency deferred loan is also available for homeowners that have emergency improvement needs but do not qualify for other home improvement loan or grant programs. The program is funded with Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds. The following loans/subsidies/leveraged funds have been issued to New Hope residents through CEE since 2015: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Loans/Subsidies/ Leveraged Funds 4 5 9 4 4 Amount $40,693 $46,096 $78,682 $71,438 $68,091 Hennepin County Hennepin County’s Home Rehab Program enables income-qualified residents to request loans that address basic safety, maintenance, and health concerns, as well as home improvements. Loans up to $30,000 at 0% interest are available to residents of New Hope. No monthly payments are required and the loans may be forgiven after 15 years if residents continue to live in and own their home. The program is funded with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds allocated to Hennepin County through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The following loans have been issued to New Hope residents through Hennepin County since 2015: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Loans 1 1 1 1 1 Amount $30,000 $30,000 $6,840 $12,600 $28,965 CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT PAGE 12 SCATTERED SITE HOUSING Over the years, the city has utilized its Economic Development Authority (EDA) to acquire several properties as part of the Scattered Site Housing Program. The primary focus of the program is to target distressed single-family properties throughout the city, with the goal of improving residential neighborhoods. The program currently emphasizes two primary activities: demolition and rehabilitation. When homes are demolished, the vacant lot is sold to a builder for the construction of a new single-family home. Homes that are rehabilitated are sold on the open market with no income restrictions. The following scattered site housing projects were completed and sold over the last year: Address Previously Assessed Value Sale Price Percent Increase Project Type 7215 62nd Ave N $125,000 $350,821 181%Demolition 7311 62nd Ave N $118,000 $319,900 171%Demolition 3856 Maryland Ave N $0 (park land)$413,921 N/A New construction SCATTERED SITE HOUSING PROJECTS 7215 62nd Ave N 3856 Maryland Ave N $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 Previously Assessed Value Sale Price $450,000 7311 62nd Ave N CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT PAGE 13 7311 62nd Ave N - Before 7311 62nd Ave N - After 3856 Maryland Ave N - Before 3856 Maryland Ave N - After 7215 62nd Ave N - Before 7215 62nd Ave N - After SCATTERED SITE HOUSING In addition to these completed projects, there are eight other scattered site homes under construction or projects in progress as of when this report was published. Homes sold in 2020 will be showcased in the 2021 Economic Development Report. • Demolition and rebuild at 5201 Oregon Avenue North (new home sold for $408,320 in 2020). • Rehabilitation at 3924 Utah Avenue North (rehabilitated home sold for $375,000 in 2020). • Demolition, lot split, and rebuild at 5353 Oregon Avenue North (two new homes under construction and projected to sell for $365,000 and $375,000). • Demolition and rebuild at 6027 West Broadway (new home under construction and projected to sell for $343,298). • Demolition and rebuild at 4215 Louisiana Avenue North (selecting builder). • Demolition and rebuild at 7227 62nd Avenue North (Purchase Agreement signed). • Rehabilitation with Habitat for Humanity (selecting property). CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT PAGE 14 PROPERTY VALUES 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Taxable market value $1,430,939,117 $1,535,054,114 $1,697,092,365 $1,831,436,951 $2,021,382,123 Percent change 7.23%7.28%10.56%7.92%10.37% PROPERTY VALUES 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $300,000,000 $600,000,000 $900,000,000 $1,200,000,000 $1,500,000,000 $1,800,000,000 $2,100,000,000 CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT PAGE 15 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD VALUES 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Median Household Value $188,500 $196,000 $213,000 $229,000 $244,000 Percent change 4.72%3.98%8.67%7.51%6.55% HOUSEHOLD VALUE 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $35,000 $70,000 $105,000 $140,000 $175,000 $210,000 $245,000 I:\RFA\City Manager\2020\FEMA and CARES Funding\11.5 - Q FEMA and CARES Act Funding.docx Request for Action September 21, 2020 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Title Discuss FEMA and CARES Act Funding for COVID-19 Pandemic Expenses Requested Action Staff requests that the City Council discuss Federal Emergency Management Assistance (FEMA) and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act or Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) Act funding for COVID-19 pandemic expenses with AEM. The city needs to develop a plan regarding how the funds will be spent and the plan needs to be formally approved at a future council meetin g. Policy/Past Practice The City Council provides direction to city staff regarding how funds acquired by the city should be expended within the parameters of the regulations and guidelines provided. The city has not experienced a pandemic in the past and the continuity of city operations during this event has presented challenges and some additional expenditures not anticipated when the 2020 budget was approved in December, 2019. Background The city is eligible for two types of funding reimbursements from federal agencies/programs: 1) FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Assistance), and 2) CARES Act funding or CRF (Coronavirus Relief Fund). Both programs have detailed regulations and reimbursement guidelines and require a significant amount of staff/consultant time to compile the appropriate documentation for submittal. The CRF funding requires that the city formally approve a plan regarding how the funds are spent and a reimbursement request has not been submitted to date. FEMA reimbursement requests do not require formal council approval and are more routine in nature. FEMA – AEM recently submitted a reimbursement request to FEMA in the amount of $16,258. The items included in the request include personal protective equipment such as masks and gloves, hand sanitizer, plexiglass dividers, three glass barrier partitions installed at front service counters, disinfectant, “parks closed” signage, communications with public expenses, portable bathroom cleaning expenses, etc. FEMA will reimburse up to 75% of these expenses; the other 25% is eligible to be covered under the CRF funds. Additional FEMA reimbursement requests will be submitted in the future. West Metro Fire is also submitting FEMA reimbursement requests to cover PPE and duty crew costs. CARES Act/CRF – Per the attached listing from Metro Cities, New Hope has received a $1,641,664 distribution from the office of Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) for eligible costs related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The city needs to document expenses, develop a plan and have it approved by the City Council to seek reimbursement. There are a number of detailed regulations and guidelines regarding how the funds can be expended/distributed and they have changed on a frequent basis over the course of the summer. Interpretations and clarifications on the guidelines have been sought from the League of Minnesota Cities, Agenda Section Work Session Item Number 11.5 Request for Action, Page 2 Metro Cities, Government Finance Officers Association, AEM, the city attorney and MMKR to try and insure the funds are allocated appropriately. Several of the guideline documents are attached for informational purposes. AEM/Management Team Plan Attached is a draft CARES allocation plan prepared by AEM with input from the management team that will be reviewed with the City Council. The general priorities of the plan are as follows:  Reimbursement of public safety costs (law enforcement and fire);  Management planning and response costs;  Unemployment costs;  Technology upgrades to accommodate virtual meetings and social distancing requirements;  Building and personal safety costs including signage, disinfection, glass partitions at counters and for elections, masks, sanitizer, etc. AEM is confident that the entire CARES allocation can be utilized/accounted for with the expenses incurred in the above categories. MMKR AEM has been in communication with MMKR regarding the proposed allocation plan to confirm they are in agreement, as a single audit for the receipt of federal funding is required (see attached correspondence). The cost of the single audit can be reimbursed with CARES funding. AEM Change Order Due to all the extra work associated with the FEMA and CARES funding, in addition to the regular contract duties, AEM has submitted the attached change order to their contract. AEM has spent a con siderable amount of time working with department heads, the finance department and West Metro Fire District on eligible expenses, consultation, project accounting and determining the application of the state and federal funding. They are also submitting monthly and quarterly reports until the grant applications are closed out and will be providing additional support for the single audit. The costs associated with the change order are reimbursable with CARES funding. Staff recommends that the change order be placed on a council meeting agenda for formal action. School District/Non-Profit Requests The city has recently received two requests for CARES funding donations: A.) District 281 The Seven Dreams Foundation is seeking funding for additional “hotspots” to facilitate distance learning and they are making requests to New Hope, Crystal and Robbinsdale (see attached information). B.) YMCA The New Hope YMCA has submitted the attached correspondence requesting $80,000 in CARES funds to support the services they are providing during the pandemic. Per AEM, it is not yet clear whether the city can directly allocate funds for these purposes, but staff wanted to get council feedback on the requests. Some cities have also developed business grant programs to assist local businesses. Staff is concerned that a business grant program would require a considerable amount of staff Request for Action, Page 3 administrative time and some New Hope businesses have already received funding from state and county programs (see attached list). Summary Staff is seeking Council feedback on the CARES allocation plan and AEM’s change order and will place the plan on a future council agenda for formal approval. Attachments  FEMA Reimbursement Guidelines  CARES/CRF Funding Amounts  Draft CARES Allocation Plan  MMKR Correspondence  AEM Change Order  District 281/YMCA/Business Grants  U.S. Treasury Frequently Asked Questions  Minnesota COVID-19 Frequently Asked Questions I:\RFA\City Manager\2020\Budget 2021\WS 092120\11.6 - Q Budget 2020 09.21.20.docx Request for Action September 21, 2020 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Title Discussion of 2021 general fund budgets with city manager and department heads Requested Action Staff requests that the City Council conduct a discussion with the department heads and city manager regarding 2021 general fund budget requests. Representatives from AEM will also be in attendance. Please bring your budget workbooks to the meeting for reference. Policy/Past Practice It has been the general policy/past practice of the Council to continue review of the general fund budget after adoption of the preliminary maximum levy to determine whether further adjustments are needed prior to the budget public hearing in December. Background The City Council adopted resolutions at the September 14 council meeting establishing a maximum 2021 property tax levy and adopting a proposed 2021 tax-supported budget. The purpose of this work session discussion is for the City Council and city manager/department heads to have a dialogue about the 2021 general fund departmental budgets, to highlight major projects or changes planned for 2021 and to respond to any questions from Council. Enterprise and utility fund budgets (sewer/water/storm water/street lights/recycling/golf course/ice arena) will be reviewed and discussed at the October 19 work session. The past several years’ discussions among the City Council and staff have been very productive. Specific budgets to be discussed at this work session include: City Manager/City Clerk  Mayor and Council Staff is requesting that the Council have a brief discussion regarding council salaries and provide direction to staff. In 2018, the Council made changes in the council’s compensation for 2019 and 2020. The increase was 3% each year and was consistent with the approved cost of living increase for employees. The 2021 budget includes a 3% increase in council salaries and an ordinance change must be approved and published prior to the November 3, 2020 General Election for the change to be effective. Please see attached memo from the city clerk provided at the June 16 work session for more information and salary comparisons.  City Manager  Assessing  City Hall  Elections  Fire Services Agenda Section Work Session Item Number 11.6 Request for Action, Page 2 I:\RFA\City Manager\2020\Budget 2021\WS 092120\11.6 - Q Budget 2020 09.21.20.docx Human Resources/Administrative Services  Human Resources  Finance  Communications  IT Community Development  Planning  Inspections  Legal Services  Economic Development Authority Police Department  Police  Police Reserves  Animal Control Public Works  Streets  Engineering  Street Infrastructure Fund  Central Garage Parks & Recreation  Recreation  Parks  Swimming Pool  Park Infrastructure Fund 2021 Budget The 2021 general fund budget is $15,936,977, which is an increase of $526,427 (3.4%) over the 2020 budget of $15,410,550. The major changes in the budget include:  An increase of $243,524 for wage and benefit increases ($193,013 in police department and $50,511 for other departments); a 3% cost of living adjustment is budgeted for employees along with an increase in the city’s share of health insurance coverage; and a 3% increase in City Council salaries is included in the budget (to be considered in October 2020).  $156,000 is budgeted for phase 1 of police department body and squad camera purchases (phase 2 scheduled for 2022). It is recommended that this cost be funded with a transfer in from the IT reserve fund (utilized for IT purposes including security systems at city facilities) in order to keep the general fund tax levy to a minimum.  There is an increase of $85,288 in the budget for West Metro Fire -Rescue District due to a $54,673 or 4.2% increase in New Hope’s share of the joint powers agreement and a $33,265 increase in central garage charges due to a new replacement charge for the new emergency generator shared between the fire Request for Action, Page 3 I:\RFA\City Manager\2020\Budget 2021\WS 092120\11.6 - Q Budget 2020 09.21.20.docx district and the police station/city hall facility. For 2021 it is recommended that New Hope’s share of the aerial lease payment (51,800) be funded by the general fund instead of a transfer from the Fire Capital Projects fund so that the capital funds can be saved for future major apparatus replacement. The lease payment is included in the joint powers agreement budget.  General fund Central Garage charges increased by $57,427 based on the equipment replacement schedule and include a 100% replacement charge and a portion of the $400,000 building replacement charge for future public works facility improvements. Department allocations were adjusted according to the long-term replacement plan, with some increases and some decreases.  The city is scheduled to receive $865,307 in LGA (local government aid) in 2021, which is an increase of $49,684 over 2020. The revenue will be utilized in the general fund to offset central garage equipment and building replacement charges; it is not used for general operations. The total cost of general fund equipment/building replacement charges in 2021 is $917,949 so LGA does not cover the full amount; approximately $52,642 is needed from other revenue sources.  2021 is not an election year so there is a decrease of approximately $60,000 in the elections budget as compared to the 2020 budget. In 2020 funds were budgeted for three elections (Presidential Primary, Primary, and General). Funds are budgeted for equipment maintenance and postage expenses.  There is a $49,000 increase in the city hall budget due to the new replacement cost for the new generator ($24,000) and increases in utility costs and liability insurance for a larger building ($22,000 and $17,000, respectively); offset by a $14,000 decrease in repairs, furniture/fixtures and postage.  Similar to 2020, in 2021 general fund IT charges will increase approximately $33,000 and are based on the new allocation method implemented in 2020 for indirect charges (number of phones, computers and employees per department), with direct departmental Logis IT costs being allocated to the benefitting department.  There is $99,506 in revenue increases budgeted for an increase in right-of-way and easement fees, franchise fees, and state aid for streets and police pensions.  There is a $60,000 decrease budgeted for police charge outs due to the uncertainty of the school resource officer program. 2021 Tax Levy The tax levy for the general fund is $10,879,465, which is $368,034 or a 3.5% increase over the 2020 general fund levy of $10,511,431. The total tax levy for 2021, including the general fund, street and park infrastructure funds, economic development authority and prior levies for City Center, Northwood South and Northwood North infrastructure bonds, the 2017 police station/city hall facility bonds, and the 2018/2019 pool and park improvement bonds is $17,417,601. This represents a 3.4% or $572,885 increase over the 2020 levy of $16,844,716, which was a 10.08% increase. The total tax levy includes a 5% increase in the street and park infrastructure levies to support the long-term funding plans for street and park improvements. An additional $100,000 has been added to the park infrastructure levy for ice arena debt service and capital improvements (final year of increase), per the funding plan approved by the Council. A $17,000 increase in the EDA levy is recommended to support the scattered site housing program and other redevelopment. Four of the debt bond tax levies are decreasing (2015 City Center, 2015 Northwood South, 2017 City Hall and 2019 Pool and Park) for a total decrease of $7,285. Two of the debt bond tax levies are increasing are increasing (2016 Northwood North and 2018 Pool and Park) for a total increase of $3,674. Overall, the combined debt levies are decreasing by $3,611. Request for Action, Page 4 I:\RFA\City Manager\2020\Budget 2021\WS 092120\11.6 - Q Budget 2020 09.21.20.docx The median home value for taxes payable in 2021 is $257,000, which is a 5.33% increase from the median value home in 2020. At this time the estimated impact on residential homes based on the proposed 3.4% increase in the city tax levy is 2%. For homes valued between $150,000 and $400,000 the tax increase is estimated to be $14 to $43. The city tax rate is projected to decrease from 64.721% in 2020 to 62.471% in 2021. The 2021 budget goals are listed in the preliminary budget binder and are the same goals discussed at the June and August work sessions. Budget discussions will continue in October and November, including discussion regarding cost of living wage adjustments and insurance contributions. A special public hearing meeting for public input will be held on December 7, and a final budget will be presented to the Council for adoption at the December 14 council meeting. Attachment:  Council Salaries Information