101920 Work Session Meeting Packet
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION MEETING
New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Civic Center Conference Room
Monday, October 19, 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 133 995 4576 followed by
the # sign. When prompted for a password, simply press #.
1. CALL TO ORDER – October 19, 2020
2. ROLL CALL
11. UNFINISHED & ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
11.1 Discuss Four Year (2021‐2024) Assessment Services Agreement with Hennepin
County
11.2 Discussion regarding HRG programs/2021 rates and curbside residential organics
recycling
11.3 Discussion regarding the cost of living adjustment (COLA) for non‐represented
employees in 2021 and the city’s monthly contribution towards insurance
coverage for 2021
11.4 Discuss Revised Feasibility Report on 2021 Infrastructure Improvements
Project (Improvement Project No. 1054)
11.5 Community Development Department Update
11.6 Discussion regarding 2021 enterprise and utility fund budgets/discuss 2021 utility
rates
12. OTHER BUSINESS
13. ADJOURNMENT
I:\RFA\City Manager\2020\Assessment Services\WS 101920\11.1 Q Assessment Services Agreement 101920.docx
Request for Action
October 19, 2020
Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Originating Department: City Manager
By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Agenda Title
Discuss Four Year (2021‐2024) Assessment Services Agreement with Hennepin County
Requested Action
Staff requests to discuss the attached four year Assessment Services Agreement with Hennepin County for
years 2021‐2024. Hennepin County Assessor, Jim Atchison will be in attendance at the meeting (virtually) to
answer questions. Staff is recommending that the agreement be placed on the October 26 council agenda for
proposal.
Policy/Past Practice
The city has been contracting with Hennepin County for assessment services since 1974. The existing formal
four‐year agreement expired on July 31, 2020 and a new agreement has been prepared by the county for
another four‐year period from August 1, 2020 until July 31, 2024. The city received the new agreement on
September 12.
Background
The services provided by the agreement include:
1. Physically inspect and revalue 20% of the real property, as required by law.
2. Physically inspect and value all new construction, additions and renovation.
3. Adjust estimated market values on those properties not physically inspected as deemed necessary per
sales ratio analysis.
4. Prepare the initial assessment roll.
5. Print and mail valuation notices.
6. Respond to taxpayers regarding assessment or appraisal problems or inquiries.
7. Conduct valuation reviews prior to Board of Review or Open Book meetings, as determined by the city –
approximate dates: March through May 15.
8. Attend Board of Review or conduct Open Book meeting. Prepare all necessary review appraisals.
Approximate dates: April 1 – May 31.
9. Maintain an updated property file – current values, classification data and characteristic data.
10. Prepare divisions and combinations as required.
11. Administer the abatement process pursuant to Minn. Stat. §375.192.
12. Prepare appraisals; defend and/or negotiate all tax court cases.
13. Provide all computer hardware and software applications necessary to complete contracted services.
14. Process all homestead and special program applications.
The agreement specifies a sum of $165,000 for the 2020/21 assessment and that amount is included in the 2021
budget. The amount may be increased or decreased depending on the estimated cost of appraising new
construction and new parcels. The payment formula is based on the number of commercial, industrial and
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.1
Request for Action, Page 2
residential properties located in the city. Actual bills for assessment services over the past several years are as
follows:
2016 ‐ $125,201
2017 ‐ $130,000
2018 ‐ $147,000
2019 ‐ $154,000
Per the attached correspondence from the county assessor, the original plan was to execute a contract
extension but with several changes to the agreement it was advised to have a new agreement. The standard
language found in all the agreements is being updated and other additions or deletions are noted per the
color coding. The main deletions reference the city no longer needing to provide clerical support staff and
office supplies and references to the homestead application process. The city attorney has reviewed the
agreement.
Attachments
September 12 County Correspondence
New Assessment Services Agreement
Excerpts: 2021 Budget
I:\RFA\City Manager\2020\HRG Organics Collection\WS 101920\11.2 HRG Programs 2021 rates.docx
Request for Action
October 19, 2020
Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Originating Department: City Manager
By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Agenda Title
Discussion regarding HRG programs/2021 rates and curbside residential organics recycling
Requested Action
Staff requests the Council have a brief discussion regarding HRG (Hennepin Recycling Group) programs and
2021 rates. Staff also requests to continue the discussion on curbside residential organics recycling. Tim Pratt,
Hennepin Recycling Group Administrator, will be in attendance at the meeting. No rate increase is
recommended for 2021. The rate was increased by $.10 from $3.65 to $3.75 per household/per month for 2020.
Policy/Past Practice
The Council reviews and discusses programs and rates for services on an annual basis during the budget
process in the fall. If rate adjustments are recommended for utility or enterprise fund operations (water,
sewer, storm sewer, street lighting and recycling) for the following year, the City Council usually considers
and approves adjustments in December in conjunction with the approval of the final budget with the new
rates becoming effective the next year.
Background
As the City Council is aware, New Hope is a member of the HRG along with the cities of Crystal and
Brooklyn Center. I have requested Tim Pratt, HRG administrator and Brooklyn Park staff member, to attend
the work session to review HRG program, discuss 2021 rates, and continue to discuss residential organics
recycling with Council. Tim has prepared the attached presentation, which he will review with Council, as
well as the following items:
The HRG Board approved the 2021 HRG budget at their May 27 meeting and is recommending no rate
increase for 2021. A $.10 increase in the recycling fee was approved in 2020.
In 2018 Hennepin County Board adopted mandate that all cities with more than 10,000 residents had to
provide curbside residential organics recycling collection by January 1, 2022, and HRG cities are currently
coordinating on modifying ordinances to require refuse haulers to offer organics collection by that date.
County reducing amount of SCORE funding each city receives for traditional curbside recycling and
using funding to increase organics recycling incentive fund, which reimburses cities based on number of
residents who subscribe to curbside organics recycling collection.
SCORE funding grant for HRG in 2020 decreased approximately $20,000. In November, Hennepin
County will adopt the next funding policy that will begin in 2021, and it is anticipated that
reimbursement for recycling will continue to decline.
Due to current market conditions for the sale of recyclable material no revenue is anticipated with the
2021 budget.
New five‐year contract with Waste Management for HRG recycling services started July 1, 2018, and
included a rate decrease from $2.74 to $2.39 per household per month. In July, 2020, the rate increased to
$2.53 per household per month.
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.2
Request for Action, Page 2
Due to decreased funding from Hennepin County and future increases in recycling contract costs and
curbside bulky waste collection costs, it is anticipated that rates will need to be increased for 2022.
2021 is not a bulky waste curbside cleanup collection year in New Hope and Crystal; the next curbside
collection is scheduled for 2022. In 2020 the curbside collection was held and the set out rate was higher
and the amount of material per household was higher when compared to 2018.
Administrative fee from Brooklyn Park was decreased due to unfilled vacancy in support staff.
Potential implementation of Recollect Mobile app and website for information and recycling reminders.
Recycling grants to cities will remain at $5,000 per year, similar to 2019.
Contract includes free recycling to city facilities and special events (farmers market, Duk Duk Daze, corn
feed) and pilot project for parks.
Summary and Rate Recommendation
The HRG/Solid Waste proposed budget for New Hope was distributed previously with your budget
notebooks. The Solid Waste Management budget provides every other week recycling services for single‐
family households, duplexes, townhouses and apartment complexes in the city with seven or less units. The
budget includes contractual costs for collection of recyclable materials, special materials collection, container
replacement, yard waste costs, recycling costs at city facilities and administration by Brooklyn Park. This
budget includes New Hope’s portion of the HRG contract costs.
Breakdown of 2020 Recycling Fees
Proposed fee of $3.75 per household per month
$2.60/hh/mo. Curbside recycling contractual costs
+$1.00/hh/mo. Curbside clean‐up costs
+$0.50/hh/mo. Yard waste contractual costs
+$0.19/hh/mo. Brooklyn Park Administrative costs
+$0.10/hh/mo. Special material drop off costs
+$0.05/hh/mo. Internal recycling grants
______ +$0.05/hh/mo. New Hope Administration costs_______
$4.49/hh/mo.
______ ‐$0.74/hh/mo. Hennepin County Grant______________
$3.75/hh/mo.
The rate history over the past ten years is as follows:
2010 $3.45 per household/per month 2016 $3.55 per household/per month
2011 $3.55 per household/per month 2017 $3.65 per household/per month
2012 $3.55 per household/per month 2018 $3.65 per household/per month
2013 $3.55 per household/per month 2019 $3.65 per household/per month
2014 $3.55 per household/per month 2020 $3.75 per household/per month
2015 $3.55 per household/per month 2021 $3.75 per household/per month ‐ Recommended
Curbside Residential Organics Recycling
The HRG Administrator, Tim Pratt, has been coordinating with the three HRG cities on establishing an
organics service as a licensing requirement to implement curbside residential organics recycling. Cities
located in Hennepin County with more than 10,000 residents are required to provide curbside organics
recycling collection by January 1, 2022. The HRG cities have agreed that the best way to meet this
Request for Action, Page 3
requirement is for each city to amend the licensing requirement for garbage haulers to mandate that they
offer organics recycling services. Pratt has worked with city staff to identify sections of the City Code that
should be updated to a more modern verbiage. Since this section of code will most likely be amended to
reflect the new organics recycling requirement mandated by the county, staff feels it would be a good time to
also complete some basic updates to the Code’s verbiage. The recommended changes will be reviewed with
the Council the first part of 2021. It is also recommended that the licensed haulers in the city be notified about
the upcoming ordinance changes and be allowed an opportunity to comment on the revisions prior to
implementation.
Attachments
HRG 2021 Budget Presentation and Memo
New Hope Solid Waste Management Budget
HRG
2021 Budget
Presentation and
Memo
New Hope
Solid Waste
Management
Budget
I:\RFA\HR & Admin Svcs\Human Resources\2020\Work Sessions\10192020 Work Session\City Contribution and Wage Info\11.3 Q Wages & City Contribution 2021.docx
Request for Action
October 19, 2020
Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Originating Department: HR & Admin Services
By: Rich Johnson, Director
Agenda Title
Discussion regarding the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for non‐represented employees in 2021 and the
city’s monthly contribution towards insurance coverage for 2021.
Requested Action
Wages: Staff is proposing Council approve a 3.0% COLA for non‐represented employees in 2020. This across‐
the‐board increase would apply to all non‐union employees, including the city manager. If the City Council is
supportive, the recommendation will be placed on the December 14 council agenda at the time the 2021 budget
is acted upon.
City Contribution Towards Insurance: Staff is requesting that Council increase the city’s monthly insurance
contribution for 2020 by the following:
Monthly Increase: Monthly Contribution Total
Single $18.00/month $921.00
Employee + 1 $39.00/month $1,226.00
Family $46.00/month $1,366.00
The city’s open enrollment period for 2021 is scheduled to take place October 30 – November 17, 2020, therefore
staff is seeking direction from the city council at this time regarding setting the city contribution for 2021. If the
city Council is receptive to staff’s recommendation, this item will be brought forward to the October 26 council
meeting for formal approval.
Policy/Past Practice
Wages: Historically, it has been the past practice of the city to provide all employees (both represented and
non‐represented) with similar wage increases. The city’s collective bargaining agreements with LELS #77,
LELS #273, and Local 49 each include a 3% COLA adjustment for 2021.
City Contribution Towards Insurance: It has been the city’s practice over the past several years to split the
premium increase 50/50 between the city and employee. Historically, monthly increases have ranged from $0
(2005, 2012 and 2013,) to $175 (2010) per month. The monthly increases for 2020 were $28 for single, $41 for
employee + 1, and $47 for family coverage.
In summary, the proposed 2021 city contribution per month would be as follows:
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.3
Request for Action, Page 2
Employees:
who elect single coverage will receive a maximum of $921/month
who elect employee plus one coverage will receive $1,226/month
who elect family coverage will receive $1,365/month
who were hired prior to November 1, 2009, and that are on the city’s personal leave program and
waive health coverage, would receive $658.00/month
Background
Wages: The average increase budgeted in New Hope’s 12 comparable cities at this time is 2.35%. However it
is worthwhile noting that four of the 12 are at 3.0%, three are at 2.75%, three are at 2.0%, and two are at 1.0%.
The two cities currently at 3.0% have a significant impact on the overall average. Also, although not used as
part of New Hope’s comparable group, WMFRD has budgeted for a 3.0% COLA and CCX Media has
included a 2.0% COLA in their 2021 budgets.
During the current year and looking forward, city staff has found and continues to find new and creative
ways to accomplish their job duties while dealing with the COVID‐19 pandemic. The city manager
commends everyone on their resourcefulness and dedication in serving the city. A 3% increase for New
Hope’s mayor and council members is also included in the 2021 budget.
City Contribution Towards Insurance: In July, 2019 the city went out for bid on all of its insurance coverages
(health, dental, life, short‐term disability, long‐term disability and voluntary life. Due to the city’s health
insurance usage running below projections and the competitive marketplace, the city received a very
competitive offer by HealthPartners. This offer resulted in a reduction of overall health premiums by 12.7%.
Additionally, as HealthPartners was working to expand their book of business in providing dental insurance,
they offered the city an additional 2% reduction in health insurance premiums if the city agreed to move its
dental coverage from Delta Dental to HealthPartners Dental. This proposal was reviewed and supported by
the Insurance Committee as well as the city manager and the city moved to HealthPartners Dental in 2020.
As part of this agreement, the city would receive no increase in dental premiums for two years and a 9% cap
in health insurance premiums for 2021. Although the city’s usage justified the maximum increase of 9% for
2021, due to discontinuation of the Affordable Health Care tax on premiums, the 9% increase was reduced by
approximately 2.6%, resulting in an overall increase of 6.4% to health insurance premiums for 2021. The city’s
portion of the 6.4% increase (3.2%) has been included in the 2021 preliminary budget.
HealthPartners has served as the city’s health insurance provider since 2009, and 17 of the past 21 years. Staff
feels this has been a positive, mutually beneficial relationship and looks forward to it continuing.
Over the past several years, the City Council has been dedicated to ensuring the wage and benefits offered by
the city are competitive, with the goal of being approximately average in comparison to our twelve
comparable cities. However, until 2019, adjustments had not been made to the city contribution in relation to
our comparable cities. In preparation for 2019, staff shared with the city council how in recent years the city’s
monthly contribution towards insurance had fallen in relation to the city’s 12 comparable cities, however due
to the cost of bringing New Hope’s city contribution up to the average of its comparable cities all at once
being prohibitive, the City Council agreed to increase the city contribution by the “typical” increase (one‐half
of the premium increase) as well as an additional amount equal to one‐half of the amount that New Hope
had fallen behind its 12 comparable cities in both 2019 and 2020.
Request for Action, Page 3
Although the city contribution amount has again fallen in comparison to the city’s 12 comparable cities
contribution towards insurance, staff is not recommending an increase in addition to the “typical” increase at
this time.
Funding
The cost to implement these changes is included in the proposed 2021 budget.
Attachments
New Hope’s Wage Increase History
City Contribution and Insurance Plans History 2000 – 2020 and 2021 (Proposed)
City of New Hope Health Insurance Premium Rates 2020
City of New Hope Health Insurance Premium Rates 2021 (DRAFT)
G:\City Manager\Human Resources\Compensation\Wage Increase History 10132020.docx
CITY OF NEW HOPE
WAGE INCREASE HISTORY
LELS
Officers
49ers Non-Union LELS
Supervisors
AFSCME IAFF
1984 5.00% 5.00% 7.00%
1985 5.00% 5.00% 4.75%
1986 4.50% 4.00% 4.50%
1987 4.00% 3.00% 4.50%
1988 4.00% 3.50% 3.50%
1989 3.75% 3.50% 4.00%
1990 4.00% 4.00% 4.50%
1991 4.00% 6.00% 1 4.00%
1992 2.75% 2.75% 2.75%
1993 2.75% 2.75% 2.75% N/A N/A
1994 3.00% 3.00% 2.75% 3.00% 3.00%
1995 3.00% 3.00% 3.25%2 3.00%2 3.00%
1996 2.90% 2.90% 2.90% N/A N/A
1997 3.30% 2.90% 2.00%3
1998 3.00% 3.20% 2.25%4 N/A
1999 3.00% 3.00% 2.25% 3.00%5
2000 3.00% 3.00% 2.25% 3.00%6
2001 3.50% 3.00% 3.00% 3.50%7
2002 3.50% 3.00% 3.50% 3.50%
2003 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50%
20048 1.5%+1.5% 2.3% 2.3% 1.5%+1.5%
20059 3.0% 3.0% 2.0%+2.0% 3.0%
200610 2.0%+1.0% 2.0%+1.0% 2.0%+1/0% 2.0%+1.0%
2007 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
2008 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
2009 (8)1.5%+1.5% 3.0% 1.5%+1.5% 1.5%11
2010 0% 0% 0% 0%
2011 1% 1% 1% 1%
201212 1% Mkt. Adjust. Mkt. Adjust. 1%
2013 1% 0% 0% 1%
2014 2% Mkt.+ 2% 2% 2% 2%
2015 2% 2% 2% 2%
2016 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
2017 Mkt + 2.5% COLA 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
2018 2.5% COLA 2.5% 2.5% + Mkt13 2.5%
201914 3.0% COLA 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
2020 Mkt + 3.0% COLA
2021 3.0% COLA 3.0% COLA 3.0% COLA
1Out-of-class pay eliminated. Implemented single classification with step system. Movement based upon training, service, and performance.
26.25% non-union and 6.00% AFSCME for part-time employees.
3New Compensation Plan, 2% minimum, 10% maximum, opportunity for 1% lump sum performance pay.
4Continuing with 1% lump sum performance pay.
5Sergeants 3.0%; Captains new position.
6Sergeants 3.0%; Captains 4.0%.
7Sergeants 3.5%; Captains 4.6%.
81.5% January + 1.5% July.
92.0% January + 2.0% July.
102.0% January + 1.0% July.
11Sergeants and Captain received 1.5% in July, however also increased steps in the wage progression as well as added longevity pay at 8 years
(Sgt.) and 10 years (Capt.).
12Market adjustment was due to 2010 Compensation Study conducted by Springsted, implemented in 2012.
13On 5/14/18 Non-Union Non-Exempt and Non-Union Exempt employees received 1.5% and 2.5% market adjustments respectively. On
12/10/18, Non-Union Non-Exempt and Non-Union Exempt employees received an additional market rate adjustment to total 3% and 5%
respectively for the year to implement the 2017 Compensation Plan Update which was approved by the city council on April 23, 2018.
14On 1/7/2019 all regular NH employees received a 3.0% COLA due to a proposed 3.0% COLA for non-union employees and “me-too” clauses
in each of the three labor agreements (Local 49, LELS #77, and LELS #273) which granted the same COLA any another group received.
History of City Contribution and Insurance Plans 2000 ‐ 2019 and 2020 (Proposed)2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 20202021 (Proposed)2020 to 20211/2 of the increaseIncrease per Month2020 to 2021Insurance ProviderMMHP HP HP HP HPMMHP HP HP HP HP HP HP HP HP HP HP HP HPHigh Family Medical688 708 728 839 1009 978 1057 1066 1274 1404 1656 1707 1598 1351 1525 1545 1583 1624 1770 1883 1597 16991+1 High Medical1472 1378 1164 1314 1332 1365 1400 1526 1623 1377 1465Single High Medical500 590 654 612 518 584 592 607 622 678 722 612 651Mid Family Medical CO‐PAY (DISCONTINUED)835 902 932 1114Mid Family Medical (HIGH DEDUCTIBLE)716 727 868 1105 1285 1351 1264 1068 1181 1386 1420 1457 1574 1674 1423 1514$91 $461+1 Mid Medical1165 1090 922 1019 1195 1225 1256 1357 1444 1227 1305$78 $39Single Mid Medical394 458 518 485 410 453 531 544 558 603 642 545 580$35 $18Low Family Medical619 637 573 660 799 775 838 893 1035 995 1174 1124 1052 890 1004 1209 1239 1271 1385 1474 1292 12921+1 Low Medical969 907 767 865 1043 1068 1096 1194 1271 1114 1114Single Low Medical354 418 431 403 341 385 463 475 487 531 565 495 495Family Dental*64 65 76 83 75 75 74 84 89 92 94 97 101 104 106 106 111 111 111 111 115 1151+1 Dental*71 74 76 78 78 81 81 81 81 77 77Single Dental*35 36 37 38 40 40 40 42 42 42 42 38 38City Contribution (One CC offered 2000 to 2009)435 450 465 500 550 550 575 600 650 700Family875 900 900 900 970 1073 1090 1109 1175 1273 1320 1366$1,3661+1825 825 825 885 973 988 1004 1061 1146 1187 1226$1,226Single700 725 725 725 750 789 795 802 827 875 903 921$921Total Proposed City Contribution for 2021I:\RFA\HR & Admin Svcs\Human Resources\2020\Work Sessions\10192020 Work Session\City Contribution and Wage Info\City Contribution History 2000‐2021 6.4% Inc
24 pay periodsSingle CoverageEmployee + 1 CoverageFamily CoverageSingle CoverageEmployee + 1 CoverageFamily CoverageHigh Deductible A (Non-embedded & Creditable) - CG 349$1,500/$3,000 $612.12 $1,377.24 $1,597.30 $306.06 $688.62 $798.65High Deductible B (Embedded & Creditable) - CG 347$2,800/$5,600 $545.21 $1,226.68 $1,422.68 $272.61 $613.34 $711.34High Deductible C (Embedded & Non-creditable) - CG 348$4,000/$8,000 $495.30 $1,114.39 $1,292.45 $247.65 $557.20 $646.23HealthPartners Dental InsuranceDistinctions 6$38.35 $76.69 $115.04 $19.18 $38.35 $57.52City Contribution$903.00 $1,187.00 $1,320.00 $451.50 $593.50 $660.00Single* $3,550.00 $295.83 $147.92Family or 1+1* $7,100.00 $591.67 $591.67 $295.83 $295.83*Age 55+ add $1,000 to annual HSA = $4,500 single; $8,000 1+1 or family$750.00 $62.50 $31.25$1,400.00 $116.67 $58.33$2,000.00 $166.67 $83.33Flex & Deferred Comp(FSA deductions are made from 24 pay periods) Max Per Year Max PPPFlex Medical $2,700.00 $112.50Flex Limited (Dental and Vision Only) $2,700.00 $112.50Dependent Care $5,000.00 $208.33Deferred Comp $19,500.00 $812.50Deferred Comp Age 50+ $26,000.00 $1,083.33HSA Contribution Annual MaximumsHSA cont. from city cont. for FTVS & FTPL11 single coverage is half of single medical deductible ($1,500=$750; $2,800=$1,400; $4,000=$2,000)City of New Hope Health Insurance Premium RatesPREMIUM per MONTH PREMIUM per PAY PERIODHealthPartners Medical Insurance (Group 10734)Waive (FT Emp on PL hired prior to 11/2009) = Month $655.00; PPP $327.50Effective January 1, 2020G:\City Manager\Human Resources\INS\2020 Renewals\Open Enrollment for 2020\2020 Insurance Rates.xlsx10/30/2019 3:48 PM
24 pay periodsSingle CoverageEmployee + 1 CoverageFamily CoverageSingle CoverageEmployee + 1 CoverageFamily CoverageHigh Deductible A (Non-embedded & Creditable) - CG 349$1,500/$3,000 $651.20 $1,465.16 $1,699.27 $325.600 $732.580 $849.635High Deductible B (Embedded & Creditable) - CG 347$2,800/$5,600 $580.02 $1,304.99 $1,513.50 $290.01 $652.50 $756.75High Deductible C (Embedded & Non-creditable) - CG 348$4,000/$8,000 $526.92 $1,185.53 $1,374.96 $263.46 $592.77 $687.48HealthPartners Dental InsuranceDistinctions 6$38.35 $76.69 $115.04 $19.18 $38.35 $57.52City Contribution$921.00 $1,226.00 $1,366.00 $460.50 $613.00 $683.00Single* $3,600.00 $300.00 $150.00Family or 1+1* $7,200.00 $600.00 $600.00 $300.00 $300.00*Age 55+ add $1,000 to annual HSA = $4,600 single; $8,200 1+1 or family$750.00 $62.50 $31.25$1,400.00 $116.67 $58.33$2,000.00 $166.67 $83.33Flex & Deferred Comp(FSA deductions are made from 24 pay periods) Max Per Year Max PPPFlex Medical $2,750.00 $114.58Flex Limited (Dental and Vision Only) $2,750.00 $114.58Dependent Care $5,000.00 $208.33Deferred Comp $19,500.00 $812.50Deferred Comp Age 50+ $26,000.00 $1,083.33HSA Contribution Annual MaximumsHSA cont from city cont for FTVS & FTPL11 single coverage is half of single medical deductible ($1,500=$750; $2,800=$1,400; $4,000=$2,000)City of New Hope Health Insurance Premium RatesPREMIUM per MONTH PREMIUM per PAY PERIODHealthPartners Medical Insurance (Group 10734)Waive (FT Emp on PL hired prior to 11/2009) = Month $658.00; PPP $329.00Effective January 1, 2021DRAFTI:\RFA\HR & Admin Svcs\Human Resources\2020\Work Sessions\10192020 Work Session\City Contribution and Wage Info\2021 Insurance Rates DRAFT 10092020 10/15/2020 11:28 AM
I:\RFA\PUBWORKS\2020\Council\1054 2021 Infrastructure Improvement Project\1054 RFA Review Revised Feasibility Report.docx
Request for Action
October 19, 2020
Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Originating Department: Public Works
By: Bernie Weber, Public Works Director
Agenda Title
Discuss Revised Feasibility Report on 2021 Infrastructure Improvements Project (Improvement Project
No. 1054).
Requested Action
The original feasibility report and cost estimate was prepared and presented at the September 28, 2020 Council
Meeting. Following presentation of the report, the City Engineer noticed the formula in the Reclaim and
Overlay cost estimate was not summing up all line items. The original report had a project cost of $463,117.85
for Reclaim and Overlay. The correct total is $665,532.40, a difference of $202,414.55. The street costs are still
under the CIP Street Budget; however, the amount decreased from $319.140.66 to $116,725.71.
The City Engineer recommended the feasibility report be revised, and the tables below reflect the revisions.
Time spent revising the Feasibility Report and correspondence was done at the engineer’s expense. The
revised numbers are proposed to be presented at the Public Hearing on October 26, 2020.
Policy/Past Practice
The City Council routinely considers public infrastructure improvement projects to extend the useful life of the
infrastructure and/or improve the level of service. The city’s pavement management plan identifies these areas
in the Street Infrastructure Projects portion of the plan.
Background
The general location of the potential 2021 project includes streets in the Lions Park neighborhood and Erickson
Drive. Streets in the project were recommended based upon pavement conditions identified in the 2019
Pavement Management Plan as well as underlying utility condition.
As discussed above, the presentation of the original feasibility report was done at the September 28, 2020
Council Meeting and a public hearing was set for October 26, 2020. A notice of the hearing was sent out to
residents the week of October 5, 2020. Residents who prefer not to attend the meeting in person are
encouraged to submit any comments to the city’s project coordinator for submission to the City Council.
Funding
The total project cost estimate for work proposed in the feasibility report is $1,706,932.89 (Base Bid). If one of
the two storm alternates associated with the sliplining or open‐cut replacement of the storm sewer line on
Oregon Avenue are awarded, the total project cost would increase to $2,000,082.89 (Base Bid + Alternate 1
(Slipline Oregon Storm Sewer)) or $2,052,294.14 (Base Bid + Alternate 2 (Open‐cut Oregon Storm Sewer)). The
majority of the project will be funded by the city’s street infrastructure and enterprise funds, as well as
assessments to tax‐exempt properties. The tables below reflect the revisions to the feasibility report.
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.4
Request for Action, Page 2
Project Cost Summary with Alternate 1 (Sliplining)
Item Original Report Revised Report Difference
Mill and Overlay $739,072.49 $739,072.49 $0.00
Reclaim and Overlay $463,117.85 $665,532.40 $202,414.55
Subtotal ‐ Street $1,202,190.34 $1,404,604.89 $202,414.55
Water Main $99,827.00 $99,827.00 $0.00
Sanitary Sewer $95,810.00 $95,810.00 $0.00
Storm Water & Alternate 1 $399,841.00 $399,841.00 $0.00
Total Project Costs $1,797,668.34 $2,000,082.89 $202,414.55
Project Cost Summary with Alternate 2 (Open‐cut)
Item Original Report Revised Report Difference
Mill and Overlay $739,072.49 $739,072.49 $0.00
Reclaim and Overlay $463,117.85 $665,532.40 $202,414.55
Subtotal ‐ Street $1,202,190.34 $1,404,604.89 $202,414.55
Water Main $99,827.00 $99,827.00 $0.00
Sanitary Sewer $95,810.00 $95,810.00 $0.00
Storm Water & Alternate 2 $452,052.25 $452,052.25 $0.00
Total $1,849,879.59 $2,052,294.14 $202,414.55
Funding Summary
Funding Source
Feasibility Report
Estimate with
Alternate 1
(Sliplining)
Feasibility Report
Estimate with
Alternate 2
(Open‐cut)
Capital
Improvements
Plan (CIP)
Budget Amount
Difference Notes Mill and Overlay $739,072.49 $739,072.49
$1,521,330.60
$116,725.71
Reclaim and Overlay $665,532.40 $665,532.40
Subtotal ‐ Street Fund $1,404,604.89 $1,404,604.89
Water fund $99,827.00 $99,827.00 $100,000.00 $173.00
Sanitary Sewer fund $95,810.00 $95,810.00 $50,000.00 ($45,810.00)
Storm Water fund $399,841.00 $452,052.25 $200,000.00 ($199,841.00) Alt 1
($252,052.25) Alt 2
Total Project Costs $2,000,082.89 $2,052,294.14 $1,871,330.60 ($128,752.29) Alt 1
($180,963.54) Alt 2
Per AEM, the storm water fund has adequate funding for the projected overage for the Alternate 1 or 2 storm
sewer infrastructure repairs.
The revised feasibility report will be included in the October 26, 2020 Council Packet.
Attachments
Engineer’s Memo
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
October 2, 2020
File: 193805078
Attention: Bernie Weber, Director of Public Works
City of New Hope
5500 International Parkway
New Hope, MN 55428
Reference: 2021 Infrastructure Improvements - Revised Feasibility Report
City Project No. 1054
Dear Bernie,
The original feasibility report and cost estimate was prepared and presented at the September 28,
2020 Council Meeting. Following presentation of the report, we noticed the formula in the
Reclaim and Overlay cost estimate was not summing up all line items. The original report had a
project cost of $463,117.85 for Reclaim and Overlay. The correct total is $665,532.40, a difference
of $202,414.55.
The street costs are still under the CIP Street Budget; however, the amount decreased from
$319.140.66 to $116,725.71. The estimated total project cost for the street, water main, sanitary
sewer, and storm sewer improvements, including contingencies and indirect costs, is
approximately $2.000 million (with Alternate 1) and $2.052 million (with Alternate 2). This compares
to the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) estimate of $1.871 million. Per AEM, the storm water fund
has adequate funding for the projected overage for Alternate 1 or 2 storm sewer repairs.
Time spent revising the Feasibility Report and correspondence was done at no cost to the City.
We recommend the revised feasibility report and updated numbers below be presented at the
Public Hearing on October 26, 2020.
Project Cost Summary with Alternate 1 (Sliplining)
Item Original Report Revised Report Difference
Mill and Overlay $739,072.49 $739,072.49 $0.00
Reclaim and Overlay $463,117.85 $665,532.40 $202,414.55
Subtotal - Street $1,202,190.34 $1,404,604.89 $202,414.55
Water Main $99,827.00 $99,827.00 $0.00
Sanitary Sewer $95,810.00 $95,810.00 $0.00
Storm Water & Alternate 1 $399,841.00 $399,841.00 $0.00
Total Project Costs $1,797,668.34 $2,000,082.89 $202,414.55
October 2, 2020
Mr. Bernie Weber
Page 2 of 2
Reference:2020 Infrastructure Improvements – Presentation of Feasibility Report
Project Cost Summary with Alternate 2 (Open-cut)
Item Original Report
Project Costs
Revised Report Project
Costs
Difference (Revised -
Original)
Mill and Overlay $739,072.49 $739,072.49 $0.00
Reclaim and Overlay $463,117.85 $665,532.40 $202,414.55
Subtotal - Street $1,202,190.34 $1,404,604.89 $202,414.55
Water Main $99,827.00 $99,827.00 $0.00
Sanitary Sewer $95,810.00 $95,810.00 $0.00
Storm Water & Alternate 2 $452,052.25 $452,052.25 $0.00
Total $1,849,879.59 $2,052,294.14 $202,414.55
Funding Summary
Funding Source
Feasibility
Report Estimate
with Alternate 1
(Sliplining)
Feasibility
Report Estimate
with Alternate 2
(Open-cut)
Capital
Improvements
Plan (CIP)
Budget Amount
Difference NotesMill and Overlay $739,072.49 $739,072.49
$1,521,330.60 $116,725.71Reclaim and Overlay $665,532.40 $665,532.40
Subtotal - Street Fund $1,404,604.89 $1,404,604.89
Water fund $99,827.00 $99,827.00 $100,000.00 $173.00
Sanitary Sewer fund $95,810.00 $95,810.00 $50,000.00 ($45,810.00)
Storm Water fund $399,841.00 $452,052.25 $200,000.00 ($199,841.00)Alt 1
($252,052.25)Alt 2
Total Project Costs $2,000,082.89 $2,052,294.14 $1,871,330.60 ($128,752.29)Alt 1
($180,963.54)Alt 2
If you have any questions or require further information, please call me at (612) 712-2021.
Sincerely,
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Dan D. Boyum, P.E.
City Engineer
dan.boyum@stantec.com
Cc: Kirk McDonald, Valerie Leone, Megan Hedstrom - New Hope; Stacy Woods – City Attorney.; Lucas Miller, Ann Dienhart – Stantec.
I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2020\Work Sessions\10‐19‐20 CD Brainstorming Session\WS ‐ CD Brainstorming Session 10‐19‐20.docx
Request for Action
October 19, 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
Community Development Department update
Requested Action
Staff requests a discussion with the City Council regarding various redevelopment opportunities and program
objectives throughout the city.
Policy/Past Practice
Each year, the Community Development Department has a discussion with the City Council during a work
session to share and exchange ideas regarding project goals for the department.
Background
Scattered Site Housing Program
The city’s scattered site housing program continues to thrive since it was reinstituted in 2014. The acquisition
of distressed single‐family homes and vacant lots has resulted in, or will result in the construction or
rehabilitation of 22 homes (some currently in progress).
Single‐family homes acquired 17
Vacant lots acquired 1
Total acquired 18
New build 1
Demolition and new build 15
Lot split and new build (2nd home) 4
Total new homes 20
Rehabilitation 2
Total new/rehabilitated homes 22
In the last year, the following scattered site projects were approved, started, or completed:
The new home at 3856 Maryland Avenue North that was built by Donnay Homes sold for $413,921 in
October of 2019. The land was previously vacant and owned by the city of Crystal, serving as a
connector between two parks.
The new home at 5201 Oregon Avenue North that was built by Novak‐Fleck, Inc. sold for $408,320 in
April of 2020. The home that previously occupied the lot was demolished in July of 2019.
The rehabilitated home at 3924 Utah Avenue North sold for $375,000 in July of 2020. The city invested
more than $186,000 into improving the home. City staff marketed and sold the home, saving thousands
of dollars in brokerage fees.
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.5
Request for Action, Page 2
The home at 6027 West Broadway was demolished and a new home was constructed by Novak‐Fleck,
Inc. The home was listed at $352,000 in September of 2020 and an offer has been accepted. Closing is
scheduled for October of 2020.
Construction began on a new home at 5355 Oregon Avenue North by Great Buy Homes in June of
2020. The home was listed at $365,000 before construction started and an offer was accepted in August
of 2020. Completion of the home and closing is scheduled for November of 2020. The home that
previously occupied the lot was demolished in November of 2018 and the lot was split into two parcels.
Construction began on a new home at 5353 Oregon Avenue North by Great Buy Homes in September
of 2020. The home was listed at $380,000 before construction started and it is still listed for sale. It will
be completed in the spring of 2021. The home that previously occupied the lot was demolished in
November of 2018 and the lot was split into two parcels.
The building at 4215 Louisiana Avenue North was demolished, the parcel was rezoned, and plans for
Great Buy Homes to construct a new home were approved in September of 2020. Sale of the property
to Great Buy Homes is tentatively scheduled for November of 2020, with construction to begin shortly
thereafter. The projected sale price of the new home is $380,000.
In addition the aforementioned scattered site projects, there are several other potential and/or future projects
currently in progress:
Habitat For Humanity has a signed purchase agreement to purchase and rehabilitate the single‐family
home at 8720 ‐ 47th Avenue North. The city will be contributing Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds towards the project. Closing is scheduled for November of 2020.
After the tragic fire at 4637 Aquila Avenue North earlier this year, the family of the previous owners
contacted city staff to discuss selling the property to the city. The estate is going through probate, and
the home cannot be sold until that has been completed. Due to court delays associated with the
pandemic, it is not anticipated that the probate process will be completed until early 2021. Family
members have agreed to sell the property to the city when possible. If acquired, the home would be
demolished and the lot would be marketed to scattered site builders.
City staff has been in discussions with the owner of 4965 Winnetka Avenue North. An appraisal of
the property will take place later this month. The property is a candidate for a demolition, lot split,
and rebuild project. If acquired, the parcel is large enough to split into two lots without a variance in
order to accommodate the construction of two new homes. The attached map shows the potential
layout of the two lots.
City staff has been in discussions with the owner of 5213 Pennsylvania Avenue North. The property
is west of the new home at 5201 Oregon Avenue North and north of a two‐story scattered site project
at 5207 Pennsylvania Avenue North that was completed in 2005. It is one block north of the Windsor
Ridge subdivision that is under construction (32 new single‐family units). If acquired, the home would
be demolished and the lot would be marketed to scattered site builders.
Staff remains committed to identifying scattered site housing opportunities for demolition; however, these
properties have become more difficult to acquire for a variety of reasons. The primary barrier is lack of
inventory, as the Economic Development Authority has purchased many of the worst single‐family nuisance
properties available in the city. Secondly, the acquisition price for distressed properties has increased steadily
over the past five years, as property values have risen citywide. These market forces have led staff to pursue
opportunities within the rehabilitation market, including 3984 Zealand Avenue North and 3924 Utah Avenue
North, which allows for staff to closely control the budget for each project.
Request for Action, Page 3
At the request of the City Council, staff worked with the city’s financial consultant, AEM, to develop a new
template for evaluating scattered site housing projects. The template has modified Return On Investment
(ROI) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) calculations to include assumptions. It utilizes an estimated 3% tax
value growth rate, which is applied to both the original taxable market value for the old home and the
increased taxable market value for the new home, both over 30 years. The template will be helpful in
evaluation potential scattered site projects in the future.
Redevelopment Efforts
As the City Council is aware, staff is currently working with C‐Axis, Inc. for the possible construction of a
new medical equipment manufacturing facility located at 7100 – 27th Avenue. 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.
Staff has also had multiple conversations in the last couple of months with different developers interested in
the Marco’s Pizza/Family Video property, located at 7700 – 42nd Avenue, along with the property just to the
north, located at 4211 Rhode Island Avenue. Each of the developers is interested in building some sort of
multi‐family rental project on this site, and staff has walked them through the procedures needed to start the
redevelopment process.
There has also been some interest form a developer in redeveloping the Winnetka Mall property (Unique
Thrift Store). Negotiations between the developer and the property owner stalled, as a purchase price for the
property couldn’t be agreed upon. Staff has been hearing from developers that first‐ring suburbs are becoming
more desirable for new construction because of the recently unrest in the Twin Cities urban core.
Housing Inspections
During the Governor’s stay at home order regarding the COVID‐19 pandemic, the city suspended all rental
housing inspections. On July 27, the inspectors once again began performing in‐person interior inspections on
all single‐family homes, with a policy depicting the use of proper protective equipment and other safety
guidelines in place. Inspections have been limited to single‐family Point‐of‐Sale, single‐family rental and
Business Use Certificate of Occupancy permits. When possible, the inspectors have been conducting virtual
inspections through the use of FaceTime or other video services through cell phones. All multi‐family housing
inspections are still suspended at this time.
Pertaining to single‐family rental units, there are currently 435 licenses for one‐ and two‐family dwelling units.
This includes rented condos and twinhomes with individual PIDs. Staff tracks the number of single family
rental conversions on a monthly basis, and so far in 2020, there have been 12 single‐family homes that have
converted from owner‐occupied to rental, and 12 single‐family homes that have converted from rental back
to owner‐occupied.
Request for Action, Page 4
Code Enforcement
During the COVID‐19 pandemic, the inspectors initiated the “Operation Night Cap” program, where
inspectors visited all commercial and industrial properties at night to ensure that each property had adequate
parking lot lighting. This resulted in multiple letters sent to property owners to inform them of broken light
fixtures, missing light bulbs, or lack of general lighting in areas. Staff has been working with these properties
to help them meet minimum code standards.
Recently, a second initiative was created called “Project Clean‐up”. The inspectors are partnering with the
Police Department to target specific properties in the city in most need of attention. With the help of the police,
the inspectors are proactively inspecting problem multi‐family rental properties throughout the city to ensure
exterior code compliance. Violations being addressed include exterior storage, landscaping, parking lots
conditions, exterior lighting, inoperable vehicles and the exterior condition of the building.
Livable Communities Act
The Metropolitan Council administers funds through the Livable Communities Act (LCA). The LCA provides
funding for communities to invest in local economic revitalization, workforce housing initiatives, and
development or redevelopment that connects different land uses and transportation. The program is a
voluntary, incentive‐based approach to help communities grow and redevelop, and to address the region’s
affordable and lifecycle housing needs.
Under the LCA, the Met Council makes grant and loan awards from four accounts:
Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) – Cleans up brownfields for redevelopment, job creation
and housing for families with low to moderate incomes.
Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) – Supports development and redevelopment
that links housing, jobs and services while demonstrating efficient and cost‐effective use of land and
infrastructure.
Local Housing Incentives Account (LHIA) – Produces and preserves housing choices for households
with low to moderate incomes.
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) – Catalyzes development around light rail, commuter rail, and
high‐frequency bus stations.
The city of New Hope has taken advantage of these programs in the past, and must re‐enroll in the LCA
program to be eligible for grants during the 2021‐2030 period. To re‐enroll, the city must adopt a resolution
approving affordable and life‐cycle housing goals for the 2021‐2030 decade by November 15, 2020. Staff has
already considered new affordable and life‐cycle housing goals when updating the 2040 Comprehensive Plan,
and will draft the resolution for City Council approval for the November 9, 2020, Council meeting. Attached
is an overview from the Metropolitan Council, as well as a list of past projects the city used LCA funds for.
Attachments
Scattered site housing program overview – 2020
Map of scattered site housing projects completed between 2014 and present
Sample lot layout for 4965 Winnetka Avenue North
Livable Communities Goals Methodology
Livable Communities Act grant history
Scattered Site Housing Program Overview – 2020
Address Original Tax Value Year Acquired New Value/Sale Price Percent Increase
6059 West Broadway $151,000 2014 $226,000 50%
5431 Virginia $121,000 2014 $245,000 102%
9115 62nd $65,000 2015 $296,000 355%
9121 62nd $65,000 2015 $271,000 317%
4417 Nevada $23,000 2015 $364,000 1,483%
4415 Nevada $23,000 2015 $383,000 1,565%
6065 Louisiana $92,000 2015 $325,000 253%
6067 Louisiana $92,000 2015 $323,900 252%
4511 Boone $182,000 2016 $319,500 76%
5400 Yukon $113,000 2016 $297,000 163%
3751 Louisiana $147,000 2017 $380,000 159%
3984 Zealand (rehab) $187,000 2017 $295,000 58%
7215 62nd $125,000 2018 $351,000 181%
7303 62nd $117,000 2017 $311,000 166%
7311 62nd $118,000 2018 $319,000 170%
3856 Maryland $0 2018 $414,000 N/A
5201 Oregon $154,000 2018 $402,000 161%
3924 Utah (rehab) $202,000 2018 $375,000 86%
5353 Oregon* $75,000 2018 $380,000 407%
5355 Oregon* $75,000 2018 $365,000 387%
6027 West Broadway* $115,000 2020 $350,000 204%
4215 Louisiana* $249,000 2020 $380,000 53%
Total = 22 $2,491,000 $7,372,400 196%
*Denotes a property that has not been sold, therefore the sale price is an estimate.
Total net increase in tax base = $4,881,400 (estimated)
CITY OF NEW HOPE HOUSING PROJECTS
SCATTERED SITE PROJECTS STARTED/COMPLETED BETWEEN 2015 & 2020
NEW HOPE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JEFF ALGER • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST • PHONE: 763-531-5119 • EMAIL: JALGER@NEWHOPEMN.GOV
7215 62nd Ave N
Demolition with new
single-family construction
Sold in 2019
5400 Yukon Ave N
Demolition with new
single-family construction
Sold in 2017
9115 & 9121 62nd Ave N
Demolition & lot split with new
single-family construction
Sold in 2016
6027 West Broadway
Demolition with new
single-family construction
Completed in 2020
3984 Zealand Ave N
Rehabilitation of
single-family home
Sold in 2018
1 2
4 5
7
15
17 18
1-3
5
4
16
17
18
6
7303 62nd Ave N
Demolition with new
single-family construction
Sold in 2018
3
4511 Boone Ave N
Demolition with new
single-family construction
Sold in 2016
6
11
4215 Louisiana Ave N
Demolition with new
single-family construction
Approved in 2020
8
6065 & 6067 Louisiana Ave N
Demolition & lot split with new
single-family construction
Sold in 2018
9
10
4415 & 4417 Nevada Ave N
Demolition & lot split with new
single-family construction
Sold in 2017
5201 Oregon Ave N
Demolition with new
single-family construction
Sold in 2020
12
3924 Utah Ave N
Rehabilitation of
single-family home
Sold in 2020
14
6059 West Broadway
Demolition with new
single-family construction
Sold in 2016
16
5353 & 5355 Oregon Ave N
Demolition & lot split with new
single-family construction
Under construction in 2020
13
7
10
8
9
11
12
13
15
7311 62nd Ave N
Demolition with new
single-family construction
Sold in 2019
3751 Louisiana Ave N
Demolition with new
single-family construction
Sold in 2018
3856 Maryland Ave N
Vacant lot with new
single-family construction
Sold in 2019
5431 Virginia Ave N
Demolition with new
single-family construction
Sold in 2015
14
4965 Winnetka Ave N
R-1, Single-family residential
180.73’94.84’Potential HomePotential Home DrivewayDriveway90.37’90.36’
Attachment: 2021-2030 Affordable and Life-cycle Housing Goals
Methodology
Months of cumulative outreach and discussion about how 2021-2030 affordable and life-cycle housing
goals should be calculated (summarized at a May 4 Communities Development Committee meeting),
has led to a methodology that is consistent and easy to understand. The selected methodology
attempts to strike a reasonable, balanced approach that considers the variety of differing
circumstances across communities. The 2021-2030 affordable housing goals will be a range to reflect
the uncertainty and variety of local affordable housing development, and use a similar approach that
2011-2020 goals used.
How were 2011-2030 affordable housing goals calculated?
In 2009 and 2010 broad discussions were had about how to determine 2011-2020 affordable housing
goals, including some of the same stakeholders - and even some of the same people! - that provided
input for the coming decade’s goals. In summary, an estimate of available funding for affordable
housing was determined for the 2011-2020 decade and used to calculate what percent of the decade’s
need for affordable housing could possibly be developed. This percentage was calculated at 65%,
which was then applied to each community’s share of affordable housing need for 2011-2020 to create
a low end of an affordable housing goal range. The high end of a community’s goal range was the
need number itself. Some communities had access to additional funding sources and therefore the
low end of their range was increased, but most communities’ 2011-2020 affordable housing goal
was a range between 65% and 100% of their 2011-2020 share of affordable housing need.
How are 2021-2030 affordable housing goals being calculated?
Affordable and life-cycle housing goals are calculated based on each community’s share of the region’s
need for affordable housing in the coming decade. Each community has, or is in the process of,
updating their comprehensive plans to acknowledge this “need” number, which is based on their
forecasted sewer-serviced growth, their existing affordable housing choices relative to the regional
average, and whether or not they import or export low-wage workers. Forecasted growth considers a
community’s transit capacity, land use guidance, employment growth, and other economic and
demographic trends. “Need” numbers are further adjusted as described above to encourage affordable
housing development that will provide reasonable housing options at all incomes throughout the region.
Determining affordable housing “goals” (which are required for LCA participation) based on affordable
housing “needs” (which are required to be addressed per the Metropolitan Land Planning Act) ensures
that those goals factor in all the unique characteristics of a community. However, it is widely
acknowledged that there is not sufficient funding available to meet the forecasted affordable housing
“need,” and affordable housing goals are an opportunity for cities to consider a more realistic, if still
ambitious, number of affordable housing units that could be built in the coming decade.
For this reason, the amount of funding anticipated for affordable housing development in the coming
decade is the primary consideration in determining affordable housing goals. Working closely with
Minnesota Housing, we have estimated that funding in 2021-2030 could support the construction of
about 45% of the forecasted need for affordable housing.
Page - 2 | October 15, 2020 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
We must acknowledge that not every source of affordable housing funding is captured in this
calculation. We also acknowledge that there are many things individual local governments can do to
incentivize and partner with affordable housing developers to increase their chances of accessing
available funding. Finally, many focus group participants and survey respondents indicated a desire to
set goals above minimum funding limitations as an incentive to do more. For this reason, we have set
the low end of your community’s 2021-2030 affordable housing goals at 55% of your share of the
region’s need for affordable housing (also known as the “need” number in your comprehensive plan).
That percentage reflects the funding availability estimate (45%), plus an additional 10% to account for
local policies and less common funding sources. Shown another way:
We heard from survey respondents and stakeholder conversations that funding has historically limited
our ability to meet all affordable housing needs, but many partners – both cities and other stakeholders
– felt that affordable housing goals should also reflect the future need. There is no penalty for not
meeting affordable housing goals, and equating “goals” with “needs” may incentivize us to work harder
to address affordable housing needs and bring attention to the need for more funding to create resilient
communities where housing choices are robust.
For that reason, the high end of your community’s 2021-2030 affordable housing goal is equal to your
2021-2030 affordable housing need number from your comprehensive plan. For example, if your share
of the region’s need for affordable housing in the coming decade is 100 units, your goal range would
look like this:
How were 2011-2020 life-cycle housing goals being calculated?
Life-cycle housing goals were also considered in partnership with communities and stakeholders in
2009-2010. In summary, life-cycle housing goals were also determined as a range. The low end of the
range was the 2011-2020 share of affordable housing need. The high end of the range was calculated
by multiplying all land guided multi-family residential AND expected to develop in the 2011 decade by
the maximum densities of those land uses. This resulted in some very high life-cycle housing goals!
Page - 3 | October 15, 2020 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
How are 2021-2030 life-cycle housing goals being calculated?
Life-cycle goals are intended to ensure communities are allowing for a variety of housing types;
specifically a mix of densities within their residential land. Although all communities must allow
minimum average residential densities for sewer serviced growth, and additional average density
minimums near certain transit investments, this measure is more about knowing how many multi-family
units are possible. Therefore, life-cycle goals are being measured by looking at all multi-family land
uses (defined as land uses with a minimum of 8 units per acre or more), and multiplying the acres of
land expected to develop in the coming decade by the median density of those multi-family land use
designations. Shown another way:
Livable Communities Act Grant Program Activity
Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA)
10/22/01 application for city owner properties at 7500‐7528 42nd Ave N. Improvement
Project 665. Application denied because firm development commitment has not been
identified.
3/14/2011 Contamination Cleanup grant for $443,150 for 5121 Winnetka Ave N, lead
contamination from previous occupant
2013 purchased Winnetka Learning Center/Centra Homes, TBRA grant $200,000
Application for grant 5550 Winnetka Ave N and 7809 BLR, improvement project 697.
$67,672 to clean up old BOSA donut site. GRANT NOT FUNDED because zero jobs
would be created.
Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA)
2001: $60,000 livable community grant to match city funds to conduct study of
redevelopment options for Hope Village Development Area (BLR corridor)
2003: City Center Task Force‐ $55,000
2007: applied for Bass Lake Road Apartments redevelopment and was denied
Local Housing Incentives Account (LHIA)
Bass Lake Court Townhomes‐ Grant award: $200,000 in 1998
Boone Avenue Condos‐ Grant Award: $125,000 in 2004
Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
2006: $350,000 grant, $250,000 to partially fund water main improvements associated
with Bass Lake Road Apartments site adjacent to golf course and $100,000 for transit
improvements.
2014: Applied for $250,000 grant to help pay for some of the upcoming Xylon streetscape
improvements
I:\RFA\City Manager\2020\Budget 2021\WS 101920\11.6 Q ‐ 2021 Enterprise and utility fund budgets utility rates.docx
Request for Action
October 19, 2020
Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Originating Department: City Manager
By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Agenda Title
Discussion regarding 2021 enterprise and utility fund budgets/discuss 2021 utility rates
Requested Action
Staff requests to discuss the 2021 enterprise and utility fund budgets, and 2021 utility rates. Representatives
from AEM will be present to assist with the discussion. The director of public works will be present for the
review and discussion of the utility fund budgets, i.e., street lights, storm sewer, water, and sewer. The
director of parks and recreation and recreation facilities manager will be present for the review and
discussion of the golf course and ice arena budgets.
Policy/Past Practice
The Council reviews and provides feedback/direction on the enterprise and utility fund budgets and rates on
an annual basis.
Background
Attached is a memo from AEM providing an overview of the fund status for each of the enterprise and utility
funds. The original proposed budgets for these funds are in your budget notebooks. The directors from the
respective departments will outline significant changes in the budgets from 2020. A brief summary of the
budgets is as follows:
Utility Fund Budgets
Sanitary Sewer – On December 31, 2019, the sanitary sewer utility fund had a cash balance of $1,645,152. The
City Council approved a 5% rate increase for 2020. A 5% rate increase is recommended for 2021 to meet
ongoing capital needs and to keep pace with the rate increases approved by the Metropolitan Council.
The overall budget for 2021 increases by $119,478 from the 2020 budget. The sewer treatment charge from
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services will increase 7.14% or $42,390. Other increases are for 2021
sewer infrastructure improvements, central garage charges, depreciation and for personnel costs.
Water – On December 31, 2019, the water fund had a cash balance of $2,253,701. A 5% rate increase was
implemented in 2020 and 5% rate increase is recommended for 2021 to meet ongoing capital needs and to
keep pace with the rate increases approved by the Joint Waters Commission. The overall budget for 2021
decreased by $268,397 from the 2020 budget. There is a $540,000 decrease for 2021 infrastructure
improvements, however there is a $206,196 increase in the city’s portion of the Joint Water Commission
budget which includes water purchases from Minneapolis and JWC funded capital improvements. Other
increases are for depreciation, central garage charges, wages and benefits and IT costs. As the Council is
aware, the water fund continues to make annual repayments to the temporary financing fund for the JWC
emergency water supply system and the repair of the trunk line to Minneapolis. The long‐term plan indicates
that the loan can be paid off by the end of this year.
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.6
Request for Action, Page 2
Storm Water – On December 31, 2019, this fund had a cash balance of $707,844. A 5% rate increase was
implemented in 2020 and a 5% rate increase is recommended for 2021 to meet ongoing capital needs.
The overall budget for 2021 increased $182,812, which includes a $197,500 for 2021 infrastructure
improvements and other increases for depreciation, central garage charges, IT costs and wages/benefits.
There is a $98,686 decrease in repairs/other contractual. This budget also includes member assessments for
Shingle and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commissions, which increased minimally for 2021.
Street Lighting – On December 31, 2019, this fund had a cash balance of $19,810. A 5% rate increase was
implemented in 2020 and a 5% rate increase is recommended for 2021 to meet ongoing capital needs.
The street light budget decreased $1,438 from the 2020 budget due to a decrease in repairs/other contractual,
as some of the newer lights are still under warranty. A rate increase is needed to save for future capital
projects and to offset Xcel Energy rate increase.
Golf Course and Ice Arena Budgets
Similar to previous years, surveys of surrounding metro area golf courses and ice arenas have been
completed and attached for reference purposes.
Golf Course – On December 31, 2019, this fund had a cash balance of $89,136. The 2021 budget calls for a
$49,109 decrease in cash, after accounting for $70,000 in capital improvements. The overall budget is a
decrease of $122 compared to the 2020 budget. Revenue is projected to increase by $13,000 due to overnight
parking space lease revenue from Ironwood Apartments, golf cart rentals and concession sales. Expenses are
estimated to increase $12,878 for personnel costs, general liability insurance, repairs and other contractual for
tree removal and IT costs. There is a decrease in central garage charges and no purchases are planned for
2021. The budget includes $70,000 for capital improvements, including clubhouse HVAC and interior update,
exterior painting of maintenance shop, golf car lease and replacement of fencing. No increase is
recommended for green fees, however a $5.00 increase in adult and senior passes is recommended.
Ice Arena – This fund had an interfund loan of $104,291 to assist with cash flow management as of December
31, 2019. The arena also had cash held with fiscal agent in the amount of $1,358,401 as of December 31, 2019
which is reserved for principal payoff of the 2011A facility bonds in 2028. The 2021 budget calls for a decrease
in the cash balance of $276,021 after factoring in a $500,000 transfer in from the Park Infrastructure Fund,
payment on capital improvements of $790,000 and bond interest expense of $57,482. It is anticipated that an
interfund loan will be used to finance the majority of the capital improvements to be completed in 2021.
Overall there is an increase of $28,064 in revenues and an increase of $652,377 in expenses from the 2020
budget. Revenue increases are for ice rental due to increase in prime rate (which went into effect September
2020), skate sharpening and vending revenue, live streaming of games and increases in building operations
credit. Aside from capital improvements, budget increases are for personnel costs, IT expenses, electric and
central garage charges. The major capital improvement is the replacement of the south arena roof for $750,000
and it is recommended that funding be from an internal loan from temporary financing fund.
Request for Action, Page 3
Attachments
AEM Enterprise Fund Summary Memo
Utility and Enterprise Fund Budget Narratives
Draft 2020 Utility Rates Recommendation
Ice Arena/Golf Course Rate Surveys
AEM Memo
1
MEMO
TO: KIRK MCDONALD
FROM: VICKI HOLTHAUS
SUBJECT: BUDGET SUMMARY - ENTERPRISE FUNDS
DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2020
BACKGROUND
Initial budgets have been prepared for the City’s Enterprise funds. Since these funds are fee supported and not tax
supported, they are typically presented following the initial September City Council approval of the preliminary budget and
tax levy. Below is a brief summary of the budget highlights for each enterprise fund.
2
Sewer - The cash balance of the sewer fund as of December 31, 2018 and 2019 was $1,194,800 and $1,645,152,
respectively. The projected cash balance at the end of 2021 is $1,426,641. This estimate is based on the 2020 and 2021
budgets for operations and capital as outlined below. Actual results will vary due to variances from budget to actual.
Favorable
2020 2020 Percent 2021 2021 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Revenue 3,168,000$ 100 % 3,308,000$ 100 140,000$
Operating Expenses (2,768,160) (87) (2,852,524) (86) (84,364)
Depreciation (176,000) (6) (195,000) (6) (19,000)
Debt Service (22,049) (1) (20,663) (1) 1,386
Capital Improvements (450,000) (14) (467,500) (14) (17,500)
Net Revenue/(Expenses) (248,209)$ (8) (227,687)$ (7) 20,522$
Sewer
Key Points:
Revenue - A 5 percent rate increase is reflected on the rate sheet to meet the ongoing operating, debt and capital
commitments of the sewer fund. Revenue for the years ending December 31, 2018, 2019 and 2020 (year-to-date) are
shown below.
Expense - The overall budget has increased by $119,478 which includes a $17,500 increase for scheduled 2021
infrastructure improvement projects. The increases are comprised of the following.
Increase from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for sewer treatment charges, estimated at 7.14%
or $42,390.
Increase of $22,179 in Central Garage charges
Increase of $19,000 in depreciation expense
Increase of $13,808 in wage and benefits
3
Increase of $2,815 in IT department charges
Water - The cash balance of the water fund as of December 31, 2018 and 2019 was $1,775,725 and $2,253,701,
respectively. The projected cash balance at the end of 2021 is $2,458,721. This estimate is based on the 2020 and 2021
budgets for operations and capital as outlined below. Actual results will vary due to variances from budget to actual.
Favorable
2020 2020 Percent 2021 2021 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Operating Revenues 4,686,000$ 100 % 4,686,000$ 100 -$
Operating Expenses (3,689,083) (79) (3,934,369) (84) (245,286)
Depreciation (340,000) (7) (375,000) (8) (35,000)
Debt Service (83,085) (2) (74,402) (2) 8,683
Capital Improvements (640,000) (14) (100,000) (2) 540,000
Net Revenue/(Expenses) (66,168)$ (2) 202,229$ 4 268,397$
Water
Key Points:
Revenue - A 5 percent rate increase is reflected on the rate sheet to meet the ongoing operating, debt and capital
commitments of the water fund. Revenue for the years ending December 31, 2018, 2019 and 2020 (year-to-date) are
shown below.
4
Expense - The overall budget has decreased by $268,397 which includes a $540,000 decrease related to infrastructure
improvement projects. The changes are comprised of the following.
New Hope’s share of JWC budget (including water purchase and JWC capital improvements) increase by
$206,196.
Depreciation expense increase of $35,000
Central Garage charge increase of $14,773
Wage and benefit increase of $11,692
IT department charge increase of $6,748
Storm Water - The cash balance of the Storm Water fund as of December 31, 2018 and 2019 was $586,255 and
$707,844, respectively. The projected cash balance at the end of 2021 is $253,411. This estimate is based on the 2020
and 2021 budgets for operations and capital as outlined below. Actual results will vary due to variances from budget to
actual.
Favorable
2020 2020 Percent 2021 2021 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Revenue 1,145,000$ 100 % 1,205,000$ 100 60,000$
Operating Expenses (853,419) (75) (787,837) (65) 65,582
Depreciation (195,000) (17) (250,000) (21) (55,000)
Debt Service (43,608) (4) (39,501) (3) 4,107
Capital Improvements (290,000) (25) (487,500) (40) (197,500)
Net Revenue/(Expenses) (237,027)$ (21) (359,838)$ (29) (122,811)$
Storm Water
Key Points:
Revenue - A 5 percent rate increase is reflected on the rate sheet to meet the ongoing operating, debt and capital
commitments of the storm water fund. Revenue for the years ending December 31, 2016 through 2019 and 2020 (year-
to-date) are shown below.
5
Expense - The overall budget has increased by $182,812 which includes a $197,500 increase in infrastructure
improvement projects. The budget changes are comprised of the following.
Shingle Creek Watershed assessment is funded out of the Storm Water budget, the total assessment charge to
the nine city members generally has minor annual fluctuations. The assessment charge for New Hope has
increased from $28,934 to $29,534, or approximately $600 from 2020.
Basset Creek Watershed assessment is funded out of the Storm Water budget; the assessment charge for New
Hope has increased from $28,750 to $29,633, approximately $913 or 3.18% from 2020.
The Basset Creek Watershed Management Commission’s total assessment charge to the city member groups
generally has annual fluctuations.
$55,000 increase in depreciation expense
$14,810 increase in central garage charges
$7,319 increase in IT charges
$10,309 increase in personnel costs
Street Lighting - The cash balance of the Street Lighting fund as of December 31, 2018 and 2019 was $314,060 and
$19,810, respectively. The projected cash balance at the end of 2021 is $79,648. This estimate is based on the 2020
and 2021 budgets for operations and capital as outlined below. Actual results will vary due to variances from budget to
actual.
Favorable
2020 2020 Percent 2021 2021 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Revenue 146,000$ 100 % 150,500$ 100 4,500$
Operating Expenses (119,050) (82) (117,612) (78) 1,438
Capital Improvements - - - - -
Net Revenue/(Expenses) 26,950$ 18 32,888$ 22 5,938$
Street Lighting
Key Points:
Revenue - A 5 percent rate increase is recommended to offset the rate increasing energy cost.
Expenditure - The capital improvement budget has no expenditures for 2021.
Golf Course - The cash balance of the Golf Course fund as of December 31, 2018 and 2019 was $100,022 and $89,136,
respectively. The projected cash balance at the end of 2021 is ($9,204). This estimate is based on the 2020 and 2021
budgets for operations and capital as outlined below. Actual results will vary due to variances from budget to actual.
Favorable
2020 2020 Percent 2021 2021 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Revenue 342,000$ 100 % 355,000$ 100 13,000$
Operating Expenses (326,231) (95) (334,109) (94) (7,878)
Depreciation (37,000) (11) (37,000) (10) -
Capital Improvements (65,000) (19) (70,000) (20) (5,000)
Net Revenue/(Expenses) (86,231)$ (25) (86,109)$ (24) 122$
Golf Course
6
Key Points:
Revenue -
An increase in facility rental revenue of $9,000 due to lease revenue from Ironwood Apartments use of several
parking lot spaces overnight.
No increase in green fees, however staff is recommending a $5 increase in the adult and senior season passes.
An increase of $3,000 for Equipment rental. Golf car rentals have been strong over the last couple of years. Pull
cart rentals would increase $1.
Increase in concession sales of $1,000.
Expense -
Increase in personnel costs of $3,747. In addition to seasonal staff, the golf course budget covers 35% of the
Recreation Facilities Manager and 5% of the Recreation Facilities Supervisor salaries.
Increase of $2,515 in general liability insurance costs for 2021.
Increase of $2,000 in repair/other contractual due to additional tree removal expected.
Increase of $1,198 in IT costs due to city-wide allocation.
Other slight increases are included in water expense, administrative transfer expense and garbage.
Decrease of $2,051 in Central Garage charges. No purchases are planned for 2021.
Slight decreases are expected in league promo, alarm services, and printing.
Capital expenses for 2021 are expected to be $5,000 higher in 2021 and include:
o $20,000 clubhouse HVAC; original in 2001
o $20,000 clubhouse interior update
o $8,000 for golf cart lease (year 3 of 5)
o $6,000 miscellaneous equipment
o $10,000 paint maintenance shop; last done 1990 (moved from 2020)
o $6,000 replace fencing at tee #1
Ice Arena - The cash balance of the Arena fund as of December 31, 2018 and 2019 was $800 and $800, respectively.
Cash held with fiscal agent for the principal due on the 2011A facility bonds as of December 31, 2018 and 2019 was
$1,160,680 and $1,358,401, respectively. The projected operating cash balance at the end of 2021 is $213,980, which
assumes an interfund loan from temporary financing to cover major infrastructure improvements. This estimate is based
on the 2020 and 2021 budgets for operations and capital as outlined below and has been adjusted to account for the
payments made to the 2011A sinking fund ($200,000 in 2020 and $210,000 in 2021). Actual results will vary due to
variances from budget to actual.
Favorable
2020 2020 Percent 2021 2021 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Revenue 890,575$ 100 % 918,639$ 65 28,064$
Transfer in 400,000 45 500,000 54 100,000
Operating expenses (813,201) (91) (846,478) (60) (33,277)
Depreciation (206,000) (23) (200,000) (14) 6,000
Debt service (58,082) (7) (58,182) (4) (100)
Capital improvements (165,000) (19) (790,000) (56) (625,000)
Net revenue/(expenses) 48,292$ 5 (476,021)$ (15) (524,313)$
Ice Arena
7
Key Points:
Revenue -
Increase of $20,000 in ice rental in part due to increase in prime rate from $210 to $215/hour that took effect in
the fall 2020.
Slight decrease in facility rental due to youth hockey using fewer locker rooms. Staff is recommending a slight
increase in locker room rental fees.
Slight increase in open ice time, skate sharpening and vending revenue.
Miscellaneous revenue is increasing $4,000 due to additional revenue for live streaming.
The building operations credit will increase $1,024 from the recreation budget for use of the community room.
Expense -
The main factor for the large increase in expenses for 2021 are the capital expenses planned. An inner fund loan
is expected to be used to finance the roof replacement and will be paid back over several years. The 2021
projects include:
o $25,000 replace radiant heaters in the north arena; original in 1996
o $750,000 replace south roof
o $15,000 skate tile replacement
Increase of $11,093 in personnel costs. In addition to seasonal salaries, this budget covers most of the salaries
for several fulltime positions: Recreation Facilities Manager (55%), Recreation Facilities Supervisor (80%),
Maintenance Worker (85%), and Recreation Facilities/Pool Supervisor (25%).
Increase of $10,142 in IT costs, due to city-wide allocation.
Utilities continue to be monitored by staff. Minor adjustments continue to be made to reflect actual expenses: an
increase of $10,000 in electric expense, decrease in $2,000 in water/sewer expenses and a decrease of $2,000 in
gas.
An increase of $2,772 is included in Central Garage. No purchases are scheduled for 2021.
Other slight increases are included in garbage, general liability insurance, uniforms, administrative transfer and
fiscal agent expense.
Budget continues to allow for $200,000 depreciation cost and $57,482 transfer of money to fund the yearly
interest for the bond.
The transfer from the Park Infrastructure levy has been increased to $500,000. This transfer to the ice operating
fund will assist with the ice arena debt payments and capital improvements.