101623 Work Session Meeting Packet
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION MEETING
New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Northwood Conference Room
Monday, October 16, 2023
6:00 p.m. - dinner
6:30 p.m. - meeting
Mayor Kathi Hemken
Council Member John Elder
Council Member Andy Hoffe
Council Member Michael Isenberg
Council Member Jonathan London
1. CALL TO ORDER – October 16, 2023
2. ROLL CALL
11. UNFINISHED & ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
11.1 Update from West Metro Fire-Rescue District
11.2 Discussion regarding HRG programs and recommended 2024 rates
11.3 Discussion regarding 2024 enterprise and utility fund budgets and 2024 utility
rates
11.4 Update regarding the city’s Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software and
vendor selection
11.5 Update on Curbside Appeal Reimbursement Program
11.6 Update on Performance Measurement Report and SMART goals
11.7 Update on Economic Development Report
11.8 Discussion regarding issuance of tobacco licenses, city code chapter 8
11.9 Discuss possibility of implementing a vacant property registration program
12. OTHER BUSINESS
13. ADJOURNMENT
I:\RFA\City Manager\2023\WMFRD\WS 101623\11.1 Q ‐ West Metro Fire‐Rescue District Update 10.16.23.docx
Request for Action
October 16, 2023
Approved by: Reece Bertholf, City Manager
Originating Department: City Manager
By: Valerie Leone, City Clerk‐Treas.
Agenda Title
Update from West Metro Fire‐Rescue District
Requested Action
Staff requests the City Council receive an update from Chief Larson on West Metro Fire‐Rescue District
operations. Council Member Elder serves as the New Hope council representative on the board, and Marc
Berris serves as the New Hope citizen representative on the board. The city manager also serves on the board.
Policy/Past Practice
West Metro Fire‐Rescue District was formed in 1998 as a joint powers agreement between the cities of New
Hope and Crystal. The agreement was updated and approved by both city councils in 2011 and updated in
2017 and 2019. One of the items in the board’s work plan and in the chief’s goals is for the chief to provide
periodic updates to the city councils to keep the lines of communication open between the fire district and the
two cities. The last update was provided at the May work session.
Background
Chief Larson will be discussing routine items with the City Council:
1. Routine Items
Calls for Service Report through August 31
Public events
Staffing
Training
Vehicles
Fire Prevention programs
Investigations
2. Preliminary 2024 West Metro Fire‐Rescue District Budget
The city councils of Crystal and New Hope approved the preliminary 2024 budget. The total proposed
2024 budget is $3,364,500, which is a $333,310 increase over the 2023 budget of $3,031,190. The general
operating budget increase is $183,310 or 7.5%, based on an additional full‐time staff member, salaries,
incentive pay for paid‐on‐call firefighters, PERA, workers comp. insurance, medical exams, financial
services and communications. There is a $20,000 increase to the special revenue pension fund
contribution. The contributions to the budget from cities include a $103,600 lease payment for the aerial
truck (tower) and $150,000 lease payment for the new engines.
Attachment:
New Hope Council Update
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.1
1
West Metro Fire-Rescue District
October 16, 2023
New Hope Quarterly Update
ADMINISTRATION/OPERATIONS REPORT
Sarah Larson, Fire Chief
Calls for Service Report
January 1 – August 31, 2023 Total Calls for Service 1400 Estimated fire loss $ 2,162,929
Crystal 568
New Hope 784
Mutual Aid 48
January 1 – December 31, 2022 Total Calls for Service 2128 with 2 severe weather
Crystal 959 Estimated fire loss $1,501,240
New Hope 1099
Mutual Aid 68
January 1 – December 31, 2021 Total Calls for Service 2124 Estimated fire loss $1,703,242
Crystal 890
New Hope 1,169
Mutual Aid 65
January 1 – December 31, 2020 Total Calls for Service 1828 Estimated fire loss $1,313,433
Crystal 781
New Hope 983
Mutual Aid 64
Not responded to per COVID‐19 Protocols 178
Fires EMS/Rescue Hazardous Condition Service Call Good Intent Fire Alarm Severe Weather Total
Mutual/Auto Aid 37 27% 0 0 0 11 14% 0 0 48 3%
New Hope 54 39% 454 57% 73 56% 21 60% 36 47% 146 65% 0 784 56%
Crystal 46 34% 343 43% 57 44% 14 40% 30 39% 78 35% 0 568 41%
Total 137 9% 797 57% 130 10% 35 4% 77 5% 224 15% 1400 100%
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2023 Calls for Service Jan 1 ‐Aug 31
2
January 1 – December 31, 2019 Total Calls for Service 2018 Estimated fire loss $2,276,913
January 1 – December 31, 2018 Total Calls for Service 1856 Estimated fire loss $632,167
January 1 – December 31, 2017 Total Calls for Service 1922 Estimated fire loss $588,517
January 1 – December 31, 2016 Total Calls for Service 1573 Estimated fire loss $1,637,094
January 1 – December 31, 2015 Total Calls for Service 1514 Estimated fire loss $657,914
January 1 – December 31, 2014 Total Calls for Service 1663 Estimated fire loss $1,861,162
January 1 – December 31, 2013 Total Calls for Service 1448 Estimated fire loss $357,182
January 1 – December 31, 2012 Total Calls for Service 1349 Estimated fire loss $169,900
January 1 – December 31, 2011 Total Calls for Service 1638 Estimated fire loss $318,749
ADMINISTRATION
Assistant Chief of Administration, Joel Nelson
Public Events
‐ 25 Year Anniversary & Open House, July 6th
‐ Engine 1 in the Whiz Bang Parade, July 9th
‐ YMCA Tour of Station 3, July 28th
‐ Crystal Frolics, July 27‐30
‐ National Night Out / Night 2 Unite, August 1st
‐ Wet & Wild Water Day, August 4th
‐ St. Raphael’s Church Festival, August 5th
‐ New Hope Lions Corn Feed, August 9th
‐ Tower 1 to the Holy Nativity Childcare Center, August 11th
‐ Engine 1 to the HyVee Family Event, August 12‐13
‐ New Hope Safety Camp, August 15‐17
‐ La Petite Daycare, End of Summer Party, September 1st
‐ Armstrong Girls Tennis Team held a Car Wash at Station 3, September 10th
‐ Vehicle Fair, September 16th
‐ WM Honor Guard to the Fallen Firefighter Memorial Ceremony, September 24th
‐ Station tours
‐ Home Safety Surveys
Retirement / Resignation
Firefighter Krista Nielsen resigned on October 4th after serving the District for nearly 5 years.
Leave of Absence (LOA)
We have added Adam Cummings (personal), Tom Eliason (medical) & Pete Goldsmith (medical) to our list of
members on leave from the District. We have a total of 10 members on leave currently; 1 on military, 4 on
medical & 5 on personal leaves.
Staffing
We are currently at 8 fulltime & 59 paid, on‐call firefighters of which 10 are on LOA.
3
SAFER Lieutenants
We have posted internally for these 3 positions; the application period closes October 16th at 4:30pm.
Explorers
The West Metro Explorer Post had a busy summer training twice per month plus attending many of the public
events listed above. Some have also branched out into the honor guard events, hopefully this will be another
area that they get active with.
Honor Guard
Our honor guard team participated in the Fallen Firefighters Memorial Ceremony at the State Capital on
Sunday, September 24th.
FD Awards Banquet
This banquet was held on Friday, September 29th at Chief Larson’s rooftop party room. The award recipients
for 2023 are:
Years of Service Awards
15 Years – Charlie Black & Matt Rowedder
10 Years – Ed Forcier & William Leaf
2023 Douglas C. Smith Award for Excellence – Jake Wheeler
2023 Fire Officer of the Year – Brandon Clark
2023 Firefighter of the Year Award – Spencer Specht
2023 Rookie of the Year Award – Alyssa Anderson
Customer Service Award
Charlie Black
Louis Biondo
Eric Grimes
Inspiration Award
Jason Braun
Brandon Clark
Jacob Wheeler
Eric Grimes
Olivia Brown
Joe Konradt
Madison Morrow
Alyssa Anderson
Innovation Award
Brandon Clark
Josh Kunde
4
Chief’s Commendation
Shelby Wolf
Charlie Black
Nazib Chowdhury
Tara Gray
Mike Zacharias
Andy Nichols
Jason Huber
Ryan Master
Olivia Brown
Joe Dvorak
Joe Konradt
Madison Morrow
Kyle McManus
Lucas Pitra
Tony Thissen
TRAINING/EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Assistant Chief of Training, Sean Watson
Pierce Engine Inservice training
As of early September, All WMFRD personnel have completed in‐service training requirements for the new
Pierce engines.
Live Fire
West Metro conducted live fire training on Saturday, October 7th at a property owned by the City of New
Hope. Live fire is a critical training component that affords use the opportunity to test our skills in a realistic
environment. Providing us with a chance to improve our fire attack skills, learn about fire behavior, increase
our fire ground communication, and work on our hose line management.
Mass Casualty/Active Threat
New Hope Police, Crystal Police, and the WMFRD are scheduled to complete joint active threat training in
October. Five total training sessions will be offered with numerous firefighters and police officers attending.
These trainings will focus on skills related to triage rescue teams, bleeding control, and patient removal. Once
skills training is complete, scenarios will take place at New Hope Church.
Fire Apparatus Operator
The 2021 recruit class completed fire apparatus operator training/state certification on September 7th. They
are now cleared as operators on all District apparatus. This is the last major milestone for this class of recruits
to be promoted to firefighters in December.
WMFRD Recruits
Emergency Medical Responder and Emergency Medical Technician coursework started in August and will run
through December, once these classes are complete, our 2022 Recruits will be ready for promotion to
Apprentice Firefighters.
5
LOGISTICS
Assistant Chief of Logistics, Josh Kunde
New Engines
The District's Logistics Division has successfully completed the procurement, delivery, equipment installation,
and fire hose integration for two of the four new fire engines. The following is an overview of the key activities
and accomplishments in this regard, ensuring that the department's operational readiness has been
significantly enhanced.
Procurement and Delivery:
The procurement process for the four new fire engines began the summer of 2020 and concluded with the
delivery of the 4th engine in September. After a comprehensive evaluation of the District’s needs, the
specification process commenced. Followed by pre‐build meeting at the manufacturer, a post paint inspection
and three separate final inspection trips. All four fire engines were received in excellent condition, meeting
our department's specifications and requirements.
Equipment Installation:
The installation of firefighting equipment on the new fire engines is being carried out efficiently. The following
equipment is being installed:
‐ Fire hoses, nozzles, and adaptors
‐ Fire extinguishers
‐ Hydraulic rescue tools (Jaws of Life)
‐ Ventilation fans
‐ Thermal imaging cameras
‐ Medical equipment
‐ Fire axes, pike poles, and other hand tools
‐ Lighting and scene illumination equipment
‐ Radios
The installation process was supervised to ensure that all equipment was securely and properly mounted, with
special attention given to safety considerations.
Fire Hose Integration:
The following steps were taken for the integration of fire hose onto the new engines:
‐ Inspection of hoses for any defects or damage
‐ Proper storage and compartmentalization to prevent entanglement and damage during transit
‐ Ensuring the inclusion of hose loads and connections for rapid deployment
‐ Conducting flow tests to verify the functionality of hoses and nozzles
This comprehensive approach to fire hose integration ensures that our new fire engines are fully equipped and
ready for firefighting operations.
Training and Familiarization:
To maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the new fire engines, all department personnel were provided
with training and familiarization sessions. This included hands‐on training with the newly installed equipment,
hose deployment drills, and operation of specialized tools. The training aimed to ensure that our firefighters
are well‐prepared to respond to emergencies using these new vehicles.
6
Testing and Inspection:
Thorough testing and inspection procedures were carried out to verify the operational readiness of each fire
engine. These tests included engine performance checks, pump flow rate tests, and functional testing of all
firefighting equipment. All four fire engines passed these tests with flying colors, meeting or exceeding
industry standards.
Future Plans:
As part of our ongoing commitment to maintaining the highest level of readiness and safety, the Logistics
Division will continue to monitor the condition and performance of the new fire engines. Regular maintenance
schedules and equipment checks will be established to ensure that these valuable assets remain in top
working condition.
In conclusion, the successful procurement, delivery, equipment installation, and fire hose integration for our
four new fire engines represents a significant milestone for the Fire Department. These efforts have
strengthened our capacity to respond effectively to emergencies and serve the community. The Logistics
Division remains dedicated to the ongoing maintenance and enhancement of our firefighting capabilities.
PREVENTION
Deputy Fire Marshal, Shelby Wolf
Inspections/Plan Reviews
From January 1 thru August 31 we conducted 735 inspections/plan reviews/meetings, of which 328 required a
re‐inspection. We have completed 272 re‐inspections.
As of the week of September 25, 2023, we are finishing follow up on commercial inspections for Willow Bend,
Bass Lake Road, and 56th Avenue North.
This September we started back up on annual inspections for liquor and gas station licenses for both cities,
and annual assembly occupancy inspections.
The schools in the District also had lots of remodel projects going on this summer. In August we were very
busy completing final inspections on those projects.
New construction, plan reviews, and inspections for new construction projects are still keeping us busy.
Currently there are several new buildings, and remodels in different planning stages.
Residents seem to be more aware of potential fire code issues this summer as we have had an uptick of
potential code issue complaints.
Training Inspectors
The inspector training program is going well. We have two new firefighters working in the program. They are
helping with apartment inspections, and learning about the buildings, fire systems, fire codes, and how to do
inspections.
7
Home Inspection Program
Our goal again for 2023 is to complete 30 home safety surveys. So far this year we have conducted 11 surveys.
We have advertised on social media and in both of the city’s newsletters.
Fire Prevention Education
Summer has been very busy for fire safety activities in the community!
6/14/2023 Sonnesyn Adventure Club fire safety programs (120 kids, ages’ K‐2nd grade)
6/16/2023 RSI Adventure Club fire safety programs (K‐5th grade, 120 kids)
6/21/2023 Good Samaritan staff fire safety program (15 adults)
6/27/2023 Adventure Park Program at Valley Place Park (15 kids, read a book to the kids)
6/28/2023 Adventure Park Program at Holiday Park (fire safety program, 15 kids)
6/29/2023 Freedom School fire safety presentation to families (100 people)
7/6/2023 WMFRD Open House
7/11/2023 Read along at Freedom School with the kids (50 kids)
7/19/2023 Station 2 Tour for Holy Trinity Pre‐school program (20 kids)
7/27/2023 Adventure Park Program Holiday Park (fire safety program, 15 kids)
7/28/2023 7/29/2023 Crystal Frolics Fire Works Detail
8/3/2023 Little Folks Daycare Center Fire Safety Programs (Ages 1‐5, 30 kids with adults)
8/8/2023 Group Home Fire Safety Program for staff and residents (10 adults)
8/10/2023 Fire extinguisher Training at 8740 49th Avenue North business (30 adults)
8/15/2023 8/17/2023 New Hope Safety Camp (75 kids)
9/1/2023 La Petite Academy (pre‐school fire safety programs, 25 kids)
9/21/2023 Good Samaritan Assisted Living Fire Safety Program to the residents (15 adults)
9/26/2023‐9/29/2023 Forest Elementary School fire safety programs for grades Pre‐K thru 2nd (560 kids, and
15 programs)
10/3/2023‐10/6/2023 Beacon Academy School fire safety programs for grades Pre‐K thru 2nd (8 programs, 220
kids)
We are currently working to finish up scheduling fire safety programs for Pre‐K thru 2nd Grade in the seven
Elementary Schools we have in the District. These programs tentatively schedule all the way thru the middle of
November. In the spring we will do fire safety programs for the private schools and 3rd grade.
Adopt a Hydrant Program:
This fall we will be marketing the Adopt a Hydrant Program once again. For this program residents adopt a
hydrant near their home, and keep it clear of snow in the winter. During big snow falls we will pick one
resident from each city to receive a prize for a clear hydrant.
Fire Investigations:
Unfortunately, this summer/early fall was busy with fire investigations! The causes of the fires ranged from
vehicle engine compartment fires, small appliance fires, improper disposal of smoking material, improper
use/storage of batteries, and an electrical cord fire.
7/5/2023 60XX 56th Avenue North ‐ Dumpster /Enclosure/Fence fire
7/18/2023 46XX Quebec Avenue North ‐ Paint Booth fire
7/31/2023 56XX West Broadway ‐ Dumpster Fire
8/10/2023 30XX Flag Avenue North ‐ Vehicle Fire
8
8/25/2023 55XX West Broadway ‐ Vehicle Fire
8/25/2023 30XX Gettysburg Avenue North ‐ Garage/House fire
8/27/2023 79XX 37th Avenue North ‐ House/Garage/Deck fire
8/31/2023 27XX Douglas Drive ‐ Food warmer appliance fire in a business
9/1/2023 60XX West Broadway ‐ Fan fire in living room
9/2/2023 81 and Corvallis Avenue North ‐ Vehicle fire
9/4/2023 52XX Scott Avenue North ‐ Garage fire
9/8/2023 34XX Major Avenue North ‐ Small Appliance fire
I:\RFA\City Manager\2023\HRG Rates\11.2 Q ‐ HRG Programs 2024 rates.docx
Request for Action
October 16, 2023
Approved by: Reece Bertholf, City Manager
Originating Department: City Manager
By: Reece Bertholf, City Manager
Agenda Title
Discussion regarding HRG programs and recommended 2024 rates
Requested Action
Staff requests the Council have a brief discussion regarding HRG (Hennepin Recycling Group) programs and
2024 rates. Tim Pratt, Hennepin Recycling Group Administrator, will be in attendance at the meeting. A $.90
per household/per month increase is recommended for 2024 to offset increased costs for yard waste, curbside
bulky waste cleanup program and a new recycling contract. Last year there was a $1.00 rate increase per
household/per month.
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 and discuss 2024 rates. Tim has prepared the attached presentation,
which he will review with Council.
Historical information:
2022 – load limits were implemented for the curbside bulky waste cleanup year.
2022 – refuse haulers were required to offer organics recycling collection.
SCORE funding for traditional recycling continues to decrease.
HRG’s contract with Waste Management for recycling services expired June 30, 2023; the lowest proposal
was $3.89 (the current rate is $2.61 per household).
2022 – implemented the on‐line ReCollect platform that provides reminders to residents about collection
day and provides an on‐line disposal guide.
Recycling grants to cities will remain at $5,000 per year, similar to 2023.
Contract includes free recycling to city facilities and special events (corn feed).
2024 is a curbside bulky waste cleanup year for New Hope.
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‐
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.2
Request for Action, Page 2
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 2023 Recycling Fees
Current fee of $5.00 per household per month
$2.80/hh/mo. Curbside recycling contractual costs
+$1.55/hh/mo. Curbside clean‐up costs
+$0.50/hh/mo. Yard waste contractual costs
+$0.20/hh/mo. Brooklyn Park Administrative costs
+$0.20/hh/mo. Special material drop off costs
+$0.05/hh/mo. Crystal Administration costs_______
$5.30/hh/mo.
‐$0.30/hh/mo. Hennepin County Grant______________
$5.00/hh/mo.
The rate history over the past ten years is as follows:
2012 $3.55 per household/per month
2013 $3.55 per household/per month
2014 $3.55 per household/per month
2015 $3.55 per household/per month
2016 $3.55 per household/per month
2017 $3.65 per household/per month
2018 $3.65 per household/per month
2019 $3.65 per household/per month
2020 $3.75 per household/per month
2021 $3.75 per household/per month
2022 $4.00 per household/per month
2023 $5.00 Per household/per month
2024 $5.90 Per household/per month – recommended
Attachments
HRG 2024 Budget Presentation
HENNEPIN RECYCLING GROUP PROGRAM AND BUDGET OVERVIEWNew Hope City Council Work SessionOctober 16, 20231
Program ComponentsCurbside recyclingRecycling and waste disposal education (e.g., App, calendar, phone calls, emails)Bulky waste curbside collectionOrganics drop-offSpecial material drop-offYard waste siteEvent recycling2
CalendarSend NotificationsBrooklyn Park HRG Recycling AppBrooklyn Park HRG Recycling AppAvailable in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, French, and Russian
FeaturesFeaturesSearchable Database
Curbside Recycling5New contract started July 1, 2023Performance Improvement Plan – added a driverRates went up $1.29/per HH per monthCost sharing Current commodity prices have cratered
Curbside Clean Up6
Curbside Cleanup7April 1– 11, 2024New Contract – Disposal cost going from $69/ton to $105/tonRecommending a $0.20 per HH/Month increase in recycling fee
Rain Barrel/Compost Bin Sale8$20 discount for HRG residents
Organics RecyclingFood Scraps (including meat and dairy)Non-Recyclable Paper9•Fruits and vegetables•Bread, pasta and baked goods•Eggshells•Meat, fish and bones•Dairy products•Napkins and paper towels (not used with chemical cleaners)•All paper, non-plastic lined plates and bowls (look for BPI certification)•Food soiled paper, including pizza boxes, unlined take-out containers and egg cartons•Facial tissue, tissue paper and other paper products with fibers too short to be recycled
Two OptionsCurbside CollectionStarting January 1, 2024, all residents will be chargedDrop Off Hennepin County Drop-Off Facility, 8100 Jefferson Hwy10
Organics Drop-OffAt Crystal Cove Aquatics Center287 users>400 lbs./weekSign up at hrg-recycling.com11
Special Materials Drop-offSpring and FallAppliancesBatteriesElectronicsMattressesOil, AntifreezePaper ShreddingPalletsScrap MetalTires12
Building Materials Event13Partnered with Better Futures87 Participants
Yard Waste Site14Contract extended through 2027
Pumpkin Drop-OffWeek after HalloweenCentral Park in Brooklyn Park (Noble Ave.parking lot)15
Event RecyclingProvide organics recycling for Lions Corn FeedEvent recycling and organics containers can be borrowed for free by the publicReservation form on hrg-recycling.com website16
Breakdown of 2023 Recycling FeesCurrent fee is $5.00 per household per month$2.80/hh/mo. is curbside recycling contractual costs$1.55/hh/mo. is the curbside clean up costs$0.50/hh/mo. is yard waste contractual costs$0.20/hh/mo. is Brooklyn Park Administration costs $0.20/hh/mo. is special material drop off costs$0.05/hh/mo. is Crystal Administration costs($0.30/hh/mo.) Hennepin County Grant17
2023-24 HRG Budget HighlightsCurbside recycling cost increase July 1, 2023Curbside Bulky Waste Cleanup cost increaseSCORE funding will remain flatBoard recommending $.90 rate increase to offset increased cost of new recycling, yard waste, and Cleanup contractsPerhaps another fee increase in 202518
Questions...?tim.pratt@brooklynpark.org763-493-812019
I:\RFA\City Manager\2023\Budget 2024\WS 101623\11.3 Q ‐ 2024 Enterprise and utility fund budgets utility rates.docx
Request for Action
October 16, 2023
Approved by: Reece Bertholf, City Manager
Originating Department: City Manager
By: Reece Bertholf, City Manager
Agenda Title
Discussion regarding 2024 enterprise and utility fund budgets and 2024 utility rates
Requested Action
Staff requests to discuss the 2024 enterprise and utility fund budgets, and 2024 utility rates. Representatives
from Abdo 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 Abdo 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 2023. A brief summary of the
budgets is as follows:
Utility Fund Budgets
Sanitary Sewer – At 12/31/22 the sanitary sewer utility fund had a cash balance of $2,561,438. The City
Council approved a 4% rate increase for 2023. A 4% rate increase is recommended for 2024 to meet ongoing
capital needs and to keep pace with the rate increases approved by the Metropolitan Council.
Water – At 12/31/22 the water fund had a cash balance of $3,909,250. A 4% rate increase was implemented in
2023. A 5% rate increase is recommended for 2024 to meet ongoing capital needs and to keep pace with the
rate increases approved by the Joint Water Commission.
Storm Water – At 12/31/22 this fund had a cash balance of $1,644,184. A 4% rate increase was implemented in
2023 and a 4% rate increase is recommended for 2024 to meet ongoing capital needs.
Street Lighting – At 12/31/22 this fund had a cash balance of $162,625. A 5% rate increase was implemented
in 2023 and a 5% rate increase is recommended for 2024 to meet ongoing capital needs.
Golf Course – At 12/31/22 this fund had a cash balance of $419,237. A slight increase in greens fees and
season passes will be proposed for 2024.
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.3
Request for Action, Page 2
Ice Arena – At 12/31/22 this fund had a negative cash balance of $9,513. The transfer from the Park
Infrastructure Fund remains at $500,000 to assist with ice arena debt payments and capital improvements.
Attachments
Abdo Enterprise Fund Summary Memo
Utility and Enterprise Fund Budget Narratives
Utility Rates Recommendation
Ice Arena/Golf Course Rate Surveys
1
MEMO
TO: REECE BERTHOLF
FROM: ERIN ENSTAD, ABDO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS
SUBJECT: BUDGET SUMMARY - ENTERPRISE FUNDS
DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2023
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, 2021, and 2022 was $2,070,556 and $2,561,438,
respectively. The projected cash balance at the end of 2024 is $3,240,289. This estimate is based on the 2023 and 2024
budgets for operations and capital as outlined below. Actual results will vary due to variances from budget to actual.
Favorable
2023 2023 Percent 2024 2024 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Revenue 4,064,500$ 100 % 4,202,000$ 100 137,500$
Operating Expenses (2,964,773) (73) (3,205,468) (76) (240,695)
Depreciation (190,000) (5) (210,000) (5) (20,000)
Debt Service (17,775) - (16,271) - 1,504
Capital Improvements (550,000) (14) (710,700) (17) (160,700)
Net Revenue/(Expenses) 341,952$ 8 59,561$ 2 (282,391)$
Sewer
Key Points:
Revenue - A 4 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, 2022, and 2023 (year-to-date) are shown
below.
Expense - The overall budget has increased by $419,891. The increase is comprised of the following.
Increase from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for the sewer treatment charges,
estimated at 9.50% or $189,386
Increase of $54,166 in wage and benefits
Increase of $160,000 for 2024 Infrastructure Improvement projects
Increase of $20,000 depreciation expense
Decrease of $13,353 Central Garage Charges
3
Water - The cash balance of the water fund as of December 31, 2021, and 2022 was $3,154,081 and $3,909,250,
respectively. The projected cash balance at the end of 2024 is $2,363,206. This estimate is based on the 2023 and 2024
budgets for operations, and a reimbursement for a JWC South Water Paint project which is included in the capital as
outlined below. Actual results will vary due to variances from budget to actual.
Favorable
2023 2023 Percent 2024 2024 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Operating Revenues 6,139,500$ 100 % 6,153,000$ 100 13,500$
Operating Expenses (4,403,534) (72) (4,981,925) (81) (578,391)
Depreciation (300,000) (5) (315,000) (5) (15,000)
Debt Service (61,587) (1) (55,615) (1) 5,972
Capital Improvements (6,087,000) (99) (335,055) (5) 5,751,945
Net Revenue/(Expenses) (4,712,621)$ (77) 465,405$ 8 5,178,026$
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, 2022, and 2023 (year-to-date) are shown
below.
4
Expense - The overall budget has decreased by $5,164,526 which includes a $5,751,945 decrease related to 2023
infrastructure improvement projects. The changes are comprised of the following.
New Hope’s share of JWC budget (including water purchase and JWC capital improvements) increased by
$582,748
Increase of $42,913 for wages and benefits
Increase of $11,424 for IT Department charges
Increase of $10,000 for supply/equipment repair (water meters)
Increase of $25,070 for Central Garage charges
Decrease of $15,000 for depreciation expense
Storm Water - The cash balance of the Storm Water fund as of December 31, 2021, and 2022 was $1,240,598 and
$1,644,184, respectively. The projected cash balance at the end of 2024 is $1,746,515. This estimate is based on the
2023 and 2024 budgets for operations and capital as outlined below. Actual results will vary due to variances from budget
to actual.
Favorable
2023 2023 Percent 2024 2024 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Revenue 1,375,500$ 100 % 1,442,000$ 100 66,500$
Operating Expenses (824,502) (60) (881,110) (61) (56,608)
Depreciation (250,000) (18) (250,000) (17) -
Debt Service (31,438) (2) (28,711) (2) 2,727
Capital Improvements (340,000) (25) (405,000) (28) (65,000)
Net Revenue/(Expenses) (70,440)$ (5) (122,821)$ (8) (52,381)$
Storm Water
Key Points:
Revenue - A 4 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, 2019, through 2022 and 2023 (year-
to-date) are shown below.
5
Expense - The overall budget has increased by $118,880. The budget changes are comprised of the following:
Increase of $34,253 for wages and benefits
Increase of $65,000 in 2024 scheduled improvement projects
Increase of $7,123 for repairs/other contractual
Increase of $7,579 for Central Garage charges/operating costs
Street Lighting - The cash balance of the Street Lighting fund as of December 31, 2021, and 2022 was $128,962 and
$162,625, respectively. The projected cash balance at the end of 2024 is a negative $234,187. The November 2021 long
term plan projected the short fall of cash and recommended a short term interfund loan to provide adequate cash flow for
the 2023 improvement projects. This estimate is based on the 2023 and 2024 budgets for operations and capital as
outlined below. Actual results will vary due to variances from budget to actual.
Favorable
2023 2023 Percent 2024 2024 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Revenue 180,100$ 100 % 186,000$ 100 5,900$
Operating Expenses (125,706) (70) (137,206) (74) (11,500)
Capital Improvements (500,000) (12) - - 500,000
Net Revenue/(Expenses) (445,606)$ 18 48,794$ 26 494,400$
Street Lighting
Key Points:
Revenue - A 5 percent rate increase is recommended to offset the rate increasing energy cost.
Expense – The overall budget has decreased by $488,500. The budget changes are comprised of the following:
Decrease of $500,000 in improvements, as no major project is planned for 2024.
No increase for General Liability Insurance
Increase $10,000 for Electric Expense
Golf Course - The cash balance of the Golf Course fund as of December 31, 2021, and 2022 $341,554 and $419,237,
respectively. The projected cash balance at the end of 2024 is $168,200. This estimate is based on the 2023 and 2024
budgets for operations and capital as outlined below. Actual results will vary due to variances from budget to actual.
Favorable
2023 2023 Percent 2024 2024 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Revenue 396,150$ 100 % 435,500$ 100 39,350$
Operating Expenses (443,197) (112) (463,490) (106) (20,293)
Depreciation (37,000) (9) (38,000) (9) (1,000)
Capital Improvements (116,000) (29) (60,000) (14) 56,000
Net Revenue/(Expenses) (200,047)$ (50) (125,990)$ (29) 74,057$
Golf Course
Key Points:
Revenue -
A $20,000 increase in green fees; staff will be proposing slight increases in greens fees and season passes.
Increase of $5,000 in concession sales
An increase of $5,000 for equipment rental, due to strong golf cart rentals over the last couple of years.
6
Expense -
Capital improvement project expenses for 2024 are expected to total $60,000, which is $56,000 lower than 2023.
Projects include:
o $20,000 upgrading of cart paths
o $20,000 clubhouse updates; original in 2001
o $10,000 for golf cart lease (year 1 of 5)
o $10,000 miscellaneous equipment
Increase of $4,807 in IT costs due to city-wide allocations.
Ice Arena - The cash balance of the Arena fund as of December 31, 2021, and 2022 was negative $194,063 and
negative $9,513, respectively. The projected operating cash balance at the end of 2024 is negative $89,537. To help with
the cash balance, we recommend pushing the first principal payment for the interfund loan that was issued in 2023 to start
in 2024 rather than 2023. This estimate is based on the 2023 and 2024 budgets for operations and capital as outlined
below, an interfund loan for capital projects and has been adjusted to account for the revised debt service amounts per
the 2021A refunding of the 2011A lease revenue bonds, ($245,000 in 2022 and $260,000 in 2023). Actual results will
vary due to variances from budget to actual.
Favorable
2023 2023 Percent 2024 2024 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Revenue 939,355$ 65 % 957,070$ 66 17,715$
Transfer in 500,000 53 500,000 52 -
Operating expenses (919,383) (63) (967,128) (66) (47,745)
Depreciation (205,000) (14) (225,000) (15) (20,000)
Debt service (16,250) (1) (12,950) (1) 3,300
Capital improvements (1,338,100) (92) (108,000) (7) 1,230,100
Net revenue/(expenses) (1,039,378)$ (52) 143,992$ 29 1,183,370$
Ice Arena
Key Points:
Revenue -
A $5,000 increase in ice rental revenue due to the increase in the prime rate from $230 to $235/hour, which will
take effect in the fall of 2024, and the increase in non-prime rate from $185 to $190/hour.
Increase of $3,000 in advertising due to strong sales by the youth hockey association.
Interest income is expected to increase by $4,850.
Expense -
Capital improvement project expenses for 2024 total $108,000, which is $1,230,100 lower than 2023. Projects
include;
o $18,000 addition of drinking fountain for lower-level south rink
o $20,000 addition of gutters in front and rear corners
o $50,000 replacement of HVAC components
o $20,000 replace Zamboni room garage doors
Increase of $12,719 in personnel costs. This budget covers a portion of the salaries for several fulltime positions:
Recreation Facilities Manager (55%), Recreation Facilities Supervisor (80%), Ice Arena Maintenance Operator
(85%), Recreation Facilities/Pool Supervisor (25%) and the new Golf Course Superintendent (15%). Seasonal
staffing costs are expected to increase $6,337, for a total of 7.625 hours.
Increase of $11,000 for electric expenses, based on 2021-2022 actuals.
Increase of $10,000 for gas expenses, based on 2021-2022 actuals.
Increase of $20,000 in depreciation costs.
7
Increase of $4,559 in IT Costs, due to the city-wide allocations.
The transfer from the Park Infrastructure levy remains at $500,000. This transfer to the ice operating fund will assist with
ice arena debt payments and capital improvements.
4% sewer and storm drainage and 5% water and street lighting and $0.90 (18%) recycling increase4% water, storm drainage, sewer and 5% street lighting and $1 ( 25%) recycling increase4% water, storm drainage, sewer and 5% street lighting and 6.67% recycling increase5% water, storm drainage, street lighting, and sewer, and 0% recycling increase5% water, storm drainage and street lighting, 5% sewer, and 2.74% recycling increase5% water, storm drainage and street lighting, 7.5% sewer, and 0% recycling increase5% water, street lighting and storm drainage, 7.5% sewer, and 0% recycling increaseJanuary 2024 January 2023 January 2022 January 2021 January 2020 January 2019 January 2018SERVICE DESCRIPTION MONTHLY MONTHLY MONTHLY MONTHLY MONTHLY MONTHLY MONTHLYWATER CHARGES ARE BASED ON USAGE - CHARGES ARE: Emerg water supply/watermain repair fee (ord 2015-14) $.50/1,000 gallons$0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 (fixed chg)*BASE FEE (RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL)$10.58 $10.08 $9.69 $9.32 $8.87 $8.45 $8.051 - 10,000 GALLONS$7.80 $7.43 $7.14 $6.87 $6.54 $6.23 $5.9310,001- 20,000 GALLONS$8.47 $8.07 $7.76 $7.47 $7.11 $6.77 $6.45GREATER THAN 20,000 GALLONS AND IRRIGATION$9.53 $9.08 $8.73 $8.40 $8.00 $7.62 $7.25COMMERCIAL$7.97 $7.59 $7.30 $7.02 $6.69 $6.37 $6.06SEWER*WINTER SEWER CHARGES ARE BASED ON ACTUAL WATER USED DURING DEC, JAN, FEB, MAR. SUMMER SEWER CHARGES ARE BASED ON THE PREVIOUS WINTER'S AVERAGE OR ACTUAL WATER USED, WHICH EVER IS LOWER. CHARGES ARE: (fixed chg)*MINIMUM FEE INCLUDES THE 1ST 1,000 GALLONS$10.50 $10.10 $9.71 $9.34 $8.90 $8.47 $7.88EACH ADDITIONAL 1,000 GALLONS$6.98 $6.71 $6.45 $6.20 $5.91 $5.63 $5.23TREATMENT SURCHARGE/1,000 GAL$0.72 $0.69 $0.66 $0.63 $0.60 $0.57 $0.53STREET LIGHTSTHE STREET LIGHT CHARGE IS ASSESSED AGAINST ALL UTILITY ACCOUNTS. THE FEE IS USED TO PAY FOR STREET LIGHTS THROUGH-OUT THE CITY. pro-ratedNON-DECORATIVE (Overhead Power)$1.60 $1.52 $1.45 $1.39 $1.32 $1.26 $1.20DECORATIVE - (Underground Power)$2.30 $2.19 $2.09 $1.99 $1.90 $1.81 $1.72RECYCLING pro-ratedTHE CITY IS REQUIRED, BY STATE AND COUNTY LAW, TO PROVIDE A RECYCLING PROGRAM FOR ITS RESIDENTS. THIS SERVICE IS A UTILITY SERVICE AND EVERY PROPERTY IS ASSESSED THE FEE. THE RATE CHARGED IS NOT BASED ON HOW OFTEN OR HOW MUCH A RESIDENT USES THE PROGRAM$5.90 $5.00 $4.00 $3.75 $3.75 $3.65 $3.65 STORM DRAINAGETHE STORM DRAINAGE CHARGE IS ASSESSED AGAINST ALL PROPERTY IN NEW HOPE. THE FEE PAYS FOR CLEANING, MAINTENANCE, AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE CITY. pro-ratedCHARGES ARE: RESIDENTIAL$9.88 $9.50 $9.13 $8.78 $8.36 $7.96 $7.59 NON RESIDENTIAL$14.82 $14.25 $13.70 $13.17 $12.54 $11.95 $11.38 STATE TESTING (fixed chg)EVERY PROPERTY CONNECTED TO MUNICIPAL WATER IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA IS CHARGED AN ANNUAL $9.72 (effective Jan. 1, 2020) CONNECTION FEE. THIS FEE IS COLLECTED BY THE CITY AND PAID TO THE MN DEPT OF HEALTH FOR WATER TESTING THROUGHOUT THE STATE.$0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.53 $0.53 WATER*CITY OF NEW HOPE RATES
2023-24 Ice Arena Annual Survey
Year Off Season
Winter
Prime
Hourly
Brooklyn Park 2020-2021 $185.00 $240.00
2021-2022 $190.00 $245.00
2022-2023 $195.00 $250.00
2023-2024 $200.00 $255.00
Champlin Ice Forum 2020-2021 $175.00 $230.00
2021-2022 $180.00 $235.00
2022-2023 $185.00 $240.00
2023-2024 $185.00 $240.00
Coon Rapids 2020-2021 $175.00 $220.00
2021-2022 $180.00 $225.00
2022-2023 $180.00 $230.00
2023-2024 $185.00 $238.00
Maple Grove 2020-2021 $180.00 $220.00
2021-2022 $180.00 $220.00
2022-2023 $180.00 $220.00
2023-2024 $190.00 $235.00
New Hope 2020-2021 $180.00 $220.00
2021-2022 $180.00 $225.00
2022-2023 $185.00 $230.00
2023-2024 $190.00 $240.00
Plymouth 2020-2021 $185.00 $225.00
2021-2022 $190.00 $235.00
2022-2023 $190.00 $245.00
2023-2024 $215.00 $265.00
Rogers Activity Center 2020-2021 $160.00 $210.00
2021-2022 $160.00 $215.00
2022-2023 $170.00 $225.00
2023-2024 $180.00 $235.00
St. Louis Park 2020-2021 $190.00 $220.00
2021-2022 $195.00 $225.00
2022-2023 $205.00 $230.00
2023-2024 $210.00 $235.00
2023-2024 Low / High $180-$215 $265-$235
Average Price (not including New Hope)$195.00 $243.29
Golf Course Survey
Par 3 Municipal Survey
(Completed October 2023)ParGreens Fee Weekend Holiday2nd nineSr. RateJr. RateHyland Bloomington (Forward Tees) 2022 27 $17.00 $17.00 $17.00 $13.00 $13.00
2023 $18.00 $18.00 $17.00 $14.00 $14.00
2024 $18.00 $18.00 $17.00 $14.00 $14.00
Mendota Heights Par 3 2022 27 $12.00 $14.00 $6.00 $11/$13 $11/$13
weekday/weekend for seniors and juniors 2023 $13.00 $15.00 $6.00 $12/$14 $12/$14
2024 $13.00 $15.00 $6.00 $12/$14 $12/$14
Theodore Wirth Par 3 1240 yards 2022 27 $13.00 $13.00 $9.00 $10.50 $10.50
2023 $14.00 $14.00 $9.00 $11.00 $11.00
2024 $15.00 $15.00 $9.00 $12.00 $12.00
Roseville Cedarholm 1342 yards *2022 27 $14.75 $15.25 $8.00 $13.75 $9.99
2023 $15.25 $15.75 $8.50 $14.25 $9.99
2024 $15.75 $16.25 $9.00 $14.50 $9.99
Brookview (Golden Valley) 1287 yards * 2022 27 $13.50 $13.50 $8.50 $10.50 $10.50
2023 $14.50 $14.50 $9.50 $11.50 $11.50
2024 $15.50 $15.50 $9.50 $12.50 $12.50
New Hope Municipal 1331 yards 2022 27 $15.50 $15.50 $9.00 $13.50 $9.50
Last increase in green fees was $0.50 in 2023 2023 $16.00 $16.00 $9.00 $14.00 $9.50
2024 $17.00 $17.00 $10.00 $15.00 $10.00
Birnamwood 2022 27 $14.75 $15.50 50% off regular rate $13.50 $13.50
2023 $15.75 $16.50 50% off regular rate $14.50 $13.50
2024 $16.75 $17.50 50% off regular rate $15.65 $14.50
Centerbrook (City of Brooklyn Center)2022 27 $18.00 $18.00 $15.00 $15.00 $10.00
2023 $19.00 $19.00 $15.00 $15.00 $10.00
2024 $19.00 $19.00 $15.00 $15.00 $10.00
$13-$19 $15-$19 $12-$15.65 $9.99-$14.50
$16.14 $16.61 $13.66 $12.14
Area Executive Courses
Eagle Lake (Three Rivers Park District) 2022 31 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $14.00
2023 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $14.00
2024 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 $14.00
Brookland Golf Park (City of Brooklyn Park)2022 30 $15.50 $15.50 $5.00 $14.00 $13.00
2023 $16.50 $16.00 $6.00 $15.00 $13.00
2024 $16.50 $16.00 $6.00 $15.00 $13.00.$16.50 $6.00 $15.00
* Do not include tax
2023-2024 Low/High
Average Price (not including New Hope)
I:\RFA\HR & Admin Svcs\Human Resources\2023\Council Work Sessions\10162023\Q ‐ 11.4 ERP Update.docx
Request for Action
October 16, 2023
Approved by: Reece Bertholf, City Manager
Originating Department: HR & Admin Services
By: Rich Johnson, Director
Agenda Title
Update regarding the city’s Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software and vendor selection
Requested Action
Staff would like to provide an update to the City Council regarding ERP process and vendor selection.
Background
At the April 17, 2023, work session, staff informed Council of LOGIS’ pricing and the city’s options regarding
the enterprise resource planning software. Council supported utilizing Abdo’s services to assist the city in
evaluating various ERPs. The software review included programs such as accounts receivable, accounts
payable, financial reporting as well as payroll, human resources, special assessments, recreation,
license/permits/ inspections, and utility billing. Staff explained that the city may be able to secure services
that meet or exceed LOGIS’ at a lower price and without a 10‐year commitment.
Abdo has provided a memorandum outlining the steps taken to date, vendor pricing, and a recommendation
to negotiate a contract with BS&A.
Attachments
Abdo Memo dated October 11, 2023
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.4
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
REECE BERTHOLF
ERIN ENSTAD, ABDO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS
ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) SYSTEM CHANGES
OCTOBER 11, 2023
BACKGROUND
LOGIS has decided to move away from the system that has been in place for over 20 years (JD Edwards) and has begun
moving towards a new system. The new system will be implemented in many LOGIS cities/counties over the next few
years.
New Hope has worked with LOGIS since the 1970’s to provide IT services, including various software that is used daily in
the city (JD Edwards, Hubble, CIS Infinity, PIMS, RecTrac, etc.). Over the past 2 years LOGIS has been working with its
membership to research, evaluate, and select a new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and Utility Billing software
solution.
After LOGIS made their selections, each city had to choose between continuing with the solutions that LOGIS selected (at
a very significant cost and would be required to make a 10-year commitment to the new software) or consider other
options that would suit their needs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We have evaluated LOGIS’ selections alongside management and felt it is in the best interest of the City to consider other
options through a request for proposal (RFP).
The timeline for the RFP, discovery, and selection is summarized below. The process has incorporated the appropriate
staff from each department to evaluate and select the future ERP and subsidiary software selections, to ensure they meet
the needs of the staff and City.
-April 2023 – Met with the city council and get their approval to publish a request for proposals for a new ERP and
ancillary applications
-April 2023 - Began gathering software requirements from all departments
-July 2023 – Sent out a request for software proposals
-September 2023 – Demo ERPs and ancillary solutions
-October 2023 – Sign contract
-Estimated implementation would be January 2025 (depending on the software vendor’s implementation schedule
at the time of contract execution)
The City received five proposals, see list below. The evaluation was conducted based on a variety of important factors
including functionality, efficiencies, customer service, experience with other Minnesota cities, experience with converting
data from other LOGIS cities, and price. After thorough evaluation, the City selected two ERPs (BS&A and Tyler – ERP 10
Pro) for more detailed demonstrations. Based on the demonstrations and factors listed above, staff recommends moving
forward with BS&A.
Vendor Five Year Cost One-time Costs First Year Annual Total
BS&A $739,151 $268,380 $95,750 $1,103,281
CentralSquare $3,027,954 $1,368,050 $312,651 $4,708,655
Harris Local
Government – MIS
$557,241 $233,915 $60,900 $852,056
N. Harris Corporation $3,442,338 $1,142,860 $368,287 $4,953,485
Tyler – ERP 10 Pro $711,925 $222,234 $60,441 $994,600
The City also has the option to continue with the solutions that LOGIS selected identified below.
Vendor Five Year Cost One-time Costs First Year Annual Total
LOGIS $1,690,411 $267,966 $267,924 $2,226,301
BS&A does not have a module for parks and recreation, but they do integrate well with the current parks and recreation
software (RecTrac). We recommend that the City stays with LOGIS for this piece until the new ERP system is
implemented and then at that time evaluate the future of that program.
As part of implementing a new ERP system there is additional project management, and technical work that is outside of
Abdo’s general scope of services. In the 2024-2026 Abdo contract it is outlined that technical work will be invoiced at our
standard bill rates and a one-time project management fee will be charged of $28,500. The technical work that will be
completed will be to ensure the financial information history is correct and balances, make sure all the modules are
working correctly, balancing to the general ledger, and troubleshooting any problems that occur. Project management will
include both overall responsibilities applicable throughout the project, as well as key responsibilities during the various
phases. Some of the overall responsibilities throughout the project include providing internal coordination and
communication with City leadership, monitor project plan and issues list to ensure tasks are completed and timelines are
met by all members, identify and raise any issues for executive support with City leadership as well as the ERP
implementation team, and listen to understand primary concerns and priorities of internal staff.
Abdo and City management welcome your questions on this request for action.
ENCLOSURES
Appendix A – Abdo Proposal for Project Management
I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2023\Work Session\10‐16‐23 Curbside Appeal Reimbursement Program\WS Curbside Appeal Reimbursement Program 10‐16‐23.docx
Request for Action
October 16, 2023
Approved by: Reece Bertholf, City Manager
Originating Department: Community Development
By: Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist;
Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development
Agenda Title
Update on Curbside Appeal Reimbursement Program
Requested Action
Staff requests to provide an update on the Curbside Appeal Reimbursement Program and authorization to
continue offering the program until funds have been depleted. Additional funding for the program could be
considered in the future.
Policy/Past Practice
The Curbside Appeal Reimbursement Program is intended to encourage homeowners to make improvements
to the exterior of their homes and garages in areas that are visible from the street. The city reimburses a portion
of the costs for projects that meet eligibility requirements.
Background
The Curbside Appeal Reimbursement Program launched on June 1, 2022, on a two‐year trial basis. The
program encourages homeowners to make improvements to the exterior of their homes and garages in areas
that are visible from the street. The program has been successful having helped fund 20 projects valued at
$201,181. Properties that are eligible for the program include owner‐occupied one‐and two‐family homes that
do not have past due taxes, citations, or utility bills. Eligible improvements to a house or garage must take
place in a front and/or side yard that abuts a street. Projects that are eligible include the following:
Alteration to roofline.
Addition of covered front porch.
Installation of new front door with window(s).
Installation of new storm door with window(s).
Installation of new garage door that:
o Includes windows and/or
o Is comprised of solid, stained wood or composite wood.
Addition of windows above and/or on side(s) of front door (sidelight and transom windows).
Installation of column(s).
Addition of brick or stone façade/accents.
Incorporation of address numbers into stone façade.
Installation of shutters, shakes, and/or board and batten siding.
Enlargement of window openings by at least 25% (calculated per individual window) or addition of
window(s) to area that did not previously have a window.
Reimbursement
All projects must be pre‐approved by city staff and completed within 180 days. Work cannot begin until an
application has been approved by the city. Projects eligible for reimbursement must cost at least $4,000.
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.5
Request for Action, Page 2
Property owners are reimbursed for 25% of costs with a maximum reimbursement of $5,000. Property owners
who do work themselves can submit material lists and get paid for material costs but not labor.
Project Cost Resident Cost City Reimbursement
$3,999 or less 100% of cost (not eligible) $0
$4,000 $3,000 $1,000
$8,000 $6,000 $2,000
$12,000 $9,000 $3,000
$16,000 $12,000 $4,000
$20,000 $15,000 $5,000
$20,001 or more 100% of cost above $20,000 $5,000
Completed Projects
To date, 20 projects valued at $201,181 have been approved. Of the $200,000 that was allocated to the program,
$50,247 has been committed to approved projects. Most projects involve more than one improvement that is
eligible for reimbursement. The following improvements have been approved:
Project Count
Front door 14
Garage door 9
Storm door 9
Side light(s) 4
Roofline alteration 3
New/enlarged window opening 3
Front porch 2
Columns 2
Shakes/shutters 2
Address stone 1
Total 49
Requests to Expand
Staff has received many requests to expand the list of eligible projects. Requests have related to landscaping,
painting, lap siding, roofing, chimneys, retaining walls, fences, driveways, window replacement, and the
construction of detached accessory structures. Had these projects been eligible for reimbursement, funds for
the program likely would have been depleted within a short timeframe. Many of the inquiries have been
related to projects that could be considered general maintenance of a home. The goal of the program was to
fund projects that “go above and beyond” general maintenance by adding curb appeal and value to the
property. For these reasons and out of fairness to those who have been denied requests to fund these types of
projects, staff is not recommending changes to the list of projects eligible for reimbursement.
Funding
The City Council allocated $200,000 for the program in its first two years. This included $100,000 from a
general fund surplus due in part to funds received through the American Rescue Plan Act and $100,000 in
EDA funds. Approximately $50,000 in funds have been committed to approved projects.
Request for Action, Page 3
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize continuing to offer the Curbside Appeal Reimbursement
Program until the $200,000 that was allocated to the program has been committed. Additional funding for
the program could be considered in the future. Staff is not recommending any changes to the list of projects
eligible for reimbursement.
Attachments
Program overview
Funding memo from Vicki Holthaus (February 9, 2022)
For more information, visit newhopemn.gov/live/housing/residential_assistance_programs
CURBSIDE APPEAL
REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM
PROGRAM INTENT
The intent of the Curbside Appeal Reimbursement Program is to
encourage homeowners to make improvements to the exterior of
their homes and garages in areas that are visible from the street.
The city will reimburse a portion of the costs for projects that meet
eligibility requirements. There are no income limits to participate in
the program.
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
All applications must include at least one project from this list and
have a minimum project cost of $4,000. Projects not included on this
list will not contribute to the minimum project cost.
Alteration to roofline
Addition of covered front porch
Installation of new front door with window(s)
Installation of new storm door with window(s)
Installation of new garage door that:
o Includes windows and/or
o Is comprised of solid, stained wood or composite wood
Addition of windows above and/or on side(s) of front door
(sidelight and transom windows)
Installation of column(s)
Addition of brick or stone façade/accents
Incorporation of address numbers into stone façade
Installation of shutters, shakes and/or board and batten siding
Enlargement of window openings by at least 25% (calculated
per individual window) or addition of window(s) to area that did
not previously have a window.
Tools, labor provided by homeowners, and insurance claims are not
eligible for reimbursement.
PROJECT FUNDING
This program is funded by New Hope’s Economic Development
Authority (EDA). Reimbursement amounts range from a minimum of
$1,000 to a maximum of $5,000. Applicants are responsible for 75%
of project costs up to $20,000 and 100% of costs beyond $20,000.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
1-to-2-unit, owner-occupied home
Home is in New Hope and has
homestead status with Hennepin
County Property Records (relative
homestead is not eligible)
Current on Hennepin County
property taxes and no outstanding
citations or past due utility bills
Improvements include at least one
item from eligible project list with
a minimum cost of $4,000
Improvements will be visible from
the street (front yard or side yard
abutting a street)
Projects are not part of an
insurance claim
Applicant has not received funds
from the program within the last
five years
Work cannot begin until a
Reimbursement Award Certificate
is issued to the property owner
CONTACT INFORMATION
For questions about the
reimbursement program or more
information, please contact:
Jeff Alger
•Phone: 763.531.5119
•Email: jalger@newhopemn.gov
For more information, visit newhopemn.gov/live/housing/residential_assistance_programs
Project Cost Resident Cost Reimbursement
$3,999 or less 100% of cost (not eligible) $0
$4,000 $3,000 $1,000
$8,000 $6,000 $2,000
$12,000 $9,000 $3,000
$16,000 $12,000 $4,000
$20,000 $15,000 $5,000
$20,001 or more 100% of cost above $20,000 $5,000
All projects must be pre-approved by city staff. Work cannot begin
until an application has been approved by the city. Projects that are
not pre-approved will not qualify for the program and will not be
eligible for reimbursement.
Building permit fees are not waived and are not eligible for
reimbursement.
Property owners who do work themselves may submit material lists
and be reimbursed for 25% of material costs up to $5,000; not
including labor.
Property owners must provide paid invoices/statements after
completion of the project.
All funds are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Funds are
reserved for a project when a Program Agreement is signed and the
Reimbursement Award Certificate is issued. Funds are disbursed
after work is completed, permits are closed, and a final site visit
with EDA staff is completed.
The reimbursement is treated as income and must be reported to
the Internal Revenue Service. The city will then issue a 1099-G Form
to the reimbursement recipient(s) by January 31 of the following
year.
REIMBURSEMENT AWARD CERTIFICATE
Once a project is approved, a Reimbursement Award Certificate is
issued. The certificate will specify the expiration date, valuation of
the project, and amount to be reimbursed upon completion.
To receive reimbursement, all eligible projects must be completed
within 180 days from when a Reimbursement Award Certificate is
issued.
PROCESS
1.Determine if project is eligible for
reimbursement
2.Prepare a project list describing
the scope of work
3.If hiring a contractor, collect bids
(2+ bids recommended as costs
will vary between contractors)
4.Secure financing (visit
newhopemn.gov for loan and
grant opportunities)
5.Submit Curbside Appeal
Reimbursement Program
application with W-9 form
6.Include list of materials and costs
for do-it-yourself projects (only
cost of materials will be
reimbursed)
7.Apply for building permit(s)
8.Sign Reimbursement Award
Certificate (will specify amount to
be reimbursed and expiration
date)
9.Begin work, schedule progress
inspections as required, and close
permit(s) upon completion
10.Schedule post-construction visit
with the EDA Staff (separate from
final permit inspection)
11.Reimbursement check will be
mailed
MEMO
TO: KIRK MCDONALD
FROM: VICKI HOLTHAUS
SUBJECT: CONSIDER ALLOCATION OF $100,000 OF GENERAL FUND SURPLUS TOWARDS
THE EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENT REBATE PROGRAM
DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 2022
BACKGROUND
The City received $1,106,158.24 of Federal American Rescue Act Plan (ARPA) funds in July of 2021 and
an additional $36,223.64 in November of 2021. The US Treasury allows for cities to utilize the lost revenue
provision of the Federal guidance to secure allocation of the funds. The City has determined adequate
governmental service expenditures occurred in 2021 to justify acceptance of the Federal allocation of ARPA
funds.
The City’s preliminary 4th quarter report shows a $200K deficit in the General Fund; however, the deficit
includes a $1,641,664 transfer out of the CARES Act funding received in 2020. If you exclude the transfer
out, the General Fund would report a $1,430,887 surplus for FY 2021. This is a result of revenue in excess
of budget, and expenditures below budget. It is important to recall that the transfer of the CARES Act
funding is possible due to the elevated fund balance generated in the General Fund; an amount well in
excess of the 42% reserve required by City policy.
City staff is recommending the City Council consider using $100,000 of this surplus to fund the initial year
of an exterior improvement rebate program. Subsequent years of the program would be funded by EDA
reserves. Any unused funds from the initial year of the program will be held over to provide funding in
subsequent years.
RECOMMENDATION
City Council approve the allocation of $100,000 of general fund surplus monies to support the
implementation of the Exterior Improvement Rebate Program.
I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2023\Work Session\10‐16‐23 Performance Measurement Report & SMART Goals\WS Performance Measurement Report & SMART Goals 10‐16‐
23.docx
Request for Action
October 16, 2023
Approved by: Reece Bertholf, City Manager
Originating Department: Community Development
By: Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist;
Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development
Agenda Title
Update on Performance Measurement Report and SMART goals
Requested Action
Staff requests to present the 2023 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. 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 is updated annually and was most recently presented
to the City Council in November of 2022. The 2023 Performance Measurement Report includes data from
2018‐2022. Some departments have also established new SMART goals that have been incorporated into the
report.
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 previously included. 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 surveys. The cities of New Hope and
Crystal administer surveys annually; however, the cities of Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield
administer surveys less frequently. This makes a comparative analysis between similar cities difficult.
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.6
Request for Action, Page 2
The following updates have been made to the 2023 Performance Measurement Report:
Community Safety & Security
1. Safety (Citizen Rating)
o 2022 data for New Hope and Crystal
2. Crime Rate
o 2022 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield
3. Traffic Accident Rate
o 2022 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield
4. Police Response
o 2022 data for New Hope, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield
5. Emergency Services
o 2022 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield
6. Code Enforcement Services (Citizen Rating)
o 2022 data for New Hope
7. Fire Protection (Citizen Rating)
o 2022 data for New Hope and Crystal
Public Service Delivery & Community Sustainability
8. City Services/Quality of Life (Citizen Rating)
o 2022 data for New Hope and Crystal
9. Creditworthiness
o 2022 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield
o Table depicting how S&P and Moody’s bond ratings relate to one another for comparison
10. Financial Management
o 2022 data for New Hope
11. Financial Condition
o 2022 data for New Hope
12. Property Values
o 2022 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield
13. Employee Retention
o 2022 data for New Hope
14. Workers’ Compensation
o 2022 data for New Hope
15. Environmental Stewardship
o 2022 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield
General Government Infrastructure Condition
16. City Roads (Citizen Rating)
o 2022 data for New Hope and Crystal
17. Pavement
o 2022 data for New Hope
18. Road Snowplowing (Citizen Rating)
o 2022 data for New Hope and Crystal
Request for Action, Page 3
19. Water Utility Infrastructure
o 2022 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield
20. Water Quality (Citizen Rating)
o 2022 data for New Hope and Crystal
21. Sanitary Sewer (Citizen Rating)
o 2022 data for New Hope and Crystal
22. Sewer Utility Infrastructure
o 2022 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield
23. Sewer Lining
o 2022 data for New Hope
24. Stormwater Management (Citizen Rating)
o 2022 data for New Hope
Attractive, High‐Quality Neighborhoods & Business Districts
25. Development Activity
o 2022 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield
26. Recreation Programs & Facilities (Citizen Rating)
o 2022 data for New Hope and Crystal
27. Recreation Participation & Attendance
o 2022 data for New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Brighton, and Richfield
28. City/Neighborhood Appearance (Citizen Rating)
o 2022 data for New Hope and Crystal
Public Communication & Community Involvement
29. Distribution of Information (Citizen Rating)
o 2022 data for New Hope
30. Website Traffic
o 2022 data for New Hope and Crystal
31. Meeting Viewership
o 2022 data for New Hope, Crystal, and Golden Valley
Comparative Analysis to Similar Cities
32. Tax Rate
o 2022 data for New Hope, Crystal, Champlin, and Hopkins
o Explanation on how tax rates are calculated
33. Debt Per Capita
o 2021 data for Golden Valley
o 2022 data for New Hope, Crystal, Champlin, and Hopkins
34. Response Rate
o 2022 data for New Hope and Crystal
o Summary of professional community‐wide phone survey
SMART Goals
The 2023 version of the report includes 12 new goals. There were 18 goals that appeared in the 2022 report
and expired (goal was to be completed by the end of 2021). These goals have been removed from the
Request for Action, Page 4
document. There was one goal that appeared in the 2022 report that has been discontinued. Many SMART
goals set objectives for three to five years from the date of publication and are “on track” for completion in
the future. Data for 2016‐2022 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 goal 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 following table indicates the number of goals for each category (goals that were discontinued are not
included):
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
2020 14 13 12 14 24 77
2021 9 25 8 14 12 68
2022 1 34 5 9 12 61
Changes in the status of anticipated outcomes (on track changing to not completed, for example) or newly
implemented SMART goals include the following:
Communications
Each of the five communications goals were extended one year, into 2023. New goals will be
developed in 2024.
Public Safety
Public Safety implemented new goal to “complete a minimum of 70 hours of department‐wide
training per year over the next three years.”
Public Safety implemented new goal to “complete a minimum of eight inter/intra‐jurisdictional traffic
details over the next three years.”
Reserves/Explorers implemented new goal to “maintain a minimum staffing level of eight active
police reserves per year over the next three years.”
Parks & Recreation
Parks implemented new goal to “remove or treat all remaining ash trees located in open‐space areas
in city parks in 2023.”
Parks implemented new goal to “replant 30 park trees per year over the next five years.”
Request for Action, Page 5
New Aquatic Park section implemented new goal to “increase program (lap swim, water walk, swim
lessons) attendance by 3% per year over the next four years.”
Aquatic Park implemented new goal to “increase concessions revenue by 3% per year over the next
four years.”
Special Revenue Fund
Solid Waste Management discontinued goal to “average 450 pounds recycled per household per year
over the next five years” after data for 2021 and 2022 was not made available to the Hennepin
Recycling Group.
Capital Projects Fund
Street Infrastructure implemented new goal to “reconstruct or mill and overlay streets as proposed in
five‐year Capital Improvement Plan over the next five years.”
Enterprise Funds
Water implemented new goal to “exercise 5% of water valves annually over the next five years.”
Water implemented new goal to “replace outdated or faulty water meters throughout the city.”
Storm Water implemented new goal to “decrease average total phosphorus levels in Meadow Lake
over the next five years through the Meadow Lake Management Plan.”
Storm Water implemented new goal to “review the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
inventory of public and private systems and correct any errors in the next two years.”
Ice Arena goal to “increase ice hours used for open skate and open hockey by 3% per year over the
next four years” changed from On Track to Not Completed.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the 2023 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, 2023)
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
& SMART GOALS
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 1, 2023
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......................................................................................................................................................34
PARKS & RECREATION...............................................................................................................................35
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND..........................................................................................................................37
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND.........................................................................................................................38
ENTERPRISE FUNDS...................................................................................................................................39
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS.......................................................................................................................41
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 (2020 CENSUS)SIZE/AREA YEAR FORMED
21,986 5.1 square miles 1953
BUSINESSES JOBS SHOPPING CENTERS
480 10,969 5
SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOLS PARKS/ACREAGE
Robbinsdale Area (281)6 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, 2023
COMPARISON OF TOP TIER INDICATORS
COMMUNITY SAFETY & SECURITY
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
1. SAFETY (CITIZEN RATING)
20181 20191 20201 20211 20222
Very or somewhat safe1/Excellent or good2 92%93%92%88%92%
Somewhat or very unsafe1/Fair or poor2 7%7%8%11%9%
Unknown/Blank1,2 1%1%0%1%0%
PAGE 5
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 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
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.
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
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 92%83%N/A N/A 78%
Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 8%18%N/A N/A 22%
Unknown 0%0%N/A N/A 0%
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 88%71%N/A N/A N/A
Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 11%29%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 1%1%N/A N/A N/A
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Very or somewhat safe/Excellent or good 92%69%N/A N/A N/A
Somewhat or very unsafe/Fair or poor 9%31%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown 0%0%N/A N/A N/A
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the overall feeling of safety in the city from 2018-2021 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 service for police protection from 2022 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman
Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
2. CRIME RATE
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Part I crimes 682 611 600 N/A N/A
Part II crimes 721 680 503 N/A N/A
Group A crimes N/A N/A N/A 1,240 1,281
Group B crimes N/A N/A N/A 103 95
Crime rate data for 2018-2022 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. The city of New Hope transitioned to the National-Incident Based Reporting
System (NIBRS) in 2021. NIBRS data is shared in a Group A and Group B format. Group A offense categories include 52 offenses
within 24 crime categories. Group B offenses include 10 crime categories. The change in recording methods makes comparing
data between the two systems difficult. When multiple offenses take place, each offense is now tracked in NIBRS. Previously, only
the highest offense was tracked. Additionally, there is no way to combine or compare groups of data.
PAGE 6
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 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
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Part I crimes 600 268 330 651 679
Part II crimes 503 665 339 546 1,031
Group A crimes N/A 712 365 N/A 868
Group B crimes N/A 274 87 N/A 213
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Part I crimes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Part II crimes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Group A crimes 1,240 1,106 926 1,230 2,163
Group B crimes 103 450 249 292 656
Comparison data was compiled from reports posted on official city websites or requested and supplied directly by city staff.
The cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, and Richfield moved to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) on September
1, 2020. Part I and Part II crimes include data from January 1, 2020-August 31, 2020. Group A and Group B crimes include data
from September 1, 2020-December 31, 2020. The city of New Brighton moved to NIBRS on June 1, 2018, however, the Bureau
of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) continued to provide Part I and Part II crime breakouts, which were used by the city for tracking
crime data through the end of 2020. The change in recording methods makes comparing data between the two systems difficult.
When multiple offenses take place, each offense is now tracked in NIBRS. Previously, only the highest offense was tracked.
Additionally, there is no way to combine or compare groups of data.
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Part I crimes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Part II crimes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Group A crimes 1,281 1,265 778 919 2,139
Group B crimes 95 523 173 288 874
3. TRAFFIC ACCIDENT RATE
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Accidents 411 432 334 391 403
Accidents per 1,000 population 20.21 21.24 16.42 17.78 18.33
Traffic accident data for 2018-2022 was compiled by the city’s police department.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 7
2018
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Accidents per 1,000 population 20.21 17.65 18.84 15.38 26.54
2019
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Accidents per 1,000 population 21.24 15.08 14.82 17.67 25.46
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Accidents per 1,000 population 16.42 12.64 9.87 12.49 15.39
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Accidents per 1,000 population 17.78 13.03 21.11 13.39 20.81
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Accidents per 1,000 population 18.33 9.13 7.01 13.94 9.92
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
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Priority 1 call response time (average minutes)4.36 4.35 4.03 3.40 3.33
Police response data for 2018-2022 was compiled by the city’s police department.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 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
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Priority 1 call response time (average minutes)4.03 N/A 2.80 5.07 4.01
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Priority 1 call response time (average minutes)3.40 N/A 4.00 5.17 4.00
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Priority 1 call response time (average minutes)3.33 N/A 5.10 5.30 4.00
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
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Calls for service 972 1,097 983 1,168 1,099
Calls per 1,000 population 47.79 53.94 48.33 53.12 49.99
Emergency services data for 2018-2022 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 2018
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Calls per 1,000 population 47.79 36.93 29.23 13.70 118.23
Comparison data was compiled from reports posted on official city websites or requested and supplied directly by city staff.
2019
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Calls per 1,000 population 53.94 37.88 36.03 17.80 125.21
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Calls per 1,000 population 48.33 35.26 35.54 15.05 126.35
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Calls per 1,000 population 53.12 37.81 28.87 16.93 126.86
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Calls per 1,000 population 49.99 41.11 65.00 15.65 133.59
6. CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES (CITIZEN RATING)
20181 20191 20201 20211 20222
Too tough 7%7%8%6%3%
About right 53%58%63%62%86%
Not tough enough 34%34%28%31%11%
Unknown/Blank 6%1%1%1%1%
1 Data for citizens’ rating on whether the city is too tough, about right, or not tough enough in enforcing the City Code on such
nuisance issues as trash can screening, exterior storage, and inoperable vehicles from 2018-2021 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 on whether the city is too tough, about right, or not tough enough in enforcing the City Code on such
nuisances as animal control, garbage disposal, junk cars, messy yards, and noise from 2022 was compiled from the Morris
Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
7. FIRE PROTECTION (CITIZEN RATING)
20181 20191 20201 20211 20222
Excellent or good 79%80%78%76%88%
Fair or neutral 17%18%19%22%2%
Poor 1%1%1%0%0%
Unknown or blank 4%2%1%2%10%
PAGE 9
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of fire education, inspection, and response services provided by West Metro Fire-Rescue
District from 2018-2021 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.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 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
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.
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
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 78%73%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 19%5%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 1%1%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 1%22%N/A N/A N/A
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 76%69%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 22%4%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 0%2%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 2%25%N/A N/A N/A
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 88%73%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 2%4%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 0%2%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 10%21%N/A N/A N/A
2 Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of service for fire protection from 2022 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman
Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
8. CITY SERVICES/QUALITY OF LIFE (CITIZEN RATING)
20181 20191 20201 20211 20222
Excellent or good 81%81%81%82%94%
Fair or neutral 16%17%16%17%6%
Poor 1%1%1%1%0%
Unknown or blank 2%1%2%0%0%
PAGE 10
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the overall quality of services provided by the city from 2018-2021 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.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 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
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.
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
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 81%76%N/A N/A 87%
Fair or neutral 16%16%N/A N/A 13%
Poor 1%4%N/A N/A 0%
Unknown or blank 2%4%N/A N/A 0%
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 82%68%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 17%24%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 1%5%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 0%3%N/A N/A N/A
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 94%73%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 6%18%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 0%6%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 0%4%N/A N/A N/A
PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY & COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY
2 Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of life in New Hope from 2022 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company
Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
9. CREDITWORTHINESS
PAGE 11
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Bond rating 💡AA AA AA AA AA
The city’s bond rating for 2018-2022 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 2018
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Bond rating AA AA2 AA1 AA AA+
Comparison data was compiled from reports posted on official city websites. 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. The following table shows how the different S&P and Moody’s ratings relate to one another for comparison.
2019
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Bond rating AA AA2 AA1 AA+AA+
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Bond rating AA AA2 AA1 AA+AA+
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Bond rating AA AA2 AA1 AA+AA+
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Bond rating AA AA2 AA1 AA+AA+
10. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Unmodified audit on financial statements 💡
Unqualified or unmodified financial audits for 2018-2022 were performed by Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A.
11. FINANCIAL CONDITION
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Property taxes (general fund)$9,971,064 $10,297,018 $10,422,823 $10,914,572 $11,391,654
Personnel costs (general fund)$8,156,899 $8,634,285 $8,696,425 $9,033,179 $9,789,015
Ratio of tax revenues to personnel costs 1.22 1.19 1.19 1.21 1.16
Property tax payment rate 99.40%99.15%99.20%99.76%99.72%
Financial condition data for 2018-2022 was compiled by the city’s financial consultant, Abdo Financial Solutions, LLC, as a part of
the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
💡SMART Goal
💡SMART Goal
Standard & Poor’s AAA AA+AA AA-A+A A-BBB+BBB BBB-
Moody’s Aaa Aa1 Aa2 Aa3 A1 A2 A3 Baa1 Baa2 Baa3
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 12
12. PROPERTY VALUES
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Taxable market value 💡$1,831,436,951 $2,021,382,123 $2,177,389,934 $2,308,596,615 $2,693,654,510
Percent change in taxable market value 7.92%10.37%7.72%6.03%16.68%
Taxable market value data for 2018-2022 was determined by Hennepin County. Taxable market value for 2018 was payable in
2019, value for 2019 was payable in 2020, etc.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 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%
Comparison data was compiled from comprehensive market value reports posted on county websites.
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%
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Taxable market value $2,177,389,934 $2,089,227,330 $4,325,815,780 $2,760,181,800 $3,861,992,678
Percent change in taxable market value 7.72%4.70%4.58%7.47%4.71%
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Taxable market value $2,308,596,615 $2,290,082,627 $4,540,229,944 $2,859,131,500 $4,120,572,807
Percent change in taxable market value 6.03%9.61%4.96%3.58%6.70%
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Taxable market value $2,693,654,510 $2,617,626,871 $5,120,172,850 $3,233,531,300 $4,759,906,213
Percent change in taxable market value 16.68%14.30%12.77%13.09%15.52%
13. EMPLOYEE RETENTION
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Turnover rate 💡6.5%5.4%11.8%7.5%9.6%
Employee turnover rate data for 2018-2022 was compiled by the city’s human resources department.
💡SMART Goal
💡SMART Goal
14. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Number of insurance claims 41 19 41 44 35
Experience modification rate 💡1.08 1.05 0.92 0.82 0.96
Insurance claims and Experience Modification Rate (EMR) data for 2018-2022 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 2022-2023 is calculated using 2018,
2019, and 2020 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.
2018
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Minnesota GreenStep Cities rating Step 3 Step 2 Step 3 Step 3 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
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Minnesota GreenStep Cities rating Step 3 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 3
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Minnesota GreenStep Cities rating Step 3 Step 3 Step 5 Step 5 Step 3
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Minnesota GreenStep Cities step level Step 3 Step 3 Step 3 Step 3 Step 3
Best practices completed 24 24 25 25 25
Best practice actions completed 💡83 88 91 92 94
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Minnesota GreenStep Cities rating Step 3 Step 3 Step 5 Step 5 Step 3
💡SMART Goal
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
16. CITY STREETS (CITIZEN RATING)
20181 20191 20201 20211 20222
Excellent or good 70%66%64%72%72%
Fair or neutral 23%31%32%26%25%
Poor 2%3%3%1%3%
Unknown or blank 5%1%1%1%0%
PAGE 14
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the overall condition of city streets (not including county roads) from 2018-2021 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.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 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
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.
2019
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 66%70%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 31%23%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 3%7%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 1%0%N/A N/A N/A
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 64%71%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 32%23%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 3%6%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 1%0%N/A N/A N/A
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 72%66%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 26%29%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 1%4%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 1%1%N/A N/A N/A
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 72%69%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 25%24%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 3%7%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 0%0%N/A N/A N/A
GENERAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION
2 Data for citizens’ rating of pavement repair and patching on city streets from 2022 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman
Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
17. PAVEMENT
PAGE 15
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Pavement condition rating 💡76 (good)76 (good)80 (good)81 (excellent)81 (excellent)
Pavement condition rating data from 2018-2022 was compiled by the city engineer.
18. ROAD SNOWPLOWING (CITIZEN RATING)
20181 20191 20201 20211 20222
Excellent or good 80%78%81%82%90%
Fair or neutral 15%18%16%14%9%
Poor 4%4%2%3%1%
Unknown or blank 1%0%1%0%0%
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the overall quality of snowplowing of city streets from 2018-2021 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.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 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
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.
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
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 81%69%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 16%20%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 2%10%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 1%1%N/A N/A N/A
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 82%66%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 14%23%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 3%10%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 0%2%N/A N/A N/A
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 90%70%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 9%19%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 1%10%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 0%2%N/A N/A N/A
💡SMART Goal
2 Data for citizens’ rating of the snowplowing of city streets from 2022 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company
Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 16
19. WATER UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Water main breaks 24 14 18 26 26
Water main break data for 2018-2022 was compiled by the city’s public works department.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2018
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Water main breaks 24 12 17 21 12
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.
2019
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Water main breaks 14 10 14 15 10
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Water main breaks 18 7 28 15 11
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Water main breaks 26 15 36 14 9
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Water main breaks 26 5 29 8 18
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 17
20. WATER QUALITY (CITIZEN RATING)
20181 20191 20201 20211 20222
Excellent or good 86%87%88%87%86%
Fair or neutral 12%11%10%12%13%
Poor 1%1%1%0%1%
Unknown or blank 1%1%1%1%1%
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the overall quality of the city water supply from 2018-2021 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.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 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
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.
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
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 88%85%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 10%9%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 1%4%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 1%3%N/A N/A N/A
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 87%81%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 12%10%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 0%6%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 1%4%N/A N/A N/A
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 86%85%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 13%11%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
2 Data for citizens’ rating of the taste and quality of drinking water from 2022 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman
Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 18
21. SANITARY SEWER (CITIZEN RATING)
20181 20191 20201 20211 20222
Excellent or good 80%81%80%83%81%
Fair or neutral 16%17%18%17%13%
Poor 1%1%1%0%1%
Unknown or blank 3%1%1%0%6%
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the dependability and overall quality of the city sanitary sewer service from 2018-2021 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.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 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
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.
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
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 80%82%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 18%7%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 1%0%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 1%11%N/A N/A N/A
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 83%81%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 17%10%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 0%1%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 0%8%N/A N/A N/A
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 81%80%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 13%10%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 1%2%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 6%8%N/A N/A N/A
2 Data for citizens’ rating of sanitary sewer service from 2022 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a
professional community-wide phone survey.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 19
22. SEWER UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Blockages 0 1 2 0 1
Blockages per 1,000 connections (5,400 total).000 .185 .370 .000 .185
Sewer blockage data for 2018-2022 was compiled by the city’s public works department.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2018
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Blockages per 1,000 connections .000 1.000 .401 .674 .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.
2019
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Blockages per 1,000 connections .185 .375 .267 .169 .000
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Blockages per 1,000 connections .370 .375 .401 .337 .000
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Blockages per 1,000 connections .000 1.000 .267 .169 .185
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Blockages per 1,000 connections .185 1.000 .267 .169 .000
24. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT (CITIZEN RATING)
2018 20191 20201 20211 20222
Excellent or good N/A 70%72%75%65%
Fair or neutral N/A 26%25%22%20%
Poor N/A 3%2%1%3%
Unknown or blank N/A 1%1%1%13%
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the overall quality of stormwater management in the city from 2019-2021 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.
23. SEWER LINING
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Miles of sewer lined 💡1.25 1.62 2.15 1.80 0.48
Sewer lining data from 2018-2022 was compiled by the city’s public works department.
💡SMART Goal
2 Data for citizens’ rating of the accommodation and control of stormwater runoff from 2022 was compiled from the Morris
Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
ATTRACTIVE, HIGH-QUALITY NEIGHBORHOODS & BUSINESS
DISTRICTS
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
25. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Permits issued 2,441 2,459 2,536 2,870 2,559
Fees collected 💡$506,883 $452,267 $513,900 $544,109 $441,847
Valuation of work 💡$46,952,876 $38,288,981 $27,832,249 $28,894,527 $17,602,045
PAGE 20
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2018
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Permits issued 2,441 2,562 4,801 2,087 5,384
Fees collected $506,883 $447,303 $1,799,150 $469,215 $1,326,046
Valuation of work $46,952,876 $13,912,369 $99,562,730 $17,164,550 $189,452,625
Comparison data was requested and supplied directly by city staff.
2019
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Permits issued 2,459 2,832 4,840 2,215 4,971
Fees collected $452,267 $577,856 $1,633,690 $1,425,085 $2,336,391
Valuation of work $38,288,981 $26,653,088 $88,061,211 $85,540,662 $242,383,630
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Permits issued 2,536 2,745 4,172 2,533 5,756
Fees collected $513,900 $407,138 $1,242,105 $1,493,157 $1,469,468
Valuation of work $27,832,249 $9,465,930 $49,665,715 $86,595,657 $153,378,020
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Permits issued 2,870 3,222 4,818 2,540 6,215
Fees collected $544,109 $607,224 $1,563,660 $1,563,660 $1,488,620
Valuation of work $28,894,527 $29,407,147 $75,719,029 $56,726,175 $182,769,149
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Permits issued 2,559 3,166 4,951 2,375 5,098
Fees collected $441,847 $552,850 $2,020,584 $896,555 $1,058,501
Valuation of work $17,602,045 $18,587,649 $86,220,520 $57,277,763 $103,152,111
Permit data for 2018-2022 was compiled by the city’s community development department. Totals include administrative,
building, business use, courtesy bench, curb cut, electrical, excavation, fire, mechanical, plumbing, point of sale, right-of-way,
sewer and water, and sign permits.
💡SMART Goal
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 21
26. RECREATION PROGRAMS & FACILITIES (CITIZEN RATING)
20181 20191 20201 20211 20222
Excellent or good 75%74%72%75%75%/88%
Fair or neutral 22%24%24%22%10%/11%
Poor 1%1%1%2%1%/0%
Unknown or blank 2%1%2%1%15%/2%
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the overall quality of city recreational programs and facilities (parks, trails, recreational facilities,
classes, etc.) from 2018-2021 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.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 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
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.
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
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 72%72%N/A N/A 81%
Fair or neutral 24%18%N/A N/A 17%
Poor 1%5%N/A N/A 2%
Unknown or blank 2%5%N/A N/A 0%
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 75%67%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 22%22%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 2%6%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 1%5%N/A N/A N/A
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 75%/88%72%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 10%/11%18%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 1%/0%6%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 15%/2%5%N/A N/A N/A
2 Data for citizens’ rating of recreation programs (first number) and park and recreation facilities (second number) from 2022 was
compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
27. RECREATION PARTICIPATION & ATTENDANCE
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Participants in recreation programs 💡25,604 23,598 10,504 17,436 23,729
Pool open swimming attendance Closed Closed Closed 46,863 49,337
Pool passes1 Closed Closed Closed 1,929 2,303
Golf rounds 💡17,800 16,837 26,553 27,654 25,088
Open skating attendance (ice arena) 💡2,204 2,594 1,055 1,641 2,283
Ice hours rented 💡4,151 4,202 2,984 4,416 4,248
PAGE 22
Recreation program participation data for 2018-2022 was compiled by the city’s parks and recreation department.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 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 (ice arena)2,204 N/A N/A N/A 4,673
Ice hours rented 4,151 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 or golf
course or ice arena. Richfield transitioned to a new scheduling system in 2021 and was unable to provide data.
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 (ice arena)2,594 N/A N/A N/A 4,448
Ice hours rented 4,202 N/A N/A N/A 5,702
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley1 New Brighton Richfield
Pool attendance Closed Closed N/A N/A Closed
Pool passes Closed Closed N/A N/A Closed
Golf rounds 26,553 N/A 25,879 23,473 N/A
Open skating attendance (ice arena)1,055 N/A N/A N/A 1,842
Ice hours rented 2,984 N/A N/A N/A 3,524
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley1 New Brighton Richfield
Pool attendance 46,863 14,870 N/A N/A N/A
Pool passes 1,929 942 N/A N/A N/A
Golf rounds 27,654 N/A 26,922 26,268 N/A
Open skating attendance (ice arena)1,641 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ice hours rented 4,416 N/A N/A N/A N/A
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley1 New Brighton Richfield
Pool attendance 49,337 14,261 N/A N/A 46,071
Pool passes 2,303 804 N/A N/A 4,780
Golf rounds 25,088 N/A 24,995 24,602 N/A
Open skating attendance (ice arena)2,283 N/A N/A N/A 5,706
Ice hours rented 4,248 N/A N/A N/A 5,080
💡SMART Goal
1 Data from par 3 golf course only, does not include rounds at 18-hole regulation course.
1 Beginning in 2021, pool passes were individual, not family passes.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 23
28. CITY/NEIGHBORHOOD APPEARANCE (CITIZEN RATING)
20181 20191 20201 20211 20222
Excellent or good 79%79%80%79%94%
Fair or neutral 20%19%18%19%7%
Poor 1%1%1%1%0%
Unknown or blank 0%1%1%1%0%
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the overall appearance of the city from 2018-2021 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.
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 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
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.
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
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 80%66%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 18%28%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
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 79%57%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 19%33%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 1%9%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 1%0%N/A N/A N/A
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Excellent or good 94%58%N/A N/A N/A
Fair or neutral 7%32%N/A N/A N/A
Poor 0%10%N/A N/A N/A
Unknown or blank 0%0%N/A N/A N/A
2 Data for citizens’ rating of the overall general appearance of their neighborhood from 2022 was compiled from the Morris
Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
29. DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION (CITIZEN RATING)
PAGE 24
1 Data for citizens’ rating of the quality of communication/distribution of information from 2018-2021 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.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION & COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
30. WEBSITE TRAFFIC
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Unique visitors 91,165 102,583 99,161 123,788 128,318
Website data for 2018-2022 was compiled by the city’s communications department.
20181 20191 20201 20211 20222
Excellent or good 77%72%71%73%80%
Fair or neutral 20%24%25%24%12%
Poor 3%3%3%2%1%
Unknown or blank 1%1%1%1%8%
COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES 2018
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Unique visitors 91,165 91,105 N/A N/A N/A
Comparison data was requested and supplied directly by city staff.
2019
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Unique visitors 102,583 96,539 N/A N/A N/A
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Unique visitors 99,161 101,832 N/A N/A N/A
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Unique visitors 123,788 126,088 N/A N/A N/A
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Unique visitors 128,318 127,613 N/A N/A N/A
2 Data for citizens’ rating of the overall performance in communicating key local issues to residents in its publications, website,
mailings, and on cable television from 2022 was compiled from the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional
community-wide phone survey.
CITY OF NEW HOPE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT REPORT
PAGE 25
31. MEETING VIEWERSHIP
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Online views of city meetings 803 555 1,796 1,188 1,467
Online viewership data for 2018-2022 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 2018
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Online views of city meetings 803 584 1,016 N/A N/A
Comparison data was requested and supplied directly by CCX Media.
2019
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Online views of city meetings 555 503 1,509 N/A N/A
2020
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Online views of city meetings 1,796 1,159 2,550 N/A N/A
2021
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Online views of city meetings 1,188 1,522 2,768 N/A N/A
2022
New Hope Crystal Golden Valley New Brighton Richfield
Online views of city meetings 1,467 1,127 3,230 N/A N/A
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS TO SIMILAR CITIES
32. TAX RATE
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
New Hope1 58.59%67.99%67.09%63.94%64.32%
New Hope without street infrastructure levy2 50.29%59.23%57.725%55.73%55.57%
Crystal 50.42%48.77%47.86%49.51%47.37%
Golden Valley 55.15%53.78%53.40%52.60%N/A
Champlin 41.19%39.61%39.56%40.78%40.63%
Hopkins 67.83%71.70%70.75%67.66%66.84%
Brooklyn Center 68.43%71.86%66.60%66.26%N/A
Tax rate data for 2018-2022 was compiled by the city’s financial consultant, Abdo Financial Solutions, LLC, from the county
rate cards. Tax rates are calculated by taking the net tax capacity divided by the city’s total levy. Tax capacity is determined
by multiplying a property’s market value by its classification rate (examples include residential homestead, agriculture land,
commercial/industrial, or rental housing). This information is completed and updated by the county assessor each year. Each
local taxing jurisdiction certifies a levy equal to the amount it intends to raise from property taxes in the upcoming year. “N/A”
signifies that no data was reported.
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.
33. DEBT PER CAPITA
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
New Hope 2,448 2,605 2,094 2,239 2,089
Crystal 760 668 553 494 439
Golden Valley 2,808 3,938 2,913 2,750 N/A
Champlin 164 143 452 477 465
Hopkins 3,797 4,055 4,467 4,428 4,532
Brooklyn Center 1,921 1,954 1,977 1,956 N/A
Debt per capita data for New Hope from 2018-2022 was compiled by the city’s financial consultant, Abdo Financial Solutions,
LLC, as a part of the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. “N/A” signifies that no data was reported.
34. RESPONSE RATE
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
New Hope 679 610 839 663 400
Crystal 362 399 389 271 236
Golden Valley N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Richfield N/A N/A 673 N/A N/A
New Brighton N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
With the exception of New Hope in 2022, all comparison data was compiled from reports submitted by each individual city to the
state as part of 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. Data for New Hope in 2022 was compiled from
the Morris Leatherman Company Survey, a professional community-wide phone survey. The study involved a telephone survey
of 400 randomly selected residents. Professional interviewers contacted survey respondents across the community between
April 26 and May 16, 2022. The average interview lasted 20 minutes. The non-response level was 4.5%. Random samples such
as this yield results projectable to the entire universe of adult New Hope residents within ± 5.0 percentage points in 95 out of
100 cases. Cellphone-only households were 51% of the sample, landline-only households were 12%, and households with both
landlines and cellphones were 37%. “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, 2023
ESTABLISHED BETWEEN 2016 & 2022
FINANCE
Goal: Maintain bond rating of at least AA over the next five years.
Status: On track. The city’s bonds are rated by Standard and Poor’s (S&P) and remained stable at “AA” in
2022, 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/unmodified audit on prior year’s financial statements with clean findings
annually over the next five years.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
0 findings 0 findings TBD TBD TBD
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.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$1,429,806 $122,596 TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. The city received has received an average of $776,201 in grants or outside funding
sources over the last two years, including $1.14 million from the American Rescue Plan Act.
PAGE 28
Goal: Submit at least three Minnesota GreenStep Cities best practice actions for review per year over
the next three years.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
AA AA TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co. completed unqualified audits on
financial statements in 2021 and 2022 that revealed no findings.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
4 actions 4 actions TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. Actions submitted for review in 2021 included upgrading to LED interior lighting at a fire
station, participating in a federal incentive program for the construction of the energy-efficient
police station/city hall building, participating in a county pre-demolition inspection program, and
installation of new water bottle filling stations. Actions submitted for review in 2022 included
deconstructing the home that was demolished at 5306 Rhode Island Avenue North, which
involved carefully removing the house so that materials could be recycled, re-purposed, or reused
instead of being sent to a landfill, adopting a Fair Housing Policy, and receiving grant funds for a
Safe Routes to School infrastructure project.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 29
COMMUNICATIONS1
Goal: Execute more than 100 reader board updates annually over the next four years.
Status: On track. The reader board at 42nd and Xylon avenues was updated 139 times in 2022. The sign
includes information on upcoming meetings, events, city programming, city facilities, emergency
notifications, job openings, and general information.
Goal: Write and coordinate distribution of four In Touch newsletters annually over the next four years.
2020 2021 2022 2023
134 112 139 TBD
Status: Not completed. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the city’s website and social media
accounts were utilized as the primary means of communication with residents. For this reason,
three newsletters were distributed in 2020. The newsletter was distributed four times in 2021. In
2022, to reach more residents and businesses, the previous monthly distributed In the Pipeline
newsletter was discontinued, and distribution of In Touch increased from four to six times per
year.
2020 2021 2022 2023
3 4 6 TBD
Goal: Update the city’s website with news features 100 times annually over the next four years.
Status: On track. The news and features section of the website was updated 111 times in 2022.
2020 2021 2022 2023
137 193 111 TBD
Goal: Increase the city’s social media following by 15% annually over the next four years.
Status: Not completed. The number of people following the city’s Facebook and Instagram pages
increased by 12.2% between 2019 and 2020, just short of the 15% goal. The number increased
by 33% between 2020 and 2021, significantly higher than the 15% goal. Followers grew 14.7%
between 2022 and 2023.
Goal: Increase traffic to the city’s website by 10% annually over the next four years.
Status: Not completed. The number of website sessions increased by 4.9% between 2019 and 2020. The
number of website sessions increased by 25% between 2020 and 2021. The number of website
sessions decreased by 2% between 2021and 2022. This drop may be attributed to the move
to post-pandemic rhythms. When comparing pre-pandemic (2019) and post-pandemic (2022)
website traffic, there was an overall increase of 23%.
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
3,474 3,897 5,165 5,926 TBD
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
150,594 151,329 189,616 185,229 TBD
ASSESSING
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$2,177,389,934 $2,308,596,615 $2,693,654,510 TBD TBD TBD
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 $131 million (6.03%) between
2020 and 2021. It increased by $385 million (16.68%) between 2021 and 2022.
1 Each of the five communications goals have been extended one year, into 2023. New goals will be developed in 2024.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 30
HUMAN RESOURCES
2022 2023 2024
9.6%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 rate did not exceed 12% in 2022.
PLANNING
Goal: Increase median household value by at least 3% per year over the next five years.
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$257,000 $275,000 $325,000 TBD TBD TBD
+5.33%+7.00%+18.18%
Status: On track. Median household value increased by at least 3% between 2020 and 2021 and between
2021 and 2022.
Goal: Maintain a five-year rolling average of the Experience Modification Rate (EMR) at or below 1.15
over the next five years.
ELECTIONS
Goal: Achieve at least 55% voter turnout rate for gubernatorial races and at least 80% voter turnout
rate for presidential races over the next six years.
Status: On track. No elections were held in 2021. Overall voter turnout for the 2022 general election was
65.56% with nearly 8,500 voters (2,600 absentee ballots).
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
N/A 65.56%TBD TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. The EMR did not exceed 1.15 in 2022. 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
2022-2023 is calculated using 2018, 2019, and 2020 data.
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
0.96 TBD TBD TBD TBD
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 31
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC SAFETY
Goal: Improve officer visibility in the community by completing at least 1,000 spot checks at community
businesses, apartment complexes, etc. per year over the next three years.
Status: Not completed. The department completed 929 spot checks in 2022, slightly below the goal of
completing 1,000 for the year. Spot checks involve driving through or around properties looking
for suspicious activity.
2022 2023 2024
929 TBD TBD
Goal: Host at least ten community engagement events per year over the next three years.
Status: On track. The department hosted 12 community engagement events in 2022. This included
events such as community picnics, Copsicles (popsicles and ice cream with officers), Coffee with a
Cop, and Blue Santa (previously “Shop with a Cop”).
2022 2023 2024
12 On-hold On-hold
RESERVES/EXPLORERS
Goal: Maintain a minimum of 12 hours per week that reserves are working or attending events in the
community over the next three years.
Status: On track. Although the reserve team was not fully staffed, the group exceeded the goal and
represented the police department at many community events.
2022 2023 2024
31 hours TBD TBD
Goal: Maintain a minimum staffing level of eight active police reserves per year over the next three
years.
Goal: Complete a minimum of 70 hours of department-wide training per year over the next three years.
Status: New for 2023.
Goal: Complete a minimum of eight inter/intra-jurisdictional traffic details over the next three years.
Status: New for 2023.
Status: New for 2023.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 32
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 N/A 48 45 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. Recruiting planned for 2020 did not take place due
to the pandemic. In 2021, there were 48 applicants with 14 recruits hired. In 2022, there were 45
applicants with 15 recruits hired.
Goal: Complete a minimum of 30 Home Safety Surveys annually over the next five years.
Status: Not completed. In 2022 the West Metro Fire-Rescue District resumed the Home Safety Survey
program and completed 38 surveys. 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 residents with fire extinguishers, a night-
light/flashlight, a cooking timer, and a fire safety booklet.
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
41 3 30 38 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 77 99 187 TBD
Status: Not completed. In 2022, West Metro Fire-Rescue District firefighters each averaged 187 hours of
training. This does not include the hours for 14 new firefighters hired in 2022.
Goal: Obtain an average of $50,000 in grants, reimbursements, and donations annually over the next
five years.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$797,967 $236,080 TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. In 2022, the West Metro Fire-Rescue District obtained $236,080 in grants,
reimbursements, and donations. Training reimbursements totaling $24,140 were received from
the Minnesota Board of Firefighter Training and Education, $290 was received from Fleet Services,
a $9,000 grant was received from the Minnesota State Fire Department Association for Turnout
Gear, $17,500 was received in reimbursements, and $185,150 in donations were received through
the West Metro Fire-Rescue District Firefighters Relief Association.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 33
PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS
Goal: Complete at least 800 code compliance investigations annually over the next five years.
Status: On track. Code enforcement inspectors completed 1,124 inspections in 2022 for property
maintenance violations such as exterior storage, unscreened trash containers, and inoperable
vehicles.
ANIMAL CONTROL
Goal: Maintain average number of goose nests in city at or below four over the next three years.
Status: On track. There was one nest recorded in 2022.
Goal: Collect an average of at least $400,000 in permit fees annually over the next five years.
Status: On track. The city generated $441,847 in permit fees in 2022.
Goal: Generate an average of at least $25,000,000 in value of work for permits issued over the next five
years.
Status: In progress. The total value of work completed in the city in 2022 was $17,602,045.
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
$441,847 TBD TBD TBD TBD
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
$17,602,045 TBD TBD TBD TBD
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
1,124 TBD TBD TBD TBD
2022 2023 2024
1 TBD TBD
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 34
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 2021 has been uploaded to the system and data from 2022, which includes
GPS coordinates for all new utilities, will be uploaded in 2023. A new asset management program
is currently being developed and will be live in the summer of 2023. Additional tablets have been
purchased for maintenance workers to use in the field, which will improve the data entry process.
STREETS
Goal: Dedicate engineering and public works staff time to inflow and infiltration (I&I) investigation.
STREETS
Goal: Maintain an average Pavement Rating Index of at least 80 over the next five years.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
81 81 TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. The city’s Pavement Rating Index is a metric assigned to city roadways to help with
prioritization for future infrastructure project planning. Annually, Public Works and Engineering
staff drive city streets to evaluate pavement ratings. Each roadway is evaluated visually based
on pavement condition and frequency and size of cracks and a number between 1 and 100 is
assigned as the pavement rating. Pavement ratings then fall into the following categories: failing
(1-20), very poor (21-40), poor (41-60), good (61-80), and excellent (81-100). In 2022 the city’s
average pavement rating was 81 which falls into the lower end of the excellent category.
Goal: Update pavement management plan annually over the next five years.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. The pavement management plan is a continual fluid process as project costs and the
condition of the pavement and utility infrastructure change. The current version of the plan
extends through 2032 and is updated annually. The pavement management plan generally
follows a pavement management schedule of 80 years for local and low traffic Municipal State
Aid (MSA) streets, and 72 years for high traffic MSA streets. Over the course of the pavement
management schedules, improvements such as crack seal, seal coat, fog seal, mill and overlay,
and reclaim and overlay are utilized to maintain quality driving surfaces throughout the
roadway’s life.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
1.80 0.48 TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. Suspected infiltration areas have been investigated by staff and projects to reduce I&I
were completed in 2022. This involved flow monitoring and sewer lining in the northwest corner
of the city, including the lift station at 60th and Quebec avenues (Liberty Park area). A total of 2.28
miles of sewer have been lined over the last two years.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 35
PARKS & RECREATION
RECREATION
Goal: Offer eight special events per year over the next five years.
Goal: Average $15,000 per year in donations, grants, and sponsorships over the next five years.
Goal: Produce three In Motion program brochures annually over the next five years.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
8 25 TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. Events in 2022 included the Bike Rodeo, Competition Food Shelf Show, Daddy/Daughter
Royal Ball, Dance Recitals (3), Holiday Tea, May the 4th Event, Movie at the Arena, Movies in the
Park (3), Music in the Park (7), Octoberfest Senior Luncheon, Trick or Trot, Vehicle Fair, Water Day,
Winter Golf, and Young Mudder.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$103,549 $122,438 TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. The total amount collected in 2022 included $98,641 in grants and $23,797 in
sponsorships/donations. The city received numerous other non-cash donations as well.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
3 3 TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. Brochures were produced in the spring/summer, fall, and winter of 2022.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PARKS
Goal: Replace a minimum of one playground structure per year over the next four years.
Status: On track. The playground equipment at Hidden Valley Park was replaced in 2022. The playground
equipment at Corner Park was replaced in 2021.
2021 2022 2023 2024
1 1 TBD TBD
Goal: Crack fill, resurface, or rebuild a minimum of one court surface per year over the next five years.
Status: On track. In 2022, the tennis court at Begin Park was crack-filled, the basketball court at Liberty
Park was crack-filled, and the basketball court at Lions Park was resurfaced.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
4 3 TBD TBD TBD
Goal: Replace three park name signs per year over the next three years.
Status: Not completed. Signs were replaced at Elm Grove, Hidden Valley, Lighted, Holiday, and Liberty
parks in 2022.
2021 2022 2023
2 5 TBD
Goal: Remove or treat all remaining ash trees located in open-space areas in city parks in 2023.
Goal: Replant 30 park trees per year over the next five years.
Status: New for 2023.
Status: New for 2023.
AQUATIC PARK
Goal: Increase program (lap swim, water walk, swim lessons) attendance by 3% per year over the next
four years.
Status: New for 2023.
Goal: Increase concessions revenue by 3% per year over the next four years.
Status: New for 2023.
PAGE 36
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 37
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA)
Goal: Facilitate the construction or renovation of 12 scattered site single-family homes over the next
four years.
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
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 2022, two EDA projects were completed, with new homes
being sold to private owners. This included demolition and rebuild projects at 4637 Aquila Avenue
North (sold for $460,000) and 5213 Pennsylvania Avenue North (sold for $575,000). Projects at
5306 Rhode Island Avenue North, 4201/4205 Boone Avenue North, and 3611 Louisiana Avenue
North were underway at the end of 2022, but not included in the total count for the year. Those
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 29 homes (some currently in
progress).
Goal: Attract at least 10 new businesses per year over the next five years.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
86 56 TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. A total of 142 business applied for new business permits in between 2021 and 2022.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Goal: Maintain 80% or greater recycling participation rate over the next five years.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
92.2%91.6%TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. The city achieved a recycling participation rate greater than 80% in 2021 and 2022.
Goal: Average 450 pounds recycled per household per year over the next five years.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD
Status: Discontinued. Data for 2021 and 2022 was not made available to the Hennepin Recycling Group
and the goal has been discontinued.
Goal: Approve at least 10 curbside appeal reimbursement projects per year over the next two years.
2022 2023 2024 2025
2 TBD TBD TBD
2022 2023
11 TBD
Status: On track. A total of 11 projects were approved in 2022, resulting in a total investment of $110,136.
Projects included new front porches, roofline alterations, columns, stone accents, front doors,
garage doors, windows, and siding upgrades.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 38
PARK INFRASTRUCTURE
Goal: Increase levy by 3% per year over the next five years to increase funds available for park
improvements.
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$367,290 $385,655 $404,938 TBD TBD TBD
Status: On track. The levy has increased by 5% each of the last two years.
STREET INFRASTRUCTURE
Goal: Reconstruct or mill and overlay streets as proposed in five-year Capital Improvement Plan over
the next five years.
Status: New for 2023.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 39
SANITARY SEWER
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Goal: Implement two-year sewer lining contracts and increase funding in the Capital Improvement Plan
annually to 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. The 2022 and 2023 areas were bid together as one project in
an area known to have high infiltration amounts. The project will be completed in 2023. The city
continues to budget more over time to complete additional lining projects. This goal was altered
in 2023 to include increasing funding in the Capital Improvement Plan.
WATER
Goal: Exercise 5% of water valves annually over the next five years.
Status: Completed. In 2022, city staff exercised, turned, or operated approximately 200 of the city’s water
shut-off valves, or 17.8%. This count includes valves turned for maintenance purposes such as
water main breaks and water shutdowns during improvement projects. Exercising the valves
ensures that they remain operational in case of emergency water breaks. Staff also tracks any
necessary maintenance while exercising the valves. The city experienced a high volume of water
main breaks in 2021 and 2022 leading to more valves being exercised as compared to the past.
Staff originally intended to exercise 10% of valves per year, but the goal was reduced to 5% in
2019.
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
10.6%5.7%6.7%20.1%17.8%
STORM WATER
Goal: Decrease average total phosphorus levels in Meadow Lake over the next five years through the
Meadow Lake Management Plan.
Status: New for 2023.
Goal: Review the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) inventory of public and private
systems and correct any errors in the next two years.
Status: New for 2023.
Goal: Improve water quality in both the Shingle Creek and Bassett Creek watershed districts.
Status: In progress. In 2022, monitoring data collected on Meadow Lake showed improvements post-
drawdown. An alum treatment is scheduled for the spring of 2023 to continue the Meadow Lake
Management Plan improvement project. Staff will continue to work with both the Shingle Creek
Watershed Management Commission and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission to
implement improvements in both watersheds.
Goal: Replace outdated or faulty water meters throughout the city.
Status: New for 2023.
Goal: Exercise 5% of water valves annually over the next five years.
Status: New for 2023.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 40
STREET LIGHTING
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 2023 as part of the county and
city’s 42nd Avenue North improvement project, which includes a mill and overlay of 42nd Avenue
North from Gettysburg Avenue North to Winnetka Avenue North, the addition of a pedestrian
trail with decorative lighting throughout the corridor, and water main and ADA improvements.
GOLF COURSE
ICE ARENA
Goal: Increase ice hours used for open skate and open hockey by 3% per year over the next four years.
Goal: Increase clubhouse rentals by 3% per year over the next four years.
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
28 39 58 TBD TBD
Status: On track. Clubhouse rentals increased by 39% between 2020 and 2021. They increased by 49%
between 2021 and 2022.
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
59.5 hours 82.5 hours 80 hours TBD TBD
Status: Not completed. The number of hours used for open skating and open hockey decreased slightly
in 2022, however, attendance increased significantly.
Goal: Increase open skating attendance by 3% per year over the next four years.
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
1,055 1,641 2,283 TBD TBD
Status: On track. Open skating attendance increased by 56% between 2020 and 2021. It increased by
39% between 2021 and 2022.
CITY OF NEW HOPE SMART GOALS
PAGE 41
CENTRAL GARAGE
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Goal: Evaluate goals and needs for potential central garage expansion in 2018.
Status: On track. Engineering and design of the central garage expansion began in the spring of 2019.
Phase one construction started in 2021 and included the relocation of reserve soils from the
central garage to a newly constructed shed. It also included renovations to the security, heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning systems, a reshuffling of storage and office space, and parking
lot pavement replacement and expansion. The vast majority of phase one construction was
completed in 2022, and final finishings are occurring in 2023. If approved by the City Council, the
second phase of the project would take place in spring 2024.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Goal: Ensure that 95% of the city’s desktops and laptops have been in service less than five years.
Status: On track. Of the city desktops and laptops in use, 96.8% have been in service less than five years.
I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2023\Work Session\10‐16‐23 Economic Development Report\WS Economic Development Report 10‐16‐23.docx
Request for Action
October 16, 2023
Approved by: Reece Bertholf, 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 2023 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” between 2018
and 2022, 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 would be helpful in issuing additional debt in the
future.
In an effort to increase the city’s bond rating, the city’s financial consultant, Abdo Financial Solutions (Abdo),
recommended that a formalized debt management policy be implemented and that an Economic
Development Report be created. In 2016, Abdo produced a Comprehensive Financial Management Plan,
which incorporates a debt management plan, and city staff developed the Economic Development Report.
City staff updates the report each year. 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, in 2019, when bonds were issued for the swimming pool complex, and in 2021, for the refinancing of
ice arena conservation bonds. Although the city has not reached its goal of improving its bond rating to AA+,
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
11.7
Request for Action, Page 2
The following updates have been made to the 2023 Economic Development Report:
Business & Assistance Programs
2022 update for Open to Business and Elevate Hennepin
2022 data for new businesses
Planning & Development
2022 permit count, fees collected, valuation data, and graph
Narratives and photos for major development projects
Housing
2022 CEE loan data
2022 Hennepin County loan data
2022 Curbside Appeal Reimbursement Program data
2022 scattered site housing data, graph, photos, and projects in progress
2022 property value data and graph
2022 median household value data and graph
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the 2023 Economic Development Report and authorize
publication of the report on the city’s website.
Attachments
Economic Development Report (September 1, 2023)
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 1, 2023
The city of 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 (2020 CENSUS)SIZE/AREA YEAR FORMED
21,986 5.1 square miles 1953
BUSINESSES JOBS SHOPPING CENTERS
480 10,969 5
SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOLS PARKS/ACREAGE
Robbinsdale Area (281)6 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 through the removal of blight and by upgrading
the 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.
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 Minneapolis Regional Chamber (previously TwinWest Chamber of Commerce).
BUSINESS RESOURCES
Open to Business was a partnership between New Hope and the
Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD), an
association of nonprofit community development organizations
serving the Twin Cities that was in place through the end of 2022.
The city worked with MCCD to provide business consultation
services and financial advice to small local business owners and
aspiring business owners. Entrepreneurs were able to meet with
business advisors who offered assistance in several areas.
Beginning in 2023, the city became a partner in the Elevate Hennepin
program. Elevate Hennepin is a resource hub powered by Hennepin
County that brings expert advising and other business resources to
New Hope businesses at no cost. Designed in consultation with local
entrepreneurs and business owners, Elevate Hennepin provides
inclusive access to resources for starting and scaling a business.
Elevate Hennepin was created to better connect business owners and entrepreneurs to expertise, capital,
and resources. With investment from Hennepin County and other local and state government partners, all
professional consultants, technical expertise, trainings, and events are available at no cost to businesses
located in Hennepin County. Elevate Hennepin draws together experts, tools, and programs intentionally
designed to help new and established businesses gain their footing, plan for their next steps, and take their
success to a new level. Elevate Hennepin provides three types of business services:
• No-cost expert consulting covering a wide range of essential business areas including legal, marketing,
strategic planning, and operations.
• An events hub for business owners to find ways to network, connect in peer-to-peer discussions,
learn, and enhance their businesses.
• A resource directory for business owners to explore county, state, and federal resources that can
empower their business.
CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT
PAGE 5
EMPLOYMENT
There are approximately 480 commercial/industrial/service businesses in the city, 56 of which opened in
2022. These businesses account for approximately 10,969 jobs in the city. The city’s 15 largest employers,
which are listed below, account for many of those jobs.
MAJOR EMPLOYERS
Employer Products/Services New Hope-Based Employees
(Total Employees)
Independent School District 281 Education 631 (1,792)
Minnesota Masonic Home/
North Ridge Care Center Skilled nursing care facility 560
Hy-Vee Grocery & convenience store 370
Horwitz Mechanical contractor 348
City of New Hope Government agency 338 including seasonal staff
Padagis Pharmaceutical and medicine
manufacturing 315
St. Therese Home of New Hope Skilled nursing care facility 286 (787)
YMCA Health club 228
Liberty Diversified International Stationery supplies 200
Intermediate District 287 Education 199 (791)
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 118
CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT
PAGE 6
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
The city continues to see significant growth in commercial, industrial, and single-family housing areas.
Overall development activity has slowed in recent years due in part to the pandemic, though the city
anticipates that more growth will take place over the next several years.
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
From 2018-2022, $159,570,678 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.
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY BY YEAR
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Permits issued 2,441 2,459 2,536 2,870 2,559
Fees collected $506,883 $452,267 $513,900 $544,109 $441,847
Valuation of work $46,952,876 $38,288,981 $27,832,249 $28,894,527 $17,602,045
VALUATION OF WORK
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
$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:
Windsor Ridge
SVK Development completed the construction of 32 new single-family homes on an 8.7-acre site that was
previously undeveloped and owned by the city. In the fall of 2018, the city received six proposals from four
developers for the site. After careful consideration, SVK Development was selected as the preferred builder
for the site. The new homes included a mix of rambler, split level, and two-story designs and sold for an
average price of $430,000. The project helped provide step-up housing options within the city and brought
more than $13.76 million in new value to the city. The city of Crystal also developed another three lots just
east of the project.
CITY OF CITY OF
CRYSTALCRYSTAL
CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT
PAGE 8
Pallet One MN
Pallet One MN purchased the 55,000-square
foot building at 9210 Science Center Drive in
2022 and moved its operations into New Hope.
The company specializes in manufacturing
and recycling wood pallets. Pallet One MN
obtained a conditional use permit for open
outdoor storage on the property. Extensive
improvements were made to the outdoor
storage area, including the installation of 22
trees to help with screening of the storage
area. The business employs 30 people in one
of New Hope’s two primary industrial areas.
RISE Dispensary
At the end of 2022, RISE Dispensary began making
upgrades to the building at 7700 42nd Avenue North in
preparation for opening a medical cannabis retail
store. Approximately $750,000 in improvements were
made to the building, which was largely vacant in
recent years. RISE has seven locations across the metro
that are accessible to Minnesota residents that have
been certified with a qualifying medical condition.
The Cafe Meow
The Cafe Meow opened in the Winnetka Commons
shopping center at 3524 Winnetka Avenue North in June
of 2022. The business features a coffee shop and a cat
lounge. The coffee shop is similar to other small coffee
shops, providing coffee, tea, and baked goods from local
businesses. The separate cat lounge houses rescue cats
that can be visited and potentially adopted.
Padagis US LLC
The Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development (DEED) approved a
$980,000 Minnesota Investment Fund loan for
Padagis US LLC. The loan was intended to help
with purchasing $5 million in new machinery and
adding 60 jobs to the facility at 3940 Quebec
Avenue North. The request was later withdrawn,
however, it is likely that the company will still be
investing in the facility. Padagis is a privately held pharmaceutical manufacturer that offers generic
prescription and over the counter products. The company was started in 2004 as the prescription
division of Perrigo. Through acquisitions and organic growth, they became a national leader in generic
pharmaceuticals. Padagis is the city’s sixth largest employer, with approximately 315 employees.
CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT
PAGE 9
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 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 the CEE in recent years:
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Loans/Subsidies/
Leveraged Funds 4 3 5 13 10
Amount $71,438 $35,320 $71,822 $259,574 $169,264
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 in recent years:
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Loans 1 1 1 2 2
Amount $12,600 $28,965 $30,000 $59,800 $59,205
Curbside Appeal Reimbursement Program
In July of 2022, the city launched the Curbside Appeal Reimbursement Program to encourage homeowners
to make improvements to the exterior of their homes and garages in areas that are visible from the
street. The city reimburses a portion of costs for projects meeting eligibility requirements. The goals of the
program include improving the city’s housing stock, instilling confidence in neighborhoods, and increasing
home values.
2022
Projects 11
Valuation of work $110,136
CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT
PAGE 10
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. The following scattered site housing projects were
completed and sold over the last year:
Address Previously
Assessed Value Sale Price Percent
Increase Project Type
4637 Aquila Ave N1 $91,000 $460,000 405%Demolition &
rebuild
5213 Pennsylvania Ave N $189,000 $575,000 204%Demolition &
rebuild
1 Assessed value prior to fire was $236,000 for the year 2020.
SCATTERED SITE HOUSING PROJECTS
4637 Aquila Ave N 5213 Pennsylvania Ave N
$75,000
$150,000
$225,000
$300,000
$375,000
$450,000
$525,000
$600,000
Previously Assessed Value Sale Price
CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT
PAGE 11
5213 Pennsylvania Ave N - Before 5213 Pennsylvania Ave N - After
7215 62nd Ave N - Before
4637 Aquila Ave N - Before 4637 Aquila Ave N - After
SCATTERED SITE HOUSING
In addition to these completed projects, there were several other scattered site homes under construction
or projects in progress at the time of publication, including:
• Demolition and rebuild at 5306 Rhode Island Avenue North (new home sold for $550,000 in 2023).
• Demolition, lot split, and rebuild at 4201 Boone Avenue North (under construction).
• Demolition and rebuild at 3611 Louisiana Avenue North (under construction).
• Demolition and rebuild at 5802 Boone Avenue North (demolished).
• Demolition, lot split, and rebuild at 4965 Winnetka Avenue North (demolished).
Homes sold in 2023 will be highlighted in the 2024 Economic Development Report. Since 2014, approximately
$5.5 million in value has been added to the city’s tax base through the scattered site housing program.
CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT
PROPERTY VALUES
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Taxable market
value $1,831,436,951 $2,021,382,123 $2,177,389,934 $2,308,596,615 $2,693,654,510
Percent change 7.92%10.37%7.72%6.03%16.68%
PROPERTY VALUES
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
$400,000,000
$800,000,000
$1,200,000,000
$1,600,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$2,400,000,000
$2,800,000,000
PAGE 12
CITY OF NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT
PAGE 13
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD VALUES
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Median
Household Value $229,000 $244,000 $257,000 $275,000 $325,000
Percent change 7.51%6.55%5.33%7.00%18.18%
HOUSEHOLD VALUE
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
I:\RFA\City Manager\2023\Q‐discuss business lic work sess 10.16.23.docx
Request for Action
October 16, 2023
Approved by: Reece Bertholf, City Manager
Originating Department: City Manager
By: Valerie Leone, City Clerk‐Treas.
Agenda Title
Discussion regarding issuance of tobacco licenses, city code chapter 8
Requested Action
Staff recommends a dialogue regarding city code and issuance of tobacco licenses.
Policy/Past Practice
Ordinances provide regulations to govern general and various activities and situations which actually or may
occur or exist in the city, and which will or may affect the general welfare and safety of residents of the city,
with the intention of promoting and protecting the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city.
Background
There is a license cap of 21 for tobacco licenses, and all 21 licenses are presently issued.
Present Situation:
Mr. Ayman Issa addressed the Council during open forum at the council meeting of October 9, 2023.
He is interested in a tobacco license and questioned the legality of a license issued for 4361 Winnetka
Avenue North as the tobacco business failed to open at the licensed premises.
Chapter 8 clearly states that licenses are valid only on the premises for which the license was issued.
There is no language in chapter 8 that specifically addresses whether a license can be revoked if the
business fails to open at the intended property.
Future Requests:
Staff discussed ways to improve tobacco license procedures and recommends integration with the
“business use certificate of occupancy” (BUCO) registration. Per city code 3‐33, when a business use
or tenant/occupant changes at a property, the business must apply for a BUCO. The fee for the property
inspection is $25. The tobacco business license would not be mailed until confirmation that a new
BUCO is approved or an existing BUCO is on file. This will ensure tobacco licensees either own the
property or have permission to rent the space. There will be no change to other license requirements
including background investigations and Council approval.
Also, since the maximum number of tobacco licenses has been issued, staff will be implementing a
“wait list” allowing applicants to apply on a first‐come, first‐served basis.
Attachment
City code sections 8‐2 and 8‐7
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.8
I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2023\Work Session\10‐16‐23 Vacant Property Registration\WS ‐ Vacant Property Registration 10‐16‐23.docx
Request for Action
October 16, 2023
Approved by: Reece Bertholf, City Manager
Originating Department: Community Development
By: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development
Agenda Title
Discuss possibility of implementing a vacant property registration program.
Requested Action
At the October 9, 2023, City Council meeting, Councilmember London requested to have a discussion regarding
how the city handles vacant properties and/or properties that have been under construction for an extended
period of time. Staff has prepared some background information regarding this and has attached it to this
report.
Policy/Past Practice
It is common for the City Council to engage in conversations with staff over concerns they may have regarding
city operations and policies.
Background
Community Development Specialist, Jeff Alger, has prepared a memo outlining the city’s history of an attempt
to implement a vacant property registration program. The city explored creating an ordinance in 2010 during
the subprime mortgage crisis, with concerns primarily focused on vacant single and two‐family homes facing
foreclosure. The ordinance was never adopted. The full memo is attached for consideration and includes
examples from the cities of Richfield, Crystal and Champlin, as these cities currently utilize a vacant property
registration program.
In regards to how the city currently manages properties under construction, any building permit becomes null
and void, at the discretion of the building official, if work has been suspended or abandoned for a period of
180 days at any time after the initial work has started on the project. There have been instances when the
building official has revoked building permits for projects not continuing for a period of 180 days. Oftentimes,
this involves a change of ownership during the construction process.
Recommendation
Staff is requesting direction from the City Council on whether the city should begin the process of
implementing a vacant property registration program.
Attachments
Memo prepared by Jeff Alger
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.9
1
Memorandum
To: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development
From: Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist
Date: October 10, 2023
Subject: Registration of Vacant Buildings
City staff does not currently track vacant or abandoned buildings. Similar to any other building
in the city, vacant buildings must meet minimum City Code and state building code
requirements, or they are subject to penalties outlined in Section 2-60 of the City Code
(administrative fines enforcement program). The city explored the possibility of a vacant property
registration program in 2009/2010 at the time of the subprime mortgage crisis. Concerns at that
time primarily focused on vacant single and two-family homes. The ordinance was never
adopted.
Several cities in the metro area require the registration of vacant buildings. The city of Richfield
requires that vacant buildings be registered within 90 days of becoming unoccupied. The annual
registration helps to ensure vacant buildings remain secure, safe, and maintained. Registration
also ensures an owner understands the obligations of ownership under relevant city codes.
Monthly inspections are conducted by city staff. The ordinance applies to both residential and
non-residential properties and requires a building registration form and property plan. There is
no exception for homes that are being flipped or vacant homes that are being renovated. The fee
scale ranges from $450 to $2,600 depending on the type and size of the building as well as the
length of time it has been vacant.
The city of Crystal considers a building to be vacant if no person actually and currently conducts
lawful business or lawfully resides in any part of the building on a permanent, non-transient
basis. It must be registered if the building has been unoccupied for more than 30 days. The annual
registration helps to ensure the building and property are to be maintained in good condition and
in conformity with applicable city code standards. The registration requirement does not apply
to extended vacationers or snowbirds or fire damaged properties. It must specify the manner in
which the building will be secured, plans for the removal of hazardous material or ref use,
protection of the building’s water system, electrical and mechanical safety plans, and plans for
exterior lighting. The list of properties is not made available to the public as it is considered
2
“security information” and classified as confidential under Minnesota Statutes section 13.37. The
city charges $700 per year for the registration.
The city of Champlin requires that vacant buildings be registered within 60 days of becoming
unoccupied. The six-month registration is intended to improve the city's information base on
potentially vulnerable properties and shift the monitoring costs from the taxpayer to the building
owner. The property owner must secure the building against unauthorized entry, remove all
hazardous materials, protect the water system from freezing, heat the building to prevent freezing
or shut off water service at the curb stop, and must maintain heating facilities. Subsequent
registration and fees are due every six months after the original registration as long as the
building remains vacant. A six-month registration fee is $300 for residential and $500 for non-
residential buildings. Owners that do not proactively register their properties are subject to an
additional $100 charge.
In regards to a property that is undergoing renovations in New Hope and construction/progress
is halted, the building permit only becomes null and void if work is suspended or abandoned for
a period of 180 days at any time after work has commenced. Additionally, a building permit is no
longer valid if work or construction authorized has not commenced within 180 days from when
it was issued. In such instances, city inspectors have the authority to cancel the building permit(s).
Only if the property is in violation of the City Code and/or state building code requirements does
the city take further action.
Attachments
•Planning Commission minutes (February 3, 2010)
•City Council minutes (February 22, 2010)
•Work session minutes (March 15, 2010)
•Draft ordinance from 2010
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 3, 2010
City Hall, 7 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chair Houle called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Jeff Houle, Sandra Hunten,
Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgude, Tom Schmidt
Absent: Pat Crough, Kimberly Johnson, Steve Svendsen
Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Eric Weiss, Community Development
Assistant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC09 -12 Chair Houle introduced Item 4.1, discussion of an ordinance amending
Item 4.1 Chapter 3 of the New Hope City Code by requiring registration of vacant
buildings, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Mr. Weiss stated that the city was considering adopting a Vacant Properties
Registration (VPR) program to help ensure properties are maintained in a
safe and healthy condition despite their vacancy status. Staff researched VPR
programs from around the state and provided information to the Codes and
Standards Committee. A draft ordinance based on Brooklyn Center's
program was provided to the Committee for consideration. The Planning
Commission reviewed the draft at its meeting in January and recommended
that several areas be revised to fit the needs of New Hope.
The Committee thoroughly reviewed the ordinance at its meeting in January.
The New Hope VPR would require the owner of a vacant property to register
with the city and provide contact information, a timeline and property plan
for the property within 30 days of the property becoming vacant. A property
is considered vacant after two months. Owners should inform the city
regarding the status of all utilities, and a property plan would be submitted
to the building official for re -use. A one -time fee would be established based
on administrative costs for registering and monitoring the vacant property.
All vacant buildings must be secure. The city reserves the right to secure any
unsecured buildings, which is authorized under another section of the city
code. Building exteriors and yards must be maintained. Definitions for vacant
and abandoned properties were added to the draft ordinance. A property
would be defined as vacant after two months of being unoccupied and an
abandoned property would be a building that is not being actively monitored
or maintained. The language in the previous draft pertaining to demolition of
a vacant building was removed. Exceptions to the vacant property
registration were expanded to include fire, water, storm, ice and other
extreme forms of damage. The exemption for "snowbirds" was renamed
seasonal residence" to reflect those who take extended vacations outside of
the winter season. If an application for a vacant property would be made in
conjunction with a point of sale application, the VPR fee would be waived.
Timelines were altered to allow the property owner more time to register the
property and make changes to the property. The program is intended to
protect the vacant properties and adjacent properties.
Mr. Weiss stated that staff and the Codes and Standards Committee
recommend approval of the ordinance.
Commissioner Brinkman commented that the Committee, staff and
consultants did a very thorough job on this proposed ordinance and stated he
felt it was ready to be approved.
Commissioner Nirgude initiated discussion on registration for property
owners away from their residence for an extended period of time. Mr. Weiss
stated that those owners would not be required to register, however, the
owner should contact the city and request the exemption and provide contact
information. Discussion ensued on the minimum length of time a property
owner would be gone before being required to register. Registration would
be beneficial to the city to know how long the property may be vacant and
have contact information on file in the event of an emergency. The property
owner would benefit knowing that the city was keeping an eye on the
property. Currently, if a someone calls to inform the city of a vacant property,
staff does not know if the homeowner intends to return or if the property was
abandoned. The exemption excludes the seasonal residence owners from
providing a property plan and paying a fee.
Mr. Sondrall, city attorney, stated the difference between registering as a
vacant property or a seasonal residence is that the owners of the seasonal
residence intend to come back within a specified period of time. A property
owner could determine if he wanted to contact the city based on his comfort
level for less than two months. A homeowner planning on being away for
two months or more would be the general rule when to seek an exemption
and register the property. However, a homeowner could register if away for
less than two months, as well.
Commissioner Nirgude pointed out that many people may be away from
home due to business reasons and may be working out of the state or country
for an extended period of time. He stated he felt it would be good to advise
the city of the situation.
In answer to a question regarding liability to the city, Mr. Sondrall responded
that this ordinance exempts homeowners from registering as a vacant
property and there would be no liability on the city's part. In order to exempt
the seasonal residence owners, they need to register as seasonal and not a
vacant property.
Commissioner Hunten stressed that the city should not be obligating itself to
look at all these properties, it would just be done as a courtesy. If something
did happen to a registered property, the city would have contact information
Planning Commission Meeting
2 February 3, 2010
on file.
Mr. Sondrall commented that the seasonal residence section could be
removed and treat anyone on vacation or extended business or out of their
home due to casualty damage to the property in the same manner as any
other vacant property. If the property would remain vacant for two months
or if they had not started repairs on a casualty issue for two months, the city
could start enforcement action.
Commissioner Anderson raised the issue of the Minnesota Statutes 463.15
dealing with hazardous buildings. He stated he was concerned with the
amount of time spent reviewing this ordinance. Other ordinances in the city
code already dealt with most of the issues caused by the vacant buildings.
Mr. Sondrall stated that statute 463 mainly dealt with hazardous buildings,
which was removed from this ordinance. Anderson stated he did not support
this ordinance.
Chair Houle initiated discussion on foreclosed residential properties and the
steps the city takes to monitor those properties.
Mr. Sondrall pointed out that this ordinance was a continuation of an
ordinance passed a year ago to allow the city to secure vacant unsecured
buildings that were getting close to becoming hazardous due to broken water
pipes and so forth. The City Council felt it would be beneficial for the city to
have property owners with vacant buildings to register with the city.
In answer to a question from Chair Houle, Mr. Jacobsen responded that
Brooklyn Center mainly applies their ordinance to commercial /industrial
properties. New Hope's housing stock has been maintained in good
condition through the city's point -of -sale inspections and the City Council
desires to continue that practice.
Mr. Jacobsen indicated that once residents become aware of the ordinance the
majority of them would comply with registering their vacant properties so
that in the event of an emergency or damage from graffiti, they could be
contacted by the city.
Commissioner Hunten commented that the registration of the property and
monitoring the property by the city not only protects the property owner, but
also the neighbors. She added that adjacent communities have adopted
ordinances regarding the registration of vacant buildings and must have
found it beneficial.
Chair Houle raised the issue of whether or not owners of multi- tenant
buildings needed to register if one or more tenant bays were vacant and the
answer was no. Mr. Sondrall replied that the intent of the ordinance was to
insure that a property manager was overseeing the property and that if the
property became vacant that there was a plan for the re- occupation of the
building. The city would like to build a database of the properties so if
someone contacts the city regarding a particular vacant building, the city can
respond with the current plan.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 February 3, 2010
Discussion ensued regarding the registration permit and whether or not it
would be a good idea to post the permit on the building. The name of the
permit was discussed and if it was intended to be posted on the property, it
should not indicate building is vacant. The permit would be developed by
staff upon adoption of the ordinance.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Brinkman, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
Item 4.1 approve an ordinance amending Chapter 3 of the New Hope City Code by
requiring registration of vacant buildings, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Voting in favor: Brinkman, Hunten, Landy, Schmidt
Voting against: Anderson, Houle, Nirgude
Absent: Crough, Johnson, Svendsen
Motion approved.
Chair Houle stated that this ordinance would be considered by the City
Council at its meeting on February 22.
PC09 -13 Chair Houle introduced Item 4.2, discussion of an ordinance amending
Item 4.2 Chapter 3- 31(e)(7) and 14 -2(10) by reducing the point -of- conversion
inspection fee for rental property, city of New Hope, petitioner.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff and the Codes and Standards Committee had
been reviewing the Rental Registration Program, focusing on the rental
conversion fee at this time. The fee was approved in late 2008 and enacted in
January 2009. Since that time, numerous residents and property owners have
complained about the $1,000 conversion fee. Per correspondence sent to the
city on this matter, the most common complaint is that the owner feels little is
received for the large fee amount. The conversion fee is in addition to the
annual registration fee charged to all single family rental properties. An
inspection is included with the annual registration. The rental inspection and
conversion inspection are essentially the same. The city inspects for
compliance with minimum standards as set forth in the property
maintenance code.
The City Council reviewed the point of conversion portion of the rental
program in February 2009 and declined to make any changes at that time.
Since that time, the Codes and Standards Committee was directed to study
the rental housing registration program in its entirety. In 2009, 39 properties
paid the $1,000 fee, and four have paid the fee in 2010. There are
approximately 370 single family rental properties in the city.
The Community Development Department is unaware of any problems with
the remainder of the Rental Registration Program. The Codes and Standards
Committee intends to review the remainder of the program in the near
future. The inspections staff has noted that rental properties have vastly
improved since the rental program was enacted in 2006.
The Codes and Standards Committee recommended the code be amended to
provide for a smaller initial fee and a partial refund if property owners
Planning Commission Meeting
4 February 3, 2010
needed for the street portion of the 2008 project.
The city clerk advised that revised assessment notices with the new terms will
be mailed to the affected properties.
Mr. Jerry Posey, director of finance for New Hope Church, was recognized.
He thanked everyone involved with the project, including the contractor, for
the work. He noted the church's intent to pay the assessment rather than
carrying in on the tax rolls.
CLOSE HEARING Motion was made by Council Member Stauner, seconded by Council Member
Item 7.1 Hoffe, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION 2010 -31 Council Member Stauner introduced the following resolution and moved its
Item 7.1 adoption: "RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS FOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 839 (2008 STREET AND
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS)." The motion for the adoption of
the foregoing resolution was seconded by Council Member Elder, and upon
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Hemken, Elder,
Hoffe, Lammle, Stauner; and the following voted against the same: None;
Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city
clerk.
VACANT Mayor Hemken introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Ordinance No. 2010 -03,
BUILDINGS an ordinance amending Chapter 3 of the New Hope City Code by requiring
Item 10.1 registration of vacant buildings.
Mr. Curtis Jacobsen, director of community development, reported on the
extensive work by the Codes and Standards Committee and the Planning
Commission to develop a comprehensive ordinance. He explained the
timeline for registration of a vacant property and the proposed fee of $50. He
stated the city of Brooklyn Center has used a similar ordinance for several
years.
The City Council requested an opportunity to review the language of the
proposed ordinance at a work session.
MOTION Motion was made by Council Member Stauner, seconded by Council Member
Item 10.1 Elder, to postpone discussion of the proposed ordinance to a future work
session. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
INSPECTION FEE Mayor Hemken introduced for discussion Item 10.2, Ordinance No. 2010 -04,
FOR RENTAL an ordinance amending New Hope Code Sections 3- 31(e)(7) and 14 -2(10) by
PROPERTIES reducing the point -of- conversion inspection fee for rental property.
Item 10.2
Mr. Curtis Jacobsen, director of community development, stated the ordinance
amendment would reduce the rental conversion fee. He noted the property
conversion ordinance has been in place for 14 months.
New Hope City Council February 22, 2010
Page 4
implemented.
PROPOSED Mayor Hemken introducedfordiscussion item 11.6, Discuss vacantproperties
ORDINANCE registration ordinancepostponed fromthe February 22CityCouncil Meeting.
Item11.6
Mr. Curtis Jacobsen, director ofcommunitydevelopment, stated theCouncil had
questions regarding theproposed ordinance presented on February22. He stated
heand thecity attorneyare prepared toaddress questionsfrom Council.
Mr. Jacobsen noted the city has anincreasing number offoreclosed properties. He
statedthe cityis ableto track the foreclosures butthereare other vacantproperties
thatthecity would like tomonitor.
The Council questioned the necessity ofthe program, the proposed fees, whether
the benefitis worth thestaff timetomaintain adatabase, if there areadequate
regulations already inplace.
Mr. Jacobsen stated theprogram would encompassall vacantproperties, would
provide the citywiththe propertyowners’ intentions (rehab, resale, rental), and
wouldprovide thecitywith acontact nameand phone numberfor notification
purposes. He statedthe database would involve approximately 100to 150
properties (including foreclosures).
City Attorney Steve Sondrall confirmed thatLeague ofMinnesota Citieswas
consulted and thereis noliability issueforthecityto maintain a database ofvacant
property. Hestatedthe ordinance wouldgive the perceptiontothe community
thatthe city hasaproactive planin terms oftrying to beaware of vacant
properties. Hestated thereis noinspection in connection with theproposed
ordinance so thefeeshouldbe minimal.
CouncilMember Stauner asked to be keptfully informedofthe Planning
Commission’s issues/concerns related totheproposedordinance.
Mr. Jacobsen statedthe concept ofa vacantpropertiesregistration programwas
suggested inMarchof2009.
Mr. Sondrall explained the ordinance originated fromthe Council’sdiscussion at
thetime it passed an ordinanceamendment tosecure vacant unsecured properties
He concurred with Mr. Jacobsen thatthecityhas operatedwithout thistype of
ordinance andcouldcontinue to doso. Henoted theadvantage ofthe ordinance is
creationofa databasethatwould beuseful to stayontopof some ofthe problems
that areperceived when properties are vacant. Hecommented on exemptions for
ownerswho vacatetheir premises duringwinter months. Henoted stafftime
would beminimal.
Mayor Hemkenpermitted PlanningCommissioner Sandra Hunten tocomment.
Ms. Hunten shared hersupport of theordinance butindicated theplanning
commissionshould have recommendedaproposed fee.
Mr. Jacobsen recommendedthefee be setno higher than $50.
CityCouncil WorkSession March15, 2010
Page7
Council Member Stauner requested a change in the definition of vacant building.
Henoted ifsomeone is not homedoesnot meanthe property is unoccupied. He
suggested strengthening theordinance by postingtheemergency contact
information onthe premises. He inquired of pools at abandoned properties and
whether there isa difference between fencing andcovering ofpools.
Mr. Sondrall noted allnon-compliant properties are considered misdemeanors.
Council discussed theproposed ordinanceand violationsshouldbe handled by
the administrative citationprocess. Theconsensus of the Councilwasto change
the language tomake non-complianceof theordinance apetty misdemeanor.
City ManagerMcDonald statedtheproposed ordinance willbereviewed bystaff
foramendments and presented to Council atalater date.
INSPECTION FEE Mayor Hemken introduced fordiscussion item 11.7, Discuss point-of-conversion
REDUCTION inspection feereduction forrentalproperty ordinance amendment postponed from
Item11.7 theFebruary 22 CityCouncilMeeting.
Mr. Curtis Jacobsen, director of community development, stated the Council had
questions regarding theproposed ordinance presented on February22. He stated
he andthecity attorney are prepared to address questions fromCouncil. He
distributed a letter dated March15from aNew Hope home owneropposing the
rental conversionfee.
Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, stated thefee setinthe ordinance was directed
bythe City Council tobe imposed to property owners whowere converting
property from owner-occupied to rental. Hestatedfeesmustbesubstantiated by
actualcosts, andstaffisrecommending areduction ofthe original $1,000fee which
wasmodeled afterthe cityofRobbinsdale.
Heexplained when singlefamily ownership changes torental thepotential tenant
shouldbe ensured a safeenvironment.
Mr. Jacobsen stated the ordinanceamendment would provide arebate to landlords
who attended training (forthose who paid arental conversionfee). He stated there
havebeen approximately41 people who havecomplained of thefee. The city has
collected $48,000 in fees.
Mayor Hemken commented that landlords do notunderstand their
responsibilities. Sheexpressed supportforoffering an incentiveto thelandlord.
Sheemphasized the importanceof ensuring proper maintenance of rental
properties. She commentedthatthe $1,000fee probably doesnot deterpeople from
buying vacantproperty for rental purposes.
Mr. Jacobsen acknowledged that some rentalproperties areshort-term (dependent
onowner’s personal situation).
Council Member Hoffe expressed concernthat converting single-family property
torental propertyis tooeasyandthe average personlacksknowledge ofhowtobe
CityCouncil WorkSession March15, 2010
Page8
ORDINANCE NO. 10 -03
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1 . Section 3 -35 "Registration of vacant buildings." of the New Hope City Code is
hereby added to read as follows:
Sec. 3 -35. Registration of vacant buildings.
a) Policy. The purpose of sections 3 -35(a) through (k) is to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare of the City by establishing a program for the identification and
regulation of vacant buildings, to determine the responsibilities of owners of vacant
buildings and provide for the administration, enforcement, and penalties associated with
the same.
b) Findings. Vacant and abandoned buildings are a major cause and source of blight in
residential and non - residential neighborhoods, especially when the owner or responsible
party of the building fails to actively maintain and manage the building to ensure it does
not become a liability to the neighborhood. These types of buildings often attract
transients, homeless people, trespassers, and criminals, including drug abusers. Neglect of
vacant and abandoned buildings, as well as their use by transients and criminals, creates a
risk of fire, explosion, or flooding for the vacant building and adjacent properties. Vacant
and abandoned properties are often used as dumping grounds for junk and debris and are
often overgrown with weeds and grass. Vacant and abandoned buildings that are boarded
up to prevent entry by transients and other long -term vacancies discourage economic
development and retard appreciation of property values. There is a substantial cost to the
City for monitoring these buildings whether or not they are boarded up. This cost should
not be borne by the general taxpayers of the community but rather these costs should be
borne by those who choose to leave their buildings vacant and abandoned.
c) Definitions. For the purposes stated in section 3 -35 of this code, "vacant building"
and "abandoned building" shall be defined as follows:
1) Vacant building. A building temporarily unoccupied by an owner or renter for a
period greater than two months. The vacancy may be due, but not limited to,
vacation purposes, changes in ownership or marketing the property for sale or
lease. The building may or may not be monitored by the owner or the owner's agent
which may include but not be limited to an individual, a property management
company or a realty company.
1—
2) Abandoned building. A building that is not being actively monitored or maintained
by the owner or the owner's agent nor can contact be made with the owner or the
owner refuses to maintain the property after being notified accordingly.
d) Registration Process.
1) Application. The owner or responsible party must register a vacant building with the
City no later than thirty (30) days after the building becomes vacant. The registration
must be submitted on a form provided by the City and shall include the following
information supplied by the owner:
a. The name, address, home /work/cell telephone number, and email address, if
applicable, of each owner or the owner's representative;
b. The names, addresses, home /work/cell telephone numbers, and email
addresses, if applicable, of all known lien holders and all other parties with
any legal interest in the building;
C. The name, address, home /work/cell telephone number, and email address, if
applicable, of a local agent or person responsible for managing or
maintaining the property;
d. The legal description, tax parcel identification number, and street address of
the premises on which the building is situated;
e. A description of the premises, including the common address of the property;
f. The period of time the building is expected to remain vacant, a property plan
and timetable for returning the building to appropriate occupancy or use and a
timetable for correcting code violations and nuisances or for demolition of
the building;
g. The status of water, sewer, natural gas and electric utilities;
2) Property Plan. The property plan identified in section 3- 35(d)(1)f. must meet the
following requirements:
a. General provisions. The plan must comply with all applicable regulations and
meet the approval of the building official. It must contain a timetable
regarding use or demolition of the property.
b. Maintenance of building. The plan must identify the means and timetable for
addressing all maintenance and nuisance - related items as specified in section
3 -35(g) of this code which are identified in the application. Any repairs,
improvements or alterations to the property must comply with all applicable
2—
building codes and City regulations.
c. Plan Changes. The owner must notify the building official of any changes in
the information supplied as part of the vacant building registration within
thirty (30) days of the change.
3) Non - compliance and Notification. If the owner does not comply with the property
plan or maintain or correct nuisance items, the City may commence abatement and
recover its costs for correction of those items in accordance with Minn. Stat. 66463.15
through 463.261. In the case of an absent owner and ongoing nuisance items, the City
need not provide notice of each abatement act to the owner. A single notice by the City
to the owner that it intends to provide ongoing abatement until the owner corrects the
items will be sufficient notice.
4) Exemptions.
a. Casualty Damage. A building that has suffered any type of casualty damage
is exempt from the registration requirement for a period of ninety (90) days
after the date of the casualty if the owner submits a request for exemption in
writing to the building official. A request for exemption must be approved by
the building official and include the following information supplied by the
owner:
A description of the premises;
ii. The name and address of owner or owners;
iii. A statement of intent to repair and reoccupy the building in an
expeditious manner and the time frame for completion;
iv. Actions the owner will take to ensure the property does not become a
nuisance for the neighborhood.
b. Seasonal Residence. Those persons who leave their residential buildings on a
temporary basis for vacation purposes or to reside elsewhere and have the
intent to return are exempt from the registration requirement. Exemption for
a seasonal residence will be granted with proper verification.
5) Fees. The owner must pay a one time registration fee. The registration fee shall be
set out in Chapter 14 of this code. The registration fee shall be reasonably related to the
administrative costs for registering and processing the registration form and for the
costs of the City in monitoring the vacant building site. The fee must be paid in full
prior to the issuance of any building permits or licenses, with the exception of a
demolition permit. This fee shall be waived if the vacant building registration is made
in conjunction with a point of sale inspection per section 3 -32(c) or a business use
3—
certificate of occupancy inspection per section 3 -33(f) of this code.
6) Waiver of Fee. The registration fee may be waived if the owner or responsible party
has paid all past due registration fees and all other financial obligations and debts owed
to the City that are associated with the vacant property and demonstrates, to the
satisfaction of the city manager or the manager's designee:
a. that the property is or will be re- occupied, with the exception of demolition,
within 180 days of becoming vacant and either
b. that he or she is in the process of demolition, rehabilitation, or other
substantial repair of the vacant building; or
C. that he or she has a plan for the demolition, rehabilitation, or other substantial
repair of the vacant building in a period of time that is deemed reasonable to
the building official.
7) Assessment. If the registration fee or any portion is not paid within 60 days after
billing, or within 60 days after any appeal becomes final, the City Council may certify
the unpaid cost against the property in accordance with the process set forth in Minn.
Stat. §429.101.
8) Issuance of Permit. Upon completion of the registration process and payment of the
fee, the City will issue a Vacant Structure Permit to the owner. The owner must
securely post the permit on the vacant building, if possible, on a side entrance door that
is not generally visible from the public street. If no side entrance door is available, the
permit must be securely posted on another available entrance door. If the property is
abandoned or the owner or responsible party fails to complete the registration process,
the property will be administratively registered as a vacant property.
e) Change of ownership. A new owner(s) must register or re- register a vacant building
under section §3 -35(d) of this code within thirty (30) days of any transfer of an ownership
interest in a vacant building. If the new owner does not proceed to make plans to occupy
the building within thirty (30) days of the transfer, the new owner(s) must submit a new
property plan for the building with a timetable for completion of said plan.
f) Inspections. The City may inspect any vacant building in the City for the purpose of
enforcing and assuring compliance with sections 3 -35(a) through (k) of this code and other
applicable regulations. Upon the request of the building official, an owner or responsible
party must provide access to all interior portions of the building and the exterior of the
property in order to complete an inspection. If the owner or responsible party is not
available to provide access to the interior of the building, the City may use any legal means
to gain entrance to the building for inspection purposes. Prior to any re- occupancy, a vacant
building must be inspected by the City and found to be in compliance with all regulations
of Chapter 3 of the City Code and all other applicable regulations. All application and
M
reinspection fees must also be paid prior to any reoccupancy of the building. All such fees
are set out in Chapter 14 of this code.
g) Maintenance of vacant buildings. The owner must comply with and address the
following items in the property plan, as described in section 3- 35(d)(2) of this code:
1) Appearance. All vacant buildings must be so maintained and kept that they appear to
be occupied.
2) Securing. All vacant buildings must be secured from outside entry by unauthorized
persons or pests. Security must be by the normal building amenities such as windows
and doors having adequate strength to resist intrusion. All doors and windows must
remain locked. There shall be at least one operable door into every building and into
each housing unit. Exterior walls and roofs must remain intact without holes.
a. Architectural (Cosmetic) Structural Panels. Architectural structural panels
may be used to secure windows, doors and other openings provided they are
cut to fit the opening and match the characteristics of the building.
b. Temporary Securing. Untreated plywood or similar structural panels or
temporary construction fencing may be used to secure windows, doors and
other openings for a maximum period of 14 days.
Artistic" board -up. With prior approval of the building official, artistic
options may be utilized to secure a vacant building.
d. Emergency securing. The building official may take steps to immediately
secure a vacant building at his or her discretion in emergency circumstances
per section 3- 34(c)(3) of this code.
3) Fire Safety.
a. Fire protection systems. Owners of non - residential vacant buildings must
maintain all fire protection systems, appliances and assemblies in operating
condition and maintain monitoring of all systems per procedures approved by
the West Metro Fire District.
b. Removal of hazardous and combustible materials. The owner of any vacant
building must remove all hazardous material and hazardous refuse that could
constitute a fire hazard or contribute to the spread of fire.
4) Plumbing fixtures. Plumbing fixtures connected to an approved water system, an
approved sewage system, or an approved natural gas utility system must be installed in
accordance with applicable codes and be maintained in sound condition and good
repair or removed and the service terminated in the manner prescribed by applicable
5—
codes. The building's water systems must be protected from freezing.
5) Electrical. Electrical service lines, wiring, outlets or fixtures not installed or
maintained in accordance with applicable codes must be repaired, removed or the
electrical services terminated to the building in accordance with applicable codes.
6) Lighting. All exterior lighting fixtures must be maintained in good repair, and
illumination must be provided to the building and all walkways in the same manner as
provided at the time the building was last occupied or as otherwise provided in the
approved vacant building plan.
7) Heating. Heating facilities or heating equipment in vacant buildings must be
removed, rendered inoperable, or maintained in accordance with applicable codes.
8) Termination of utilities. The building official may require that water, sewer,
electricity, or gas service to the vacant building be terminated or disconnected. Prior to
the termination of any utility service, written notice must be given to the owner. No
utility may be restored until consent is given by the building official. Utilities may be
discontinued at the request of the owner or responsible party as part of the approved
vacant building property plan. The building official may authorize immediate
termination of utilities at his or her discretion in emergency circumstances.
9) Signage. Obsolete or unused exterior signs and installation hardware must be
removed. Holes and penetrations must be properly patched and painted to match the
building. Surfaces beneath the signs that do not match the building must be repaired,
resurfaced, painted or otherwise altered to be compatible with the building surfaces. All
signs must be maintained in good condition and in compliance with section 3 -50 of this
code.
10) Exterior maintenance. The owner must comply with all applicable property
maintenance regulations and City codes including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Public nuisances. The owner must eliminate any activity on the property that
constitutes a public nuisance as defined by Minn. St at . §609.74 or any section
of this code.
b. Grass and weeds. Any weeds or grass must be no greater than six (6) inches
in height.
C. Exterior structure maintenance. The owner must maintain the vacant
building in compliance with the City's Property Maintenance Code set out in
sections 3 -30(a) through (e) of this code.
d. Abandoned or junk vehicles. The owner must remove abandoned and junk
vehicles from the property. The City may impound such vehicles consistent
with the requirements in section 6 -4 of this code.
e. Storage and disposal of refuse. The storage and disposal of refuse must
comply with the requirements of section 9 -11 of this code.
f. Animals. The owner must ensure that all animals are removed from the
property and handled in a humane manner.
g. Diseased, dead or hazardous trees. The owner must remove diseased, dead or
hazardous trees or branches from the property in accordance with section 9-
80 of this code.
h. Graffiti. The owner must remove all graffiti from the property in accordance
with section 9 -90 of this code.
Abandoned pools. Swimming pools must be maintained in good operating
condition; treated to prevent pest harborage; or properly drained and emptied.
Swimming pools must be secured in accordance with section 3 -25 of this
code.
j. Snow removal. Sufficient snow removal shall be performed on the property to
insure adequate access to the building for fire or other emergency vehicles
and to provide for the safe use of public sidewalks or other public
thoroughfares connected to or affected by snow removal on the vacant
property.
11) Removal ofgarbage and refuse. The owner of any vacant building, or vacant portion
thereof, must remove all garbage, refuse, rubbish, or other noxious materials from the
vacant building and the property upon which the building is located.
12) Police protections systems. The owner must properly maintain all alarm systems in
any vacant building or portion thereof in operating condition.
13) Loitering, criminal activities. Loitering or engaging in criminal activities is not
allowed in the vacant building or on the real property upon which the vacant building is
located. The owner or responsible party must not allow these activities and take
immediate actions to eliminate these conditions once notified by the City.
14) Emergency Abatement. The building official may authorize immediate abatement of
any public nuisance or maintenance item if, in the discretion of the building official,
emergency circumstances exist that present an imminent threat to the public health and
safety.
15) Other Codes. All other City codes and applicable regulations must be complied with.
7—
h) No occupancy or trespass. No person may trespass, occupy or reside in, on a
temporary or permanent basis, any vacant building without the owner's consent.
i) Vandalism or removal of items prohibited. No person may vandalize or remove items
from a vacant building or the property upon which it. is located, including, but not limited to,
appliances, fixtures, electrical wiring, copper, or other similar items without the owner's
consent.
j) Appeal. Any person or responsible party aggrieved by a decision under sections 3-
35(a) through (i) may appeal to the City Council. The appeal must be in writing, must
specify the grounds for the appeal, and must be submitted to the City Manager within ten
business days of the decision that is basis of the appeal.
k) Penalties. Any person or responsible party who violates sections 3 -35(a) through (1)
is guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable as such. Nothing in sections 3 -35(a) through (k),
however, is deemed to impair other remedies or civil penalties available to the City under
this code or state law, including, but not limited to, Minn. Stat Sections 463.15 through
463.261.
Section 2 . Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
Dated the day of , 2010.
Kathi Hemken, Mayor
Attest:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Published in the New Hope - Golden Valley Sun -Post the day of ) 2010.)
P: ATTORNEY\SAS\I CLIENT FILES',2 CITY OF NEW HOPE \99 -40147 (VACANT PROP) \REGISTRATION OF VACANT BLDGS ORDINANCE3 CLEAN.DOC