06 16 2026 CC Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
June 16, 2026 at 6:00 PM
Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Approval of the Agenda
The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions or deletions to the
agenda. These items may be submitted after the agenda preparation deadline.
5. Public Comments - for items not on the agenda
Public comments provide an opportunity to address the City Council on items which are not
on the meeting agenda. All are welcome to speak. Individuals should address their
comments to the City Council as a whole, not individual members. Speakers are requested
to come to the podium and must state their name and address. Comments are limited to
three (3) minutes. No action will be taken; however, the Mayor and Council may ask
clarifying questions as needed or request staff to follow up.
6. Consent Agenda
Items on the consent agenda are approved by one motion of the City Council. If a
councilmember requests additional information or wants to make a comment on an item,
the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Items
removed from the consent agenda will be taken up as the next order of business.
a. Approve Minutes from the June 2, 2026, City Council Meeting
b. Approve Minutes from the May 26, 2026, City Council Work Session
c. Acknowledge Minutes from the March 10, 2026, Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting
d. Acknowledge Minutes from the May 12, 2026, Parks and Recreation Commission
Work Session
e. Acknowledge January, February, March, April, and May 2026 Fire Synopses
f. Approve Resolution 2026-40 Appointing Election Judges for the 2026 State Primary
and General Election
Page 1 of 309
g. Approve Liquor License Renewals
h. Approve On-Sale Intoxicating/Sunday Liquor License for Bricksworth Beer Co. LLC,
752 North Plaza Drive
i. Grading Permit for 2320 Lexington Avenue, Lexington Heights Apartments
j. Approve the Planned Unit Development Agreement for First Amendment to
Lexington Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development
k. Approve the proposal submitted by MN Native Landscapes (MNL) and authorize
Staff to enter into a contract with MNL for the Friendly Marsh Park Turf-to-Prairie
project.
l. Approve Resolution 2026-38 Accepting a Donation to the Ivy Hills Park Playground
Ribbon Cutting
m. Approve Resolution 2026-39 Accepting a Donation to the Cops and Bobbers Derby
Day in Honor of Cliff Timm
n. Approve Purchase of Bleachers for the Hagstrom-King Park Ballfield
o. Approve Purchase of New Duty Handguns for the Police Department
p. Approve May 2026 Treasurer's Report
q. Approve Claims List
7. Presentations
a. A Co-Op Grocery Store’s Model and How it Benefits Mendota Heights
8. Public Hearings
9. New and Unfinished Business
a. City of Mendota Heights FY2025 Audit Report
b. Municipal Campus Building Project - Police Station and City Hall Update
10. Community / City Administrator Announcements
11. City Council Comments
12. Adjourn
Next Meeting
July 7, 2026 at 6:00PM
Information is available in alternative formats or with the use of auxiliary aids to individuals with disabilities
upon request by calling city hall at 651-452-1850 or by emailing cityhall@mendotaheightsmn.gov.
Regular meetings of the City Council are cablecast on
NDC4/Town Square Television Cable Channel 18/HD798 and online at townsquare.tv/Mendota-Heights-
Streaming
Page 2 of 309
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, June 2, 2026
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota, was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilors Lorberbaum, Paper, Mazzitello, and
Maczko were also present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Paper moved adoption of the agenda.
Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dan Sherer, 2459 Hampshire Court, introduced himself and provided information on his family, who are
involved in sports in the community. He also noted his involvement in the Two Rivers Athletic
Association (TRAA) and wanted to ensure there is a plan to adequately replace Civic Center Field if it is
removed as part of the Municipal Campus project, noting that the field should be replaced prior to that
project beginning. He stated that he attended the open house last fall when three potential designs were
considered, one of which included building the facility on the field. He stated that while that design option
seemed to be the more expensive, pie-in-the-sky option, it now seems to be the preferred option, and
construction could begin as early as next year. He stated that losing that field would be a huge loss for
the community that would impact both the baseball and softball programs. He commented on the number
of children who participate in the programs and the difficulty scheduling field use, noting that Mendakota
and Civic Center are the top fields in Mendota Heights. He stated that if Civic Center is lost, even if
another field is improved to that standard, they would still be down a field and already have to schedule
field use outside of the community to accommodate all the players. He asked that Civic Center Field be
left alone or that a replacement be built on vacant land as a replacement.
Tom Lopac, Eagan resident, noted House Bill 4240, which was recently passed and signed into law, which
included one provision that allows the City Clerk to change the absentee voting days from 46 to 18. He
stated that it could provide the City with cost savings and is something the City may want to consider.
Page 3 of 309
6.a
June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 17
Adam Crepeau, 1016 Douglas Road, stated that he is the President of Two Rivers Athletic Association
(TRAA) and commented that he trusts the judgment of the Council and staff. He stated that when they
look at spaces in the community, Mendakota Park is the largest gathering space in the community. He
stated that from April to November, TRAA fills that park with thousands of children and their families,
and the park is in dire need of remodeling. He commented that there has been wonderful maintenance
over the years by Public Works and TRAA, but it is time to invest more into that park. He stated that if
they invest and make Mendakota a gem, they will honor the community. He recognized that fundraising
would be tough, recognizing that people may question the use of funds for other projects. He volunteered
to assist with seeking financing options and fundraising.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Levine presented the consent agenda and explained the procedure for discussion and approval.
Councilor Mazzitello moved approval of the consent agenda as presented, pulling item E.
a.Approval of May 19, 2026, City Council Minutes
b.Approval of May 19, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes
c.Acknowledge Minutes from the April 28, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting
d.Acknowledge Minutes from the March 18, 2026, Airport Relations Commission Meeting
e.Approve Out of State Travel Authorization for Parks and Recreation Director Meredith Lawrence
to Attend the National Recreation and Park Association Conference
f.Approve a Massage Therapist License
g.Approve the Hiring of Kate Dougherty as Communications Coordinator
h.Adopt Resolution No. 2026-36 Approving an Administrative MRCCA Minor Development Permit
to 1296 Aspen Way (Planning Case No. 2026-09)
i.Acknowledge the April Par 3 Financial Report
j.Approve April 2026 Treasurer’s Report
k.Approval of Claims List
Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
E)APPROVE OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION FOR PARKS AND
RECREATION DIRECTOR MEREDITH LAWRENCE TO ATTEND THE NATIONAL
RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE
Councilor Maczko stated that an out-of-state conference is an opportunity to learn about what is changing
and about trends. He recognized that Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith
Lawrence will be presenting at the conference and wanted to provide her with an opportunity to provide
information on this.
Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence stated that it is an honor to
present at a national conference, noting that she will be presenting two sessions titled, Steel-Toed Boots
and Fresh Perspectives: Women Redefining Park Maintenance and From Happy Accidents to Intentional
Impact: Growing the Next Generation of Park and Recreation Pros.
Page 4 of 309
June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 17
Councilor Maczko moved to approve OUT OF STATE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION FOR PARKS
AND RECREATION DIRECTOR MEREDITH LAWRENCE TO ATTEND THE NATIONAL
RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE.
Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PRESENTATIONS
A)GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH – 2020 PROJECT
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy provided background information, noting that in the United States in 2020,
firearm-related injuries surpassed motor vehicle crashes to become the leading cause of death among
people ages one to 19 years old. Year over year, the majority of those deaths are firearm suicides. In
2025, the City Council signed a resolution establishing June as Gun Violence Awareness Month. As part
of Gun Violence Awareness Month, officers may choose to wear specially issued patches, and residents
are encouraged to wear orange on the first Friday of the month (June 5th).
Councilor Lorberbaum asked if the Department would be selling patches again this year.
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy replied that they sold patches at the Par 3 last year, but this year would be
selling them at the Police Department for $5.
PUBLIC HEARING
No items scheduled.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW – APPLICATION OF INDIGO
SIGNS FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 750 NORTH PLAZA DRIVE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2025-08)
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the Council was being asked to review
the Concept Plan for this Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment request and provide advisory
comments and recommendations to the applicant.
Councilor Maczko asked if there is an electronic message sign ordinance.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that there are regulations for electronic
message signs within different districts, but no such standards exist within the PUD district. She noted
that a formal review would allow the Council to place regulations and conditions upon the operation of
the sign.
Councilor Maczko commented that he believes they should attempt to be consistent across the board,
regardless of the district. He asked for clarification on whether there would be one or two electronic
components.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that pylon sign one, near Dodd Road, would
have the electronic message component.
Page 5 of 309
June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 17
Councilor Maczko asked and received confirmation that the bottom panel would include information
about the four businesses, or could be changed to advertise something else.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that the bottom panel would reflect the
business tenant information or other information chosen to be advertised by the Plaza.
Councilor Mazzitello stated that there is a business on the sign proposal that he does not recognize and
asked for more information.
Mike Sturdivant, property owner, replied that the current signs are outdated and need to be upgraded. He
stated that they also recently signed a lease with a brewpub that will be joining the center.
Councilor Mazzitello commented that he is excited to welcome a new business into the community.
Councilor Paper asked if the upper sign panels have the ability to change as tenants may come and go.
Mr. Sturdivant commented that those panels would not be electronic but could be changed if a tenant were
to leave. He stated that the intention of the electronic message sign is that it would look like a static sign
and would not draw attention if/when changes were made.
Councilor Lorberbaum thanked Councilor Maczko for addressing her concerns, noting that she also wants
to see consistency between districts. She stated that she would not want to see animation and would want
to ensure that all standards of other districts are followed in a formal request. She asked about the
maximum lighting allowance for signs and would not want to see this exceed that standard.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided information on sign lighting regulations.
Councilor Lorberbaum commented that she would guess that the brewpub would be open late and noted
that most lit signs are required to turn off by 10 p.m.
Mr. Sturdivant stated that typically, the pylon signs are lit throughout the evening.
Councilor Lorberbaum thanked the applicant for investing in the property.
Mayor Levine thanked the Planning Commission for its thorough review and asked the applicant to take
the guidance that was provided by that group when making a formal application.
Councilor Maczko stated that he would support dimming the sign at night to ensure the light does not
travel and impact adjacent properties.
Mayor Levine asked if the lighting/signage would have the ability to be adjusted after the fact if issues
present themselves, as they want to be respectful of people who live in that area.
Councilor Lorberbaum asked about the anticipated opening date for the new tenant.
Mr. Sturdivant anticipated a late summer/early fall opening.
B) MUNICIPAL CAMPUS BUILDING PROJECT – RESOLUTION 2026-37 APPROVING
SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR THE POLICE STATION AND CITY HALL MUNICIPAL CAMPUS
Page 6 of 309
June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 17
BUILDING PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING PROCEEDING WITH THE DESIGN
DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson provided a brief background on this item and introduced the
consultant. The Council was being asked to consider a resolution approving schematic design plans for
the Police/City Hall Municipal Campus Project and authorizing proceeding with the design development
phase of the project.
Kyle Walter, ICS, provided a presentation including information on the programming study and site plan
studies, including soil boring information. He presented two different site options and provided additional
information on both options, other considerations, and budget impacts for each option. He presented the
draft schematic design and provided information on the overall budget and State bonding.
Councilor Maczko stated that he has a question about the state bonding and eligible expenses. He stated
that he has the same questions he had at the meeting on Tuesday.
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson provided information on the project goals, project values, the Council
direction and pillars for the project, the primary needs, alternatives that were explored, previous
presentations, and other potential locations that were reviewed. She explained why it isn’t possible at the
current site to co-locate Police with Fire at the Fire Station and why it is beneficial to keep the new
Police/City Hall building in the current location. She explained that in December, the Council approved
the dig once future-ready option with CJN and provided information on that.
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy provided information on the benefits of keeping the Police at City Hall. She
stated that the department has fewer than 100 officers and noted that for cities with that size Police
Department, they are located with City Hall, and provided additional information on that reasoning they
are located together. She stated that the schematic design provides for efficiencies to increase
collaboration and the reporting structure while also enhancing safety.
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson provided additional information on the project cost and related
property tax impacts, grants and external funding sources the City has pursued, and funds allocated by the
State for the project and related B3 guidelines. She stated that City leadership and TRAA have met and
are working to develop solutions to replace Civic Center Field.
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy provided additional information on CJN and why that space is being
included in the schematic design. She provided additional information on the need for holding cells. She
reviewed the different platforms that have been used for the past year to advertise the project and solicit
public input. She welcomed suggestions for additional ways to reach people, as they are still finding
people who say they are unaware of the project. She welcomed residents to come to the facility to ask
questions and learn more information, as she recognized that this project has a high cost. She commented
that this is a transparent process that heavily involves public engagement to help find the right solution,
encouraging residents to be involved to ensure that this is a successful project that maintains the character
of Mendota Heights.
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson agreed that public engagement has been, and will continue to be, an
important part of the project as they continue to incorporate public comments into the schematic design.
She stated that those who are not comfortable speaking can send their comments and questions via email
as well.
Page 7 of 309
June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 17
Councilor Maczko asked how much they have requested in Federal funding and when they would know
the answer.
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy stated that the City requested $10,000,000 and is in the running for $800,000.
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that the decision would follow the congressional appropriations
process.
Councilor Paper stated that he does not understand the process of waiting to hear from the State on how
that funding could be used towards the project. He asked if CJN could be eliminated from the project if
they ran the cost-benefit analysis and determined that those requirements exceeded the funding.
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy replied that would be a decision of the Council, but confirmed that
architecturally, they can adjust to eliminate CJN, if that is the decision. She stated that she believes that
there will be a long-term cost benefit analysis to receiving the funding and the B3 requirements.
Councilor Maczko stated that it was his understanding that through the efforts of Police Chief Kelly
McCarthy, they were able to attract CJN, which brings regional significance and opens additional funding
sources. He asked about the likelihood that CJN would outgrow this space.
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy replied that CJN is not growing, but the city of Rosemount is growing and
needs the space currently occupied by CJN. She commented that most of the work of CJN is done by
remote employees. She stated that they asked CJN to be a part of the project because it made the project
eligible for tax relief and additional funding.
Councilor Maczko stated that authorization of bonding is important, as it specifies how the funds can be
used, and funds cannot be used for reimbursement. He recognized that $4,000,000 was allocated for pre-
design and design, which means that those funds can only be used for that purpose. He recognized that
they could request an amendment of that designation, but that would not occur until next year. He
appreciated that they were successful in gaining the funding, but was unsure of the benefit as they continue
to spend funds that may not be reimbursed. He asked when the authorization would begin for the State
funding.
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that she is unsure of the answer as the state contract manager
has not yet been assigned to the city.
Mr. Walter stated that they have experience with this type of funding and provided additional information.
He stated that in a previous project, they went through the full design and then made modifications to meet
the design requirements of the State. He commented that the timeline of the project will extend because
of the discussions necessary with the State. He stated that they will need the input of the State to ensure
they are not fully designing and then needing to make significant modifications. He stated that the square
footage for CJN is incorporated into the building, and if CJN leaves, the square footage would still be an
asset, and that space could be renovated for another use. He stated that the architect is also completing an
option without CJN to show the Council, which would reduce the square footage by 2,000 square feet.
Councilor Lorberbaum asked when a manager from the State would be assigned and when the City would
need to make a decision on whether to accept the funds.
Mr. Walter replied that he could not provide an estimate for that timeline.
Page 8 of 309
June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 17
Councilor Lorberbaum stated that the Council is asked tonight to proceed from schematic design to
detailed design, acknowledging that they are already over budget. She recognized that staff had said that
adjustments could be made to the plans to scale down to the budgeted project amount. She noted the many
questions that remain and that if they continue to wait, prices will continue to increase. She recognized
that changes can continue to be made throughout the process.
Mr. Walter stated that as the project continues to extend, they will continue to see inflation. He recognized
that at schematic design, it feels like they do not have all the information, but those details are fleshed out
during the next phase of design. He noted that progress and budget updates would continue to occur
throughout this process.
Councilor Lorberbaum stated that even if they knew the answers to many of the questions, there would
continue to be things that change during the detailed design. She asked why there are so many storage
rooms.
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that the schematic design takes into account the storage space
they already have within the building, as well as the additional needs of different departments.
Councilor Lorberbaum stated that she had questions about Civic Center Field and recognized that the City
is working with TRAA to find solutions. She asked if the construction of a new field would be
incorporated into the budget. She stated that there was a great conversation with TRAA where different
ideas were discussed, and she believed that they would work together to find the best solution. She stated
that the question today is whether to proceed to detailed design, recognizing that the goal is to work within
the approved budget.
Mr. Walter confirmed that they will look at different options and strategies to ensure that they can work
within the approved budget.
Councilor Maczko stated that when he voted to move this forward in December, there was an estimate of
the budget, and he did not think that was an approval of the budget. He commented that he believed that
the approval was to continue to this phase and that the budget would continue to be refined, as he would
like to see a budget even lower than that estimate.
Mr. Walter explained that the budget was based on square footage needs, as is the budget estimate today.
He stated that $33,100,000 was the budget estimate based on programming, and if it is the desire of the
Council, they can explore options to lower that amount, but the Council should also realize that this would
also bring a reduction in square footage.
Mayor Levine invited input from members of the public.
Brian Halman, 2224 Copperfield, stated that he does not doubt that City staff have done everything they
can to get the word out about the project, but noted that, as a 30-year resident, he had not heard much
about the project. He stated that he was surprised that this project did not come forward as a referendum,
but recognized that this project had followed the proper steps. He stated that tonight he learned a lot about
the project and the steps that have been taken thus far. He had a concern with the cost of the project, as a
taxpayer, noting that $33,000,000 is a large budget for a city of 11,000 people. He noted previous City
projects that have come in over budget and estimated that this project could reach $45,000,000 and could
Page 9 of 309
June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 of 17
increase taxes by 20 percent. He stated that his biggest concern is with the extraordinarily high cost of
the project.
John Nides, 2094 Patricia Street, stated that he and his family have been residents for 44 years and thanked
all the members of the City Council and staff for their work to make Mendota Heights a wonderful and
beautiful community to live in. He spoke for himself and other concerned taxpayers, and asked the City
to hold a referendum on the issuance of any bonds for the $33,000,000 project, as this is the largest project
the City has ever considered, and it will have a significant impact on property taxes. He stated that while
the City has made an effort to inform taxpayers, a few residents worked last weekend to gather 368
signatures of residents questioning the size, dollars, and scope of the project. He commented that they
believe the size of the project justifies a referendum, a referendum will motivate the Council to better
inform residents, and residents will be motivated to become better informed. He stated that they
understand that if the City proceeds without the referendum, citizens can petition to stop the project, and
everyone should want to avoid that route. He stated that citizens want a better understanding of why a
project of this size and expense is needed.
Mayor Levine asked that the petition be provided to the City Clerk, which he did provide.
Henry Riehm, 2214 High Pointe Court, noted that on the budget side, he noticed the professional services
costs of around $4,000,000 and asked if that rate is negotiable. He believed that residents have a
responsibility to stay informed about City issues, and ignorance on the part of a taxpayer does not
constitute an emergency on the part of the City Council.
Janine Joseph, 1915 Walsh Lane, commented that she is a lifelong resident of Mendota Heights and has
seen the changes during that time. She stated that they love the Police in the community, but when they
started talking about the project, the country was not at war, gas prices were not at this level, and groceries
were affordable. She believed the City to be tone deaf to the current economic conditions. She commented
that, as someone who works in technology, she is concerned that AI will take her job and the jobs of many
others. She believed that the City should take a step back, as the world is very different than when the
discussion began.
Buzz Cummings commented that he previously served on the Council for eight years in the 1980s. He
believed that the Council had done a fine job of planning for this project and stated that his primary
question is the cost of renovating the building. He stated that when the building was constructed in
1988/1989, he was involved in the design, and they envisioned it as a 60-year building, recognizing that
expansion options existed. He commented that the Council Chambers and lobby seem to be in good
condition, while recognizing that the Police Department and staff offices are in need of renovation.
Jerome Mulvahill, 1154 Orchard Place, commented that he is a lifelong resident and structural engineer,
noting that he is also very familiar with the B3 requirements. He stated that when this building was
constructed in 1989, this area was a swamp that was filled in. He did not recall if the building was on
piling and stated that B3 would restrict the type of piling that can be used, and will impact the cost.
Scott Van, 1870 Hunter Lane, commented that he is a lifelong resident, and there was a lot of good
information presented tonight. He was happy to see the residents present tonight. He stated that if he
remembered correctly, the ballfield was determined to be a good location for that amenity because of the
underlying conditions that deemed it unbuildable. He feared what would show up in the soil borings. He
stated that the Par 3 had a referendum for $2,800,000, which passed by 200 or 300 votes. He commented
that with a cost of $33,000,000, residents deserve a referendum. He stated that he was one of the residents
Page 10 of 309
June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 of 17
who went around to gather signatures, and of 100 people, he only came across five or six people who did
not sign. He stated that 95 percent of the people they approached believed that there should be a
referendum and that the project cost is too high, noting that this is a sampling that occurred over a few
days. He stated that he would also like to know more about the cost for renovations and additions to the
existing facility. He asked if the cost for renovation and use of the Summit site was $23,000,000. He
commented that the residents want a referendum, no matter which plan is chosen.
Holly Farber, 1701 James Road, commented that she respects what has been said about a referendum, but
she does not believe that it is necessary. She stated that the residents elect the members of the Council to
make these decisions. She stated that while robust public engagement is critical, a referendum is not the
right tool to evaluate a complex municipal campus project as it can add significant cost, delay needed
improvements, and reduce a complex project and its needs to a simple yes or no campaign. She stated
that this is a significant project and it should continue to be done in the manner it is being done. She
commented that this is not the Par 3; this is a complex municipal campus project. She stated that while
some people support a referendum, there are others in the community who think a referendum is not the
right way to go for the project.
Lynn Burrow, 1219 Victoria Curve, commented that everyone has done a good job of informing them
tonight, but in a few hours, she was able to gain 135 signatures in favor of a referendum. She stated that
almost everyone wants a referendum and a voice on this type of expenditure. She commented on the
challenging economic times people are facing and stated that this building is not a teardown. She stated
that her home was built in 1955, and it will be a teardown, which is a waste of resources. She believed
that this building should be renovated and expanded, which would provide the necessary room without
the high cost. She stated that she is a single woman on social security who has worked hard for her money,
and there are a lot of people hurting right now. She asked if Federal funding would come with a
requirement to take detainees from the Whipple building. She stated that people are hurting, and they
should not tear down and build a dream building. She stated that she was born and raised here, and people
in the community are struggling. She believed the new project was a want, not a need.
Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, stated that he has lived here for 67 years and the City Council does not
always make the right decision. He stated that the law provides for a referendum, which provides the
opportunity for residents to tell the Council what they think. He stated that the people in this room believe
that this is a Taj Mahal that is not necessary, particularly at this time. He stated that the $33,000,000 is
not the final figure, as they have heard that additional expenses would be needed to relocate the field. He
stated that several hundred dollars for 20 to 30 years is not a nominal increase to taxpayers for such a
facility. He commented on the increases that taxpayers have absorbed from the City and County in recent
years, along with the Federal level. He stated that they need a referendum and believed that the City will
do a better job of informing people if that path is followed, as will taxpayers in learning about the project.
Scott Anderson, 1247 Culligan Lane, asked the City to process for deciding whether or not to have a
referendum. He asked if AI has been taken into consideration for planning purposes and future needs. He
did not believe that staffing needs would increase and believed that less space would be needed in the
future. He stated that it sounds like the Council is being asked whether it wants to move from schematic
design to design development, and asked about the related cost to move to that step.
Scott Van, 1870 Hunter Lane, stated that 18 full-time staff work at City Hall and realized that the Police
need more space. He believed that they should look more at an addition to the building. He commented
that 90 percent of the residents paying for this project probably do not even step foot into the building in
Page 11 of 309
June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 10 of 17
any given year, as it is a special-use building. He stated that they do not need a community gathering
space and believed that they could reduce the scope and cost to be more reasonable for everyone.
Denise Kirchner, 749 Cheyenne Lane, stated that it is her understanding that they are looking at a bigger
garage for the Police and their squad cars but it is her understanding that the vehicles are being driven
home and questioned what that space would be used for.
Mary Steiger, 723 Cheyenne Lane, believed that everyone supports the Police and having an adequate
facility for them. She stated that she supports having that service available at the door rather than requiring
them to go downstairs, especially in a trauma situation. She stated that the Friendly Hills residents are
coming off an assessment of over $5,000 and are now being asked to pay 20 percent more. She commented
that many residents are on fixed incomes and are struggling. She stated that she requested a senior
deferment, which was placed on the agenda, but then she never heard about it again. She provided
examples of information that was mailed to homes for the street project, which she believed were easily
confused with junk mail and never included an assessment amount. She stated that there are a lot of
working people and people over 60 who are struggling already.
Mayor Levine thanked the residents for their input.
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy stated that there are individually assigned squad cars that officers can take
home, but not all officers take those vehicles home. She noted that it is a current policy, but it may not be
a policy in the future. She stated that the garage would not just be for the police but would also be for
City vehicles and could include EV charging. She stated that these vehicles are assets and should be stored
inside. She commented that access and egress of Council and staff should also be considered for safety.
Mr. Walter stated that with quick calculations, the cost to go from schematic design through detailed
design would be about $400,000. He noted that the largest lift in design would be the phase from detailed
design through construction documents, and commented that this would also include a review and
approval from the Council. He noted that an additional review and approval by the Council would also
be required to proceed from construction documents to bidding. He referenced the $4,000,000 in
professional services that were mentioned and noted that would cover the project in its entirety, reviewing
the different aspects that are included. He explained that contracts were negotiated at the beginning of the
process, and their fees are competitive. He stated that those fees include the different professional services
such as architects, consultants, and engineers. He stated that project management is based on the
construction timeline, and there could be potential for those fees to change.
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that the use of AI within City government is as a tool and it is
not a replacement for human resources. She stated that her philosophy is that employees should work in
and for the community. She stated that perhaps that will change in 20 years, but that is unknown at this
time. She commented that employees are in the office and only occasionally work remotely. She
commented that changes in staffing may come in the future based on changing needs, such as IT and ADA
compliance.
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy stated that the Police use AI heavily in CJN, which has allowed them to
accelerate the work, but that still involves people and has simply allowed them to shift how they work.
She stated that while Police analysists may use AI, she did not see a future in which a human would not
need to come to someone’s house to help them. She commented that their sworn staff runs lean already,
and AI will provide assistance with investigations.
Page 12 of 309
June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 11 of 17
Mr. Walter stated that the City reviewed many different options last year, which included renovating the
existing facility with additions, which was $26,500,000. He referenced the square footage of the existing
facility and the need for an additional 31,000 square feet.
Mayor Levine asked if those numbers included the additional square footage needs.
Kristin Duerr, ICS, commented that it was the difference in the cost results from the garage for the Police
Department and additional storage space. She confirmed that the cost for the renovation and addition is
not an accurate comparison to the schematic design cost because they do not include the same features
and square footage.
Mayor Levine noted that the $26,500,000 cost was not based on the actual programming and space needs.
She stated that over the lifetime of the building, it would be cheaper to build new. She stated that they
would have preferred to renovate the facility until they realized that it would cost more than building new.
Ms. Duerr stated that relocation costs and other factors relating to security and relocation of evidence
storage would also be factors in the renovation costs.
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy stated that she would not accept money in exchange for accepting prisoners.
She stated that she would have preferred to add onto the existing building, but in speaking with residents
and experts, this project is not cost versus savings, but whether they are being wise in the short-term or
long-term. She stated that it was made clear that the renovation/expansion option was not the better choice
in the long-term.
Mr. Walter stated that, based on the SDS and the soil borings that have been done, they have taken into
account geo-piers. He stated that if they were to build on top of the existing location, the geo-piers would
be necessary, and they are carrying more money in the civil costs because of that, whether construction
occurs on this location or on the property to the west. He provided additional information on geo-piers
and how they are used to provide stability in poor soils.
Councilor Mazzitello stated that, within geotechnical investigation, if geo-piers are not necessary, that
would be a cost savings. He recognized that they are planning for the worst-case scenario, and also
recognized that the geo-piers would most likely be needed.
Mr. Walter stated that he cannot speak to previous project budgets, but stated that budgets are based on
historical square footage for similar buildings, and there is a contingency built into that for circumstances
that may arise. He stated that he has not had a project in the past 12 years where they have exceeded an
allotted project budget. He commented that they would utilize bid strategies to allow the Council to make
decisions that may be needed to remain within the budget.
Mayor Levine asked that the resident who spoke about the senior deferment for the road project to follow
up with staff.
Finance Director Kristen Schabacker stated that the assessment was deferred. She confirmed that
engineering could send a letter to confirm that with the resident.
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy recognized that people support the Police, and recognized comments that
state that City Hall does not need to be this large, or that it is a building they will never step foot in. She
people need to understand that nothing in the city happens without City Hall. She commented that whether
Page 13 of 309
June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 12 of 17
or not someone steps foot in the building, the things that happen in the building impact many aspects of
their life, including voting. She stated that the current building is closer to a Taj Mahal than what they are
proposing, as the Taj Mahal is 35,000 square feet and does not have any bathrooms.
Mayor Levine stated that the Council did consider a referendum, and while they did not conduct a formal
vote, they did have a discussion, and unanimously, the Council did not want to do a referendum for the
project.
Councilor Maczko stated that Mayor Levine is overstating that it was a unanimous decision because he
made the statement that if he felt that the residents did not support the project, he would not support it and
would vote no. He stated that they do not need to go to a referendum, but they need to have the trust of
the community, as the Council is the steward of taxpayer money. He accepted the thinking that if they
educated people on the projects and their needs, the outcome should be the same regardless of whether
they made the decision as the Council or put it to the citizens. He stated that he, more than anyone, wants
people to be involved. He stated that this is the most engagement they have received despite the efforts
of staff and the Council to get people involved. He commented that they can only do so much to encourage
people to get involved; they have to want to be involved as well. He stated that his only concern with
putting it out to a referendum is that he honestly does not believe people will get any more informed than
if the decision is made by people who are involved. He stated there are legitimate reasons why they are
doing this and why the legislature provided the ability for Councils to make these decisions on these types
of buildings. He stated that if the public is informed and involved, then a referendum makes sense, but if
they are not informed and involved, it does not make sense. He commented that this is taxpayer money
and the Council is here to make the best decisions with the information they have, which is an informed
decision on these complicated buildings. He stated that he firmly believes that something needs to be
done, that it needs to be right-sized, and accepted by the community. He stated that they need the help of
the residents present to get more people engaged and involved. He did not think they needed a referendum
to do this, but they do need people to want to be engaged. He stated that if the communications look like
junk mail, they need to address that. He stated that perhaps they need to use more catchy headlines in the
mailings. He stated that they had a booth at Touch a Truck, and many people were still not aware, even
though it was advertised in the same publication as Touch a Truck. He recognized that Mendota Heights
is almost completely built out, so they will need to refine some of the staff projections as to what will be
needed in the future, as they may grow by 1,000 people over time. He stated that when this building was
built in the 1980s, it was stated that this was a building for the community and its needs for the future, and
the recommendation on the building was made by a community task force of 12 people, which did not
include a member of the City Council. He recognized that people do not trust the government, but they
need the trust of their residents. He stated that he will not fault staff as they have been trying their best to
reach everyone, but this is the largest showing of residents they have seen throughout this process.
Councilor Mazzitello agreed with Councilor Maczko that this is not the time to decide on a referendum.
He stated that they will need to have another meeting of the Council and Oversight Committee to have
that discussion and to discuss how they will ultimately pay for the project, as well as options that could
help reduce some of the costs for the taxpayers. He stated that a referendum is not off the table, but they
do not live in a majority rules society. He commented that the Council is elected to make decisions for
what is best for the community, not only now but for the future. He stated that this building is not just for
this generation, but for the next, and the next after that. He stated that this would not be the Police building,
staff building, or anyone’s building, but a building for everyone with a plan for maintenance to ensure it
could last 60 to 80 years.
Page 14 of 309
June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 13 of 17
Councilor Lorberbaum stated that when they started the process, she assumed there would be a
referendum. She stated that she co-chaired the Par 3 referendum and recognizes how much work that is.
She stated that as she got into this discussion about the new Police Station and City Hall, different things
stood out to her. She commented that it is their job to make sure residents understand why they are headed
in this direction. She stated that communication has been a focus throughout this process and was unsure
what they would do differently to communicate if a referendum is involved. She stated that the fact is that
they need a new Police Station and City Hall. She recognized that everyone’s taxes will go up, including
the members of the Council, and they need input from residents so they can address their concerns and
incorporate their ideas when appropriate. She stated that if a referendum were involved, there would be
additional focus on that and additional costs involved.
Councilor Paper asked what they would do differently in terms of communication, as he believes they
have done an amazing job in communications, noting that it has been a focal point of this project. He
credited the staff for trying all sorts of things, acknowledging that they cannot force residents to consume
the information that is delivered to them. He acknowledged that there is sticker shock because this is an
expensive project, but was unsure how they could communicate this in any additional manner. He stated
that the project is needed, and if there are additional delays, the project costs will only increase. He
appreciated that they investigated the potential of renovating the existing facility, but also felt that it was
a waste because there are so many unknowns that can increase costs, whereas costs are known on a new
build. He stated that it would be irresponsible to spend that amount of money on a 40-year-old facility
with issues that will need significant work in the future. He stated that there is no question that this project
is expensive. He stated that he has been involved in the City Council and Park Commission and recalled
the project in 2018 to address the water and mold remediation. He stated that every project is expensive,
but also looks into the future, using the example of the Fire Station and how elements were included to
plan for future needs. He stated that they cannot predict the future, but he is fairly confident that a robot
will not show up to get a cat out of a tree. He was unsure how they could do better to get information to
the community. He stated that there is a group present who represent a segment of the community, but
the group that will be running this community in the future is not in the room, and they are attempting to
plan for that future and those needs.
Mayor Levine echoed the comments of the Council thus far. She stated that when they considered a
referendum, she considered the need for the project. She stated that every budget cycle, the question is
posed as to whether Mendota Heights needs a Police Department, and that was the question that drove
this project. She stated that policing can be contracted to the County, but the decision of the Council was
that they believe the City should have its own Police Department and Police Chief. She stated that it was
then apparent that a new building was needed. She commented that if there is a referendum and that fails,
the Police would be disbanded. She stated that this is the reason she does not support a referendum. She
stated that this may go to a referendum, and if it fails, the Police Department will be disbanded, and
policing will be contracted to the County.
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy reported that 95 people were detained in the holding cells during 2025, as
that was a question posed by a resident in the audience earlier in the night.
Mayor Levine provided the email address for residents who have additional comments and questions.
Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2026-37 APPROVING THE SCHEMATIC
DESIGN FOR THE POLICE STATION AND CITY HALL MUNICIPAL CAMPUS BUILDING
PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING PROCEEDING WITH DESIGN DEVELOPMENT.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Page 15 of 309
June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 14 of 17
Further discussion: Councilor Maczko stated that, as much as he would like to vote to support this, he
believes it would be premature to move out of the schematic design phase right now, as there are still
unknowns related to CJN and whether they want to accept the State bonding money. He stated that if they
are not going to accept the State money, then that part of the project can be removed. He stated that if
they continue moving forward and they cannot change the legislation to pay towards construction costs,
then anything incurred between now and the authorization is not reimbursable. He also spoke about the
many unknowns that could impact the cost and other factors, including whether CJN is included and other
efficiencies. He suggested that they complete the soil borings to have a more complete picture, noting
that a smaller building footprint on more stable soils could reduce project costs and potentially keep the
ballfield. He stated that perhaps the relocation of Police and City administration could be split between
existing buildings to save on relocation costs. He stated that if they move to detailed design right now,
they will spend money now to go down this path, and more money would be spent in the future if changes
are needed. He believed that it would be prudent to answer those questions before they go further down
the rabbit hole.
Councilor Lorberbaum stated that the bottom line is that she keeps hearing that there are unanswered
questions, but they are not sure when they will get those answers. She stated that if they postpone for six
months to one year, it will cost more money. She recognized that there is a cost to changing the design,
but less so. She stated that if they are cautious and thoughtful in how they move forward, she supports
moving to the next phase. She commented that she would also like to see the soil borings.
Councilor Mazzitello boiled this down to the actual question, which is whether Mendota Heights wants
its own Police Department. He commented that the current facility is inadequate, which has led to this
path. He stated that for eight years he served as the Public Works Director and is aware of what is wrong
with the facility and the maintenance that has been deferred. He stated that if they were to renovate the
building, it would snowball, and they would end up redoing the entire building anyway. He agreed that
the messaging needs to be rebranded because something is not working, despite including it in every
messaging platform the City uses, email lists, and packets. He stated that something better needs to be
done to connect with more residents about this project. He stated that right now they have a schematic
design, and this is what he has done for 36 years of his professional career, working on projects like this.
He stated that the first step is a schematic design, which is a layout and determination of whether it can fit
in the desired area. He commented that once they find a spot where the building fits, they go after soil
borings rather than randomly doing soil borings all over the property. He commented that moving this
forward to get that geotechnical information is important and would like to see that information as soon
as possible. He stated that if Councilor Maczko believes that another portion of the property would better
fit the building, he would like to see the work supporting that. He stated that this project will recreate the
ballfield in another location and commented that he will make that commitment, recognizing that he is
one of five votes. He stated that the City belongs to its residents and businesses, and the decision of the
Council needs to be based on that. He stated that Mendota Heights is pretty much done growing, but noted
that when development stops, programming seems to grow. He stated that as they move into detailed
design, they will look at the option of shaving square footage off the building. He stated that all five
members of the Council are incredible cost conscious and they want this to be a good, functional building
that is also attractive, comfortable, and safe for employees to work in. He stated that the project
development process is outlined in the ICS schedule, and this is not the time to tap the brakes. He stated
that the numbers provided in this estimate are derived from other bid projects similar to this and have
nothing to do with the proposed design or finishes. He commented that going to detailed design allows
them to go away from the assembly number and better determine these project costs. He stated that he
wants to hear from all the residents, not just thoughts, but ideas. He stated that if this is wrong and bad,
Page 16 of 309
June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 15 of 17
he wants to hear what is right and good. He believed that this was the right time to move from schematic
design to detailed design.
Mayor Levine stated that the Council is grateful to the legislators who have worked tirelessly to prioritize
this project. She recognized that it is not common to receive $4,000,000 for a project of this nature. She
commented that there are questions that need to be asked about the B3 regulations, but did not believe the
process needs to be paused to wait for those answers. She stated that there are two sets of designs moving
forward, with and without CJN. She commented that they need to move forward, recognizing that they
may need to pivot. She agreed that the soil borings would provide more answers. She commented that
the cost of pausing would be more than the cost of moving forward.
Councilor Paper stated that it has been important from the beginning that they do not lose track of the
ballfield and committed that he will not lose track of the field. He understood why the field could not
remain in this location, but was committed to finding a solution. He stated that he has never been involved
in State bonding or the timing involved in accessing those funds, but believed they will have future
opportunities to stop if they need to. He commented that they are working on a project with a timeline
they have been sticking to, and if they need to pivot, they will. He stated that if they need to discuss a
referendum, they can do that in the future, as he did not believe that was the task tonight.
Councilor Maczko commented that he has also been in the business for a long time, noting that all of them
have been public projects on public property. He stated that in his 45 years in the industry, he has learned
that they need information upfront and community support. He stated that they should have all the
background information, including soil borings, and then utilize a community group to decide on the
layout. He commented that once there is a layout, it can be costly to make changes. He recognized that
they may have some community support, but noted that there is agreement that there is a problem, but not
agreement on the solution. He stated that TRAA has stated that the ballfield is not going to be kicked
down the road, and that is a cost of this project. He stated that the ballfield has not even been factored
into the project cost as of yet. He stated that he has asked questions that would “show the work”, including
the question of whether the current staffing would still be at the same level in 20 years. He commented
that perhaps the building shrinks if staffing does not expand to the anticipated levels and if CJN is not
included. He noted other items that could reduce the project cost, including the number of entrances and
whether a driveway around the building is needed. He stated that he is willing to sit down and show the
work, but his questions have gotten no traction. He stated that he is the only one vote, and if this moves
forward, he will continue to push this. He believed that they could accomplish the needs of keeping the
field here.
Councilor Lorberbaum stated that, as someone who was part of the group that made the meeting happen
on Thursday, she trusts that those conversations are righteous, judicious, and truthful, and those things
will be answered. She asked if the motion includes completing soil borings as soon as they can.
Councilor Mazzitello stated that the motion is just moving forward to detailed design.
Mayor Levine stated that it is understood that the soil borings are to be completed once the detailed design
phase is approved. She stated that she hears Councilor Maczko’s concerns about future-proofing the
building related to staffing and other questions. She recognized that one option of the next phase would
be an option without CJN and asked if they could also include a model with fewer staff, which would also
reduce the size of the building.
Page 17 of 309
June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 16 of 17
Mr. Walter stated that they will take the direction of the Council, and if they want ICS to work with staff
to reduce staffing and square footage, they could do that. He stated that this morning, he called a soil
boring company, so they are already in the process of scheduling. He commented that they will also work
with TRAA to ensure the soil borings do not interfere with games.
Mayor Levine commented that she would like to have unanimous support, but recognized they may not
get to that point tonight.
Councilor Maczko stated that he asked for the reports in December, and they have received summaries
and presentations, but he has still not seen the actual reports. He commented that he would like to see the
work that the presentations are based on.
Councilor Mazzitello asked for more information on the work that Councilor Maczko would like to see.
Councilor Maczko provided examples of the reports he would like to see, including an evaluation of the
building.
Councilor Mazzitello replied that it is available on the City website.
Mayor Levine commented that she also has a binder with that information she can provide to him.
Councilor Maczko stated that he wants to see the report showing why the existing building cannot be
reused. He stated that his vote will not change, as he believes answering his questions now will not slow
the process.
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that the ICS report on the facility needs assessment and
condition assessment was included in the Council packet for the December meeting, where moving to
schematic design was approved. She stated that it is also available on the website. She noted that the
small group of residents Police Chief Kelly McCarthy met with, who stated that the building is beyond
repair, was a group of residents that Chief had met with, and there is no formal report. She stated that the
report from 1985 is a post-process report and summary of the 12-person subcommittee. She stated that
they are working on a similar report for this project, noting that some of that information is available on
the City website and included in the frequently asked questions section.
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy reviewed the residents that she met with to discuss the current building and
proposed expansion, and they all told her to stop and get a professional opinion on the building, which is
what they did.
Councilor Mazzitello called the question.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 1 (Maczko)
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming community events and activities.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Page 18 of 309
June 2, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 17 of 17
Councilor Paper encouraged residents to sign up for the Scott Patrick Memorial 5k. He was excited to
welcome a new business to the Mendota Plaza and thanked all the residents who attended and provided
input tonight. He stated that the playground at Ivy Hills is looking very cool.
Councilor Mazzitello congratulated Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith
Lawrence for being chosen to speak at a national conference. He shared a historical fact from June 2,
1776, which led to the creation of the Reserve Forces of the United States.
Councilor Maczko thanked all the residents who attended for being involved and asked them to help spread
the word to others. He congratulated all the students who are graduating, recognizing that this is a time
of new beginnings.
Councilor Lorberbaum stated that today is American Indian Citizenship Day, which occurred in 1924.
She stated that June is also dedicated to self-help and cultural awareness, among many other causes. She
stated that she also visited Ivy Hills to see the new playground, and it looks terrific. She thanked staff,
recognizing the time and effort that was put into that plan multiple times. She thanked the residents who
attended tonight and those whom she has spoken with about the municipal project.
Mayor Levine thanked the residents who attended tonight and those who are watching at home. She
commented that they are grateful to live in a community where people care so deeply. She commented
that yesterday she had the opportunity to send the Visitation Blazers off to the softball championship,
which was an exciting experience. She commented that the Blazers defeated their opponent 4-2 and
congratulated them for a superb performance.
ADJOURN
Councilor Mazzitello moved to adjourn.
Councilor Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:53 p.m.
____________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Nancy Bauer
City Clerk
Page 19 of 309
This page is intentionally left blank
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DRAFT Minutes of the City Council Work Session
Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Mendota Heights City Council was
held at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Levine called the work session to order at 4:30 p.m. Councilors Lorberbaum, Mazzitello
Maczko, and Paper were in attendance.
Others present included: City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator Kelly
Torkelson, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Parks &
Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence, Police Chief Kelly
McCarthy, Police Captain Wayne Wegener, POC member Jack Vitelli, POC member Mary
Tollefson; ICS Representatives Kristen Duerr, Kyle Walter, and Chris Ziemer, BKV
Representatives Michael Healy, Angela Ford, and Trace Jacques
MUNICIPAL CAMPUS PROJECT – SCHEMATIC DESIGN PLAN REVIEW AND
DISCUSSION
City Administrator Jacobson began with a review of the project development timeline and the
progression of the project to the schematic design phase. Members of the design team were
introduced.
Kyle Walter reviewed key themes and feedback from the recent community open house,
including comments submitted online. Overall, the feedback received reflected continued
interest in transparency, public engagement, and shared community ownership of the project.
Common feedback themes focused on cost sensitivity and interest in detailed cost analysis,
questions regarding conceptual building designs and project scope, sustainability considerations
including LEED and B3 requirements, accommodating future growth and long-term operational
needs, community space and user experience, preservation and placement of the baseball field,
and building functionality, circulation and wayfinding.
Councilor Mazzitello noted that online comments appeared to differ or were generally opposite
of comments received from in-person respondents.
Page 20 of 309
6.b
May 26, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 2
Councilor Maczko observed that the number of responses received may not fully represent the
broader community and suggested listing all public questions received in addition to those
included in the FAQs.
Mayor Levine discussed the challenges associated with measuring community feedback and
emphasized the importance of considering comments within the context of the entire community.
Councilor Lorberbaum emphasized the importance of continued communication and outreach
regarding the project and noted the level of community engagement associated with the baseball
field and athletic activities.
Discussion occurred regarding the project naming and messaging.
Councilor Maczko questioned whether the term “Municipal Campus Project” clearly
communicates the project scope to residents. Alternative project names discussed included
references to a new city hall and police department building. An audience member suggested
“CityHall/Police Department New Building” as a project name.
Discussion occurred regarding preservation and relocation of the baseball field.
Councilor Mazzitello stated that it was always his understanding that the field would be replaced
and not permanently eliminated.
Councilor Lorberbaum noted that any relocation or replacement costs associated with the field
should be included in the total project costs.
Discussion also occurred regarding coordination with the Two Rivers Athletic Association and
the importance of maintaining field availability during construction.
Kyle Walter and the design team reviewed the schematic design plans, including building
programming, site planning, parking, and conceptual building placement options. It was noted
that the space programming had already been reduced from earlier planning concepts.
Discussion occurred regarding the three potential site configurations and associated parking
layouts.
The project team provided cost estimates for temporary relocation of the city hall and police
department should the council decide to locate the new facility where the existing building is.
Estimated temporary relocation costs ranging from approximately $1.4 to $1.7 million were
discussed.
Kyle Walter noted that relocation of the baseball field could potentially reduce certain temporary
relocation costs through construction efficiencies and coordinated excavation and site work.
Parking counts and site circulation were reviewed. Discussion occurred regarding parking
requirements, potential variances, overflow parking and site circulation impacts.
Page 21 of 309
May 26, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 3
Mayor Levine noted that currently overflow parking occurs on Victoria Curve. Councilor
Maczko stated that the parking lot is seldom completely full.
Discussion occurred regarding the need for soil boring within the baseball field and when that
would occur.
The design team indicated that soil borings had not been completed within the baseball field area
in order to avoid unnecessary costs prior to receiving additional council direction. The purpose
of soil borings and site investigations was reviewed, including the evaluation of groundwater
levels, soil corrections and structural suitability.
Discussion also occurred regarding required setbacks, building orientation, garage access,
parking layout, and emergency egress requirements for the police department.
A discussion regarding Police Department operations, security requirements, sally port access,
secure circulation and emergency egress needs was had. The council discussed police
operations, security requirements, sally port access, secure circulation, department access and
exist points and operational considerations associated with emergency response and officer and
employee safety.
The design team reviewed the lower-level and first floor layouts, including community meeting
spaces, training rooms, public receptions areas and shared city hall and police department
functions. It was noted that the lower level is a smaller footprint than the upper level.
Discussion was had regarding the use of community spaces for election administration and
public meetings, as well as the flexibility of the shared use areas.
Project Oversight Committee member Vitelli confirmed with Chief McCarthy and City
Administrator Jacobson that the schematic design presented was supported by them and staff.
Chief McCarthy and City Administrator Jacobson confirmed support.
Discussion occurred regarding the proposed location and operational relationship of the Criminal
Justice Network (CJN) space within the facility, including public accessibility, operational
flexibility, and potential future reuse of the space.
Councilor Lorberbaum confirmed that the receipt of state bond funds comes with the inclusion of
CJN. Staff confirmed that CJN provided the regionality that was an important consideration in
the granting of state funds.
Kyle Walter provided an overview of B3 requirements and sustainability standards associated
with the acceptance of state funds. Additional costs associated with B3 compliance and
sustainable design requirements were discussed. ICS estimates that additional costs associated
with these requirements range from approximately $3.2 to $3.6 million.
The project timeline and future approval process were reviewed. Kyle Walter explained that
schematic design approval would establish the general site location and project direction but
Page 22 of 309
May 26, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 4
would not constitute final approval of construction. Future city council approvals including
design development and construction document phases were described.
Councilor Mazzitello noted that approving schematic design does not lock the city into
construction but allows the project to continue being evaluated and refined.
Discussion occurred regarding the timing of soil borings, project schedule, and potential impacts
associated with delaying project decisions.
Councilor Maczko expressed concern regarding the pace of the process and how fast the project
was moving and questioned whether additional alternatives had been fully explored and
documented.
Councilor Lorberbaum asked if the June 2 SD plan approval will include approval of the
acceptance of the $4 million in state bonding funds. Kyle Walter responded that B3 is not
included in the SD plan approval.
Councilor Mazzitello added that it would approve schematic design and that there is still time to
evaluate the cost-effectiveness of $4 million.
Project Oversight Committee member Tollefson stated that the information is out there for
people to learn about the project. She agreed with the consideration to rename the project and
encouraged the city council to keep moving forward.
Council provided direction to the project team to bring the schematic design approval to the June
2 city council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 6:27 p.m.
_________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
Page 23 of 309
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
DRAFT PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 10, 2026
The March meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on
Tuesday, March 10, 2026, at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve.
1. Call to Order – Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence
called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call – The following Commissioners were present: Chair Jaffrey Blanks,
Commissioners: Michelle Muller, Daniel Van Lith, Kirsten Ramirez, Michael Toth, and Pau
Cortes Valdes; absent: Commissioner Jennifer Weichert and Student Representative
Evangeline Fuentes. Staff present: Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director
Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Coordinator Willow Eisfeldt, Recreation Facilities Coordinator
Trey Carlson, and Assistant City Engineer Lucas Ritchie.
2.a Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence opened nominations
for the position of Chairperson.
Motion Blanks/second Muller, to elect Jaffrey Blanks as Chairperson.
There were no other nominations.
AYES 6: NAYS 0
Chair Blanks opened nominations for Vice-Chairperson.
Motion Blanks/second Muller, to elect Cortes Valdes as Vice-Chairperson.
Commissioner Cortes Valdes accepted the nomination, and there were no other nominations.
AYES 6: NAYS 0
3. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
4. Approval of Agenda
Motion Muller/second Toth, to approve the agenda. AYES 6: NAYS 0
5.a Approval of Minutes from November 12, 2025, Regular Meeting
Motion Toth/second Ramirez to approve the minutes of the November 12, 2025, Parks and
Recreation Commission Regular Meeting. AYES 6: NAYS 0
5.b Approval of Minutes from February 10, 2026 Worksession
Motion Van Lith/second Muller to approve the minutes of the February 10, 2026, Parks and
Recreation Commission Worksession. AYES 6: NAYS 0
Page 24 of 309
6.c
6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
None.
7. Acknowledgement of Reports
Chair Blanks read the titles of the three updates (Park Improvement Project Update, Recreation
Update, Par 3 Update, Warming House/Outdoor Rink Update) and polled the Commissioners
for questions.
7.a Park Improvement Project Update
Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence provided an overview
of the park projects that were included in the final budget and planned for completion this year.
7.b Recreation Update
Recreation Program Coordinator Willow Eisfeldt provided an overview of recent events and
highlighted upcoming events, activities, and programming opportunities.
Commissioner Cortes Valdes commented that his children enjoyed the snow day event. He
asked if there is a target number of registrations for the summer programs.
Recreation Program Coordinator Willow Esifeldt provided information on registrations received
thus far compared to last year.
7.c Par 3 Update
Recreation Facilities Coordinator Trey Carlson commented that the course is not yet open for
the year. He stated that the December year-end financial dashboard was provided in the packet
for review. He noted that staff have been preparing to open the course when the weather
allows.
7.d Warming House/Outdoor Rink Update
Recreation Facilities Coordinator Trey Carlson provided an overview of the warming house and
outdoor rink season statistics.
8. New Business
8.a Assign Commissioner Parks
Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence stated that each year,
they assign parks to the Commission members to visit and provide updates at monthly
meetings.
Commissioner Toth selected Market Square and Civic Center.
Commissioner Van Lith selected Marie and Victoria Highlands.
Commissioner Cortes Valdes selected Hagstrom-King and Ivy Hills.
Chair Blanks selected Valley and Wentworth.
Commissioner Ramirez selected Mendakota and Rogers Lake.
Commissioner Muller selected Kensington and Friendly Hills.
Page 25 of 309
Commissioner Wiechert was assigned Valley View Heights and the Dog Park.
8.b Approval of Commission Bylaws
Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence conducted the annual
review of the Commission Bylaws.
Chair Blanks suggested that in the case of a contested vote, they would use a raise of hands.
Ms. Lawrence commented that in those scenarios, staff can conduct a roll call vote.
Motion Van Lith/second Muller, to approve the Commission Bylaws. AYES 6: NAYS 0
8.c Hagstrom-King Park Bleacher Pad & Trail Connection
Assistant City Engineer Lucas Ritchie provided information on the Hampshire Estates Street
Improvement Project, bleacher pad, and trail connection. He noted that the concrete pad and
trail connection would be funded through the Special Parks Fund, although the project elements
will be bid as part of the street project. He noted that the bleachers would be a separate
purchase and installed separately from the project.
Commissioner Muller asked for more information on the scope of the street project, and
specifically, the impacts on Mendota Heights Road.
Mr. Ritchie provided additional details on the street rehabilitation project. He stated that they
are not anticipating much work on Mendota Heights Road, and he did not anticipate any
closures of that road.
Commissioner Toth asked if this had been discussed in the past.
Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence confirmed that they
have been discussing these park improvements for multiple years, but the road project was
delayed by one year, which caused this project to be delayed as well.
Commissioner Muller believed that they discussed a connection further south, noting an area
where people currently cut through.
Mr. Ritchie provided additional information explaining why that placement was decided on to
provide connectivity.
Chair Blanks recognized that this is the most cost-efficient placement.
Commissioner Cortes Valdes asked if any other options were reviewed.
Commissioner Muller commented that they have discussed the connection, but this is the first
time they have seen the actual placement for the connection.
Ms. Lawrence stated that staff did discuss this with neighbors during the community
engagement.
Mr. Ritchie provided additional information on the resident engagement that was done for the
residents in this area and the desire to have more connectivity to the park.
Page 26 of 309
Commissioner Muller asked if there could be another crosswalk connected to the green trail.
Mr. Ritchie provided additional information on the placement of crosswalks.
Commissioner Muller asked that a trash bin be added and provided two potential locations.
Ms. Lawerence replied that once this project is completed, she would review the trash
placement for the park.
Motion Muller/second Ramirez, to approve the inclusion of the bleacher pad and trail connection
at Hagstrom King. AYES 6: NAYS 0
9. Old Business
10. Staff Announcements
Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence shared the following
announcements:
•Staff presented the Annual Report to the City Council at its last meeting
•Recognized the great year for the Par 3 on the course, and with programming
•Seasonal staff for the course have been trained, and additional positions are posted
•An intern has been hired for the summer
•The April meeting is to be determined, and the May meeting might be a worksession
•Other events can be found on the City’s website
•The City is soliciting input for the municipal campus project
11. Student Representative Update
Chair Blanks shared the written comments submitted by Student Representative Fuentes.
12. Commission Comments and Park Updates
Commissioner Muller
•Has been walking through the parks during the warmer weather
•Thanked staff for their work on recent events and looks forward to the Par 3 opening
Commissioner Ramirez
•She will be running concessions at Mendakota for the Two Rivers Athletic Association
(TRAA)
•Looks forward to the bleacher project at Hagstrom-King
Chair Blanks
•Recently biked in Valley and encouraged residents to get out and enjoy the weather
•Shared written comments from Commissioner Weichert, who would like to see more
dedicated pickleball courts
Commissioner Cortes Valdes
•Has been enjoying the trails and commended staff for the quick clearing when necessary
•Looked forward to exploring new parks this year
Page 27 of 309
Commissioner Van Lith
•Looking forward to more daylight to enjoy the parks after work
Commissioner Toth
•Encouraged drivers to be alert as more children will be out with warmer weather
13. Adjourn
Motion Toth/Second Muller, to adjourn the meeting at 7:39 PM
AYES 6: NAYS 0
Minutes drafted by:
Amanda Staple
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Page 28 of 309
This page is intentionally left blank
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission Work Session
May 12, 2026
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Parks and Recreation Commission, City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota was held at 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Jaffrey Blanks called the meeting to order at 6:30pm. Commissioners Jennifer Weichert, Daniel Van Lith, Pau
Cortés Valdés, Michelle Muller, Kirsten Ramirez, and Student Representative Evangeline Fuentes were also present.
Commissioner Michael Toth was absent.
City Staff present included Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director, Trey
Carlson, Recreation Facilities Coordinator, Willow Eisfeldt, Recreation Program Coordinator, and Ryan Ruzek, Public
Works Director.
COST RECOVERY/SUBSIDY POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Parks and Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Lawrence presented an overview of the benefits of a cost
recovery policy and why many cities have adopted one. Included in the presentation were information on the risk of
volatility of tax dependent funding, budgeting vs. financial management, willingness to pay vs. ability to pay, subsidy
information, and example cost recovery pyramids from other cities.
The Commission discussed strategic subsidy management for Mendota Heights and participated in an exercise that
ranked department service categories from Common Good Services to Exclusive Services. Commissioners discussed their
insights into the exercise and staff will compile the results for a future discussion on the development of the policy.
2027 BUDGET DISCUSSION
Staff reviewed the 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) with the Commission and discussed the projects slated for
the year 2027. Commissioners asked questions about the projects and staff provided an avenue for commissioners to
bring forth recommendations for items to be considered in the 2027 budget that were not included in the CIP. Director
Lawrence noted that staff will be bringing forth a budget recommendation to complete a Park Master Plan of
Mendakota Park. Commissioner Weichert requested that Bocce Ball be considered again for 2027, as it was denied in
2026.
Chair Blanks asked Director Lawrence to send out the list of projects and have Commissioners rank the projects on
priority by Friday, May 22. The Commission will then review the data at their June meeting to make a formal
recommendation to the City Council. Additionally, if Commissioners have additional projects they would like to consider,
they should notify Director Lawrence immediately so project estimates can be completed prior to the June meeting.
The commission adjourned the meeting at 8:16pm.
Minutes Taken By:
Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director
Page 29 of 309
6.d
This page is intentionally left blank
6.e
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2026
AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledge January, February, March, April, and May 2026 Fire Synopses
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Fire CONTACT: Assistant Fire Chief Scott
Goldenstein
ACTION REQUEST:
Acknowledge January, February, March, April, and May 2026 Fire Synopses
BACKGROUND:
The attached fire synopses are for City Council review.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.January - May 2026 Fire Synopses
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Premier Public Services & Infrastructure
Page 30 of 309
January 2026 Fire Synopsis
Fire Calls: 34
For January 2026, the Mendota Heights Fire Department paged for service a total of 34 times.
Mendota Heights 29 calls Lilydale 0 calls
Mendota 0 calls
Sunfish Lake 1 call
Other 4 calls
Total 34 calls
Types of calls: Fire: 3- Starting off 2026, the fire department responded to three fires. One was to a commercial building with a room and contents fire. The second fire was to a residence where their chicken coop was burning. Lastly, the
department responded to one vehicle fire that they extinguished.
Medical/Extrication: 5- Five calls were medical in nature during the month of January. Of those five calls, one
was due to a motor vehicle accident. In addition, one of those calls involved a person that had jumped from the
Mendota bridge and was able to be rescued from the ice/water on the river. Mendota Heights also requested
assistance from MSP Airport Fire Dept allowing Mendota Heights to access from the east side of the river and
Airport Fire from the west side.
Hazardous Situations: 3- Of the three hazardous situation calls that the fire dept responded to in January, all
three were related to natural gas. One was to a home that was scheduled for demolition, and the gas company
had been out earlier that day to cap the gas line in the yard. The capped line did not hold, causing free flowing gas. The fire department was called for scene safety and to check the home to confirm that gas did accumulate in the structure.
False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 7- Of the seven false alarms that the department was dispatched for: Alarms due to system malfunction - five , Alarms due to an unintentional transmission of alarm - one, and one malicious activation of a fire alarm via the pull station.
Service Calls: 4- The MHFD responded to four false alarms that were coded as Public Service calls.
Good Intent: 1- One call came in for down electrical wire but upon arrive it was determined that the downed lines were Century Link communications lines.
Dispatched and Cancelled Enroute: 7- The fire department was cancelled before our arrival on scene seven different times for the month.
Page 31 of 309
Mutual/Auto-Aid Other: 4- MHFD was requested for mutual/auto aid once to Rosemount (structure fire), once to South St. Paul (structure fire), once to West St. Paul (structure fire call that cancelled) and once to Cottage Grove (structure fire call that cancelled).
January 2026 Trainings
Wednesday, January 7, 18:30
Scenario Simulation Lab
This drill was presented by a neighboring department’s training department. The drill went over numerous
scenarios a tabletop environment.
Tuesday, January 13, 07:00 HazMat & Triage This drill was done with the assistance of MHealth Fairview with multiple stations of victims and groups needed to assess and properly treat the located victims.
Wednesday, January 14, 18:30 HazMat & Triage This drill was done with the assistance of MHealth Fairview with multiple stations of victims and groups needed to assess and properly treat the located victims.
Thursday, January 22, 07:00 Scenario Simulation Lab This drill was originally presented by a neighboring department’s training department. The drill went over
numerous scenarios a tabletop environment.
Monday, January 26, 18:30
Firefighter Survivability Option 1
This drill operated with multiple sections. One was breaching a wall in case of entrapment, the second was a
window bailout from a first-floor scenario, and the third involved forcing a locked door open with hand tools.
Wednesday, January 28, 18:30
Firefighter Survivability Option 2
This drill operated with multiple sections. One was breaching a wall in case of entrapment, the second was a window bailout from a first-floor scenario, and the third involved forcing a locked door open with hand tools.
Page 32 of 309
Number of Calls 34 Total Calls for Year 34
FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE
#1 ACTUAL FIRES
Structure - MH Commercial 1
Structure - MH Residential 1
Structure - Contract Areas
Cooking Fire - confined
Vehicle - MH 1
Vehicle - Contract Areas
Grass/Brush/No Value MH
Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES
Other Fire
#2 OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $0 $0
Overpressure, rupture, explosion
#3 MEDICAL
Emergency Medical/Assist 4
Vehicle accident w/injuries 1
Extrication ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$0
Medical, other
#4 HAZARDOUS SITUATION $0
Spills/Leaks
Carbon Monoxide Incident 3 $0
Power line down
Arcing, shorting $0
Hazardous, Other
#5 SERVICE CALL
Smoke or odor removal $0
Assist Police or other agency
Public Service 4
#6 GOOD INTENT
Good Intent 1
Dispatched & Cancelled 7 Current To Date Last Year
Smoke Scare 29 29 36
HazMat release investigation 3
Good Intent, Other 0
#7 FALSE ALARMS 1 1 1
False Alarm 1 4 4 3
Malfunction 5
Unintentional Total:34 34 43
False Alarm, other 1
MUTUAL AID 4 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH
Total Calls 34 Inspections
Investigations
WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year
Re-Inspection
Fire Calls 533.3 533.3 508.5
Meetings 76.3 76.3 57.8 Meetings
Training 417 417 261.5
Special Activity 0 0 4.5 Administration
Fire Marshal 0 0 0
Plan Review/Training
TOTALS 1026.6 1026.6 832.3 TOTAL:0
Mendota Heights Only Structure/Contents
Mendota Heights Only Miscellaneous
Mendota Heights Total Loss to Date
Contract Areas Loss to Date
Mutual Aid
FIRE LOSS TOTALS
LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS
Lilydale
Mendota
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT
JANUARY 2026 MONTHLY REPORT
Mendota Heights
Sunfish Lake
Page 33 of 309
February 2026 Fire Synopsis
Fire Calls: 31
For February 2026, the Mendota Heights Fire Department paged for service a total of 31 times.
Mendota Heights 26 calls Lilydale 2 calls
Mendota 0 calls
Sunfish Lake 1 calls
Other 2 calls
Total 31 calls
Types of calls: Fire: 1- The department responded to a box truck vehicle fire that was primarily contained to the truck that burned, although it did cause heat damage on parked trucks on either side of the vehicle that burned.
Medical/Extrication: 7- Six calls were medical in nature during the month of February. In addition, the
department was also paged for a vehicle accident with injuries.
Hazardous Situations: 1- The fire department responded to one carbon monoxide call in February where,
upon arrival, carbon monoxide in the residence was confirmed. The Fire Department ventilated the home to
lower the carbon monoxide levels and Xcel was advised.
Service Calls: 2- Fire responded to one request for assistance at a hotel with a broken hot water line causing
significant water flow and difficult visibility due to the steam that was being produced. A second call was to
assist a person whose wheelchair had gotten stuck in the snow.
Good Intent: 3- Three calls were coded as Good Intent in nature. One was for a suspected structure fire but, in actuality was due to a space heater in a home that was under construction.
False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 11- There were six calls for false alarms, three calls due to system malfunctions, as well as one unintentional trip, and one “fire alarm-other”.
Dispatched and Cancelled Enroute: 4- Of the 31 calls for the month, four of them had the department cancelled before arriving on scene.
Mutual/Auto-Aid Other: 2- MHFD was requested for mutual/auto aid twice in February. Both calls were to Inver Grove Heights and both calls had Inver Grove cancelling auto aid.
Page 34 of 309
February 2026 Trainings
Tuesday, February 3, 07:00
EMS Section A This training is part of a 4-part series of medical refreshers that are required to keep firefighters current with their EMR (Emergency Medical Responder) ongoing education. For firefighters with higher levels of training, this class is not required but they would be required additional training to stay current in whatever level they are currently at.
Wednesday, February 4, 18:30 EMS Section A This training is part of a 4-part series of medical refreshers that are required to keep firefighters current with their EMR (Emergency Medical Responder) ongoing education. For firefighters with higher levels of training, this class is not required but they would be required additional training to stay current in whatever level they are currently at.
Tuesday, February 10, 07:00 Firefighter Survivability, Option 3 This drill operated with multiple sections. One was breaching a wall in case of entrapment. The second was a window bailout from a first-floor scenario and the third involved forcing a locked door open with hand tools.
Wednesday, February 11, 18:30 Forcible Entry & Search, Option 1 This drill was focused on forcing open locked doors. It was held at the MHFD station and utilized the department’s new steel door prop. In addition, proper methods for searching rooms in zero visibility conditions were also practiced.
Tuesday, February 17, 07:00 Ice Water Rescue This annual drill went over the departments SOG’s on water rescue. It also involved donning water rescue suits, deploying the inflatable open bottom ice/water rescue boat and proper rope deployment for the victim and rescuers.
Wednesday, February 18, 18:30 Ice Water Rescue This annual drill went over the departments SOG’s on water rescue. It also involved donning water rescue suits, deploying the inflatable open bottom ice/water rescue boat and proper rope deployment for the victim and rescuers.
Monday, February 23, 18:30 Forcible Entry & Search, Option 2 This drill was focused on forcing open locked doors. It was held at the MHFD station and utilized the department’s new steel door prop. In addition, proper methods for searching rooms in zero visibility conditions were also practiced.
Thursday, February 26, 07:00 Forcible Entry & Search, Option 3 This drill was focused on forcing open locked doors. It was held at the MHFD station and utilized the department’s new steel door prop. In addition, proper methods for searching rooms in zero visibility conditions were also practiced.
Page 35 of 309
Number of Calls 31 65
FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE
#1 ACTUAL FIRES
Structure - MH Commercial 0 $0
Structure - MH Residential 0 $0
Structure - Contract Areas 0 $0
Cooking Fire - confined 0 $0
Vehicle - MH 1 $0
Vehicle - Contract Areas 0 $0
Grass/Brush/No Value MH 0
Grass/Brush/No Value Contract 0 TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES
Other Fire 0
#2 OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $0 $0
Excessive heat, scorch burns 0
#3 MEDICAL
Emergency Medical/Assist 6
Vehicle accident w/injuries 1
Extrication 0 ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$0
Medical, other 0
#4 HAZARDOUS SITUATION $0
Spills/Leaks 0
Carbon Monoxide Incident 1 $0
Power line down 0
Arcing, shorting 0 $0
Hazardous, Other 0
#5 SERVICE CALL
Smoke or odor removal 0 $0
Assist Police or other agency 0
Service Call, other 2
#6 GOOD INTENT
Good Intent 3
Dispatched & Cancelled 4 Current To Date Last Year
Smoke Scare 0 26 55 56
HazMat release investigation 0 2 2 6
Good Intent, Other 0 0 0 0
#7 FALSE ALARMS 1 2 1
False Alarm 6 2 6 5
Malfunction 3
Unintentional 1 Total:31 65 68
False Alarm, other 1
MUTUAL AID 2 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH
Total Calls 31 Inspections
Investigations
WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year
Re-Inspection
Fire Calls 456 989.3 785
Meetings 72 148.3 80.3 Meetings `
Training 498 915 572
Special Activity 33.8 33.8 14 Administration
Fire Marshal 0 0 0
Plan Review/Training
TOTALS 1059.8 2086.4 1451.3 TOTAL:0
Total Calls for Year
Mendota Heights Only Structure/Contents
Mendota Heights Only Miscellaneous
Mendota Heights Total Loss to Date
Contract Areas Loss to Date
Mendota Heights
Lilydale
Mendota
Sunfish Lake
Mutual Aid
FIRE LOSS TOTALS
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT
FEBRUARY 2026 MONTHLY REPORT
LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS
Page 36 of 309
March 2026 Fire Synopsis
Fire Calls: 26
For March 2026, the Mendota Heights Fire Department paged for service a total of 26 times.
Mendota Heights 22 calls Lilydale 0 calls
Mendota 1 calls
Sunfish Lake 1 calls
Other 2 calls
Total 26 calls
Types of calls: Fire: 3- The MHFD responded to two grass fires and one vehicle fire in March.
Medical/Extrication: 2- Two calls were medical in nature during the month of March. One was a medical and
the other was an extrication of a technician that was repair work on the elevator at the time (there were three
additional elevator techs on scene as well).
Hazardous Situations: 12- The were a total of twelve calls coded as potentially hazardous situations including:
natural gas investigations, CO calls, and call that involved power lines.
Service Calls: 1- One call was coded a service call and was related to construction dust.
Good Intent: 1- There was one generic odor investigation in March.
False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 4- In March three calls were coded due to system malfunctions, and one under other due to an accidental trip.
Dispatched and Cancelled Enroute: 1- Only one call in March where the department was cancelled before arriving on scene.
Mutual/Auto-Aid Other: 2- MHFD was paged one time to South Metro Fire and one time to Eagan.
Page 37 of 309
March 2026 Trainings
Tuesday, March 10, 07:00 Hose Deployment & Movement, Option 1
This drill was dedicated to the proper method of deploying hoses off the trucks and then moving the hoses effectively.
The drill involved two stations and involved many repetitions.
Wednesday, March 11 , 18:30
Hose Deployment & Movement, Option 2
This drill was dedicated to the proper method of deploying hoses off the trucks and then moving the hoses effectively.
The drill involved two stations and involved many repetitions.
Saturday, March 14, 08:00
Firefighter Survivability, Option 4 This drill operated with multiple sections. One was breaching a wall in case of entrapment. The second was a window
bailout from a first-floor scenario, and the third involved forcing a locked door open with hand tools.
Tuesday, March 17, 07:00 Tabletop Scenarios The drill was focused on going over the proper scene assignment, radio skills and assignment of resources (both
apparatus and firefighters).
Wednesday, March 18, 18:30 Pre-Plan Walk Thru Visitation School
The drill was dedicated to going over the preplans for Visitation school and was followed immediately with a complete walk through of the school property and buildings.
Wednesday, March 23, 18:30 Hose Deployment & Movement, Option 3
This drill was dedicated to the proper method of deploying hoses off the trucks and then moving the hoses effectively. The drill involved two stations and involved many repetitions.
Thursday, March 26, 07:00 Tabletop Scenarios
The drill was focused on going over the proper scene assignment, radio skills and assignment of resources (both apparatus and firefighters).
Saturday, March 28, 07:30 Pre-Plan Walk Thru Visitation School
The drill was dedicated to going over the preplans for Visitation school and was followed immediately with a complete
walk through of the school property and buildings.
Monday, March 30, 18:30 EMS Section A
This training is part of a 4-part series of medical refreshers that are required to keep firefighters current with their EMR
(Emergency Medical Responder) ongoing education. For firefighters with higher levels of training, this class is not required
but they would be required additional training to stay current in whatever level they are currently at.
Page 38 of 309
Number of Calls 26 Total Calls for Year 91
FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE
#1 ACTUAL FIRES
Structure - MH Commercial 0 $0
Structure - MH Residential 0 $0
Structure - Contract Areas 0 $0
Cooking Fire - confined 0 $0
Vehicle - MH 1 $0
Vehicle - Contract Areas 0 $0
Grass/Brush/No Value MH 2
Grass/Brush/No Value Contract 0 TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES
Other Fire 0
#2 OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $0 $0
Excessive heat, scorch burns 0
#3 MEDICAL
Emergency Medical/Assist 1
Vehicle accident w/injuries 0
Extrication 1 ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$0
Medical, other 0
#4 HAZARDOUS SITUATION $0
Spills/Leaks 1
Carbon Monoxide Incident 4 $0
Power line down 0
Arcing, shorting 6 $0
Hazardous, Other 1
#5 SERVICE CALL
Smoke or odor removal 0 $0
Assist Police or other agency 0
Service Call, other 1
#6 GOOD INTENT
Good Intent 0
Dispatched & Cancelled 1 Current To Date Last Year
Smoke Scare 0 22 77 77
HazMat release investigation 1 0 2 8
Good Intent, Other 0 1 1 0
#7 FALSE ALARMS 1 3 2
False Alarm 0 2 8 7
Malfunction 3
Unintentional 0 Total:26 91 94
False Alarm, other 1
MUTUAL AID 2 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH
Total Calls 26 Inspections
Investigations
WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year
Re-Inspection
Fire Calls 350 1339.3 1092.5
Meetings 114.8 263.1 104.3 Meetings
Training 298.5 1213.5 917.5
Special Activity 2 35.8 35.8 Administration
Fire Marshal 0 0 0
Plan Review/Training
TOTALS 765.3 2851.7 2150.1 TOTAL:0
Mendota Heights Only Structure/Contents
Mendota Heights Only Miscellaneous
Mendota Heights Total Loss to Date
Contract Areas Loss to Date
Mendota Heights
Lilydale
Mendota
Sunfish Lake
Mutual Aid
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT
MARCH 2026 MONTHLY REPORT
FIRE LOSS TOTALS
LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS
Page 39 of 309
April 2026 Fire Synopsis
Fire Calls: 34
For April 2026, the Mendota Heights Fire Department paged for service a total of 34 times.
Mendota Heights 27 calls Lilydale 3 calls
Mendota 1 calls
Sunfish Lake 2 calls
Other 1 call
Total 34 calls
Types of calls:
Fire: 3- Mendota Heights Fire responded to three fires in April. One was to a grass fire along the interstate,
one was to a residential structure fire, and one was to a cooking fire.
Medical/Extrication: 5- Five calls were medical/extrication type calls. Of those, four were medicals and one
was to a vehicle accident with injuries.
Hazardous Situations: 2- Of the two hazmat calls in April, one was for a residence that had carbon monoxide
leaking into their residence where the department ventilated the home and then turned it over to Xcel. The
other was for a residence where the homeowner had left without the gas from the range being fully turned off,
causing a smell of gas to accumulate in the residence
Service Calls: 4- For April the department had four service calls. Two were for lift assists, and the other two involved requests from the police department.
False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 5- There were five calls that were due to malfunctioning alarms.
Good Intent: 6- The preceding month had six good intent calls including: one for a smoke scare, two for hazmat release investigations with no hazmat found, and three other misc. good intent calls.
Dispatched and Cancelled Enroute: 8- For April, the department had eight calls that were cancelled before we arrived at the scene
Mutual/Auto-Aid Other: 1- MHFD was requested for mutual/auto aid to Rosemount but when the first officer arrived on scene, incoming mutual aid units were cancelled.
Page 40 of 309
April 2026 Trainings
Wednesday, April 8, 18:30 Truck To Front Door This drill was dedicated to the initial firefighter steps at a fire including correct hose deployment, bleeding air from the lines, having the lines charged with water, making entry and progressing with proper hose management for a
successful fire attack.
Saturday, April 11, 07:00
Intermediate Rope Rescues
This drill included teaching/refreshing several knots that are used on the fire ground; both proficiency in tying and
releasing knots and securely fastening misc. items that potentially would be hoisted via ropes.
Tuesday, April 14, 07:00
Truck To Front Door
This drill was dedicated to the initial firefighter steps at a fire including correct hose deployment, bleeding air from
the lines, having the lines charged with water, making entry and progressing with proper hose management for a
successful fire attack.
Monday, April 20, 18:30 Truck To Front Door This drill was dedicated to the initial firefighter steps at a fire including correct hose deployment, bleeding air from the lines, having the lines charged with water, making entry and progressing with proper hose management for a successful fire attack.
Thursday, April 23, 07:00 Vehicle Extrication This drill involves having vehicles brought to the fire station and firefighters are coached as to best practices for getting access to patients primarily through different tools including the spreader (jaws of life), cutter, and ram. All training occurred with trainers overseeing all actions.
Wednesday, April 29, 18:30
Vehicle Extrication
This drill involves having vehicles brought to the fire station and firefighters are coached as to best practices for
getting access to patients primarily through different tools including the spreader (jaws of life), cutter, and ram. All
training occurred with trainers overseeing all actions.
Page 41 of 309
Number of Calls 34 Total Calls for Year 125
FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE
#1 ACTUAL FIRES
Structure - MH Commercial 0
Structure - MH Residential 1
Structure - Contract Areas 0
Cooking Fire - confined 1
Vehicle - MH 0
Vehicle - Contract Areas 0
Grass/Brush/No Value MH 1
Grass/Brush/No Value Contract 0
Other Fire 0 -$ -$
#2 OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $0 $0
Excessive heat, scorch burns 0
#3 MEDICAL
Emergency Medical/Assist 4
Vehicle accident w/injuries 1
Extrication 0 ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$0
Medical, other 0
#4 HAZARDOUS SITUATION $0
Spills/Leaks 1
Carbon Monoxide Incident 1
Power line down 0
Arcing, shorting 0 $0
Hazardous, Other 0
#5 SERVICE CALL
Smoke or odor removal 0 $0
Assist Police or other agency 3
Service Call, other 1
#6 GOOD INTENT
Good Intent 0
Dispatched & Cancelled 8 Current To Date Last Year
Smoke Scare 1 27 104 94
HazMat release investigation 2 3 5 10
Good Intent, Other 3 1 2 0
#7 FALSE ALARMS 2 5 4
False Alarm 0 1 9 7
Malfunction 5
Unintentional 0 Total:34 125 115
False Alarm, other 0
MUTUAL AID 1 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH
Total Calls 34 Inspections
Investigations
WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year
Re-Inspection
Fire Calls 406 1745.3 1359
Meetings 92 355.1 188.6 Meetings
Training 366 1579.5 1367.5
Special Activity 51 86.8 101.3 Administration
Fire Marshal 0 0 0
Plan Review/Training
TOTALS 915 3766.7 3016.4 TOTAL:0
TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES
Mendota Heights Only Structure/Contents
Mendota Heights Only Miscellaneous
Mendota Heights Total Loss to Date
Contract Areas Loss to Date
Mendota Heights
Lilydale
Mendota
Sunfish Lake
Mutual Aid
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT
APRIL 2026 MONTHLY REPORT
FIRE LOSS TOTALS
LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS
Page 42 of 309
May 2026 Fire Synopsis
Fire Calls: 30
For May 2026, the Mendota Heights Fire Department paged for service a total of 30 times.
Mendota Heights 25 calls Lilydale 1 call
Mendota 0 calls Sunfish Lake 1 call Other 3 calls
Total 30 calls
Types of calls:
Fire: 1- The department responded to one dumpster fire in May.
Medical/Extrication: 8- May had the department respond to six medical assist calls and to one vehicle accident. In addition, one call was for an extrication.
Hazardous Situations: 2- Of the two calls for hazardous conditions, one was for a vehicle leaking fuel and the other was for chemical mixing error at a multi-unit condo building causing a chemical cloud to form in the pool area. Mendota Heights Fire also requested limited assistance from the Dakota County Special Operations Team for chemical monitoring and for assistance in rectifying the situation.
Service Calls: 1- There was one call to provide lifting assistance getting a patient from the second floor of their home to an ambulance.
False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 7- For May there were three false alarms due to system malfunctions, three
that were caused unintentional trips, and one was coded as a general false alarm.
Good Intent: 2- One of the two good intent calls involved a call for the smell of gas, but no natural gas was found
when the department arrived on scene. The other call was for a cardiac arrest but upon arrival, found that there
was, in fact, nobody that had suffered a cardiac arrest in the area.
Dispatched and Cancelled Enroute: 6- In May there were six calls that were cancelled before the department’s
arrival to the scene.
Mutual/Auto-Aid Other: 3- MHFD was requested for mutual/auto aid once to Eagan, once to West St Paul, and
once to Bloomington.
Page 43 of 309
May 2026 Trainings
Tuesday, May 5, 07:00 Wildland Grass Fires This drill was dedicated to covering department SOG’s on fighting grass and brush fires as well as to go over hand tools used and proper use of the tools. Finally, it allowed for a refresher on using the pump on the grass rig.
Wednesday, May 6, 18:30
Wildland Grass Fires
This drill was dedicated to covering department SOG’s on fighting grass and brush fires as well as to go over hand
tools used and proper use of the tools. Finally, it allowed for a refresher on using the pump on the grass rig.
Monday, May 11, 18:00
Live Burn – Class B
This drill satisfies the department’s minimum requirement of live burn training. This was a class B fire and utilized
gas for the fire scenarios. Firefighters were able to do multiple evolutions and scenarios included both one-story and two-story scenarios. The drill occurred at the East Metro Training Facility in Oakdale, MN.
Thursday, May 14, 07:00 Live Burn – Class B This drill satisfies the department’s minimum requirement of live burn training. This was a class B fire and utilized gas for the fire scenarios. Firefighters were able to do multiple evolutions and scenarios included both one-story and two-story scenarios. The drill occurred at the East Metro Training Facility in Oakdale, MN.
Wednesday, May 20, 18:00 Live Burn – Class A This drill satisfies the department’s minimum requirement of live burn training. This was a class A fire and utilized wooden pallets and straw for fuel. Firefighters were able to do multiple evolutions and scenarios in a second-floor
environment. The drill occurred at the East Metro Training Facility in Oakdale, MN.
Saturday May 30, 8:00
Intermediate Rope Rescues
This drill included teaching/refreshing several knots that are used on the fire ground. Both proficiency in tying and
releasing knots and securely fastening misc. items that potentially would be hoisted via ropes.
Page 44 of 309
Number of Calls 30 Total Calls for Year:155
FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE
#1 ACTUAL FIRES
Structure - MH Commercial $0
Structure - MH Residential $0
Structure - Contract Areas $0
Cooking Fire - confined $0
Vehicle - MH $0
Vehicle - Contract Areas
Grass/Brush/No Value MH
Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES
Other Fire 1
#2 OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $0
Excessive heat, scorch burns
#3 MEDICAL
Emergency Medical/Assist 6
Vehicle accident w/ no injuries 1
Extrication 1 ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$0
Medical, other
#4 HAZARDOUS SITUATION $0
Spills/Leaks 2
Carbon Monoxide Incident
Power line down
Arcing, shorting $0
Hazardous, Other
#5 SERVICE CALL
Smoke or odor removal $0
Assist Police or other agency 1
Service Call, other
#6 GOOD INTENT
Good Intent 1
Dispatched & Cancelled 6 Current To Date Last Year
Smoke Scare 25 129 114
HazMat release investigation 1 1 6 11
Good Intent, Other 0 2 0
#7 FALSE ALARMS 1 6 5
False Alarm 1 3 12 9
Malfunction 3
Unintentional 3 Total:30 155 139
False Alarm, other
MUTUAL AID 3 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH
Total Calls 30 Inspections
Investigations
WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year
Re-Inspection
Fire Calls 367 2112.3 1649
Meetings 13 368.1 236.6 Meetings
Training 420.5 2000 1721.5
Special Activity 70.5 157.3 152.3 Administration
Fire Marshal 0 0 0
Plan Review/Training
TOTALS 871 4637.7 3759.4 TOTAL:0
Mendota Heights Only Structure/Contents
Mendota Heights Only Miscellaneous
Mendota Heights Total Loss to Date
Contract Areas Loss to Date
Mendota Heights
Lilydale
Mendota
Sunfish Lake
Mutual Aid
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT
MAY 2026 MONTHLY REPORT
FIRE LOSS TOTALS
LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS
Page 45 of 309
6.f
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2026
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Resolution 2026-40 Appointing Election Judges for the 2026 State
Primary and General Election
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve Resolution 2026-40 Appointing Election Judges for the 2026 State Primary and
General Election.
BACKGROUND:
Section 204B.21 of the Minnesota Election Law requires that election judges be appointed by
the governing body of the municipality, and that the appointments be made at least 25 days
before the election.
Attached is a resolution asking the City Council to appoint election judges for absentee voting,
and the upcoming State Primary and General Elections.
Not all judges will be assigned to a polling location. Judges not assigned a polling location will
be placed on a reserve list and may be called upon to serve as replacements if a scheduled
judge becomes unavailable.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
Staff is recommending that the election judge pay be set at $13.00/hour for regular judges,
and $17.00 fo head judges and absentee judges. The upcoming elections were a budgeted
expense for 2026.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Election Judge Resolution
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Inclusive and Responsive Government, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure
Page 46 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION 2026-40
RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE
2026 STATE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 204B.21 of the Minnesota Election Laws, election
judges shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality; and
WHEREAS, the appointments shall be made at least 25 days before the election at
which the election judges will serve; and
WHEREAS, election judges shall receive at least the prevailing Minnesota minimum
wage for each hour spent carrying out their duties at the polling place and attending
training sessions.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota
Heights that the individuals listed on the attached Exhibit A are appointed to serve as
election judges for the August 11, 2026, State Primary and the November 3, 2026, General
Election at the hourly rate of $13.00 for regular election judges and $17.00 for head judges
and election judges serving as absentee judges.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is authorized to appoint additional
election judges as needed for the conduct of elections.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of June, 2026.
City Council
City of Mendota Heights
______________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
Page 47 of 309
“Attachment A”
Bernando Alellano Garnet Holmstadt Stephen Petermann
John Alpitz Joseph Howland Ruth Petermann
Robson Amy Lawrence Ince James Pittenger
Kelly Asplin Elise Jamison Nancy Price
Shawne Baccari Elise Jamison Hannah Radant
Jacqueline Barber Mia Kammeyer-Mueller Belina Reisman
David Berger Barb Kasal Ellen Rest
Linda Birnbaum Stephen Kaufman Mario Reyes
Amy Boley Barbara Kaufmann Jane Riba
Roxanne Buchanan Michael Kaup Andrew Ruff
Danalee Buhler Connie Kauppi Barbara Runchey
Jane Bukacek James Keeler, Jr. Collin Rust
Michaela Calhoun Monica Kick Victoria Salcedo
Denise Collins Judy Klepperich Kathleen Schmidt
Steven Commers Michael Kluznik Sara Shaler
Gail Crecelius Floyd Knight Billie Slater
Lisa Czech Esti Koen Ellen Sloane
Jennifer Daul Lonny Lebahn Chris Snyder
Joan Demeules Jane Lerbs Pamela Stein
Kimberlee Dirks Jamie Lerbs Lloyd Stern
Linda Distad Stephen Lindgren, Sr. Allen Stern
Teri Dorn Michael Linn Nicole Still
Laura Doty Chris Malecek Leslie Strohm
Michael Douglas John Masciopinto Linda Strommer
Pamela Ehrlich Patrick Mathews Laura Swain
Adam Estall Susanne Miller Thomas Swain
Joseph Fergen Bernard Miller Randal Swenson
Suzanne Ferguson Jay Miller Vicki Taylor
Rhonda Fox Jack Monroe Yvonne Taylor
Cheri Frandrup Elizabeth Moran-Johnson Jane Todd
Debra Gagnon Carol Mulvihill Jennifer Traeger
Vivian Garvey Erin Munson Suellyn Tritz
C. Leigh Gerber Nancy Nelson Cari Trousdale
Maureen Gitlin Sharon Nelson Kasey Tunnell
Bob Gjorvad Sara Lynn Newberger Kay Tuveson
Katherine Goldenstein Kate Norman Linda Weinzettel
Debra Gonsioroski Mary Ann Novotny Raymond Welsh
Bridgit Hahn Judie O'Gara Cecilia Welsh
Laurie Hamre Kristian Olson Gretchen Williams
Maren Harris Kathy Packer Courtney Wilson
Katharine Hill Michelle Parker Janell Woods
Susan Holman-Sutich Mark Perrone Jane Zilch
Staff: Nancy Bauer, Sheila Robertson, Resa Weigel, Becca Melcher, Allie Desmond, Kristin
Wittrock, Jocelyn Steere, Kelly Torkelson, Meredith Lawrence, Cheryl Jacobson, and Noel Mills-
Ford
Page 48 of 309
This page is intentionally left blank
6.g
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2026
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Liquor License Renewals
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve the renewal of two liquor licenses.
BACKGROUND:
Current liquor licenses will expire on June 30, 2026.
Complete applications from Haiku Japanese Bistro and Courtyard by Marriott have been
submitted for liquor license renewals and the license fees paid. The background investigation
has been completed by the Mendota Heights Police Department with no negative findings on
either application.
If the renewal applications are approved by the City Council, the liquor license will be sent to
the State Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division for their approval. Once approved by
the State, staff would then issue the liquor license.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
None
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy
Page 49 of 309
This page is intentionally left blank
6.h
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2026
AGENDA ITEM: Approve On-Sale Intoxicating/Sunday Liquor License for Bricksworth Beer
Co. LLC, 752 North Plaza Drive
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve a new On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor/Sunday Liquor license for Bricksworth Beer Co. LLC.
BACKGROUND:
Bricksworth Beer Co. LLC has applied for an On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor icense for
their new restaurant to be located at 752 North Plaza Drive. The applicant has submitted a
complete license application packet and paid the required license and background
investigation fees.
The Mendota Heights Police Department has completed a thorough investigation of the
applicants and found no issues or concerns.
Bricksworth Beer Co. LLC is a brewpub that services pizza, wings, burgers and fries. The dining
room will have 300 seats and 31 seats at the bar. The patio will have approximately 50 seats.
If approved, the license will run through June 30, 2027. The license will not be issued until the
applicant has received a Certificate of Occupancy from the city of Mendota Heights, submitted
a copy of the State of MN Department of Health Restaurant license, and has been approved by
the State Alcohol and Gambling Division.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
None
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy
Page 50 of 309
This page is intentionally left blank
6.i
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2026
AGENDA ITEM: Grading Permit for 2320 Lexington Avenue, Lexington Heights Apartments
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works
Director
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve a grading permit for 2320 Lexington Avenue, Lexington Heights Apartments.
BACKGROUND:
City Ordinance 14-1 requires that properties proposing any land disturbance activity in excess
of 5,000 square feet apply for a grading permit if not part of a separate approval process. City
Council approved a PUD amendment for Lexington Heights Apartments, and the developer is
completing the final construction documents. The developer is requesting a grading permit to
begin work on the site ahead of submitting the building permit. This request is for tree
removal, erosion and sediment control, and grading.
This project will be subject to the rules and regulations of the Mendota Heights’ Land
Disturbance Guidance Document. Attached are preliminary plans for the project which were
previously presented to the city council.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
The Mendota Heights fee schedule identifies a $200 fee for this activity. The developer is also
submitting an escrow payment with the storm water permit for the management of erosion
and sediment control. The forest alteration permit escrow will be included with the
Developers Agreement for the project.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.24282 - Lexington Heights Addition
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure,
Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship
Page 51 of 309
G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGoo
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G GGGGGG G
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUE
E
E
E
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEOHU
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
T
T
V
T
>>>IIIIIIIIIIIII
o
o
o
XXXXXXX
X
I I I
I I
I
I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>BENCHMARK #1
TNH=892.69
PROPOSED
BUILDING
CBMH-104
STMH-103
CBMH-102
CBMH-101
FES-100
STMH-106
CB-105
STMH-107
FES-200
OCS-201
RD-2
TRENCH DRAIN-1
RD-1
EXISTING
APARTMEN
T
BUILDING
EXISTING
TENNIS
COURT
EXISTING
POOL
EXISTING
CLUBHOUSE
EXISTING
POND
LEXINGTON AVENUEINTERSTATE 35EPROJECT NO.
24282
CAD FILE
02/25/26
DATE
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY Date:Reg.No.ERIC P. FAGERBERG02/25/262026-04-02 CITY COMMENTS2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952-890-6044info@mnhill.comwww.mnhill.comI hereby certify that this plan,specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the State of Minnesota.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITIONCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551202026-04-16 CLUB HOUSE AMENITIES 537722026-05-20 GRADING PERMIT
F:\_Civil 3D Projects\24282\PRE-PLAT PLANS\24282TS.dwg - 5/20/2026 11:46AM24282TS
C100TITLE SHEETF:\_Civil 3D Projects\24282\PRE-PLAT PLANS\24282TS.dwg - 5/20/2026 11:46AMLOCATION MAP
NO SCALE
PROJECT COORDINATES
N 44° 52' 22.70"
W 93° 08' 42.62"
GENERAL CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE:TBD
PROJECT ENGINEER:
CITY ENGINEER:
952-890-6044 (O)ERIC FAGERBERG, P.E. - JAMES R. HILL, INC.
PROJECT CONTACTS
RYAN RUZEK - PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DEVELOPER:JON RILEY - CONDOR CORPORATION XXX-XXX-XXXX (O)
651-255-1152 (O)
651-757-2859 (O)NPDES OFFICER:ELLIE BERGFALK - MPCA
LEGEND
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING TRANSFORMER
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING TREELINE/TREES>I
EXISTING STORM SEWER
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING WATERMAIN
>I
S
OHP EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINEOHP
EXISTING CURB & GUTTER
EXISTING FENCEXXXX
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING GRAVEL
EXISTING RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED CONCRETE
PROPOSED ASPHALT SURFACE
PROPOSED SEDIMENT BASIN
PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN
SB-1
>>PROPOSED DRAINTILE
>>>>>>PROPOSED PERFORATED DRAINTILE
>>>>>>>>PROPOSED WATERMAINII
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
>>PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER
PROPOSED SANITARY SERVICE
PROPOSED WATER SERVICE
G G G EXISTING UNDERGROUND GAS
E E E EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
UFO UFO UFO EXISTING UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
T T T EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
T
EXISTING TV PEDESTALTV
EXISTING WETLAND EDGE
EXISTING SOIL BORING LOCATION
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
VUN
SITE
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
SCALE IN FEET
0 60 120
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENT
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
CONDOR CORPORATION
2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
FOR
TITLE SHEET C100
INDEX
C400
C101GENERAL NOTES
GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
C500UTILITY PLAN
C600PAVING & DIMENSIONAL PLAN
EXISTING CONDITIONS C102
C300EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
C301EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL SWPPP NOTES
C302EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C700-C702
DEMOLITION PLAN C103
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY SHEET 1
BENCHMARKS
#1 TNH AT WEST SIDE OF NEW PARKING LOT
ELEV=892.69
C303EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS
C401TREE PERSERVATION
Page 52 of 309
PROJECT NO.
24282
CAD FILE
02/25/26
DATE
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY Date:Reg.No.ERIC P. FAGERBERG02/25/262026-04-02 CITY COMMENTS2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952-890-6044info@mnhill.comwww.mnhill.comI hereby certify that this plan,specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the State of Minnesota.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITIONCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551202026-04-16 CLUB HOUSE AMENITIES 537722026-05-20 GRADING PERMIT
F:\_Civil 3D Projects\24282\PRE-PLAT PLANS\24282GEN.dwg - 5/20/2026 11:46AM24282GEN
C101GENERAL NOTESEPF
TP-1
EXISTING TELEPHONE BOX
EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER BOX
EXISTING TREELINE/TREES>I
EXISTING STORM SEWER
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING WATERMAIN
>I
EXISTING POWER POLE
EXISTING CURB & GUTTER
EXISTING FENCEXXXX
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING GRAVEL
EXISTING RETAINING WALL
LEGEND
PROPOSED CONTOUR923
PROPOSED CONCRETE
PROPOSED ASPHALT SURFACE
PROPOSED SEDIMENT BASIN
PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN
PROPOSED DITCH CHECK - POST
GRADING/UTILITY CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED SILT FENCEooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
PROPOSED SILT FENCE POST CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED WIMCO OR EQUAL
POST STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED YARD CB INLET PROTECTION POST
STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED TEMPORARY ROCK
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
PROPOSED MNDOT "SOUTHERN BOULEVARD" SEED
MIX
SB-1
>>>>>>PROPOSED DRAINTILE
>>>>>>>>>>PROPOSED PERFORATED DRAINTILE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PROPOSED WATERMAINII
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
>>PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER
PROPOSED SANITARY SERVICE
PROPOSED WATER SERVICE
G G G EXISTING UNDERGROUND GAS
E E E EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
UFO UFO UFO EXISTING UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
T T T EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
EXISTING TELEVISION BOX
EXISTING RAILROAD
EXISTING CONTOUR923
EXISTING WETLAND EDGE
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING SOIL BORING LOCATION
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
PROPOSED MNDOT "WET DITCH" SEED MIX
EOF PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooPROPOSED GRADING LIMITS
PROPOSED SILT FENCE HEAVY DUTYllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllACEXISTING AIR CONDITIONER
EXISTING AUTO SPRINKLER
EXISTING CLEANOUT
EXISTING CURB STOP
EXISTING ELECTRIC METER
EXISTING ELECTRIC OUTLET POST
EXISTING FLAGPOLE
EXISTING GROUND LIGHT
EXISTING GAS METER
EXISTING GAS VALVE
EXISTING GUY WIRE
EXISTING GUY WIRE POLE
EXISTING HANDHOLE
EXISTING LIFT STATION
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING MAILBOX
EXISTING MANHOLE (UTILITY)
EXISTING MANHOLE (ELECTRIC)
EXISTING MANHOLE (TELEPHONE)
EXISTING MANHOLE (WATER)
EXISTING MONITORING WELL
EXISTING POST INDICATOR VALVE
EXISTING PROPANE TANK
EXISTING PIEZOMETER
EXISTING SEMAPHORE
EXISTING SPRINKLER HEAD
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING VAULT
EXISTING VENT PIPE
EXISTING WELL
E
EXISTING GUARD POST
U
E
T
W
MW
Z
V
VP
EXISTING OVERHEAD POWEROHPOHPOHP
EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITYOHUOHUOHU
EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEVISIONTVTVTV
EXISTING DRAINTILE
>>>>>>>>>>>>EXISTING GUARD RAILoooo
EXISTING ADA PARKING
EXISTING TEST PIT LOCATION
T
TV
GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS
CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL OBTAIN COPIES OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND ALL WORK SHALL BE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR REQUIREMENTS:
1.THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS (2022 - CURRENT VERSION VARIES).
2.MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MNDOT) STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
(2025) AND ALL SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATIONS.
3.CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM) CONSTRUCTION STANDARD SPECIFICATION (2023).
4.MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE (2020).
GENERAL NOTES
1.EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE BASED ON SURVEY PREPARED BY JAMES R. HILL, INC, DATED 04/11/2025. THE
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING SITE CONDITIONS AND SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY
DISCREPANCIES.
2.THE EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THESE PLANS IS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D DETERMINED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE “STANDARD GUIDELINE FOR INVESTIGATING AND DOCUMENTING EXISTING UTILITIES”,
ASCE/UESI/CI 38-22. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION AND CONDITION OF
EXISTING UTILITIES AND NOTIFYING THE ENGINEER OF ANY DAMAGE OR DISCREPANCIES WITH THESE PLANS
PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMING LOCATION OF ALL
EXISTING UTILITIES, INCLUDING BY CONTACTING GOPHER STATE ONE CALL. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING ANY UTILITIES REQUIRED TO REMAIN IN SERVICE THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED OR
DAMAGED. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RELOCATING ALL EXISTING UTILITIES THAT CONFLICT WITH
THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. REPAIR/REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED UTILITIES THAT WERE NOT IDENTIFIED
BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK WILL BE DONE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S SOLE EXPENSE.
3.CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE AND HOLD A PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK.
A MINIMUM NOTICE OF 7 DAYS, INCLUDING TO CITY AND OTHER AGENCIES, SHALL BE PROVIDED. WHERE THE
CITY/AGENCIES DO NOT REQUIRE A PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING, A MINIMUM NOTICE OF 48 HOURS SHALL BE
PROVIDED PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK.
4.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ALL UTILITY COMPANIES WITH UTILITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA A
MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION.
5.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR APPLYING FOR, OBTAINING, AND COMPLYING WITH ALL REQUIRED
PERMITS. COPIES OF ALL REQUIRED PERMITS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON SITE AT ALL TIMES.
6.WHERE PROVIDED, QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE AND FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S
RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY QUANTITIES AND TO PROVIDE THE QUANTITIES NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.
7.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ACCESS, SERVICES (GARBAGE, MAIL, ETC.), UTILITY SERVICES AND DRAINAGE
(SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE) FOR ADJACENT PROPERTIES AT ALL TIME DURING CONSTRUCTION.
8.CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND
SITE FEATURES TO REMAIN, AND WILL BE SOLEY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES.
9.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE RECORD PLANS, INCLUDING AS-BUILT SURVEY(S), AS REQUIRED BY RELEVANT
AGENCIES.
10.CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SOILS REPORT AND CONSTRUCT
ALL IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS REPORT.
11.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL REQUIRED TESTING WITH THE OWNER'S TESTING REPRESENTATIVE.
RE-WORK DUE TO TEST FAILURE(S), INCLUDING COSTS OF RETESTING, SHALL BE COMPLETED AT THE
CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.
12.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE
AGENCY REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING PREPARATION OF A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN IF REQUIRED. ALL TRAFFIC
CONTROL MEASURES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE MN MUTCD.
13.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, INCLUDING STRUCTURAL, MEP AND LANDSCAPING SECTIONS, FOR ALL
BUILDING AND BUILDING APPURTENANCE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS, UTILITY SERVICE LOCATIONS,
PLANTINGS, AMENITY AREA DESIGNS, SITE ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS, ETC.
14.SITE LIGHTING SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. SITE LIGHTING TO BE DESIGN-BUILD BY CONTRACTOR AND
SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND THE APPROVED PHOTOMETRIC PLAN -OR- REFER TO SITE
LIGHTING PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION DETAILS.
15.THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE HARD COPIES AND/OR PDF PLANS. DESIGN
TOOLS UTILIZED IN PREPARATION OF THESE DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CIVIL 3D MODELS,
ARE NOT DELIVERABLES. CONTRACTOR IS CAUTIONED THAT THESE DESIGN TOOLS ARE NOT TO BE UTILIZED
FOR LAYOUT OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
16.ALL LOT AND EASEMENT DIMENSIONS ARE SUBJECT TO THE FINAL PLAT.
DEMOLITION NOTES
1.THIS PLAN IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS
PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK TO CONFIRM SCOPE OF REQUIRED WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE
ENGINEER REGARDING ITEMS NOT IDENTIFIED FOR REMOVAL THAT MAY CONFLICT WITH PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS, REGARDLESS OF THE SCOPE OF REMOVALS SHOWN ON THE DEMOLITION PLAN.
2.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DEMOLITION, REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL AS NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.
3.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORING AREAS IMPACTED BY DEMOLITION WITH MATERIALS IN
COMPLIANCE WITH PLANS (E.G. PAVEMENT, LANDSCAPING, SIDEWALK, ETC.), REGARDLESS OF THE SCOPE OF
REMOVALS SHOWN ON THE DEMOLITION PLAN.
4.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING ITEMS TO REMAIN DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION.
5.UTILITIES TO BE ABANDONED SHALL BE REMOVED FROM PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND TO A DISTANCE
OF 10' BEYOND.
6.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL UTILITY REMOVALS AND RELOCATION WITH THE AFFECTED UTILITY
COMPANIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK.
7.UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED FOR REMOVAL, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL TREES AND SHRUBS ON AND
ADJACENT TO THE SITE. PROTECTION MEASURES SHALL INCLUDE INSTALLATION OF 4' HIGH ORANGE PLASTIC
TREE PROTECTION FENCE AROUND THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREES/SHRUBS. CONTRACTOR SHALL PREVENT ALL
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, STORAGE OF MATERIALS, ETC., WITHIN THE FENCED AREA.
8.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW ALL TREE REMOVALS WITH OWNER AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO COMMENCING
REMOVALS.
9.ALL REMOVALS SHALL BE UNDERCUT TO SUITABLE MATERIAL AND BROUGHT TO GRADE WITH SUITABLE
MATERIAL AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNERS TESTING REPRESENTATIVE.
EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES & DETAILS
GENERAL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES
1.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION FOR THE MPCA GENERAL
STORMWATER PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY (GENERAL PERMIT).
2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETING ROUTINE INSPECTIONS, AND DOCUMENTING THE
INSPECTIONS AND RESULTING MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PERMIT.
3.THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) CONSISTS OF THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL PLANS (SHEETS C2.01 - C2.04), INCLUDING PLANS, DETAILS, NOTES AND NARRATIVE, ALONG WITH
THE GENERAL STORMWATER PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND ALL RELATED DOCUMENTS. THE
CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS INVOLVED WITH GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES SHALL OBTAIN A
COPY OF THE FULL SWPPP AND FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS THEREIN AT ALL TIMES.
4.CONTRACTOR SHALL PHASE CONSTRUCTION TO MINIMIZE DISTURBED AREA AND DURATION OF EXPOSED
SOILS.
5.CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL BMPS SHOWN ON THE EROSION CONTROL PLANS AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE.
ALL DOWNSTREAM BMPS SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMENCING GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES IN
AN AREA.
6.BMPS SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL TRIBUTARY AREAS HAVE ACHIEVED FINAL STABILIZATION IN ACCOR
7.THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS REFLECT SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION (PHASE I)
AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE (PHASE II). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLEMENT THE BMPS
SHOWN ON THESE PLANS AS NECESSARY THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION TO MEET THE INTENT AND
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SWPPP AND APPLICABLE PERMITS, AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER.
8.CONTRACTOR SHALL UPDATE THE SWPPP TO REFLECT PROGRESS, INCLUDING INSTALLATION/REMOVAL OF
BMPS, DISTURBANCE/STABILIZATION OF SOILS, ETC. CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP A COPY OF THE AMENDED
SWPPP ON SITE.
9.BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL BMPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
GENERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING TIMING OF MAINTENANCE.
10.CONTRACTOR SHALL STABILIZE ALL DISTURBED SOILS THAT WILL WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL NOT
OCCUR FOR A PERIOD OF 7 CALENDAR DAYS. STABILIZATION MUST BE INITIATED IMMEDIATELY UPON
COMPLETION OF GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES. STABILIZATION REQUIREMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
a.TEMPORARY STABILIZATION (ONE YEAR COVER CROP):
i.a.MAY 1 - AUGUST 1: MNDOT SEED MIX OATS (O), AT A RATE OF 100 LBS/ACRE.
ii.b.AUGUST 1 - OCTOBER 1: MNDOT SEED MIX WINTER WHEAT (WW) AT A RATE OF 100 LBS/ACRE.
ij.PERMANENT STABILIZATION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLANS.
ik.SEEDED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE MNDOT TYPE 1 MULCH AT A RATE OF 2 TONS PER ACRE.
11.ALL TEMPORARY STOCKPILES SHALL BE ENCIRCLED WITH PERIMETER CONTROL BMP(S) AND STABILIZED PER
THE TIMELINE DESCRIBED ABOVE. STOCKPILES SHALL NOT BE PLACED WITHIN 50' OF SURFACE WATERS, AND
SHALL BE PLACED AWAY FROM CONVEYANCES SUCH AS CURB AND GUTTER.
12.AREAS WITH SLOPES OF 3:1 OR STEEPER SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS OR SOD.
13.CONTRACTOR SHALL DENOTE WASHOUT LOCATION ON THE SWPPP AND WITH A SIGN ON SITE. ALL LIQUID
AND SOLID WASTES FROM WASHOUT ACTIVITIES SHALL BE CONTAINED AND PREVENTED FROM CONTACTING
THE GROUND. ALL WASTE SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.
14.THE PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN(S) SHALL BE STAKED OFF AND PROTECTED BY SILT FENCE AT ALL TIMES
FROM COMPACTION, SEDIMENTATION, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES IMPACTING THE INFILTRATION CAPABILITIES OF
THE SOIL. REFER TO INFILTRATION NOTES SECTION ON SHEET C101 FOR COMPLETE REQUIREMENTS.
15.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DUST CONTROL THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITH APPROVED
MATERIALS/METHODS.
FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, AND WHEN FINAL STABILIZATION IS ACHIEVED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PERMIT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE OWNER AND ENGINEER PRIOR
TO REMOVING BMPS. UPON CONCURRENCE FROM THE OWNER AND ENGINEER, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT
THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND FINAL STABILIZATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PERMIT.
SITE PLAN
SITE PLAN NOTES
1.DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
2.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT GUTTER OUT IN LOCATIONS WHERE DRAINAGE PATTERNS DIRECT RUNOFF
AWAY FROM CURBS. ALL OTHER AREAS TO BE GUTTER IN DESIGN.
3.ALL SIGNS, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, ETC, SHALL CONFIRM TO THE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC
CONTROL DEVICES (MN MUTCD) AND APPLICABLE CITY REQUIREMENTS.
4.PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF PAVEMENT, CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY GRADES ALONG ADA ROUTES AND
LOADING AREAS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT MN ACCESSIBILITY CODE. MAXIMUM SLOPE IN THE
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ALONG AN ADA ROUTE SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN 1:20, WITH A CROSS SLOPE NO
STEEPER THAN 1:48. LOADING ZONES, INCLUDING PARKING STALLS AND STRIPED AREAS ADJACENT TO
ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS, SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN 1:48. CONTACT THE ENGINEER IF ADA CODE IS NOT
MET IN ANY REQUIRED AREA. SLOPES IN EXCESS OF CODE MAXIMUM SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED
WITH ACCEPTABLE SLOPES AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER.
5.PAVEMENT SECTIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S
SOILS REPORT.
GRADING PLAN
GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES
1.PROPOSED CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION. SPOT ELEVATIONS
ALONG PROPOSED CURB REPRESENT GUTTER ELEVATIONS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
2.THE SITE HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED TO BALANCE. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO DETERMINE
EARTHWORK QUANTITIES FOR BIDDING PURPOSES, INCLUDING SOIL CORRECTIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL
DISPOSE OF EXCESS MATERIALS AND/OR IMPORT SUITABLE MATERIALS AS REQUIRED TO GRADE SITE PER
PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND SOIL REPORT(S).
3.CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN PERMITS FOR AND COMPLETE DEWATERING AS NECESSARY.
4.CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE ALL FINISHED SURFACES PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. THIS INCLUDES
EVALUATION OF GRADES PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FINAL SURFACES (PAVEMENT/TOPSOIL/ETC.) TO CONFIRM
FINISHED GRADES WILL DRAIN BY GRAVITY. CONTACT THE ENGINEER TO REVIEW AREAS OF POTENTIAL POOR
DRAINAGE.
5.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADED TRUCK FOR TEST ROLLS AND COMPLETE SUBSEQUENT SOIL
CORRECTIONS, BOTH AT THE DIRECTION OF THE OWNER'S TESTING REPRESENTATIVE.
6.IF ALLOWED BY OWNER, CONTRACTOR MAY PROPOSE TRENCH BORROW TO ACQUIRE STRUCTURALLY
SUITABLE MATERIAL. TRENCH BORROW OPERATIONS MUST MAINTAIN A MINIMUM SEPARATION OF 10' FROM
THE TOP OF THE TRENCH TO THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND EXTEND AT A SLOPE OF 1:1 OR FLATTER FROM
THERE. ALL TRENCH BORROW ACTIVITIES SHALL BE DONE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE OWNER'S TESTING
REPRESENTATIVE.
7.FINAL GRADE TOLERANCES: FINAL GRADES SHALL BE WITHIN 0.05' OF PROPOSED ELEVATION. ANY AMOUNT OF
VARIATION FROM PROPOSED GRADES THAT NEGATIVELY IMPACTS SURFACE DRAINAGE IS NOT BE ACCEPTABLE
AND WILL BE CORRECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO COST TO OWNER.
8.RETAINING WALLS ARE TO BE DESIGN BUILD BY THE CONTRACTOR, AND CONSTRUCTED OF A MATERIAL AND
DESIGN SELECTED BY THE OWNER. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE CERTIFIED ENGINEERED DRAWINGS OF ALL
PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS, ALONG WITH A LETTER CERTIFYING THAT ALL WALLS WERE CONSTRUCTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THESE PLANS.
9.EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES (SEE DEMOLITION/LANDSCAPE/TREE
PRESERVATION PLANS).
INFILTRATION NOTES
1.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT INFILTRATION AREA(S) FROM CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC AND SEDIMENT-LADEN
RUNOFF AT ALL TIMES. PRIOR TO COMMENCING GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES, INSTALL PERIMETER
CONTROL BMPS AROUND INFILTRATION AREA AS SHOWN ON THE EROSION CONTROL PLANS. PERIMETER
CONTROL BMPS ARE TO REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL TRIBUTARY AREAS HAVE ACHIEVED FINAL STABILIZATION
AND THE ENGINEER HAS APPROVED REMOVAL.
2.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT EXCAVATE WITHIN 3' OF THE PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM UNTIL FINAL
STABILIZATION ON ALL TRIBUTARY AREAS HAS BEEN ACHIEVED AND ENGINEER HAS APPROVED EXCAVATION.
3.ALL INLETS TO THE BASIN SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH BYPASSES TO PREVENT RUNOFF FROM REACHING
THE BASIN. BYPASSES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL BASIN CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND FINAL
STABILIZATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE BASIN BOTTOM AND ALL TRIBUTARY AREAS, AS APPROVED
BY THE ENGINEER.
4.EXCAVATION OF THE INFILTRATION AREA SHALL BE COMPLETED FROM OUTSIDE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BASIN.
IF WORK IS NECESSARY WITHIN THE BASIN FOOTPRINT, ONLY LOW GROUND PRESSURE TRACKED EQUIPMENT
IS ALLOWED TO COMPLETE THE WORK. RUBBER TIRE OR OTHER HIGH-PRESSURE EQUIPMENT IS NOT
PERMITTED WITHIN THE BASIN FOOTPRINT.
5.FOLLOWING EXCAVATION, CONTRACTOR SHALL DECOMPACT INFILTRATION BASIN SOILS TO A DEPTH OF AT
LEAST 18 INCHES BELOW SUBGRADE. DECOMPACTION SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH A BACKHOE RIPPER
ATTACHMENT OR OTHER METHOD APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
6.INFILTRATION TESTING IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF INFILTRATION MEDIA. TESTING SHALL BE
COMPLETED BE EITHER A DOUBLE RING INFILTROMETER TEST MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM D3385
(MINIMUM 2 TESTS PER BASIN, PLUS ONE ADDITIONAL TEST FOR EACH O.5 ACRE OF BASIN FLOOR AREA) OR BY
MASS INFILTRATION TEST. MASS INFILTRATION TEST SHALL BE COMPLETED BY FLOODING THE BASIN TO A
DEPTH SPECIFIED BY THE ENGINEER, WITH RATES MEASURED BY THE OWNERS TESTING REPRESENTATIVE. IF
ANY SINGLE TEST RESULT IS BELOW THE REQUIRED INFILTRATION RATE OF 0.9 INCHES PER HOUR, OR IF THE
MASS INFILTRATION TEST FAILS TO COMPLETELY DRAIN WITHIN 48 HOURS, CONTRACTOR SHALL AMEND THE
SOILS AND RETEST UNTIL THE AVERAGE RATE IS COMPLIANT AT NO COST TO OWNER. CONTRACTOR WILL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF ALL RETESTING FOLLOWING THE INITIAL ROUND OF TESTS.
7.CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT CERTIFICATION THAT INFILTRATION MEDIA IS COMPLIANT WITH THE SPECIFIED
MIX REQUIREMENTS A MINIMUM OF TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO DELIVERING MATERIAL TO SITE. INFILTRATION
MEDIA SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SOON AFTER COMPLIANT TEST RESULTS ARE REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED AS
PRACTICABLE. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT IS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN THE BASIN FOOTPRINT DURING OR
AFTER PLACEMENT OF INFILTRATION MEDIA. PLACEMENT AND SPREADING OF INFILTRATION MEDIA SHALL BE
ACCOMPLISHED WITH AN EXCAVATOR FROM OUTSIDE THE INFILTRATION BASIN FOOTPRINT.
8.BASIN SHALL BE PLANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLANS. CONTRACTOR SHALL
RESEED/REPLANT AREAS WHERE VEGETATION IS NOT ESTABLISHED AS NECESSARY UNTIL COVERAGE IS
ACHIEVED.
UTILITY PLAN
UTILITY NOTES
1.CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND CITY ENGINEER ASSOCIATION OF
MINNESOTA (CEAM) FOR ALL UTILITIES LOCATED WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC EASEMENTS.
a.IN ADDITION TO COMPLYING WITH THE ABOVE SPECIFICATIONS, CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
CURRENT VERSION OF THE MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE FOR ALL UTILITIES NOT WITHIN PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY/EASEMENTS.
b.MATERIALS SHALL MEET ALL STANDARDS REFERENCED IN THESE SPECIFICATIONS
2.UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL WATERMAIN TO BE PVC C-900 OR DUCTILE IRON CLASS 52
3.SANITARY SEWER MAINS, SERVICES AND FITTINGS
a.ALL SANITARY SEWER TO BE INSTALLED WITH A MINIMUM COVER OF 7.5'. WHERE THIS COVER CANNOT
BE ACHIEVED, CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL INSULATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY SPECIFICATIONS
AND STANDARD DETAILS.
b.SANITARY SEWER MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING:
i.ALL MATERIALS OUTSIDE OF PUBLIC ROW/EASEMENTS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
MATERIALS TABLE LISTED IN THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE MN PLUMBING CODE AS
FOLLOWS:
1.PVC SCHEDULE 40 UP TO A DEPTH OF 22' OF COVER OR AS SPECIFIED IN THE
GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS.
2.WHERE DEPTH EXCEEDS THIS MAXIMUM, CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE
MNDLI ALTERNATE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS TO RECEIVE APPROVAL FOR A
MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH CITY SPECIFICATIONS FOR MAXIMUM DEPTH OF COVER.
ii. PIPE WITHIN PUBLIC ROW/EASEMENTS:
1.IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY SPECIFICATIONS. WHERE CITY SPECIFICATIONS DO
NOT LIST MATERIAL BASED ON DEPTH, THE FOLLOWING SHALL APPLY:
a.DEPTH UP TO 16' SHALL BE SDR 35
b.DEPTH FROM 16' TO 22' SHALL BE SDR 26
c.DEPTH FROM 22' TO 32' SHALL BE PVC C900
d.DEPTH OVER 32' SHALL BE DIP
c.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TRACER WIRE FOR SANITARY SEWER MEETING THE STANDARDS OF THE
CITY SPECIFICATIONS.
5.STORM SEWER MAINS, SERVICES AND FITTINGS
a.ALL STORM SEWER ROOF DRAINS TO BE INSTALLED WITH A MINIMUM COVER OF 7.5'. WHERE THIS
COVER CANNOT BE ACHIEVED, CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL INSULATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY
SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD DETAILS, UP TO THE FIRST DOWNSTREAM STRUCTURE.
b.STORM SEWER MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING:
i.ALL MATERIALS OUTSIDE OF PUBLIC ROW/EASEMENTS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
MATERIALS TABLE LISTED IN THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE MN PLUMBING CODE.
1.ALL ROOF DRAINS/BUILDING STORM CONNECTIONS SHALL BE PVC SCH40.
2.RCP AND/OR HDPE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY/CEAM SPECIFICATIONS ARE
ACCEPTABLE PROVIDED THE CONTRACTOR OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM MN
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY FOR ALTERNATE MATERIALS. IN THIS CASE,
STORM SEWER CROSSING WATERMAIN (WITHIN 10' HORIZONTALLY OF WATERMAIN)
AND/OR WITHIN 10' OF A BUILDING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MATERIALS LISTED IN
THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE MN PLUMBING CODE.
3.ALL MANHOLE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITH FLEXIBLE GASKETED
WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE
MN PLUMBING CODE.
ii. PIPE WITHIN PUBLIC ROW/EASEMENTS:
1.RCP IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS.
c.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TRACER WIRE FOR STORM SEWER MEETING THE STANDARDS OF THE
CITY SPECIFICATIONS.
6.PIPE JOINT DEFLECTION AND PIPE CURVATURE SHALL NOT EXCEED MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
7.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM HORIZONTAL SEPARATION OF 10' FROM OUTSIDE OF ALL
SANITARY/STORM SEWER PIPES/STRUCTURES/FITTINGS AND WATER MAINS/SERVICES/FITTINGS.
9.FILL BELOW PROPOSED UTILITY LOCATIONS SHALL BE PLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND TESTED/OBSERVED BY THE OWNER'S TESTING
CONSULTANT.
10.CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL BUILDING FOUNDATION DRAINS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. BUILDING DRAINS
ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE CIVIL PLANS. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE CIVIL ENGINEER TO DISCUSS
BUILDING DRAIN CONNECTION LOCATIONS TO THE SITE STORM SEWER SYSTEM.
11.CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SITE SUBGRADE DRAINS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
12.CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM TESTING AND, WHERE REQUIRED, SUBMIT REPORTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE CITY,
MDH, AND MNDLI. COPIES OF ALL TEST RESULTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE OWNER, ENGINEER AND
UTILITY PROVIDER.
13.REFER TO MEP PLANS FOR ALL BUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS. CONTACT THE
CIVIL ENGINEER AND MEP IMMEDIATE IF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN CIVIL AND BUILDING PLANS IS
DISCOVERED.
16.ALL REQUIRED OBSERVATIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO BACKFILLING UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR
SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS NOTICE FOR REQUIRED INSPECTIONS.
17.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COPIES OF RECORD PLANS TO OWNER AND ENGINEER FOLLOWING
COMPLETION OF UTILITY INSTALLATION. ADDITIONALLY, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE RECORD
PLANS/AS-BUILT SURVEY(S) TO AGENCIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH EACH AGENCY'S REQUIREMENTS. WHERE
REQUIRED, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE SURVEYED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR PRIOR TO
PLACEMENT OF BACKFILL.
SPRWS NOTES
·THE FOLLOWING WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE PERFORMED BY SPRWS ON AN ACTUAL COST BASIS: (1) TAP, VALVE,
AND BOX FOR ANY SERVICE TAPPED FROM 12” MAINS OR LARGER. (2) INSPECTION OF CONTRACTOR INSTALLED MAINS AND
SERVICES. (3) CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY SERVICES IF NECESSARY. AN ESTIMATE WILL BE PROVIDED FOR THIS
WORK AND PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF THE ESTIMATE MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE THE WORK CAN BE SCHEDULED. ALL
OTHER WORK, INCLUDING EXCAVATION, RESTORATION, CUT OFFS, AND PIPEWORK TO BE PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR.
·WATER SERVICES TO BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SPRWS “STANDARDS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WATER MAINS.
·A FOUR-SIDED TRENCH BOX IS REQUIRED ON ALL EXCAVATIONS DEEPER THAN 5 FEET WHERE UNDERGROUND WORK OR
INSPECTION IS TO BE PERFORMED BY SPRWS. FOR ALL WET TAPS TO BE PERFORMED BY SPRWS, A MINIMUM TRENCH BOX
SIZE OF 8 FEET HIGH X 8 FEET WIDE X 10 FEET LONG IS REQUIRED. LADDERS ARE REQUIRED AND MUST EXTEND 3 FEET
ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE TRENCH. SIDEWALKS, PAVEMENTS, DUCTS AND APPURTENANT STRUCTURES SHALL NOT BE
UNDERMINED UNLESS A SUPPORT SYSTEM OR ANOTHER METHOD OF PROTECTION IS PROVIDED. TRENCHES IN EXCESS OF 20
FEET IN DEPTH MUST BE SIGNED OFF BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. EXCAVATED MATERIAL MUST BE KEPT
A MINIMUM OF 2 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE TRENCH.
·SERVICE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH 8 FEET OF COVER AS PER THE ESTABLISHED GRADE FROM THE MAIN TO
THE PROPERTY LINE OR, IF APPLICABLE, TO THE UTILITY EASEMENT LINE. WHEN SOLID ROCK CONDITIONS ARE
ENCOUNTERED, WATER SERVICES MAY BE INSTALLED WITH 6.5 FEET OF COVER. AT THIS DEPTH, THE NEED FOR
INSULATION WILL BE DETERMINED BY SPRWS INSPECTORS.
·ALL PIPE 2” AND SMALLER MUST BE TYPE K COPPER. PIPE MATERIAL FOR 8” DUCTILE IRON PIPE MUST BE CLASS 52, PIPE
MATERIAL FOR 6” AND 4” DUCTILE IRON PIPE MUST BE CLASS 53. THE EXTERIOR OF DUCTILE IRON PIPE SHALL BE
COATED WITH A LAYER OF ARC-SPRAYED ZINC PER ISO 8179. THE INTERIOR CEMENT MORTAR LINING SHALL BE APPLIED
WITHOUT ASPHALT SEAL COAT. PIPE MUST BE WRAPPED IN V-BIO POLYWRAP ENCASEMENT AND SHALL BE INSTALLED
UTILIZING MODIFIED METHOD A AS RECOMMENDED BY DIPRA. ENCASEMENT SHALL BE TAPED AT EACH JOINT AND AROUND
THE MIDDLE OF THE PIPE.
·MAINTAIN 3 FEET VERTICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN WATER AND SEWER PIPES OR 18-INCH SEPARATION INCLUDING 4-INCH
HIGH DENSITY INSULATION PER SPRWS STANDARD PLATE D-10 FOR TYPICAL WATER MAIN OFFSETS.
·REFER TO SPRWS “STANDARDS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WATER MAINS” STANDARD PLATE D-11 FOR RESTRAINED PIPE
REQUIREMENT.
·ALL WATER SERVICE VALVE BOXES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION AREA MUST BE EXPOSED AND BROUGHT TO GRADE UPON
COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION.
·ALL PIPE WORK INSIDE OF PROPERTY TO BE PERFORMED BY A PLUMBER LICENSED BY THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND
CERTIFIED BY THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL. SPRWS REQUIRES SEPARATE OUTSIDE AND INSIDE PLUMBING PERMITS FOR EACH NEW
WATER SERVICE.
·ALL UNUSED EXISTING WATER SERVICES TO BE CUT OFF BY THE CONTRACTOR AT THE MAIN. EXCAVATION AND RESTORATION
BY CONTRACTOR. CUT OFFS MUST BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED TIME OF NEW INSTALLATION.
·THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL EXCAVATION AND OBSTRUCTION PERMITS REQUIRED BY ANY
GOVERNING AUTHORITY.
·CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND SUBMIT THESE PLANS TO SAINT PAUL
REGIONAL WATER SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT UPON COMPLETION OF WORK VIA EMAIL AT:
WATER-PLUMBINGPERMITAPP@CI.STPAUL.MN.US
·CATHODIC PROTECTION IN THE FORM OF (2) 32 LB (BARE WT.) MAGNESIUM ANODES IS REQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
NEW SERVICE INSTALLATION(S) IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. REFER TO STANDARD PLATE D-15.
·WATER METER INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE SEC. 609.12. WATER METERS.
·NOTIFY JAMES YAPP AT 651-612-816-5382 A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND/OR TESTING.
Page 53 of 309
G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGoooo
G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G GGGGGGGG G G
oX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXoooooooooOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUE
E
E
E
E
E
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOHU OHU
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E ET
T
V
T
>>>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
o o
o
o
o
EX 12" FES
INV.=880.99
EX 12" FES
INV.=879.71
EX 24" FES
INV.=877.10
EX SSMH
RIM=887.91
INV.=869.51
EX SSMH
RIM=881.21
INV.=870.56
EX SSMH
RIM=882.76
INV.=871.30
EX 12" FES
INV.=880.00
EX 12" FES
INV.=879.94
EX 12" FES
INV.=879.37
EX 12" FES
INV.=879.27
EX SSMH
RIM=891.16
INV=868.09EX 12" SANEX 12" SANEX 12" SANEX 12" WMEX 12" WMBENCHMARK
TNH=892.69
EX 12" RCP SAN
EXISTING
APARTMEN
T
BUILDING
GARAGE
GARAGEEXISTING
TENNIS
COURT
EXISTING
POOL
EXISTING
CLUBHOUS
E
EXISTING
POND880882 88488688889089289
0
89
2
888
886
886888
890
892
884
882
882
884
886886884882882880878882
880
882
884
886
888
890
892
8968
9
8
9
0
0
90
2
9049
0
6
9
0
8
9
1
0
892894894
8928
8
6884
LEXINGTON AVENUEINTERSTATE 35EEX SSMH
RIM=889.61
INV W=867.49
INV E=867.44
PROJECT NO.
24282
CAD FILE
02/25/26
DATE
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY Date:Reg.No.ERIC P. FAGERBERG02/25/262026-04-02 CITY COMMENTS2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952-890-6044info@mnhill.comwww.mnhill.comI hereby certify that this plan,specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the State of Minnesota.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITIONCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551202026-04-16 CLUB HOUSE AMENITIES 537722026-05-20 GRADING PERMIT
F:\_Civil 3D Projects\24282\PRE-PLAT PLANS\24282EXC.dwg - 5/20/2026 11:46AM24282EXC
C102EXISTING CONDITIONSJSO
LEGEND
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80
TP-1
EXISTING TELEPHONE BOX
EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER BOX
EXISTING TREELINE/TREES>I
EXISTING STORM SEWER
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING WATERMAIN
>I
S
EXISTING POWER POLE
EXISTING CURB & GUTTER
EXISTING FENCEXXXX
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING GRAVEL
EXISTING RETAINING WALL
SB-1
G G G EXISTING UNDERGROUND GAS
E E E EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING TELEVISION BOX
EXISTING CONTOUR923
EXISTING SOIL BORING LOCATION
EXISTING CURB STOP
EXISTING ELECTRIC METER
EXISTING ELECTRIC OUTLET POST
EXISTING FLAGPOLE
EXISTING GAS METER
EXISTING HANDHOLE
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING VAULT
E
V
EXISTING OVERHEAD POWEROHPOHPOHP
EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITYOHUOHUOHU
EXISTING DRAINTILE
>>>>>>>>>>>>EXISTING ADA PARKING
EXISTING TEST PIT LOCATION
T
TV
AC EXISTING AIR CONDITIONER
EXISTING AUTO SPRINKLER
Page 54 of 309
G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGoooo
G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G GGGGGGGG G G
oX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXoooooooooOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUE
E
E
E
E
E
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOHU OHU
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E ET
T
V
T
>>>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
o o
o
o
o
EX 12" FES
INV.=880.99
EX 12" FES
INV.=879.71
EX 24" FES
INV.=877.10
EX SSMH
RIM=887.91
INV.=869.51
EX SSMH
RIM=881.21
INV.=870.56
EX SSMH
RIM=882.76
INV.=871.30
EX 12" FES
INV.=880.00
EX 12" FES
INV.=879.94
EX 12" FES
INV.=879.37
EX 12" FES
INV.=879.27
EX SSMH
RIM=891.16
INV.=868.09
BENCHMARK
TNH=892.69880882884886888890892 89
0
89
2
888
886
886888
890
892
884
882
882
884
886886884882882880878882
880
882
884
886
888
890
892
8968
9
8
9
0
0
90
2
9049
0
6
9
0
8
9
1
0
892894894
8928
8
6884 REMOVE EX ASP
REMOVE EX CURB
AND GUTTER
(TYP.)
SAW CUT
EX ASP
REMOVE EX CURB
AND GUTTER
(TYP.)
REMOVE EX LAND SCAPE
REMOVE EX CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
REMOVE EX
LIGHT POLE
(TYP.)
REMOVE EX
LIGHT POLE
(TYP.)
SAW CUT
EX ASP
LEXINGTON AVENUEINTERSTATE 35ESAW CUT
EX ASP
REMOVE EX
LIGHT POLE
(TYP.)
EXISTING
APARTMEN
T
BUILDING
EXISTING
TENNIS
COURT
EXISTING
POOL
EXISTING
CLUBHOUS
E
EXISTING
POND
PROJECT NO.
24282
CAD FILE
02/25/26
DATE
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY Date:Reg.No.ERIC P. FAGERBERG02/25/262026-04-02 CITY COMMENTS2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952-890-6044info@mnhill.comwww.mnhill.comI hereby certify that this plan,specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the State of Minnesota.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITIONCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551202026-04-16 CLUB HOUSE AMENITIES 537722026-05-20 GRADING PERMIT
F:\_Civil 3D Projects\24282\PRE-PLAT PLANS\24282DEMO.dwg - 5/20/2026 11:46AM24282DEMO
C103DEMOLITION PLANEPF
LEGEND
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80
TP-1
EXISTING TELEPHONE BOX
EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER BOX
EXISTING TREELINE/TREES>I
EXISTING STORM SEWER
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING WATERMAIN
>I
S
EXISTING POWER POLE
EXISTING CURB & GUTTER
EXISTING FENCEXXXX
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING GRAVEL
EXISTING RETAINING WALL
SB-1
G G G EXISTING UNDERGROUND GAS
E E E EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING TELEVISION BOX
EXISTING CONTOUR923
EXISTING SOIL BORING LOCATION
EXISTING CURB STOP
EXISTING ELECTRIC METER
EXISTING ELECTRIC OUTLET POST
EXISTING FLAGPOLE
EXISTING GAS METER
EXISTING HANDHOLE
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING VAULT
E
V
EXISTING OVERHEAD POWEROHPOHPOHP
EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITYOHUOHUOHU
EXISTING DRAINTILE
>>>>>>>>>>>>EXISTING ADA PARKING
EXISTING TEST PIT LOCATION
T
TV
AC EXISTING AIR CONDITIONER
EXISTING AUTO SPRINKLER
PROPOSED LIGHT POLE REMOVAL
PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER REMOVAL
PROPOSED PAVEMENT REMOVAL
PROPOSED SAW CUT
Page 55 of 309
oooo
o
7
28 28
16
4
13
12
19
1.Subject property's addresses are 2300 and 2320 Lexington Avenue,
Mendota Heights, its property identification numbers are
27-44925-01-010 and 27-44925-00-010.
2.The bearing system is based on the North line of Lot 1, Block 1,
LEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITION which is assumed to bear North 89
degrees 55 minutes 14 seconds East.
3.Field work was completed 6/16/2025.
4.The building(s) and exterior dimensions of the outside wall at ground
level are shown on the survey. It may not be the foundation wall.
5.No specific title search for existence or non-existence of recorded or
un-recorded easements has been conducted by the surveyor as a part of
this survey. Only easements per the recorded plat are shown.
6.The gross area of the subject property is 6.713 Acres or 292,409 square
feet.
NOTES
Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot A, LEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITION, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the
laws of the State of Minnesota. That this survey does not purport to show all
improvements, easements or encroachments, to the property except as
shown thereon.
Signed this 20th day of June, 2025
Marcus F. Hampton MN L.S. No. 47481
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
The vertical datum is NAVD88.
Benchmark
Top nut hydrant east of building at 2300 Lexington Avenue.
Elevation = 892.69
BENCHMARK 2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100, BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952.890.6044 www.jrhinc.comPLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS2300 AND 2320 LE;INGTON AVENUEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTACERTIFICATE OF SURVEYFORCONDOR CORPORATIONDRAWN BY
DATE
REVISIONS
PLM
6/20/2025
CAD FILE
24282s.dwg
PRO-ECT NO.
24282-00
FILE NO.
1-25-036
SHEET 1 OF 1James R. Hill, Inc.LEGEND
FOUND IRON PIPE
AIR CONDITIONER UNIT
AUTO SPRINKLER
FLAGPOLE
BOLLARD
LIGHT POLE
SIGN
HANDICAP PARKING STALL
STONE RETAINING WALL
HANDHOLE
TELEPHONE BOX
OVERHEAD UTILITY
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
TRANSFORMER
ELECTRIC METER
ELECTRIC OUTLET POST
POWER POLE
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
GAS METER
UNDERGROUND GAS
SANITARY MANHOLE
HYDRANT
MANHOLE
DECIDUOUS
CONIFEROUS
TREE LINE
CHAIN LINK FENCE
FLARED END SECTION
PARKING STALL COUNT#
LANDSCAPE MATERIAL
BITUMINOUS SURFACE
CONCRETE SURFACE
PAVER SURFACE
o WOOD FENCE
METAL FENCE
BLOCK RETAINING WALL
WOOD RETAINING WALL
RIP RAP
GARBAGE CAN
GRILL
PRELIMINARY
Page 56 of 309
G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGoooo
G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G GGGGGGGG G G
oX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUE
E
E
E
E
E
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOHU OHU
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E ET
T
V
T
>>>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
o o
o
o
o
XXXXXXXXXX
X
X
I I I I
I
I I
I
I
I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>EXISTING
CLUBHOU
S
E
POOL
POND
12" RCP
12" RCP12" CIP12" CIP12" RCP12" RCPLEXINGTON AVENUEINTERSTATE 35E892 890
888
89
0
892
892
890888
886
884
882
880
880878882884886888890892
886884882884
882
884
88
6 886888
890
892
8928948968989009029049069
0
8
910
912
892894896898900894
896
898
900
902
90
4
90
6
9
0
8
91
0
9
1
2
894896898900902904906882
8928
9
0
890 892
888884 89088888687889
4892
880882884886890888880882882880EXISTING
APARTMEN
T
BUILDING
EXISTING
TENNIS
COURT
EXISTING
POOL
EXISTING
CLUBHOUS
E
EXISTING
POND 886894ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
BIO-ROLLS FOR TRENCH
DRAIN INLET PROTECTION
PROJECT NO.
24282
CAD FILE
02/25/26
DATE
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY Date:Reg.No.ERIC P. FAGERBERG02/25/262026-04-02 CITY COMMENTS2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952-890-6044info@mnhill.comwww.mnhill.comI hereby certify that this plan,specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the State of Minnesota.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITIONCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551202026-04-16 CLUB HOUSE AMENITIES 537722026-05-20 GRADING PERMIT
F:\_Civil 3D Projects\24282\PRE-PLAT PLANS\24282ERC.dwg - 5/20/2026 11:47AM24282ERC
C300
EPF
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80
PROPOSED CONTOUR923
PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW
PROPOSED GRADING LIMITS
LEGEND
PROPOSED CONCRETE
PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SURFACE
PROPOSED SEDIMENT BASIN
PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN
PROPOSED WATERMAINII
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
>>PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER
PROPOSED SANITARY SERVICE
PROPOSED WATER SERVICE>I
>I
OHP OHP
X X X X
G G G
E E E
UFO UFO UFO
T T T
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING TRANSFORMER
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING TREELINE/TREES
EXISTING STORM SEWER
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING WATERMAIN
EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE
EXISTING CURB & GUTTER
EXISTING FENCE
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING UNDERGROUND GAS
EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
EXISTING TV PEDESTAL
EXISTING CONTOUR923
EXISTING SOIL BORING LOCATION
S
TV
T
EXISTING MANHOLE (ELECTRIC)
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING VAULT
E
V
PROPOSED SILT FENCEooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
PROPOSED SILT FENCE POST CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED WIMCO OR EQUAL
POST STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED YARD CB INLET PROTECTION POST
STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED TEMPORARY ROCK
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
PROPOSED MNBWSR SEED MIX 33-261oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooEOF
SB-1
EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANPROPOSED SILT DIKE▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
Page 57 of 309
PROJECT NO.
24282
CAD FILE
02/25/26
DATE
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY Date:Reg.No.ERIC P. FAGERBERG02/25/262026-04-02 CITY COMMENTS2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952-890-6044info@mnhill.comwww.mnhill.comI hereby certify that this plan,specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the State of Minnesota.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITIONCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551202026-04-16 CLUB HOUSE AMENITIES 537722026-05-20 GRADING PERMIT
F:\_Civil 3D Projects\24282\PRE-PLAT PLANS\24282ERD.dwg - 5/20/2026 11:47AM24282ERD
C301
VUN
SITE
1-MILE RADIUS
USGS MAP
1" = 400'
USDA SOIL MAP
1" = 100'
ESTIMATED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL QUANTITIES
CONSTRUCTION ROCK ENTRANCE EA 1
STANDARD DUTY SILT FENCE LF 1365
HEAVY DUTY SILT FENCE LF 0
SILT DIKE LF 0
MNDOT SEED MIX WET DITCH (STORMWATER BASIN)AC 0.2
MNDOT SEED MIX SOUTHERN BOULEVARD (GENERAL MIX) - 1.5X AC 1.0
REAR YARD INLET PROTECTION EA 1
WIMCO OR APPROVED EQUAL INLET PROTECTION EA 2
Lexington Heights Apartments - Mendota Heights, MN
These plans shall be considered part of the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP.) A copy of the SWPPP shall remain on site throughout active construction.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Lexington Heights Apartments is a multi-family residential development project. The project
includes construction of building pads, streets, utilities and stormwater management basins.
TYPE OF PROJECT: Development of 1 multi-family apartment building.
TYPE OF WORK: Clearing and grubbing, demolition of existing houses, mass grading, utility and
street construction and installation of phone, communication, gas and electric utilities.
TOTAL SITE AREA:6.71 AC
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA:2.41 AC
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA:2.36 AC
PROPOSED (DESIGN) IMPERVIOUS AREA:2.74 AC (0.38 AC NET INCREASE)
IMPAIRED WATERS: There is an impaired lake within a 1-mile radius of the site.
Augusta Lake has an EPA-approved impairment for: Nutrients
These impairment(s) are considered to be construction related parameters and require the
additional best management practices (BMPs) found in items 23.9 and 23.10 of the permit if the
project has a discharge point on the project within 1 mile (aerial radius measurement) of, and
flows to the impaired water.
23.9:
Permittees must immediately initiate stabilization of exposed soil areas, as described in item 8.4,
and complete the stabilization within seven (7) calendar days after the construction activity in
that portion of the site temporarily or permanently ceases.
23.10:
Permittees must provide a temporary sediment basin as described in Section 14 for common
drainage locations that serve an area with five (5) or more acres disturbed at one time.
Also a mandatory Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) review is required by the
MPCA if the project will disturb over 50 acres and has a discharge point on the project within 1
mile (aerial radius measurement) of, and flows to the impaired water. Owners must submit the
application for coverage and the SWPPP at least 30-days before the construction start date. The
SWPPP can be attached electronically when using the online application.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
No environmental reviews were performed for the site, nor were any required by the City of
Mendota Heights or for other agency approvals.
CONSTRUCTION PHASING
Mass grading will be one phase. Site grading and demolition may occur simultaneously. Mass
grading is anticipated to take 3-4 weeks, which will include the construction of the stormwater
basins. Utility installation will immediately follow grading. Upon completion of utilities, street
construction will take place. Final construction work prior to home construction includes
installation of phone, cable, gas and electric utilities, as well as retaining wall construction.
MPCA STORMWATER PERMIT - RESPONSIBILITY
Chase Development is the Owner for the development. The owner will apply for the Stormwater
Permit and shall remain responsible for implementation of the SWPPP until final stabilization and
filing of the N.O.T. or Subdivision Registration Form.
OWNER:
Jon Riley - Condor Corporation
PERMITTEE:
Joe McElwain - Chase Development - 612-384-8266
OPERATOR(S):
Name - Name - XXX-XXX-XXXX
ENGINEER:
Eric P. Fagerberg, PE, Proj. Mgr - James R. Hill, Inc. - 952-890-6044
LGU CONTACT:
Ryan Ruzek- Mendota Heights - 651-255-1152
MPCA COMPLIANCE:
Ellie Bergfalk - 651-757-2859
The Contractor shall follow the implementation sequence as described on these plans.
Amendments shall be made as site conditions change. Amendments shall be reviewed by the
engineer.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SWPPP
The GENERAL CONTRACTOR (GC) or their subcontractor is responsible for implementation of
the SWPPP. Contractor has or will provide trained personnel responsible for inspection of
erosion and sediment control BMPs. Either the Contractor or their subcontractor will provide
trained personnel responsible for installing and maintaining erosion and sediment control BMPs.
Long term operation and maintenance of the permanent stormwater management system will
the responsibility of City of Mendota Heights.
DOCUMENTATION OF TRAINED INDIVIDUALS
Prior to start of construction, GC and/or their subcontractors shall ensure they have proper
documentation for all individuals involved in implementing the SWPPP, as well as all involved
individuals as described in section 21 of the General Stormwater Permit.
SWPPP Design: Eric P Fagerberg, PE, training by University of Minnesota “Design of
Construction SWPPP, 6/1/2023-5/31/2026. Instructor: Online.
SWPPP Contact for Contractor: Name - XXX-XXX-XXXX
Alternate SWPPP Contact for Contractor: Name - XXX-XXX-XXXX
REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT)
Before the submitting the NOT, the permittee must meet the following requirements:
1.All construction activity associated with the project must be completed.
2.All pervious surfaces must be stabilized with permanent vegetative cover having a growth
density of 70% of the expected full growth density (unless a specific area of the site
specifies no vegetation.)
3.The stormwater treatment system (basins, pipes, structures, ditches, swales, etc.) is
cleaned, removing all accumulation of sediment and debris.
4.All synthetic erosion and sediment prevention BMPs have removed.
RECORD RETENTION
During construction, the Contractor must retain a copy of the SWPPP and any amendments
thereto on site at all times (or on the portion of the site for which the Contractor has control.)
The SWPPP may be kept in a designated repository, in the construction field office or in an
on-site vehicle during normal working hours. Copies of all maintenance records, inspection
reports shall also be retained on site with the SWPPP.
Upon completion of all construction and submittal of the NOT, the Owner shall retain the
SWPPP documents for no less than three years, including the final SWPPP, other stormwater
related permits, inspection and maintenance records, SWMP operational and maintenance
agreements, and any other documents or binding agreements that relate to the operation and
maintenance of the SWMP.
GC and/or their subcontractors shall ensure they have proper documentation for all individuals
involved.
POTENTIAL FOR EROSION AND DISCHARGE OF SEDIMENT
There is moderate potential for erosion to occur. Certain portions of the site have grades
exceeding 5% and shall be closely managed to prevent erosion. Temporary sediment traps or
basins shall be considered in the final SWPPP implementation. Redundant protection is required
along all wetlands. Contractor shall be required to appropriately manage individual
erosion-prone areas, using BMP's suitable for the particular application.
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING
1.Install perimeter control. Install inlet protection on existing structures.
2.Perform any clearing, as needed.
3.Perform demolition and debris removal.
4.Place topsoil perimeter berms and stabilize with seed and mulch.
5.Grade stormwater basins. Perform mass grading. As sheet drainage patterns develop, place
silt fence or filter dikes as necessary to dissipate sediment transfer.
6.Construct utilities and pavements.
7.Construct buildings and structures.
8.Install phone, cable, gas and electric utilities.
9.Stabilize basins and swales with final stabilization. Stabilize landscape areas with final
permanent vegetation, landscaping or turf. Stabilize future development areas with temp
seed and mulch until final site development stage.
GUIDANCE FOR TIMING OF BMP INSTALLATION
Prior to Start of Construction
1.Install all new perimeter control BMPs as specified on plans prior to start of construction.
Ensure that all existing perimeter control BMPs are functional.
2.Install or establish stabilized construction entrance.
3.Install protection devices on existing ponds, outlets, storm sewer inlets, etc. prior to start of
construction.
4.Install sediment control practices on down gradient site perimeters
During Construction
1.Identify topsoil stockpile locations and stabilize with temporary seed and mulch.
2.Areas in which construction becomes inactive must have stabilization commence
immediately and be completed no later than 7 days after construction activity in that area
has either temporarily or permanently ceased.
3.Provide temporary or permanent energy dissipation at all pipe outlets within 24 hours of
connection to a Surface Water.
4.Minimize active construction areas. Where possible, establish final grade and stabilize with
permanent vegetation, particularly around stormwater basins, filter strips, berms, etc.
5.During grading construction, utilize street “hold down” areas for sediment trapping. Direct
overland construction runoff towards stormwater basins to the fullest extent practicable.
6.After construction is completed and grades are certified in a particular area of the site,
review that the area is ready for permanent vegetation or other permanent cover.
7.Identify locations where topsoil stockpiles will be placed for builders. Stabilize with
temporary seed and mulch and install perimeter control around stockpile circumference.
Stockpiles shall be located outside of natural buffers or surface waters, included stormwater
conveyances, unless there is a bypass in place.
During Inactivity or After Construction
1.Areas in which construction becomes inactive must have stabilization commence
immediately and be completed no later than 7 days after construction activity in that area
has either temporarily or permanently ceased.
2.Final stabilization cover types are shown on Sheet X of the plan set. Final cover consists of
vegetation, paved or gravel surfaces, sod, landscaping and buildings.
3.At the point where vegetated cover has achieved 70% of expected full growth density,
vegetated areas can be considered fully stabilized. Removal of synthetic sediment control
BMPs can be initiated.
4.Basins that have received sediment deposits shall be re excavated to plan grade, removing
accumulated sediment. Verify final grade and basin capacities.
5.Inlet protection devices can be removed from structures as the attributing drainage area
becomes fully stabilized.
6.Maintain street and drive sweeping activities until construction activities are fully
completed.
EROSION CONTROL BMPs
The construction plans anticipate the use of, but are not limited to, the following Erosion Control
BMPs:
1.Stabilized Construction Entrance
2.Temporary straw mulch as needed.
3.Seed and mulch
4.Erosion Control Blanket
5.Turf Reinforcement Mat (TRM)
6.Rip rap
7.Minimize active or disturbed work areas
SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs
The construction plans anticipate the use of, but are not limited to, the following Sediment
Control BMPs
1.Sediment traps constructed in street subcut or other strategic locations.
2.Rock filter dikes in street subcut.
3.Utilize permanent stormwater basins as Temporary Sediment Basins.
4.Silt fence at project perimeter or toe of slopes.
5.Inlet protection on existing catch basins.
6.Inlet protection on existing culverts.
7.Inlet protection after utility construction.
8.Rock checks or bio roll checks.
9.Linear control along back of new curb and gutter or concrete (bio-roll or silt fence).
10.Post construction silt fence along normal wetted perimeters of basins and filter strips.
11.Routine street sweeping adjacent to construction entrance.
Refer to plans for designated locations of BMPs, details and implementation notes.
All BMP's selected and implemented shall be appropriate for the time of year, the current site
conditions and for the estimated duration of use.
Enhancing sedimentation with the use chemicals and chemical treatment systems is NOT
anticipated for this project.
BASIN AND TRAP DEWATERING BMPs
Should the need arise for basin or trap dewatering, Contractor shall utilize a floating skimmer
pump intake, such that the water is drawn from the surface of the basin. Pumped effluent shall
be discharged, to the extent feasible, over well-vegetated upland areas. Effluent shall not be
discharged into Surface Waters in a visually turbid state. Turbid effluent shall be filtered with
mechanical devices, chemical filtering, or a combination thereof, until it is no longer visually
turbid.
POLLUTION CONTROL BMPs
BMP's and good housekeeping should be implemented to prevent spills, pollutants or chemicals
from entering the drainage system.
1.Fueling: A fixed fueling station is not anticipated. Contractor will be required to implement
BMPs for onsite re-fueling of equipment.
2.Concrete Washout: Refer to MPCA's recommendation for concrete washouts. The
developer has the ability to adjust location or to provide alternative washout containment.
3.There is not an anticipated need for storing chemicals, paints, solvents or other potentially
toxic or hazardous materials on site. If at some point there is a need to store them on site,
they must be stored in a receptacle or container capable of retaining spills. The container
must be fenced and locked from unauthorized access.
4.Portable toilets shall be positioned and secured to prevent tipping over.
SEED & MULCH SPECIFICATIONS
Seed placed for permanent cover or final stabilization requires 6” minimum topsoil cover.
Exception: Infiltration basins - see basin details for soil type). Multiple site visits will be required
to accommodate permanent or temporary stabilization as required during the phases of
construction. Refer to MnDOT Seeding Manual, Latest Edition for more details.
1) General Mix
A.Seed: Mesic Inslope at a rate of 65 lb/acre
B.Fertilizer: Type 1 20-10-20 NPK at a rate of 200 lb/acre
C.Mulch: MNDOT Type 1 at a rate of 2 tons/acre
2) Native Mix
A.Seed: BWSR Mix 32-231 Mesic to Dry Prairie at a rate of 37.5 lb/acre
B.Fertilizer: Type 1 20-10-20 NPK at a rate of 200 lb/acre
C.Mulch: MNDOT Type 3 at a rate of 2 tons/acre
3) Stormwater Basins/Wet Soils
A.Seed: BWSR Mix 33-261 Stormwater at a rate of 35.0 lb/acre
B.Fertilizer: Type 3 slow release 22-5-10 NPK at a rate of 200 lb/acre
C.Mulch: MNDOT Type 3 at a rate of 2 tons/acre
4) Temporary Cover Crop
A.Seed: MNDOT Winter Wheat at a rate of 100.0 lb/acre
B.Fertilizer: Type 1 20-10-20 NPK at a rate of 200 lb/acre
C.Mulch: MNDOT Type 1 at a rate of 2 tons/acre
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BMPs
Routine Inspection
1.Rock Entrances - Inspect weekly. If rock becomes filled with sediment and tracked material
to the extent the purpose ceases to function, remove the contaminated rock and replace
with new rock.
2.Stabile Concrete Entrance - Inspect weekly. Remove dirt and debris and sweep regularly to
control dust.
3.Silt fence - Inspect weekly, particularly for damaged sections, breaches, down-gradient
areas, flow concentration points, scour areas and sections adjacent to sensitive areas.
Where capacity is filled to more than 50% of depth, sediment shall be removed to restore
capture capacity.
4.Sediment traps and basins - Inspect weekly. Where capacity is filled to more than 50% of
depth, sediment shall be removed to restore capture capacity within 72 hours of discovery.
5.Inlet Protection - Inspect weekly or more frequently as needed after multiple rainfalls less
than 0.5”. Verify intake capacity is not compromised. Where capacity is filled to more than
50% of depth, sediment shall be removed to restore capture capacity.
6.Slope - inspect steep slopes for rills and gullies, often forming after placement of topsoil,
seed and erosion control blanket. As a guide, repair and re stabilize eroded areas where rills
exceed 6” in depth.
7.Inspect other site-specific BMP's on a weekly basis minimum.
Rain Event Inspection - Mandatory, within 24 hours after a rain event 0.5” or greater. Complete
all items associated with Routine Inspection. Furthermore, inspect site for breaches, failures,
scours and gullying. Take corrective actions as necessary to restore functionality to the BMP's. If
a given situation is discovered to be prone to repetitive failure, advise the Engineer and
Contractor for SWPPP and BMP amendments.
ADDITIONAL SWPPP NOTES
1.All Erosion and Sediment Control facilities shall be maintained by the Contractor during the
construction operations. Any temporary facilities which are to be removed as called for on
these plans and specifications shall be removed by the Contractor at the time directed by
the engineer. The Contractor shall then restore the subsequently disturbed areas in
accordance with these plans and specifications.
2.Wherever practical and feasible, the Contractor shall protect and preserve existing natural
trees, grass and other vegetative cover in effort to provide natural buffering and filtering of
runoff.
3.Contractor shall be adaptable in adjusting construction schedules in anticipation of weather
forecasts of precipitation, in order to minimize risk of erosion and sediment transport.
4.It is the responsibility of the Contractor to keep public streets, travel ways, parking lots and
trails utilized for ingress to and egress from the construction site free of dirt, sediment and
debris, resulting from construction activity. Cost for this shall be considered incidental to
the contract.
5.Adequate control of dust shall be maintained by the Contractor. Cost for dust control shall
be considered incidental to the contract.
6.Perimeter controls shall not be removed until final stabilization of areas draining toward the
control devices.
7.When temperatures do not exceed 40° F, areas that require seed and mulch stabilization
shall be dormant seeded. Application rate shall be two times the normal rate. No dormant
seeding shall be done on ice or snow greater than 2” in depth.
8.Any areas that were seeded that do not achieve 70% coverage shall be reseeded at the
Contractor's expense, where coverage limitation is caused by lack of seed germination and
growth.
STORMWATER BASIN MAINTENANCE
All stormwater basins within the project will be owned and maintained by the City. Suggested
practices are as follows:
1.For the first three years after construction, basins should be inspected for obvious signs of
erosion, such as gullies, rills or sediment plumes. Identify the cause and take corrective
measures such that grades are restored and surfaces re-established with appropriate
vegetation.
2.During the first year after final stabilization, mow the slopes of stormwater basins,
approximately 30-day intervals, 6”-8” high. Over-seed any areas not fully established.
3.Inspect for sediment accumulation at the pipe outlets into the pond at the completion of
sod installation of last lot in plat. Remove sediment. Re-inspect every 3-5 years.
4.Inspect inlets and outlets for blockage or debris buildup annually. Remove debris as
necessary to allow for inlets and outlets to function as designed.
5.Verify basin design capacity after 15 to 20 years of service.
TURF AND VEGETATION MAINTENANCE
Year 1
a.Establishment (spring seeding)
1.Prepare site: Late April-May
2.Seed: April 15th - July 20th
b.Maintenance
1.When vegetation reaches 10-14 inches tall, mow down to 6-8 inches. The site shall be
mowed at least 3 times from the planting date until September 30th. Mowings will be
approximately 30 days apart.
2.Weed Control - mowing should help control annual weeds.
c.Establishment (fall seeding)
1.Prepare site: Late August - early September
2.Seed: September 20th - October 20th
3.The following spring is Year 1 in the maintenance plan.
d.Evaluation
1.Cover crop growing within 2 weeks of planting (except dormant plantings).
2.Seedlings spaced 1-6 inches apart in drill rows.
3.Native grass seedlings may only be 4-6 inches tall.
4.If there is a flush of growth from foxtail, etc., mow as necessary.
Year 2
a.Maintenance:
1.When vegetation reaches 10-14 inches tall, mow down to 6-8 inches. The site shall be
mowed twice between June 1st and July 31st. Mowings will be approximately 30 days apart.
2.Weed control - Mowing should help control annual weeds. Spot spray thistles, etc. 1 time
between August 1st and September 30th once vegetation has grown back after the second
mowing.
b.Evaluation
1.Cover crop will be gone unless winter wheat is used in fall planting.
2.Grasses forming clumps 1-6 inches apart in drill rows, but still short.
3.Some flowers should be blooming (Black eyed Susans, Wild Bergamot, etc.)
4.If there is a flush of growth from foxtail, etc., mow site to a height of 6-8 inches.
Year 3
a.Maintenance:
1.Spot spray perennial and first-year biennial weeds. Spot mow annual and second-year
biennial weeds. Spot treatments must occur once every 3 to 5 weeks from June 1st to
September 30th. At least three treatment cycles must be completed during this date
window. Treatments must occur before weeds set seed.
b.Evaluation:
2.Planting should begin to resemble a prairie, with tall grasses, flowers, etc.
GENERAL PERMIT NOTE
VISIT THE MPCA WEB SITE FOR THE LATEST INFORMATION ON THE
CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER PERMIT:
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/construction-stormwater EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROLSWPPP NOTESKANARANZI LOAM
HSG B
MAYER SILT LOAM
HSG X
QUAM SILT LOAM
HSG C/D
CRYSTALL LAKE SILT LOAM
HSG C
WAUKEGAN SILT LOAM
HSG B
KANARANZI LOAM
HSG B
KANARANZI LOAM
HSG B
KANARANZI LOAM
HSG B
QUAM SILT LOAM
HSG C/D
Page 58 of 309
PROJECT NO.
24282
CAD FILE
02/25/26
DATE
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY Date:Reg.No.ERIC P. FAGERBERG02/25/262026-04-02 CITY COMMENTS2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952-890-6044info@mnhill.comwww.mnhill.comI hereby certify that this plan,specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the State of Minnesota.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITIONCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551202026-04-16 CLUB HOUSE AMENITIES 537722026-05-20 GRADING PERMIT
F:\_Civil 3D Projects\24282\PRE-PLAT PLANS\24282ERD.dwg - 5/20/2026 11:47AM24282ERD
C302
VUNEROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROLNOTES1.1 Permit Coverage. [Minn. R. 7090]
1.2 This permit is required for construction activity that results in land disturbance of equal to or greater than one (1) acre or if a
project is part of a common plan of development or sale that ultimately will disturb greater than one (1) acre, and authorizes,
subject to the terms and conditions of this permit, the discharge of stormwater associated with construction activity.
[Minn. R. 7090]
1.3 Construction activity covered by this permit cannot commence until coverage under this permit is effective as described in
item 3.3 through 3.4 or, if applicable, until the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has issued an individual National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) construction stormwater permit for the project.
[Minn. R. 7090]
1.4 This permit covers all areas of the State of Minnesota except land wholly within the boundaries of a federally recognized
Indian Reservation owned by a tribe or a tribal member or land held in trust by the federal government for a tribe or tribal
member.[Minn. R. 7090]
1.5 Coverage under this permit is not required when all stormwater from construction activity is routed directly to and treated by a
"treatment works," as defined in Minn. Stat. Section 115.01, subd. 21, operated under an individual NPDES/SDS permit with a Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) effluent limit. [Minn. R. 7090]
1.6 This permit covers ongoing projects covered under any previous construction stormwater permit that are not complete on
the issuance date of this permit. Permittees must either remain in compliance with the previous permit and terminate
coverage within 18 months of the issuance date of this permit or comply with this permit, including updating the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), within the 18-month period. Permittees of previously permitted projects
are not required to incorporate any additional requirements regarding the permanent stormwater treatment system
included in this reissued permit. [Minn. R. 7090]
1.7 Coverage for projects that extend beyond the expiration date of this permit remains effective for a grace period of 18
months.If Permittees cannot complete projects during the grace period, the MPCA will extend coverage under the next
permit and permittees must comply with the requirements of the new permit including updating the SWPPP. Permittees
are not required to follow changes to the permanent stormwater treatment section of the next permit. [Minn. R. 7090]
2.1 Prohibitions and Limitations of Coverage. [Minn. R. 7090]
2.2 The owner must develop a complete and accurate SWPPP that complies with item 5.2 prior to submitting the application for
coverage and starting construction activity. Failure to prepare a SWPPP prior to submitting the application may result in
permit revocation. [Minn. R. 7090]
2.3 This permit prohibits discharges of any material other than stormwater treated in compliance with this permit and
discharges from dewatering or basin draining activities in accordance with Section 10. Prohibited discharges include, but are
not limited to, wastewater from washout of concrete, stucco, paint, form release oils, curing compounds and other
construction materials, fuels, oils, or other pollutants used in vehicle and equipment operation and maintenance, soaps or
solvents used in vehicle and equipment washing and maintenance, and other hazardous substances or wastes. [Minn. R. 7090]
2.4 This permit does not authorize stormwater discharges related to the placement of fill into waters of the state requiring
local, state or federal authorizations (such as U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters Work permits or local governmental unit (LGU) Wetland Conservation Act
replacement plans or determinations). [Minn. R. 7090]
2.5 This permit does not authorize stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity except for construction activity.
Permittees must obtain coverage for discharges associated with industrial activity under a separate NPDES/SDS permit once
day-to-day operational activities commence even if construction is ongoing. [Minn. R. 7090]
2.6 This permit does not authorize discharges from non-point source agricultural and silvicultural activities excluded from
NPDES permit requirements under 40 CFR pt. 122.3(e). [Minn. R. 7090]
2.7 This permit does not authorize stormwater discharges to Prohibited, Restricted, Special or Impaired waters unless
permittees follow the additional stormwater requirements in Section 23. [Minn. R. 7090]
2.8 This permit does not replace or satisfy any environmental review requirements including those under the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. The owner must verify completion of any environmental
review required by law, including any required Environmental Assessment Work Sheets or Environmental Impact
Statements, Federal environmental review, or other required review prior to applying for coverage under this permit. If any
part of your common plan of development or sale requires environmental review, coverage under this permit cannot be obtained
until such environmental review is complete. [Minn. R. 7090]
2.9 This permit does not replace or satisfy any review requirements for discharges adversely impacting State or Federally
designated endangered or threatened species or a designated critical habitat. The owner must comply with the National
Historic Preservation Act and conduct all required review and coordination related to historic preservation, including
significant anthropological sites and any burial sites, with the Minnesota Historic Preservation Officer. [Minn. R. 7090]
2.10 This permit does not authorize discharges to wetlands unless the permittee complies with the requirements in Section 22.
Coverage under this permit cannot be issued until the requirements for wetland permits, decisions, other determinations,
or the mitigative sequence required in section 22 have been finalized and documented. [Minn. R. 7050.0186]
3.1 Application and Coverage Effective Date. [Minn. R. 7090]
3.2 The owner and operator must submit a complete and accurate on-line application with the appropriate fee to the MPCA for
each project that disturbs one (1) or more acres of land or for a common plan of development or sale that will ultimately
disturb one (1) or more acres. [Minn. R. 7090]
3.3 For projects or common plans of development or sale that disturb less than 50 acres or do not discharge stormwater within 1
mile (aerial radius measurement) of a special or impaired water, permittees do not need to submit the SWPPP with the application.
Permit coverage for these projects is effective upon application and completing the payment process. [Minn. R.7090]
3.4 For certain projects or common plans of development or sale disturbing 50 acres or more, the complete SWPPP must be
included with the application and submitted at least 30 days before the start of construction activity. This applies if there is
a discharge point on the project within one mile (aerial radius measurement) of, and flows to, a special water listed in item
23.3 through 23.6 or an impaired water as described in item 23.7. Permit coverage for these projects is effective upon
submitting the application and complete SWPPP, completing the payment process and receiving a determination from the
MPCA that the review of the SWPPP is complete. The determination may take longer than 30 days if the SWPPP is
incomplete. If the MPCA fails to contact the permittees within 30 days of application receipt, coverage is effective 30 days
after completing the payment process. [Minn. R. 7090]
3.5 The application requires listing all persons meeting the definition of owner and operator as permittees. The owner is
responsible for compliance with all terms and conditions of this permit. The operator is responsible for compliance with
Sections 3, 4, 6-22, 24 and applicable requirements for construction activity in Section 23. [Minn. R. 7090]
3.6 Permittees will receive coverage notification in a manner determined by the MPCA. [Minn. R. 7090]
3.7 For construction projects where the owner or operator changes (e.g., an original developer sells portions of the property to
various homebuilders or sells the entire site to a new owner), the current owner and the new owner or operator must
submit a complete permit modification form provided by the MPCA. The current owner and the new owner or operator
must submit the form prior to the new owner or operator commencing construction activity or no later than 30 days after
taking ownership of the property. [Minn. R. 7090]
3.8 For construction projects where the owner or operator changes, the current owner must provide a SWPPP to the new
owner and operator that specifically addresses the remaining construction activity. The new owner or operator can
implement the original SWPPP, modify the SWPPP, or develop a new SWPPP. Permittees must ensure their activities do not
render another party's erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs ineffective. [Minn. R. 7090]
4.1 Termination of Coverage. [Minn. R. 7090]
4.2 Permittees must submit a NOT within 30 days after all termination conditions listed in Section 13 are complete.[Minn. R. 7090]
4.3 Permittees must submit a NOT within 30 days after selling or otherwise legally transferring the entire site, including permit
responsibility for roads (e.g., street sweeping) and stormwater infrastructure final clean out, or transferring portions of a site to
another party. The permittees' coverage under this permit terminates at midnight on the submission date of the NOT.[Minn. R.
7090]
4.4 Permittees may terminate permit coverage prior to completion of all construction activity if they meet all of the following
conditions:
a.construction activity has ceased for at least 90 days; and
b.at least 90 percent (by area) of all originally proposed construction activity has been completed and permanent cover has
been established on those areas; and
c.on areas where construction activity is not complete, permanent cover has been established; and
d.the site complies with item 13.3 through 13.7.
After permit coverage is terminated under this item, any subsequent development on the remaining portions of the site will
require permit coverage if the subsequent development itself or as part of the remaining common plan of development or
sale will result in land disturbing activities of one (1) or more acres in size. [Minn. R. 7090]
4.5 Permittees may terminate coverage upon MPCA approval after submitting information documenting the owner cancelled
the project. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.1 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Content. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.2 The owner must develop and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP must include items 5.3 through 5.26. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.3 The SWPPP must incorporate specific Best Management Practices (BMP) used to comply with the requirements of this
permit. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.4 The SWPPP must include a narrative describing the timing for installation of all erosion prevention and sediment control
BMPs and a description of the permanent stormwater treatment systems. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.5 The SWPPP must include the location and type of all temporary and permanent erosion prevention and sediment control
BMPs along with procedures used to establish additional temporary BMPs as necessary for the site conditions during
construction. Standard details and/or specifications for BMPs must be included in the final plans and specifications for the
project. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.6 The SWPPP must include the calculations and other information used for the design of temporary sediment basins and any of
the permanent stormwater treatment systems required in Section 15. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.7 The SWPPP must include estimated quantities anticipated at the start of the project for the life of the project for all erosion
prevention and sediment control BMPs (e.g., linear feet of silt fence or square feet of erosion control blanket). [Minn. R. 7090]
5.8 The SWPPP must include the number of acres of impervious surface for both pre- and post-construction. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.9 The SWPPP must include a site map with existing and final grades, including drainage area boundaries, directions of flow
and all discharge points where stormwater is leaving the site or entering a surface water. The site map must indicate the
areas of steep slopes. The site map must also include impervious surfaces, soil types and locations of potential pollutant-
generating activities as identified in Section 12. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.10 The SWPPP must include a map of all surface waters, existing wetlands, and stormwater ponds or basins that can be
identified on maps such as United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle maps, the National Wetland Inventory
map or equivalent maps and are within one mile (aerial radius measurement) from the project boundaries that will receive
stormwater from the construction site, during or after construction. The SWPPP must identify if the surface waters are
special or impaired waters. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.11 The SWPPP must include a site map showing construction activity areas that are adjacent to and drain to Public Waters for
which the DNR has promulgated "work in water restrictions" during specified fish spawning time frames. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.12 Permittees must identify locations of 50' buffer zones as required in item 9.17 and 100' permanent buffer zones as required in
item 23.11, on plan sheets in the SWPPP. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.13 If permittees determine compliance with the following requirements is infeasible, they must document the determination in
the SWPPP:
a.temporary sediment basins as described in Section 14; and
b.for linear projects, if the permanent stormwater treatment system cannot be constructed within the right-of-way, a
reasonable attempt must be made to obtain additional right-of-way (item 15.9); and
c.buffer zones as described in item 9.17 and item 23.11. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.14 If permittees determine that a temporary sediment basin is infeasible as described in item 14.10, the SWPPP must describe
the alternative BMPs used. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.15 Where systems cannot meet the full volume reduction requirement on-site, (e.g., the site has infiltration prohibitions, see
item 16.14 through item 16.21) the permittee must document the reasons in the SWPPP. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.16 The SWPPP must include any stormwater mitigation measures proposed to be part of the final project in any environmental
review document, endangered species review, archeological or other required local, state or federal review conducted for the
project. For purposes of this permit, mitigation measures mean actions necessary to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for impacts
related to erosion prevention, sediment control, the permanent stormwater treatment system, pollution
prevention management measures and discharges associated with the project's construction activity. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.17 The SWPPP must describe the methods used for permanent cover of all exposed soil areas. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.18 Permittees must identify the locations of areas where construction will be phased to minimize the duration of exposed soil
areas in the SWPPP. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.19 For projects with a discharge point on the project within one (1) mile (aerial radius measurement) of and which flows to an
impaired water, permittees must identify the impaired water(s), and any United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA)-approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the pollutant(s) or stressor(s) described in item 23.7. Permittees'
identification must include those TMDLs approved at any time prior to permit application submittal and are still in effect.
[Minn. R. 7090]
5.20 Permittees must document in the SWPPP, all trained individuals identified in item 21.2. Documentation must include:
a.names of personnel required to be trained; and
b.dates of training and name of instructor(s) and entity providing training; and
c.content of training course.
If permittees do not know the names of the individuals at the time of application, the permittees must ensure they
document training before construction activity commences. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.21 The SWPPP must identify a person knowledgeable and experienced in the application of erosion prevention and sediment
control BMPs who will coordinate with all contractors, subcontractors, and operators on-site to oversee the
implementation of the SWPPP. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.22 The SWPPP must describe any specific chemicals and chemical treatment systems used for enhancing the sedimentation
process and how it achieves compliance with item 9.19. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.23 The SWPPP must identify the person(s), organizations, or entities responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of
permanent stormwater treatment systems. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.24 The SWPPP must describe methods to minimize soil compaction and preserve topsoil. Minimizing soil compaction is not
required where the function of a specific area dictates compaction. [Minn. R. 7090]
5.25 The SWPPP must include any site assessments for groundwater or soil contamination required in item 16.15.[Minn. R.
7090]
5.26 The SWPPP must account for the following factors in designing temporary erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs:
a.the expected amount, frequency, intensity, and duration of precipitation; and
b.the nature of stormwater runoff and run-on at the site, including factors such as expected flow from impervious surfaces,
slopes, and site drainage features; and
c.the stormwater volume, velocity, and peak flowrates to minimize discharge of pollutants in stormwater and to minimize
channel and streambank erosion and scour in the immediate vicinity of discharge points; and
d.the range of soil particle sizes expected to be present. [Minn. R. 7090]
6.1 SWPPP Amendments. [Minn. R. 7090]
6.2 One of the individuals described in item 21.2.a or item 21.2.b or another qualified individual must complete all SWPPP
changes. Changes involving the use of a less stringent BMP must include a justification describing how the replacement
BMP is effective for the site characteristics. [Minn. R. 7090]
6.3 Permittees must amend the SWPPP within 7 days to include additional or modified BMPs whenever there is a change in
design, construction, operation, maintenance, weather or seasonal conditions having a significant effect on the discharge of
pollutants to surface waters or groundwater. [Minn. R. 7090]
6.4 Permittees must amend the SWPPP within 7 days to include additional or modified BMPs whenever inspections or
investigations by the site owner or operator, USEPA or MPCA officials indicate the SWPPP is not effective in eliminating or
significantly minimizing the discharge of pollutants to surface waters or groundwater or the discharges are causing water
quality standard exceedances (e.g., nuisance conditions as defined in Minn. R. 7050.0210, subp. 2) or the SWPPP is not
consistent with the objectives of a USEPA approved TMDL. [Minn. R. 7050.0210]
7.1 BMP Selection and Stormwater Management. [Minn. R. 7090]
7.2 Permittees must select, install, and maintain the BMPs identified in the SWPPP and in this permit in an appropriate and
functional manner and in accordance with relevant manufacturer specifications and accepted engineering practices to
minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater from construction activities. Examples of stormwater management
practices for this section include but are not limited to wet sedimentation basins, temporary depressions to hold
stormwater, stormwater routing, dikes, berms, pumping, and stormwater treatment BMPs. Permittees must phase and
incorporate stormwater management principles as the construction progresses. Unless infeasible, temporary or permanent
wet sedimentation basins (when required, see section 14 and 15) should be constructed as a first step in the process and
stormwater routed to these. [Minn. R. 7090]
7.3 Permittees must not disturb more land (i.e., phasing) than can be effectively inspected and maintained in accordance with
Section 11. [Minn. R. 7090]
7.4 If permittees will be using some type of erosion control netting on the site as part of the soil stabilization techniques,
permittees are encouraged to use products that have been shown to minimize impacts on wildlife. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service recommends using types of netting practices that are considered "wildlife friendly," including those that use natural
fiber or 100 percent biodegradable materials and that use a loose weave with a non-welded, movable jointed netting.
Products that are not wildlife friendly include square plastic netting that are degradable (e.g., photodegradable, UV-
degradable, oxo-degradable), netting made from polypropylene, nylon, polyethylene, or polyester. Other recommendations
include removing the netting product when it is no longer needed. More information may be found at:
https://www.fws.gov/initiative/protecting-wildlife/make-change-wildlife-friendly-erosion-control-products. There also may
be State, Tribal, or local requirements about using wildlife friendly erosion control products. See Minnesota Department of
Transportation requirements at: https://www.mndot.org/environment/erosion/rolled-erosion-prevention-products.html.
[Minn. R. 7050]
8.1 Erosion Prevention Practices. [Minn. R. 7090]
8.2 Before work begins, permittees must delineate the location of areas not to be disturbed. [Minn. R. 7090]
8.3 Permittees must minimize the need for disturbance of portions of the project with steep slopes. When steep slopes must be
disturbed, permittees must use techniques such as phasing and stabilization practices designed for steep slopes (e.g., slope
draining and terracing). [Minn. R. 7090]
8.4 Permittees must stabilize all exposed soil areas, including stockpiles. Stabilization must be initiated immediately to limit soil
erosion when construction activity has permanently or temporarily ceased on any portion of the site and will not resume for a
period exceeding 14 calendar days (7 days for sites discharging to special or impaired waters, see section 24). Stabilization must
be completed no later than 14 calendar days after the construction activity has ceased. Stabilization is not required on
constructed base components of roads, parking lots and similar surfaces. Stabilization is not required on temporary stockpiles
without significant silt, clay or organic components (e.g., clean aggregate stockpiles, demolition concrete
stockpiles, sand stockpiles) but permittees must provide sediment controls at the base of the stockpile. [Minn. R. 7090]
8.5 For Public Waters that the Minnesota DNR has promulgated "work in water restrictions" during specified fish spawning time
frames, permittees must complete stabilization of all exposed soil areas within 200 feet of the water's edge, and that drain to
these waters, within 24 hours during the restriction period. [Minn. R. 7090]
8.6 Permittees must stabilize the normal wetted perimeter of the last 200 linear feet of temporary or permanent drainage
ditches or swales that drain water from the site within 24 hours after connecting to a surface water or property edge.
Permittees must complete stabilization of remaining portions of temporary or permanent ditches or swales within 14
calendar days (7 days for sites discharging to special or impaired waters, see section 24) after connecting to a surface water
or property edge and construction in that portion of the ditch temporarily or permanently ceases. [Minn. R. 7090]
8.7 Temporary or permanent ditches or swales being used as a sediment containment system during construction (with
properly designed rock-ditch checks, bio rolls, silt dikes, etc.) do not need to be stabilized. Permittees must stabilize these
areas within 24 hours after their use as a sediment containment system ceases. [Minn. R. 7090]
8.8 Permittees must not use mulch, hydromulch, tackifier, polyacrylamide or similar erosion prevention practices within any
portion of the normal wetted perimeter of a temporary or permanent drainage ditch or swale section with a continuous
slope of greater than 2 percent. Examples of acceptable erosion prevention practices include blankets, poly, riprap, etc.
[Minn. R. 7090]
8.9 Permittees must provide temporary or permanent energy dissipation at all pipe outlets within 24 hours after connection to a
surface water or permanent stormwater treatment system. [Minn. R. 7090]
9.1 Sediment Control Practices. [Minn. R. 7090]
9.2 Permittees must establish sediment control BMPs on all downgradient perimeters of the site and downgradient areas of the
site that drain to any surface water, including curb and gutter systems. Permittees must locate sediment control practices
upgradient of any buffer zones. Permittees must install sediment control practices before any upgradient land-disturbing
activities begin and must keep the sediment control practices in place until they establish permanent cover. [Minn. R. 7090]
9.3 If downgradient sediment controls are overloaded, based on frequent failure or excessive maintenance requirements,
permittees must install additional upgradient sediment control practices or redundant BMPs to eliminate the overloading
and amend the SWPPP to identify these additional practices as required in item 6.3. [Minn. R. 7090]
9.4 Temporary or permanent drainage ditches and sediment basins designed as part of a sediment containment system (e.g.,
ditches with rock-check dams) require sediment control practices only as appropriate for site conditions. [Minn. R. 7090]
9.5 A floating silt curtain placed in the water is not a sediment control BMP to satisfy item 9.2 except when working on a
shoreline or below the waterline. Immediately after the construction activity (e.g., installation of rip rap along the shoreline)
in that area is complete, permittees must install an upland perimeter control practice if exposed soils still drain to a surface
water.[Minn. R. 7090]
9.6 Permittees must re-install all sediment control practices adjusted or removed to accommodate short-term activities such as
clearing or grubbing, or passage of vehicles, immediately after the short-term activity is completed. Permittees must re-
install sediment control practices before the next precipitation event even if the short-term activity is not complete.
[Minn. R. 7090]
9.7 Permittees must protect all storm drain inlets using appropriate BMPs during construction until they establish permanent
cover on all areas with potential for discharging to the inlet. [Minn. R. 7090]
9.8 Permittees may remove inlet protection for a particular inlet if a specific safety concern (e.g. street flooding/freezing) is
identified by the permittees or the jurisdictional authority (e.g., city/county/township/Minnesota Department of
Transportation engineer). Permittees must document the need for removal in the SWPPP. [Minn. R. 7090]
9.9 Permittees must provide silt fence or other effective sediment controls at the base of stockpiles on the downgradient
perimeter prior to the initiation of stockpiling. Sediment controls must be managed in accordance with section 9.6.
[Minn. R. 7090]
9.10 Permittees must locate stockpiles outside of natural buffers or surface waters, including stormwater conveyances such as
curb and gutter systems unless there is a bypass in place for the stormwater. [Minn. R. 7090]
9.11 Permittees must install a vehicle tracking BMP to minimize the track out of sediment from the construction site or onto
paved roads within the site. [Minn. R. 7090]
9.12 Permittees must use street sweeping in addition to vehicle tracking BMPs if vehicle tracking BMPs alone are not adequate
to prevent sediment tracking onto the street. [Minn. R. 7090]
9.13 Permittees must install temporary sediment basins as required in Section 14. [Minn. R. 7090]
9.14 In any areas of the site where final vegetative stabilization will occur, permittees must restrict vehicle and equipment use
to minimize soil compaction. [Minn. R. 7090]
9.15 Permittees must preserve topsoil on the site, unless infeasible. [Minn. R. 7090]
9.16 Permittees must direct discharges from BMPs to vegetated areas unless infeasible. [Minn. R. 7090]
9.17 Permittees must preserve a 50-foot natural buffer or, if a buffer is infeasible on the site, provide redundant (double)
perimeter sediment controls when a surface water is located within 50 feet of the project's earth disturbances and
stormwater flows to the surface water. Permittees must install perimeter sediment controls at least 5 feet apart unless
limited by lack of available space. Natural buffers are not required adjacent to road ditches, judicial ditches, county ditches,
stormwater conveyance channels, storm drain inlets, and sediment basins. If preserving the buffer is infeasible, permittees
must document the reasons in the SWPPP. Sheet piling and other impermeable barriers installed in a manner that retains all
stormwater are considered redundant perimeter control. [Minn. R. 7090]
9.18 Any sediment control made of soil must be temporarily or permanently stabilized within 24 hours. [Minn. R. 7090]
9.19 Permittees must use polymers, flocculants, or other sedimentation treatment chemicals in accordance with accepted
engineering practices, dosing specifications and sediment removal design specifications provided by the manufacturer or
supplier. The permittees must use conventional erosion and sediment controls prior to chemical addition and must direct
treated stormwater to a sediment control system for filtration or settlement of the floc prior to discharge. [Minn. R. 7090]
10.1 Dewatering and Basin Draining. [Minn. R. 7090]
10.2 Permittees must not cause nuisance conditions (see Minn. R. 7050.0210, subp. 2) in surface waters from dewatering and
basin draining (e.g., pumped discharges, trench/ditch cuts for drainage) discharges. Permittees must discharge turbid or
sediment-laden waters related to dewatering or basin draining to a sediment control (e.g. sediment trap or basin, filter bag)
designed to prevent discharges with visual turbidity. To the extent feasible, use well-vegetated (e.g., grassy or wooded),
upland areas of the site to infiltrate dewatering water before discharge. Permittees are prohibited from using receiving
waters as part of the treatment area. Permittees must visually check and photograph the discharge at the beginning and at
least once every 24 hours of operation to ensure adequate treatment has been obtained and nuisance conditions will not result
from the discharge. [Minn. R. 7050.0210]
10.3 If nuisance conditions result from the discharge, Permittees must cease dewatering immediately and corrective actions
must occur before dewatering is resumed. Nuisance conditions includes, but is not limited to, a sediment plume in the
discharge or the discharge appears cloudy, or opaque, or has a visible contrast, or has a visible oil film, or has aquatic
habitat degradation that can be identified by an observer. [Minn. R. 7050.0210]
10.4 If permittees must discharge water containing oil or grease, they must use an oil-water separator or suitable filtration
device (e.g., cartridge filters, absorbents pads) prior to discharge. [Minn. R. 7090]
10.5 Permittees must discharge all water from dewatering or basin-draining activities in a manner that does not cause erosion or
scour in the immediate vicinity of discharge points or inundation of wetlands in the immediate vicinity of discharge points
that causes significant adverse impact to the wetland. [Minn. R. 7090]
10.6 If permittees use filters with backwash water, they must haul the backwash water away for disposal, return the backwash
water to the beginning of the treatment process, or incorporate the backwash water into the site in a manner that does not cause
erosion. [Minn. R. 7090]
11.1 Inspections and Maintenance. [Minn. R. 7090]
11.2 Permittees must ensure a trained person, as identified in item 21.2.b, will inspect the entire construction site at least once
every seven (7) days during active construction and within 24 hours after a rainfall event greater than 1/2 inch in 24 hours.
[Minn. R. 7090]
11.3 Permittees must inspect and maintain all permanent stormwater treatment BMPs. [Minn. R. 7090]
11.4 Permittees must inspect all erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs and Pollution Prevention Management
Measures to ensure integrity and effectiveness. Permittees must repair, replace or supplement all nonfunctional BMPs with
functional BMPs by the end of the next business day after discovery unless another time frame is specified in item 11.5 or
11.6.Permittees may take additional time if field conditions prevent access to the area. [Minn. R. 7090]
11.5 During each inspection, permittees must inspect areas adjacent to the project, surface waters, including drainage ditches
and conveyance systems but not curb and gutter systems, for evidence of erosion and sediment deposition. Permittees
must remove all deltas and sediment deposited in areas adjacent to the project, surface waters, including drainage ways,
catch basins, and other drainage systems and restabilize the areas where sediment removal results in exposed soil.
Permittees must complete removal and stabilization within seven (7) calendar days of discovery unless precluded by legal,
regulatory, or physical access constraints. Permittees must use all reasonable efforts to obtain access. If precluded, removal
and stabilization must take place within seven (7) days of obtaining access. Permittees are responsible for contacting all
local, regional, state and federal authorities and receiving any applicable permits, prior to conducting any work in surface
waters.[Minn. R. 7090]
11.6 Permittees must inspect construction site vehicle exit locations, streets and curb and gutter systems within and adjacent to
the project for sedimentation from erosion or tracked sediment from vehicles. Permittees must remove sediment from all
paved surfaces within one (1) calendar day of discovery or, if applicable, within a shorter time to avoid a safety hazard to
users of public streets. [Minn. R. 7090]
11.7 Permittees must repair, replace or supplement all perimeter control devices when they become nonfunctional or the
sediment reaches 1/2 of the height of the device. [Minn. R. 7090]
11.8 Permittees must drain temporary and permanent sedimentation basins and remove the sediment when the depth of
sediment collected in the basin reaches 1/2 the storage volume within 72 hours of discovery. [Minn. R. 7090]
11.9 Permittee's must inspect and photograph dewatering discharges at the beginning and at least once every 24 hours during
operation. Dewatering discharges that only last for minutes, as opposed to hours, and do not reach a surface water, do not require
photographs or documentation. [Minn. R. 7090]
11.10 Permittees must ensure that at least one individual present on the site (or available to the project site in three (3) calendar
days) is trained in the job duties described in item 21.2.b. [Minn. R. 7090]
11.11 Permittees may adjust the inspection schedule described in item 11.2 as follows:
a.inspections of areas with permanent cover can be reduced to once per month, even if construction activity continues on
other portions of the site; or
b.where sites have permanent cover on all exposed soil and no construction activity is occurring anywhere on the site,
inspections can be reduced to once per month and, after 12 months, may be suspended completely until construction
activity resumes. The MPCA may require inspections to resume if conditions warrant; or
c.where construction activity has been suspended due to frozen ground conditions, inspections may be suspended.
Inspections must resume within 24 hours of runoff occurring, or upon resuming construction, whichever comes first.
d.for projects where a pollinator habitat or native prairie type vegetated cover is being established, inspections may be
reduced to once per month if the site has temporary vegetation with a density of 70% temporary uniform cover. If after 24
months no significant erosion problems are observed, inspections may be suspended completely until the termination
requirements in section 13 have been met. [Minn. R. 7090]
11.12 Permittees must record all inspections and maintenance activities within 24 hours of being conducted and these records
must be retained with the SWPPP. These records must include:
a.date and time of inspections; and
b.name of persons conducting inspections; and
c.accurate findings of inspections, including the specific location where corrective actions are needed; and
d.corrective actions taken (including dates, times, and party completing maintenance activities); and
e.date of all rainfall events greater than 1/2 inches in 24 hours, and the amount of rainfall for each event. Permittees must
obtain rainfall amounts by either a properly maintained rain gauge installed on-site, a weather station that is within one (1) mile of
your location, or a weather reporting system that provides site specific rainfall data from radar summaries; and
f.if permittees observe a discharge during the inspection, they must record and should photograph and describe the
location of the discharge (i.e., color, odor, settled or suspended solids, oil sheen, and other obvious indicators of pollutants);
and
g.any amendments to the SWPPP proposed as a result of the inspection must be documented as required in Section 6
within seven (7) calendar days; and
h.all photographs of dewatering activities and documentation of nuisance conditions resulting from dewatering activities as
described in section 10. [Minn. R. 7090]
12.1 Pollution Prevention Management Measures. [Minn. R. 7090]
12.2 Permittees must place construction materials and landscape materials under cover (e.g., plastic sheeting or temporary
days)or protect them by similarly effective means designed to minimize contact with stormwater. Permittees are not
required to cover or protect products which are either not a source of contamination to stormwater or are designed to be
exposed to stormwater. [Minn. R. 7090]
12.3 Permittees must place pesticides, fertilizers and treatment chemicals under cover (e.g., plastic sheeting or temporary roofs) or
protect them by similarly effective means designed to minimize contact with stormwater. [Minn. R. 7090]
12.4 Permittees must store hazardous materials and toxic waste, (including oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluids, paint
solvents, petroleum-based products, wood preservatives, additives, curing compounds, and acids) in sealed containers to
prevent spills, leaks or other discharge. Storage and disposal of hazardous waste materials must be in compliance with
Minn. R. ch. 7045 including secondary containment as applicable. [Minn. R. 7090]
12.5 Permittees must properly store, collect and dispose solid waste in compliance with Minn. R. ch. 7035. [Minn. R. 7035]
12.6 Permittees must position portable toilets so they are secure and will not tip or be knocked over. Permittees must properly
dispose sanitary waste in accordance with Minn. R. ch. 7041. [Minn. R. 7041]
12.7 Permittees must take reasonable steps to prevent the discharge of spilled or leaked chemicals, including fuel, from any area
where chemicals or fuel will be loaded or unloaded including the use of drip pans or absorbents unless infeasible.
Permittees must ensure adequate supplies are available at all times to clean up discharged materials and that an
appropriate disposal method is available for recovered spilled materials. Permittees must report and clean up spills
immediately as required by Minn. Stat. 115.061, using dry clean up measures where possible. [Minn. Stat. 115.061]
12.8 Permittees must limit vehicle exterior washing and equipment to a defined area of the site. Permittees must contain runoff
from the washing area in a sediment basin or other similarly effective controls and must dispose waste from the washing activity
properly. Permittees must properly use and store soaps, detergents, or solvents. [Minn. R. 7090]
12.9 Permittees must provide effective containment for all liquid and solid wastes generated by washout operations (e.g.,
concrete, stucco, paint, form release oils, curing compounds and other construction materials) related to the construction
activity. Permittees must prevent liquid and solid washout wastes from contacting the ground and must design the
containment so it does not result in runoff from the washout operations or areas. Permittees must properly dispose liquid
and solid wastes in compliance with MPCA rules. Permittees must install a sign indicating the location of the washout
facility. [Minn. R. 7035, Minn. R. 7090]
13.1 Permit Termination Conditions. [Minn. R. 7090]
13.2 Permittees must complete all construction activity and must install permanent cover over all areas prior to submitting the
NOT. Vegetative cover must consist of a uniform perennial vegetation with a density of 70 percent of its expected final growth
Vegetation is not required where the function of a specific area dictates no vegetation, such as impervious surfaces
or the base of a sand filter. [Minn. R. 7090]
13.3 Permittees must clean the permanent stormwater treatment system of any accumulated sediment and must ensure the
system meets all applicable requirements in Section 15 through 19 and is operating as designed. [Minn. R. 7090]
13.4 Permittees must remove all sediment from conveyance systems prior to submitting the NOT. [Minn. R. 7090]
13.5 Permittees must remove all temporary synthetic erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs prior to submitting the
NOT.Permittees may leave BMPs designed to decompose on-site in place. [Minn. R. 7090]
13.6 For residential construction only, permit coverage terminates on individual lots if the lot is sold to the homeowner,
structures are finished, and permanent cover has been established. For lots that are sold to the homeowner where
permanent cover has not been established, coverage terminates if temporary erosion prevention and downgradient
perimeter control is properly installed and the permittee distributes the MPCA's "Homeowner Fact Sheet" to the
homeowner. [Minn. R. 7090]
13.7 For construction projects on agricultural land (e.g., pipelines across cropland), permittees must return the disturbed land to its
preconstruction agricultural use prior to submitting the NOT. [Minn. R. 7090]
13.8 When submitting the NOT, Permittees must include either ground or aerial photographs showing the requirements of 13.2
have been met. Permittees are not required to take photographs of every distinct part of the site, however the conditions
portrayed must be substantially similar to those areas that are not photographed. Photographs must be clear and in focus and must
include the date the photo was taken. [Minn. R. 7090]
14.1 Temporary Sediment Basins. [Minn. R. 7090]
14.2 Where ten (10) or more acres of disturbed soil (5 acres for sites discharging to special or impaired waters, see section 24)
drain to a common location, permittees must provide a temporary sediment basin to provide treatment of the runoff
before it leaves the construction site or enters surface waters. Permittees may convert a temporary sediment basin to a
permanent basin after construction is complete. The temporary basin is no longer required when permanent cover has
reduced the acreage of disturbed soil to less than ten (10) acres draining to a common location. [Minn. R. 7090]
14.3 The temporary basin must provide live storage for a calculated volume of runoff from a two (2)-year, 24-hour storm from
each acre drained to the basin or 1,800 cubic feet of live storage per acre drained, whichever is greater. [Minn. R. 7090]
14.4 Where permittees have not calculated the two (2)-year, 24-hour storm runoff amount, the temporary basin must provide
3,600 cubic feet of live storage per acre of the basins' drainage area. [Minn. R. 7090]
14.5 Permittees must design basin outlets to prevent short-circuiting and the discharge of floating debris. [Minn. R. 7090]
14.6 Permittees must design the outlet structure to withdraw water from the surface to minimize the discharge of pollutants.
Permittees may temporarily suspend the use of a surface withdrawal mechanism during frozen conditions. The basin must
include a stabilized emergency overflow to prevent failure of pond integrity. [Minn. R. 7090]
14.7 Permittees must provide energy dissipation for the basin outlet within 24 hours after connection to a surface water.
[Minn. R. 7090]
14.8 Permittees must locate temporary basins outside of surface waters and any buffer zone required in item 23.11.[Minn. R. 7090]
14.9 Permittees must construct the temporary basins prior to disturbing 10 or more acres of soil draining to a common location.
[Minn. R. 7090]
14.10 Where a temporary sediment basin meeting the requirements of item 14.3 through 14.9 is infeasible, permittees must
install effective sediment controls such as smaller sediment basins and/or sediment traps, silt fences, vegetative buffer
strips or any appropriate combination of measures as dictated by individual site conditions. In determining whether
installing a sediment basin is infeasible, permittees must consider public safety and may consider factors such as site soils,
slope, and available area on-site. Permittees must document this determination of infeasibility in the SWPPP.[Minn. R. 7090]
15.1 Permanent Stormwater Treatment System. [Minn. R. 7090]
15.2 Permittees must design and implement the project so all stormwater discharged from the project during and after
construction activities does not cause a violation of state water quality standards, including nuisance conditions, erosion in
receiving channels or on downslope properties, or a significant adverse impact to wetlands caused by inundation or
decrease of flow. [Minn. R. 7090]
NPDES REQUIREMENTS
15.3 Permittees must design and construct a permanent stormwater treatment system to treat the water quality volume if the
project's ultimate development replaces vegetation and/or other pervious surfaces creating a net increase of one (1) or more
acres of cumulative impervious surface. [Minn. R. 7090]
15.4 Permittees must calculate the water quality volume as one (1) inch times the net increase of impervious surfaces created by
the project. [Minn. R. 7090]
15.5 Permittees must first consider volume reduction practices on-site (e.g., infiltration or other) when designing the permanent
stormwater treatment system. If this permit prohibits infiltration as described in item 16.14 through item 16.21, permittees may
consider a wet sedimentation basin, filtration basin or regional pond. This permit does not consider wet sedimentation basins and
filtration systems to be volume reduction practices. [Minn. R. 7090]
15.6 For projects where the full volume reduction requirement cannot be met on-site, (e.g., the site has infiltration prohibitions),
permittees must document the reasons in the SWPPP. [Minn. R. 7090]
15.7 Permittees must discharge the water quality volume to a permanent stormwater treatment system prior to discharge to a
surface water. For purposes of this item, surface waters do not include man-made drainage systems that convey
stormwater to a permanent stormwater treatment system. [Minn. R. 7090]
15.8 Where the proximity to bedrock precludes the installation of any of the permanent stormwater treatment practices
required by Sections 15 through 19, permittees must install other treatment such as grassed swales, smaller ponds, or grit
chambers, prior to the discharge of stormwater to surface waters. [Minn. R. 7090]
15.9 For linear projects where permittees cannot treat the entire water quality volume within the existing right-of-way,
permittees must make a reasonable attempt to obtain additional right-of-way, easement or other permission for
stormwater treatment during the project planning process. Documentation of these attempts must be in the SWPPP.
Permittees must still consider volume reduction practices first as described in item 15.5. If permittees cannot obtain
additional right-of-way, easement or other permission, they must maximize the treatment of the water quality volume prior
to discharge to surface waters. [Minn. R. 7090]
16.1 Infiltration Systems. [Minn. R. 7090]
16.2 Infiltration options include, but are not limited to: infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, rainwater gardens, bioretention
areas without underdrains, swales with impermeable check dams, and natural depressions. If permittees utilize an infiltration
system to meet the requirements of this permit, they must incorporate the design parameters in item 16.3
through item 16.21. Permittees must follow the infiltration prohibition in item 16.14 anytime an infiltration system is
designed, including those not required by this permit. [Minn. R. 7090]
16.3 Permittees must design infiltration systems such that pre-existing hydrologic conditions of wetlands in the vicinity are not
impacted (e.g., inundation or breaching a perched water table supporting a wetland). [Minn. R. 7090]
16.4 Permittees must not excavate infiltration systems to final grade, or within three (3) feet of final grade, until the contributing
drainage area has been constructed and fully stabilized unless they provide rigorous erosion prevention and sediment controls
(e.g., diversion berms) to keep sediment and runoff completely away from the infiltration area. [Minn. R. 7090]
16.5 When excavating an infiltration system to within three (3) feet of final grade, permittees must stake off and mark the area so
heavy construction vehicles or equipment do not compact the soil in the infiltration area. [Minn. R. 7090]
16.6 Permittees must use a pretreatment device such as a vegetated filter strip, forebay, or water quality inlet (e.g., grit
chamber) to remove solids, floating materials, and oil and grease from the runoff, to the maximum extent practicable,
before the system routes stormwater to the infiltration system. [Minn. R. 7090]
16.7 Permittees must design infiltration systems to provide a water quality volume (calculated as an instantaneous volume) of
one (1) inch of runoff, or one (1) inch minus the volume of stormwater treated by another system on the site, from the net
increase of impervious surfaces created by the project. [Minn. R. 7090]
16.8 Permittees must design the infiltration system to discharge all stormwater (including stormwater in excess of the water
quality volume) routed to the system through the uppermost soil surface or engineered media surface within 48 hours.
Permittees must route additional flows that cannot infiltrate within 48 hours to bypass the system through a stabilized
discharge point. [Minn. R. 7090]
16.9 Permittees must provide a means to visually verify the infiltration system is discharging through the soil surface or filter
media surface within 48 hours or less. [Minn. R. 7090]
16.10 Permittees must provide at least one soil boring, test pit or infiltrometer test in the location of the infiltration practice for
determining infiltration rates. [Minn. R. 7090]
16.11 For design purposes, permittees must divide field measured infiltration rates by 2 as a safety factor or permittees can use
soil-boring results with the infiltration rate chart in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual to determine design infiltration
rates.When soil borings indicate type A soils, permittees should perform field measurements to verify the rate is not above 8.3
inches per hour. This permit prohibits infiltration if the field measured infiltration rate is above 8.3 inches per hour.
[Minn. R. 7090]
16.12 Permittees must employ appropriate on-site testing to ensure a minimum of three (3) feet of separation from the
seasonally saturated soils (or from bedrock) and the bottom of the proposed infiltration system. [Minn. R. 7090]
16.13 Permittees must design a maintenance access, typically eight (8) feet wide, for the infiltration system. [Minn. R. 7090]
16.14 This permit prohibits permittees from constructing infiltration systems that receive runoff from vehicle fueling and
maintenance areas including construction of infiltration systems not required by this permit. [Minn. R. 7090]
16.15 This permit prohibits permittees from constructing infiltration systems where infiltrating stormwater may mobilize high
levels of contaminants in soil or groundwater. Permittees must either complete the MPCA's contamination screening
checklist or conduct their own assessment to determine the suitability for infiltration. Permittees must retain the checklist
or assessment with the SWPPP. For more information and to access the MPCA's "contamination screening checklist" see the
Minnesota Stormwater Manual. [Minn. R. 7090]
16.16 This permit prohibits permittees from constructing infiltration systems in areas where soil infiltration rates are field
measured at more than 8.3 inches per hour unless they amend soils to slow the infiltration rate below 8.3 inches per hour.
[Minn. R. 7090]
16.17 This permit prohibits permittees from constructing infiltration systems in areas with less than three (3) feet of separation
distance from the bottom of the infiltration system to the elevation of the seasonally saturated soils or the top of bedrock.
[Minn. R. 7090]
16.18 This permit prohibits permittees from constructing infiltration systems in areas of predominately Hydrologic Soil Group type
D soils (clay). [Minn. R. 7090]
16.19 This permit prohibits permittees from constructing infiltration systems within a Drinking Water Supply Management Area
(DWSMA) as defined in Minn. R. 4720.5100, subp. 13, if the system will be located:
a.in an Emergency Response Area (ERA) within a DWSMA classified as having high or very high vulnerability as defined by the
Minnesota Department of Health; or
b.in an ERA within a DWSMA classified as moderate vulnerability unless a regulated MS4 Permittee performed or approved a
higher level of engineering review sufficient to provide a functioning treatment system and to prevent adverse impacts to
groundwater; or
c.outside of an ERA within a DWSMA classified as having high or very high vulnerability, unless a regulated MS4 Permittee
performed or approved a higher level of engineering review sufficient to provide a functioning treatment system and to prevent
adverse impacts to groundwater.
See "higher level of engineering review" in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual for more information. [Minn. R. 7090]
16.20 This permit prohibits permittees from constructing infiltration systems in areas within 1,000 feet upgradient or 100 feet
downgradient of active karst features. [Minn. R. 7090]
16.21 This permit prohibits permittees from constructing infiltration systems in areas that receive runoff from the following
industrial facilities not authorized to infiltrate stormwater under the NPDES stormwater permit for industrial activities:
wood preserving facilities; automobile salvage yards; scrap recycling and waste recycling facilities; hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal facilities; or air transportation facilities that conduct deicing activities. [Minn. R. 7090]
17.1 Filtration Systems. [Minn. R. 7090]
17.2 Filtration options include but are not limited to: sand filters with underdrains, biofiltration areas, swales using underdrains
with impermeable check dams and underground sand filters. If permittees utilize a filtration system to meet the permanent
stormwater treatment requirements of this permit, they must comply with items 17.3 through 17.11. [Minn. R. 7090]
17.3 Permittees must not install filter media until they construct and fully stabilize the contributing drainage area unless they
provide rigorous erosion prevention and sediment controls (e.g., diversion berms) to keep sediment and runoff completely
away from the filtration area. [Minn. R. 7090]
17.4 Permittees must design filtration systems to remove at least 80 percent of TSS. [Minn. R. 7090]
17.5 Permittees must use a pretreatment device such as a vegetated filter strip, small sedimentation basin, water quality inlet,
forebay or hydrodynamic separator to remove settleable solids, floating materials, and oils and grease from the runoff, to the
maximum extent practicable, before runoff enters the filtration system. [Minn. R. 7090]
17.6 Permittees must design filtration systems to treat a water quality volume (calculated as an instantaneous volume) of one (1)
inch of runoff, or one (1) inch minus the volume of stormwater treated by another system on the site, from the net increase of
impervious surfaces created by the project. [Minn. R. 7090]
17.7 Permittees must design the filtration system to discharge all stormwater (including stormwater in excess of the water
quality volume) routed to the system through the uppermost soil surface or engineered media surface within 48 hours.
Additional flows that the system cannot filter within 48 hours must bypass the system or discharge through an emergency
overflow. [Minn. R. 7090]
17.8 Permittees must design the filtration system to provide a means to visually verify the system is discharging through the soil
surface or filter media within 48 hours. [Minn. R. 7090]
17.9 Permittees must employ appropriate on-site testing to ensure a minimum of three (3) feet of separation between the
seasonally saturated soils (or from bedrock) and the bottom of the proposed filtration system. [Minn. R. 7090]
17.10 Permittees must ensure that filtration systems with less than three (3) feet of separation between seasonally saturated soils
or from bedrock are constructed with an impermeable liner. [Minn. R. 7090]
17.11 The permittees must design a maintenance access, typically eight (8) feet wide, for the filtration system. [Minn. R. 7090]
18.1 Wet Sedimentation Basin. [Minn. R. 7090]
18.2 Permittees using a wet sedimentation basin to meet the permanent stormwater treatment requirements of this permit
must incorporate the design parameters in item 18.3 through 18.10. [Minn. R. 7090]
18.3 Permittees must design the basin to have a permanent volume of 1,800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe for each
acre that drains to the basin. The basin's permanent volume must reach a minimum depth of at least three (3) feet and
must have no depth greater than 10 feet. Permittees must configure the basin to minimize scour or resuspension of solids.
[Minn. R. 7090]
18.4 Permittees must design the basin to provide live storage for a water quality volume (calculated as an instantaneous volume)
of one (1) inch of runoff, or one (1) inch minus the volume of stormwater treated by another system on the site, from the net
increase in impervious surfaces created by the project. [Minn. R. 7090]
18.5 Permittees must design basin outlets so the water quality volume discharges at no more than 5.66 cubic feet per second (cfs)
per acre of surface area of the basin. [Minn. R. 7090]
18.6 Permittees must design basin outlets to prevent short-circuiting and the discharge of floating debris. Basin outlets must
have energy dissipation. [Minn. R. 7090]
18.7 Permittees must design the basin to include a stabilized emergency overflow to accommodate storm events in excess of the
basin's hydraulic design. [Minn. R. 7090]
18.8 Permittees must design a maintenance access, typically eight (8) feet wide, for the basin. [Minn. R. 7090]
18.9 Permittees must locate basins outside of surface waters and any buffer zone required in item 23.11. Permittees must design
basins to avoid draining water from wetlands unless the impact to the wetland complies with the requirements of Section 22.
[Minn. R. 7090]
18.10 Permittees must design basins using an impermeable liner if located within active karst terrain. [Minn. R. 7090]
19.1 Regional Wet Sedimentation Basins. [Minn. R. 7090]
19.2 When the entire water quality volume cannot be treated by volume reduction practices on-site, permittees can use or
create regional wet sedimentation basins provided they are constructed basins, not a natural wetland or water body,
(wetlands used as regional basins must be mitigated for, see Section 22). The owner must ensure the regional basin
conforms to all requirements for a wet sedimentation basin as described in items 18.3 through 18.10 and must be large
enough to account for the entire area that drains to the regional basin. Permittees must verify that the regional basin will
discharge at no more than 5.66 cfs per acre of surface area of the basin and must provide a live storage volume of one-inch
times all the impervious area draining to the basin. Permittees cannot significantly degrade waterways between the project
and the regional basin. The owner must obtain written authorization from the applicable LGU or private entity that owns
and maintains the regional basin. [Minn. R. 7090]
20.1 SWPPP Availability. [Minn. R. 7090]
20.2 Permittees must keep the SWPPP on-site, or electronically available on-site, during normal working hours with personnel
who have operational control over the applicable portion of the site, including all changes to the SWPPP, inspections, and
maintenance records. [Minn. R. 7090]
21.1 Training Requirements. [Minn. R. 7090]
21.2 Permittees must ensure all of the following individuals receive training and the content and extent of the training is
commensurate with the individual's job duties and responsibilities with regard to activities covered under this permit:
a.Individuals preparing the SWPPP for the project.
b.Individuals overseeing implementation of, revising and/or amending the SWPPP and individuals performing inspections
for the project. One of these individuals must be available for an on-site inspection within 72 hours upon request by the MPCA.
c.Individuals performing or supervising the installation, maintenance and repair of BMPs. [Minn. R. 7090]
21.3 Permittees must ensure individuals identified in Section 21 receive training from local, state, federal agencies, professional
organizations, or other entities with expertise in erosion prevention, sediment control, permanent stormwater treatment and the
Minnesota NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater permit. Permittees must ensure these individuals attend a refresher-training
course every three (3) years. [Minn. R. 7090]
22.1 Requirements for Discharges to Wetlands. [Minn. R. 7050.0186]
22.2 If the project has any discharges with the potential for significant adverse impacts to a wetland, (e.g., conversion of a
natural wetland to a stormwater pond) permittees must demonstrate that the wetland mitigative sequence has been
followed in accordance with items 22.3 or 22.4. [Minn. R. 7050.0186]
22.3 If the potential adverse impacts to a wetland on a specific project site are addressed by permits or other approvals from an
official statewide program (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, or the State
of Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act) that are issued specifically for the project and project site, permittees may
use the permit, decision or other determination issued by these agencies to show the potential adverse impacts are
addressed. For purposes of this permit, deminimus actions are determinations by the permitting agency that address the
project impacts, whereas a non-jurisdictional determination does not address project impacts. [Minn. R. 7090]
22.4 If there are impacts from the project not addressed in one of the permits, decisions or other determinations discussed in
item 22.3 (e.g., permanent inundation or flooding of the wetland, significant degradation of water quality, excavation,
filling, draining), permittees must minimize all adverse impacts to wetlands by utilizing appropriate measures. Permittees
must use measures based on the nature of the wetland, its vegetative community types and the established hydrology.
These measures include in order of preference:
a.avoid all significant adverse impacts to wetlands from the project and post-project discharge;
b.minimize any unavoidable impacts from the project and post-project discharge;
c.provide compensatory mitigation when the permittees determine(s) that there is no reasonable and practicable
alternative to having a significant adverse impact on a wetland. For compensatory mitigation, wetland restoration or
creation must be of the same type, size and whenever reasonable and practicable in the same watershed as the impacted
wetland. [Minn. R. 7050.0186]
23.1 Additional Requirements for Discharges to Special (Prohibited, Restricted, Other) and Impaired Waters. [Minn. R. 7090]
23.2 The BMPs identified for each special or impaired water are required for those areas of the project draining to a discharge
point on the project that is within one mile (aerial radius measurement) of special or impaired water and flows to that
special or impaired water. [Minn. R. 7090]
23.3 Discharges to the following special waters identified as Prohibited in Minn. R. 7050.0335 subp. 3 must incorporate the BMPs
outlined in items 23.9, 23.10, 23.11, 23.13 and 23.14:
a.Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness; Voyageurs National Park; Kettle River from the site of the former dam at
Sandstone to its confluence with the Saint Croix River; Rum River from Ogechie Lake spillway to the northernmost
confluence with Lake Onamia.
b.Those portions of Lake Superior North of latitude 47 degrees, 57 minutes, 13 seconds, East of Hat Point, South of the
Minnesota-Ontario boundary, and West of the Minnesota-Michigan boundary;
c.Scientific and Natural Areas identified as in Minn. R. 7050.0335 Subp. 3: Boot Lake, Anoka County; Kettle River in sections
15, 22, 23, T 41 N, R 20, Pine County; Pennington Bog, Beltrami County; Purvis Lake-Ober Foundation, Saint Louis County; waters
within the borders of Itasca Wilderness Sanctuary, Clearwater County; Iron Springs Bog, Clearwater County;
Wolsfeld Woods, Hennepin County; Green Water Lake, Becker County; Blackdog Preserve, Dakota County; Prairie Bush
Clover, Jackson County; Black Lake Bog, Pine County; Pembina Trail Preserve, Polk County; and Falls Creek, Washington
County. [Minn. R. 7050.0335, subp. 3]
23.4 Discharges to the following special waters identified as Restricted in Minn. R. 7050.0335 subp.1 must incorporate the BMPs
outlined in items 23.9, 23.10 and 23.11:
a.Lake Superior, except those portions identified as prohibited in item 23.3.b;
b.Mississippi River in those portions from Lake Itasca to the southerly boundary of Morrison County that are included in the
Mississippi Headwaters Board comprehensive plan dated February 12, 1981;
c.Scenic or Recreational River Segments: Saint Croix River, entire length; Cannon River from northern city limits of Faribault
to its confluence with the Mississippi River; North Fork of the Crow River from Lake Koronis outlet to the Meeker-Wright county
line; Kettle River from north Pine County line to the site of the former dam at Sandstone; Minnesota River from Lac que Parle
dam to Redwood County State Aid Highway 11; Mississippi River from County State Aid Highway 7 bridge in Saint Cloud to
northwestern city limits of Anoka; and Rum River from State Highway 27 bridge in Onamia to Madison and Rice streets in Anoka;
d.Lake Trout Lakes identified in Minn. R. 7050.0335 including lake trout lakes inside the boundaries of the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park;
e.Calcareous Fens listed in Minn. R. 7050.0335, subp. 1. [Minn. R. 7050.0335, subp. 1]
23.5 Discharges to the Trout Lakes (other special water) identified in Minn. R. 6264.0050, subp. 2 and Minn. R. 7050.0420 must
incorporate the BMPs outlined in items 23.9, 23.10 and 23.11. [Minn. R. 6264.0050, subp. 2, Minn. R. 7050]
23.6 Discharges to the Trout Streams (other special water) listed in Minn. R. 6264.0050, subp. 4 and Minn. R. 7050.0420 must
incorporate the BMPs outlined in items 23.9, 23.10, 23.11 and 23.12. [Minn. R. 6264.0050, subp. 4, Minn. R. 7050]
23.7 Discharges to impaired waters or a water with an USEPA approved TMDL for any of the impairments listed in this item must
incorporate the BMPs outlined in items 23.9 and 23.10. Impaired waters are waters identified as impaired under section
303 (d) of the federal Clean Water Act for phosphorus (nutrient eutrophication biological indicators, nutrients), turbidity,
TSS, dissolved oxygen or aquatic biota (fish bioassessment, aquatic plant bioassessment and aquatic macroinvertebrate
bioassessment, benthic macroinvertebrate bioassessment). Terms used for the pollutants or stressors in this item are
subject to change. [Minn. R. 7090]
23.8 Where the additional BMPs in this Section conflict with requirements elsewhere in this permit, items 23.9 through 23.14
take precedence. [Minn. R. 7090]
23.9 Permittees must immediately initiate stabilization of exposed soil areas, as described in item 8.5 & 8.8, and complete the
stabilization within seven (7) calendar days after the construction activity in that portion of the site temporarily or
permanently ceases. [Minn. R. 7090]
23.10 Permittees must provide a temporary sediment basin as described in Section 14 for common drainage locations that serve
an area with five (5) or more acres disturbed at one time. [Minn. R. 7090]
23.11 Permittees must include an undisturbed buffer zone of not less than 100 linear feet from a special water (not including
tributaries) and must maintain this buffer zone at all times, both during construction and as a permanent feature post
construction, except where a water crossing or other encroachment is necessary to complete the project. Permittees must
fully document the circumstance and reasons the buffer encroachment is necessary in the SWPPP and include restoration
activities. This permit allows replacement of existing impervious surface within the buffer. Permittees must minimize all
potential water quality, scenic and other environmental impacts of these exceptions by the use of additional or redundant
(double)BMPs and must document this in the SWPPP for the project. [Minn. R. 7090]
23.12 Permittees must design the permanent stormwater treatment system so the discharge from the project minimizes any
increase in the temperature of trout streams resulting from the one (1) and two (2) year 24-hour precipitation events. This
includes all tributaries of designated trout streams located within the same Public Land Survey System (PLSS) Section.
Permittees must incorporate one or more of the following measures, in order of preference:
a.Provide stormwater infiltration or other volume reduction practices as described in item 15.4 and 15.5, to reduce runoff.
Infiltration systems must discharge all stormwater routed to the system within 24 hours.
b.Provide stormwater filtration as described in Section 17. Filtration systems must discharge all stormwater routed to the
system within 24 hours.
c.Minimize the discharge from connected impervious surfaces by discharging to vegetated areas, or grass swales, and
through the use of other non-structural controls.
d.If ponding is used, the design must include an appropriate combination of measures such as shading, vegetated swale
discharges or constructed wetland treatment cells that limit temperature increases. The pond must be designed as a dry pond
and should draw down in 24 hours or less.
e.Other methods that minimize any increase in the temperature of the trout stream. [Minn. R. 7090]
23.13 Permittees must conduct routine site inspections once every three (3) days as described in item 11.2 for projects that
discharge to prohibited waters. [Minn. R. 7090]
23.14 If discharges to prohibited waters cannot provide volume reduction equal to one (1) inch times the net increase of
impervious surfaces as required in item 15.4 and 15.5, permittees must develop a permanent stormwater treatment system
design that will result in no net increase of TSS or phosphorus to the prohibited water. Permittees must keep the plan in the
SWPPP for the project. [Minn. R. 7090]
24.1 General Provisions. [Minn. R. 7090]
24.2 If the MPCA determines that an individual permit would more appropriately regulate the construction activity, the MPCA
may require an individual permit to continue the construction activity. Coverage under this general permit will remain in
effect until the MPCA issues an individual permit. [Minn. R. 7001.0210, subp. 6]
24.3 If the permittee cannot meet the terms and conditions of this general permit, an owner may request an individual permit, in
accordance with Minn. R. 7001.0210 subp. 6. [Minn. R. 7001.0210, subp. 6]
24.4 Any interested person may petition the MPCA to require an individual NPDES/SDS permit in accordance with 40 CFR
122.28(b)(3). [40 CFR 122.28(b)(3)]
24.5 In addition to the requirement found in section 20, permittees must make the SWPPP, including all inspection reports,
maintenance records, training records and other information required by this permit, available to federal, state, and local
officials within three (3) days upon request for the duration of the permit and for three (3) years following the NOT.
[Minn. R. 7090]
24.6 Permittees may not assign or transfer this permit except when the transfer occurs in accordance with the applicable
requirements of item 3.7 and 3.8. [Minn. R. 7090]
24.7 Nothing in this permit must be construed to relieve the permittees from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance with
the terms and conditions provided herein. Nothing in this permit must be construed to preclude the initiation of any legal action
or relieve the permittees from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittees is/are or may be subject to
under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act and Minn. Stat. Section 115 and 116, as amended. Permittees are not
liable for permit requirements for activities occurring on those portions of a site where the permit has been transferred to
another party as required in item 3.7 or the permittees have submitted the NOT as required in Section 4. [Minn. R. 7090]
24.8 The provisions of this permit are severable. If any provision of this permit or the application of any provision of this permit to
any circumstances is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit must
not be affected thereby. [Minn. R. 7090]
24.9 The permittees must comply with the provisions of Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 3 and Minn. R. 7001.1090, subp. 1(A), 1(B),
1(C), 1(H), 1(I), 1(J), 1(K), and 1(L). [Minn. R. 7001]
24.10 The permittees must allow access as provided in 40 CFR 122.41(i) and Minn. Stat. Section 115.04. The permittees must
allow representatives of the MPCA or any member, employee or agent thereof, when authorized by it, upon presentation of
credentials, to enter upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of obtaining information or examination of
records or conducting surveys or investigations. [40 CFR 122.41(i)]
24.11 For the purposes of Minn. R. 7090 and other documents that reference specific sections of this permit, "Stormwater
Discharge Design Requirements" corresponds to Sections 5, 6 and 14 through 21; "Construction Activity Requirements"
corresponds to Sections 7 through 13; and "Appendix A" corresponds to Sections 22 and 23. [Minn. R. 7090]
Page 59 of 309
PROJECT NO.
24282
CAD FILE
02/25/26
DATE
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY Date:Reg.No.ERIC P. FAGERBERG02/25/262026-04-02 CITY COMMENTS2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952-890-6044info@mnhill.comwww.mnhill.comI hereby certify that this plan,specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the State of Minnesota.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITIONCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551202026-04-16 CLUB HOUSE AMENITIES 537722026-05-20 GRADING PERMIT
F:\_Civil 3D Projects\24282\PRE-PLAT PLANS\24282ERD.dwg - 5/20/2026 11:47AM24282ERD
C303
VUNEROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILSPage 60 of 309
ooo ooEXISTINGCLUBHOUSEPOOLPONDPARKING GARAGEBELOW GRADEPATIOPROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN
12" RCP12" RCP12" CIP 12" CIP12" RCP12" RCP PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASINBOTTOM=878.00OLE=878.75100 YEAR HWL=879.49INFILTRATION CAPACITY=4,587 CFHALF-STOP ELEVATORAT MAIN ENTRANCELEXINGTON AVENUE
INTERSTATE 35E9.95%PROPOSED BUILDINGFFE=896.00GFE=885.33GS895.60GS/EOF895.00CB/LP890.77GS890.30TC/CB883.32TC/CB883.82TC890.60TC891.20MATCH EX TC883.34TC894.32TC895.06TC/HP894.15TC893.75MATCH EX TC???TC891.30TC891.20TC891.40TC888.75TC888.42TC885.83GS890.10GS889.80TC/HP894.65TC888.30TC888.17GS895.50GS894.40GS891.00GS890.60GS896.00GS896.00GS896.00GS896.00GS896.00GS895.50GS895.00GS895.60TC885.82TC/LP885.50MATCH EX TC888.03FULL TC890.53TC/G890.10TC/G890.20FULL TC890.77TC890.80TC890.50TC889.35GS894.10GS893.00GS892.13GS892.59GS894.36GS893.25MATCH EX TC882.28CONC891.16892890888890892892890888886884882880880878882884886888890892886884882884882884886886888890
8928
9
2
894896898900902904906908910912892894896898900894896898900902904906908910912894
896
898
900
902
904906882892890890892888884890888886
TC888.65TC887.97TC887.85TC888.35MATCH EX TC888.07TC888.14GS882.00GS882.00GS882.00GS882.00GS895.00CONC888.78878TC891.85TC892.20TC893.828948
9
2TW:886.1BW:886.1TW:888.5BW:886.1TW:888.5BW:886.1TW:888.5BW:886.1TW:886.1BW:886.1880882884886 890888 880882GS878.00GS878.00GS878.00GS878.00882880EXISTINGAPARTMENTBUILDINGEXISTINGTENNISCOURTEXISTINGPOOLEXISTINGCLUBHOUSEEXISTINGPONDEX BIT879.62EOF881.50EX BIT879.88EX BIT879.55EX BIT880.22TC885.97TC886.06GFE885.33GS892.00886894GS893.44HP/GS893.96PROJECT NO.24282CAD FILE02/25/26DATEREVISIONSDRAWN BYDate:Reg.No.
ERIC P. FAGERBERG
02/25/262026-04-02 CITY COMMENTS2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100
BURNSVILLE, MN 55306
PHONE: 952-890-6044
info@mnhill.com
www.mnhill.com
I hereby certify that this plan,
specification or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Licensed
Professional Engineer under the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
LEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITION
CONDOR CORPORATIONFOR
2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551202026-04-16 CLUB HOUSE AMENITIES 537722026-05-20 GRADING PERMITF:\_Civil 3D Projects\24282\PRE-PLAT PLANS\24282G.dwg - 5/20/2026 11:47AM
GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN PROPOSED CONCRETEPROPOSED ASPHALT SURFACEPROPOSED INFILTRATION BASINPROPOSED WATERMAINIIPROPOSED SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWER>>PROPOSED CURB & GUTTERPROPOSED RETAINING WALLPROPOSED CONTOUR923PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOWPROPOSED GRADING LIMITSEXISTING TELEPHONE BOXEXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER BOXEXISTING TREELINE/TREES>IEXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING WATERMAIN>IEXISTING CURB & GUTTEREXISTING ASPHALTEXISTING CONCRETESB-1EEEEXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRICEXISTING TELEVISION BOXEXISTING SOIL BORING LOCATIONEXISTING CLEANOUTEXISTING SIGNTTVGGGEXISTING UNDERGROUND GASEXISTING CONTOUR923LEGEND24282GC400Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRSCALE IN FEET04080EPFPage 61 of 309
G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGoooo
G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G GGGGGGGG G G
oX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUE
E
E
E
E
E
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOHU OHU
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E ET
T
V
T
>>>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
o o
o
o
o
XXXXXXXXXX
X
X
I I I I
I
I I
I
I
I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>EXISTING
APARTMEN
T
BUILDING
EXISTING
TENNIS
COURT
EXISTING
POOL
EXISTING
CLUBHOUS
E
EXISTING
POND
PROPOSED BUILDING
INTERSTATE 35ELEXINGTON AVENUE(MNDOT R/W PLAT NO. 19-37)30000
TRD 10 ASH
30001
TRD 8 ASH
30002
TRD 10 8 ASH
30003
TRD 8 ASH
30004
TRD 8 ASH
30005
TRD 7 ASH
30006
TRD 9 ASH 30007
TRD 8 ASH
30008
TRD 10 ASH
30009
TRD 8 ASH
30010
TRD 7 ASH30011
TRD 6 ASH
30012
TRD 7 ASH
30013
TRD 6 ASH
30014
TRD 8 6 ASH
30015
TRD 11 10 ASH
30016
TRD 8 ASH
30017
TRD 7 ASH
30018
TRD 7 ASH
30019
TRD 10 ASH
30020
TRD 22 WALNUT
30021
TRD 8 WALNUT
30022
TRD 14 14 ASH
30023
TRD 12 BASSWOOD
30024
TRD 10 BASSWOOD
30025
TRD 9 ASH
30026
TRD 18 WALNUT
30027
TRD 12 12 OAK30028
TRD 9 MAPLE
30029
TRD 9 ASH
30030
TRD 7 MAPLE
30031
TRD 8 MAPLE
30032
TRD 12 WALNUT
30033
TRD 13 12 11 WALNUT
20026
" ASH
20029
" SPRUCE
20031
" SPRUCE
20071
" ASH
20107
" SPRUCE
20108
" SPRUCE
20109
" SPRUCE
20116
" ASH
20117
" SPRUCE
20166
18" LOCUST
20167
18" LOCUST
20173
10" SOFT MAPLE
20179
11" PINE
20183
15" CRAB
20184
8" CRAB
20195
4" PINE
20203
10" SOFT MAPLE
20209
6" SOFT MAPLE
20214
11" PINE
20221
24" LOCUST
20222
18" LOCUST
20224
19" LOCUST
20234
16" LOCUST
20261
24" LOCUST
20265
8" SOFT MAPLE
20275
10" CRAB
20276
12" CRAB
20277
15" CRAB
20278
10" CRAB
20279
12" CRAB
20280
15" CRAB
20293
17" CRAB
20294
11" PINE
20295
14" SOFT MAPLE
20296
15" SOFT MAPLE 20297
11" SOFT MAPLE
20298
18" ASH
20299
8" SOFT MAPLE
20300
6" OAK
20301
14" SOFT MAPLE
20302
17" SOFT MAPLE
20369
20" ASH
PROJECT NO.
24282
CAD FILE
02/25/26
DATE
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY Date:Reg.No.ERIC P. FAGERBERG02/25/262026-04-02 CITY COMMENTS2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952-890-6044info@mnhill.comwww.mnhill.comI hereby certify that this plan,specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the State of Minnesota.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITIONCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551202026-04-16 CLUB HOUSE AMENITIES 537722026-05-20 GRADING PERMIT
F:\_Civil 3D Projects\24282\PRE-PLAT PLANS\24282TP.dwg - 5/20/2026 11:47AM24282TP
C401TREE PERSERVATIONVUN
LEGEND
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80
EXISTING TREE
GRADING/DISTURBANCE LIMITS
REMOVE TREE
EXISTING TREE (OFF-SITE)
TREE REMOVAL
POINT NO.SIZE (IN.)SPECIES
20026 XX ASH
20029 XX SPRUCE
20031 XX SPRUCE
20071 XX ASH
20107 XX SPRUCE
20108 XX SPRUCE
20109 XX SPRUCE
20116 XX ASH
20117 XX SPRUCE
20294 11 PINE
20295 14 SOFT MAPLE
20296 15 SOFT MAPLE
20297 56 SOFT MAPLE
20298 18 ASH
20299 20 SOFT MAPLE
20300 6 OAK
20369 20 ASH
30000 10 ASH
30001 8 ASH
30002 18 ASH
30003 8 ASH
30004 8 ASH
30005 7 ASH
30006 9 ASH
30007 8 ASH
30008 10 ASH
30009 10 ASH
30010 7 ASH
30011 6 ASH
30012 7 ASH
30013 6 ASH
30014 14 ASH
30015 21 ASH
30016 8 ASH
30017 7 ASH
30018 7 ASH
30019 10 ASH
30025 9 ASH
30028 9 MAPLE
30029 9 ASH
30030 7 MAPLE
30031 8 MAPLE
30032 12 WALNUT
TOTAL TREES
REMOVED 43
TOTAL
CALIPERS INCH
REMOVED 403
Page 62 of 309
G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGoooo
G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G GGGGGGGG G G
oX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUE
E
E
E
E
E
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOHU OHU
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E ET
T
V
T
>>>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
o o
o
o
o
XXXXXXXXXX
X
X
I I I I
I
I I
I
I
I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>CBMH-104
RE 892.59
15" INV 884.75 S
18" INV 883.00 W
BLD=9.59'
CB-105
RE 890.77
15" INV 885.67 N
BLD=5.10'
STMH-103
RE 891.66
18" INV 881.47 E
18" INV 879.55 W
12" INV 879.55 S
BLD=12.11'
CBMH-102
RE 883.32
18" INV 878.99 E
18" INV 878.99 S
BLD=4.33'
CBMH-101
RE 883.82
18" INV 878.89 N
24" INV 878.93 SW
4.0' SUMP INV 874.89
BLD=8.93'
PROVIDE PRESERVER ENERGY DISSIPATOR & SKIMMER
SIZE PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS
STMH-107
RE 888.98
12" INV 882.70 N
12" INV 882.79 SE
12" INV 888.48 NE
BLD=6.28'
FES-100
24" INV 878.75 NE
FES-200
18" INV 877.10 E
OCS-201
RE 879.03
18" INV 877.20 W
BLD=1.83'
162 LF - 18"
HDPE @ 0.3
5
%
25 LF - 18"
HDPE @ 0.40%
156 L
F
-
1
8
"
HDPE
@
0
.
9
8
%171 LF - 15"HDPE @ 0.54%37 LF - 18"
RCP CL 5 @ 0.26%
RD-1
12" INV 890.00 W
16 LF - 12"
PVC SCH-40 @ 0.00%
STMH-106
12" INV 881.08 S
12" INV 881.08 N
12" INV 890.00 E153 LF - 12"HDPE @ 1.00%202 LF - 12"HDPE @ 0.80%36 LF - 12"
HDPE @ 0.56%
TRENCH DRAIN-1
RE 885.00
12" INV 883.00 NW
BLD=2.00'
SEE DETAIL
32 LF - 12"
PVC SCH-40 @ 4.68%
RD-2
12" INV 890.00 SW
162 LF - 8" PVCSDR 26 @ 2.10%EX SSMH
RIM=887.91
INV.=869.51
EX SSMH
RIM=891.16
INV.=868.09
EX 12" SAN
EX 12" RCP SAN
8" SANITARY SERVICE
8" PLUG INV = 872.22
COORDINATE GAS MAIN CROSSING
W/ XXXXXXXXXX12" X 8" WET TAP W/ 8" G.V. & BOX
FIELD VERIFY SIZE AND LOCATION
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
REPAIR LEXINGTON AVE , GARAGE ENTRANCE AND
BIT TRAIL TO EXISTING CONDITIONS
CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
8" PVC C-900
8" PVC
C
-
9
0
0 12'8" PVC WATER SERVICE
PROVIDE 8" PLUG
TOP GAS MAIN = XXX.XX
TOP WATERMAIN = 886.60TOP GAS MAIN = XXX.XX
TOP STORM SEWER = 881.54
TOP GAS MAIN = XXX.XX
TOP STORM SEWER = 883.53
LEXINGTON AVENUEINTERSTATE 35EEX SSMH
RIM=881.21
INV.=870.56
EX SSMH
RIM=882.76
INV.=871.30
EX 12" SANEX 12" SANEX 12" WMEX 12" WMPROPOSED BUILDING
FFE=896.00
GFE=885.3388 LF - 24"RCP CL 3
@ 0.20
%
SAW CUT EX PAVING
TO INSTALL WATER MAIN
RE-GRADE DITCH AS REQUIRED TO ENSURE
CONNECTION FROM FES-200 TO EX FES
REPAIR TRAIL TO EXISTING CONDITION
AFTER OUTLET CONSTRUCTION
TRAIL GRADE OVER PIPE MUST ENSURE
PIPE IS OUTSIDE OF TRAIL SECTION
(3" BIT + 6" CL 5)
COORDINATE UTILITY RELOCATION WITH
SMALL UTILITY COMPANIES IF REQUIRED
EX 24" FES
INV.=877.10
EXISTING
APARTMEN
T
BUILDING
EXISTING
TENNIS
COURT
EXISTING
POOL
EXISTING
CLUBHOUS
E
EXISTING
POND
SAW CUT EX PAVING
TO INSTALL STORM SEWER
SSMH-1
RE 889.80
12" INV 867.72 W
12" INV 867.72 E
8" INV 868.82 N
BLD=22.08'
CONSTRUCT MH OVER EX. 12" RCP SANITARY SEWER
AT CLOSEST SPIGOT END TO PROVIDE
A GASKETED, WATERTIGHT CONNECTION
SHORING/TRENCH BOXES MAY BE REQUIRED DURING CONTSRUCTION
TO KEEP DISTURBANCES OUTSIDE MNDOT ROW
FIELD VERIFY LOC & ELEV PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
REPAIR DISTURBED AREAS TO EXISTING CONDITION
MATCH EXISTING GRADES AND SECTIONS (IF REQ'D)
COORDINATE WITH CITY STAFF TO PROVIDE SAN. BYPASS
40 LF - 12" PVC C900 @ 0.57%
REMOVE AND REPLACE EX 12" RCP WITH NEW PVC C900
PROVIDE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS AT PROPOSED AND EXISTING MANHOLES
FIELD VERIFY ELEV PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
REPAIR DISTURBED AREAS TO EXISTING CONDITION
EX SSMH
RIM=889.61
INV W=867.49
INV E=867.44
PROJECT NO.
24282
CAD FILE
02/25/26
DATE
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY Date:Reg.No.ERIC P. FAGERBERG02/25/262026-04-02 CITY COMMENTS2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952-890-6044info@mnhill.comwww.mnhill.comI hereby certify that this plan,specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the State of Minnesota.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITIONCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551202026-04-16 CLUB HOUSE AMENITIES 537722026-05-20 GRADING PERMIT
F:\_Civil 3D Projects\24282\PRE-PLAT PLANS\24282U.dwg - 5/20/2026 11:47AM24282U
C500UTILITY PLANEPF
LEGEND
PROPOSED CONCRETE
PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SURFACE
PROPOSED SEDIMENT BASIN
PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN
PROPOSED WATERMAINII
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
>>PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER
PROPOSED SANITARY SERVICE
PROPOSED WATER SERVICE>I
>I
OHP OHP
X X X X
G G G
E E E
UFO UFO UFO
T T T
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING TRANSFORMER
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING TREELINE/TREES
EXISTING STORM SEWER
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING WATERMAIN
EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE
EXISTING CURB & GUTTER
EXISTING FENCE
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING UNDERGROUND GAS
EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
EXISTING TV PEDESTAL
EXISTING SOIL BORING LOCATION
S
TV
T
EXISTING MANHOLE (ELECTRIC)
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING VAULT
E
V
SB-1
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80
TRENCH DRAIN DETAIL
INV. =883.00INV.=883.00
NEENAH R-4990-DX TYPE 'A'
GRATE OR APPROVED EQUAL
RIM TO MATCH PROPOSED
ASPHALT.
TC
885.50
RIM=885.00
12" HDPE 12"NOT TO SCALE
18" RCPINV
877.20
879.50
878.7548" SLANT TOP
SPLIT GRATE
(SEE DETAIL)
RIM ELEV 878.75
9"
OUTLET STRUCTURE 201 (OCS-201)
NOT TO SCALE
Page 63 of 309
G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGoooo
G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G GGGGGGGG G G
oX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUE
E
E
E
E
E
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOHU OHU
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E ET
T
V
T
>>>>>>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
o o
o
o
o
XXXXXXXXXX
X
X 9'TYP33 9'TYP14
24'
TYP
PROPOSED BUILDING
PARKING G
A
R
A
G
E
BELOW GR
A
D
E
PATIO
15.2'
25.2'PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN18'
TYP
18'
TYP60.3'R 36'
TO FA
C
E
GARAGER60'R3
'MAINENTRANCELEXINGTON AVENUEINTERSTATE 35E5'EXISTING
APARTMEN
T
BUILDING
EXISTING
POOL
EXISTING
CLUBHOUS
E
EXISTING
POND R3'R
3
'
R3'
A
A
C
C
D
D
E
E
E
D
B
F
F
C
G
5'R
3
'
R3'
R
3
'R3'14
26
17
10'
EXPAND POOL
CONCRETE PATIO
NEW CONCRETE PATIO PADS:
- COMMUNITY TABLE
- GRILLING STATION
RENOVATION OF EXISTING
BASKETBALL COURT
ADD PICKLEBALL COURT
FIRE PITNEW SIDEWALK
NEW SIDEWALK
61'
AT GRADE PATIO (TYP)
HUNG BALCONY (TYP)
AREA WELL
AREA WELL
R5.5'PROJECT NO.
24282
CAD FILE
02/25/26
DATE
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY Date:Reg.No.ERIC P. FAGERBERG02/25/262026-04-02 CITY COMMENTS2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952-890-6044info@mnhill.comwww.mnhill.comI hereby certify that this plan,specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the State of Minnesota.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITIONCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551202026-04-16 CLUB HOUSE AMENITIES 537722026-05-20 GRADING PERMIT
F:\_Civil 3D Projects\24282\PRE-PLAT PLANS\24282PAV.dwg - 5/20/2026 11:47AM24282PAV
C600
VUN
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80 PAVING & DIMENSIONAL PLANLEGEND
PROPOSED CONCRETE
PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SURFACE
PROPOSED SEDIMENT BASIN
PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN
PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER
OHP OHP
X X X X
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING TRANSFORMER
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE
EXISTING CURB & GUTTER
EXISTING FENCE
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXISTING CONCRETE
EXISTING TV PEDESTALTV
T
EXISTING MANHOLE (ELECTRIC)
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING VAULT
E
V
KEY NOTES
5' WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALKA
RIBBON CURBB
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
GROSS PROJECT AREA (LOT 1, BLOCK 1 & OUTLOT A)6.71 AC/ 292,409 SF
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA 2.36 AC/102,677 SF
NET IMPERVIOUS AREA INCREASE 0.38 AC/ 16,383 SF
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA 2.74 AC/119,060 SF (40.7%)
FRONT SETBACK 50 FEET
REAR SETBACK 40 FEET
SIDE SETBACK 40 FEET
EXISTING ZONING PUD (R-3 UNDERLYING)
PROPOSED ZONING PUD (R-3 UNDERLYING)
BUILDING FOOTPRINT 22,571 SF
PROPOSED PARKING PROVIDED
61 NEW SURFACE STALLS FOR NEW BUILDING
84 GARAGE STALLS TOTAL
84 UNITS (110 BEDROOMS)
145 STALLS (SURFACE + GARAGE) TOTAL
145 STALLS/84 UNITS = 1.73 STALLS/UNIT
145 STALLS/110 BEDROOMS = 1.32 STALLS/BEDROOM
PARKING STALL AREA (INCLUDING ADA ACCESS) = 10,867SF
REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA (10%) = 1,087 SF
PROVIDED LANDSCAPED ISLAND AREA = 1,351 SF
EXISTING PARKING
45 SURFACE STALLS FOR EXISTING BUILDING
75 GARAGE STALLS
75 UNITS (120 BEDROOMS)
120 STALLS (SURFACE + GARAGE) TOTAL
120 STALLS/75 UNITS = 1.60 STALLS/UNIT
120 STALLS/120 BEDROOMS = 1.00 STALLS/BEDROOM
SITE PLAN NOTES
1.SEE GENERAL NOTES, SHEET C101, FOR ADDITIONAL RELEVANT INFORMATION.
2.EXISTING SURFACE LOT SHALL BE RE-STRIPED AS SHOWN. ERADICATION AT A MINIMUM
WILL BE REQUIRED. MILL & OVERLAY OR CHIP SEAL ARE ADDITIONAL OPTIONS OWNER MAY
ELECT TO UTILIZE ON REMAINING EXISTING BITUMINOUS.
3.CLUBHOUSE IMPROVEMENTS COMPLETED BY OTHERS
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
RETAINING WALLC
B612 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERD
TIP OUT CURBE
PEDESTRIAN RAMPF
6' TRANSITION TO FULL CURBG
TYPICAL PARKING LOT SECTION
8" - MnDOT 2211, CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE,
100% CRUSHED STONE/RECYCLE
2" - SPNWB230C NON-WEAR COURSE
MnDOT SPEC. 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT
1.5" - SPWEB240C WEAR COURSE
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC/APPROVED SUBGRADE
BITUMINOUS
PAVEMENT
CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
RIBBON CURB
CLASS 5
SLOPE VARIES
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
NOT TO SCALE
4" CL 5 AGGREGATE BASE (2211)
100% CRUSHED
4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK (2531)
5'1'1'
20"7"TYPICAL PARKING SPACE SIGNING & STRIPING
NOT TO SCALE
ADA PARKING SIGN (R7-8m)
VAN ACCESSIBLE (R7-8b)
B612 CURB & GUTTER
9'9'9'18'3'4" SOLID WHITE LINE
INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY
45°0'
0
.
0
"
'
ADA PARKING SIGN (R7-8m)
VAN ACCESSIBLE (R7-8b)
NO PARKING
12" SOLID WHITE LETTERING (OPTIONAL)
6' TRANSITION FROM RIBBON
TO FULL B612 CURB & GUTTER
9' WIDE RIBBON CURB
FLUSH WITH ASPHALT
6'6'
6' TRANSITION FROM RIBBON
TO FULL B612 CURB & GUTTER
Page 64 of 309
PROJECT NO.
24282
CAD FILE
02/25/26
DATE
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY Date:Reg.No.ERIC P. FAGERBERG02/25/262026-04-02 CITY COMMENTS2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952-890-6044info@mnhill.comwww.mnhill.comI hereby certify that this plan,specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the State of Minnesota.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITIONCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551202026-04-16 CLUB HOUSE AMENITIES 537722026-05-20 GRADING PERMIT
F:\_Civil 3D Projects\24282\PRE-PLAT PLANS\24282D.dwg - 5/20/2026 11:47AMCONSTRUCTION DETAILS24282D
C700
VUN
Page 65 of 309
PROJECT NO.
24282
CAD FILE
02/25/26
DATE
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY Date:Reg.No.ERIC P. FAGERBERG02/25/262026-04-02 CITY COMMENTS2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952-890-6044info@mnhill.comwww.mnhill.comI hereby certify that this plan,specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the State of Minnesota.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITIONCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551202026-04-16 CLUB HOUSE AMENITIES 537722026-05-20 GRADING PERMIT
F:\_Civil 3D Projects\24282\PRE-PLAT PLANS\24282D.dwg - 5/20/2026 11:47AMCONSTRUCTION DETAILS24282D
C701
VUN
Page 66 of 309
PROJECT NO.
24282
CAD FILE
02/25/26
DATE
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY Date:Reg.No.ERIC P. FAGERBERG02/25/262026-04-02 CITY COMMENTS2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952-890-6044info@mnhill.comwww.mnhill.comI hereby certify that this plan,specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the lawsof the State of Minnesota.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITIONCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551202026-04-16 CLUB HOUSE AMENITIES 537722026-05-20 GRADING PERMIT
F:\_Civil 3D Projects\24282\PRE-PLAT PLANS\24282D.dwg - 5/20/2026 11:47AMCONSTRUCTION DETAILS24282D
C702
VUN
Page 67 of 309
This page is intentionally left blank
6.j
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2026
AGENDA ITEM: Approve the Planned Unit Development Agreement for First Amendment to
Lexington Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community
Development Manager
ACTION REQUEST:
Accept and Approve the Planned Unit Development Agreement for First Amendment to
Lexington Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development and authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute this agreement on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights.
BACKGROUND:
The Lexington Heights Apartments development of a new 84-unit building is expected to be
constructed on the north parcel of the Lexington Heights Apartments site. This PUD
Amendment and the related apartment Final Development Plan was approved by the City
Council on April 21, 2026, with the adoption of Resolution No. 2026-22.
The Planned Unit Development Agreement (the "Developer's Agreement") approves and
provides for specific revisions that are allowed on the subject property based on specific
conditions of approval, and includes fully illustrated and detailed development plans, such as a
site plan with building layout and setbacks; civil engineer plans (grading, utilities, stormwater
management), building elevation plans, parking facilities, and landscaping plans.
The Developer's Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights will be executed and entered
into by the property owner, Lexington Heights Family Partnership LLLP. Jon Riley of Lexington
Heights Apartments and President of the Partnership has signed the agreement as the
developer and on behalf of the property ownership group.
This agreement has been prepared by city staff and the city attorney; and has been approved
for content and presentation to the City Council under this action item. The developer and
their attorney have also reviewed the document and agree to the terms.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
N/A
Page 68 of 309
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Planned Unit Development Agreement for First Amendment Planned Unit Development
Lexington Heights Apartments
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy
Page 69 of 309
1
(reserved for recording information)
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR
FIRST AMENDMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
LEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made as
of the ____ day of _______, 2026 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF MENDOTA
HEIGHTS, a Minnesota municipal corporation, having its principal office at 1101 Victoria Curve,
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 (“City”), and RILEY FAMILY LEXINGTON HEIGHTS
LLLP, a Minnesota limited partnership, having its principal office at 2320 Lexington Avenue
South, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120, its successors and assigns as permitted in this
Agreement (“Developer”).
RECITALS
1.The City is a Minnesota municipal corporation and is authorized to transact
business and exercise its powers, including the powers described in this Agreement, by a resolution
of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights (“City Council”); and
2.Developer is the fee owner of certain real property consisting of 16.3 acres
generally located east of Lexington Avenue and west of Interstate 35-E, in the City of Mendota
Heights, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, which is commonly known as the Lexington
Heights Apartments and which is legally described as is set forth on Exhibit A (“Development
Property”); and
3.Developer has proposed to redevelop the Development Property to include the
improvements defined in this Agreement, as identified in detail on Exhibits B through F. The
improvements include an 84-unit multi-family apartment building on Lot 1, a renovated parking
Page 70 of 309
2
lot, updated common space amenities on Outlot A; and stormwater ponds in the location and
pursuant to the specifications outlined herein (collectively, the “Project”); and
4. The City’s Zoning Code allows flexibility in regulations through a Planned Unit
Development (“PUD”) overlay zoning, if certain Code requirements are met and if it is determined
that it is in the overall community interest to do so; and
5. At its meeting on November 1, 1983, the City Council adopted Resolution 1983-
95, approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for the Development
Property (the “1983 PUD”); and
6. Resolution 1983-95 authorized the construction of the Lexington Heights
Apartments, which consisted of a total of 225 units in three 75-unit apartment buildings on an
18.2-acre site (the “Original Development”); and
7. On February 21, 1984, the City Council approved a Development Agreement as
part of its approval of the Original Development; and
8. On April 17, 1984, the City Council adopted Resolution 1984-23, approving the
Final Plat for LEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITION which dedicated additional right-of-way and
reduced the Development Property to 16.3 acres; and
9. The Original Development was constructed in accordance with the approved plans
for the PUD and has remained in compliance to present; and
10. On January 20, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution 2026-06, approving a
Zoning Amendment and Preliminary Development Plan as an Amendment to the 1983 PUD (the
“Amended PUD”); and
11. On April 21, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution 2026-22, approving the
Final Development Plan for the Amended PUD, which set forth conditions of approval applicable
to the Amended PUD, including a requirement that the Developer enter into this Agreement with
the City to memorialize the terms and conditions applicable to the Project and the Development
Property; and
12. The Development Agreement that was associated with the 1983 PUD remains in
full force and effect as to the Development Property as a whole, except as may be amended by the
Amended PUD for the Project, in which case this Agreement controls.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements, covenants, restrictions, and
undertakings set forth in this Agreement, the City at Developer agree as follows:
Page 71 of 309
3
ARTICLE I
INCORPORATIONS, DEFINITIONS, AND EXHIBITS
Section 1.1 Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits. The Recitals at the beginning of
this Agreement and the Exhibits attached to this Agreement are each one true and correct, and are
incorporated into and made part of this Agreement.
Section 1.2 Definitions. In addition to the defined terms established in the Recitals and
elsewhere in this Agreement, the following definitions shall apply to this Agreement:
a.Code. Code of Ordinances adopted by the City of Mendota Heights, as such ordinances
may be amended from time to time.
b.Infrastructure Improvements. Any public roadway connections (including new access and
modified access points), mass grading of the site, all sanitary sewer and service laterals, all
water-main and service lines, all storm sewer improvements including storm-water ponds
within the Project, all completed pursuant to the Plans.
c.Lot 1. Lot 1, Block 1, Lexington Heights Addition containing approximately 5.53 acres
(240,952 square feet), as designated on Exhibit A, upon which an existing 75-unit
apartment building resides and upon which an 84-unit multi-family apartment building will
be constructed, as illustrated on the Development Plans (Exhibits D through F).
d.Lot 2. Lot 2, Block 1, Lexington Heights Addition containing approximately 4.56 acres
(198,834 square feet), as designated on Exhibit A, upon which an existing 75-unit
apartment building resides and where no improvements are proposed.
e.Lot 3. Lot 3, Block 1, Lexington Heights Addition containing approximately 4.69 acres
(204,234 square feet), as designated on Exhibit A, upon which an existing 75-unit
apartment building resides and where no improvements are proposed.
f.Outlot A. Outlot A, Lexington Heights Addition containing approximately 1.18 acres
(51,456 square feet), as designated on Exhibit A, upon which an existing clubhouse,
swimming pool, and sport court reside and upon which the pool surround area will be
expanded, patio seating and grilling amenities will be improved, and the sport court will
be updated.
g.Outlot B. Outlot B, Lexington Heights Addition containing approximately 0.35 acres
(15,224 square feet)m as designated on Exhibit A, upon which an existing tennis court
resides and where no improvements are proposed.
h.Plans. All Plans approved by the City for the improvement and development of the Lot 1
property, including, without limitation, those set forth in Exhibits D through F.
i.Landscape Plan. The approved plan for landscaping on the Development Property
(Exhibit F).
Page 72 of 309
4
Section 1.3 Exhibits. The following Exhibits constitute the approved Plans:
EXHIBIT A – Development Property Legal Description
EXHIBIT B – Resolution No. 2026-06
EXHIBIT C – Resolution No. 2026-22
EXHIBIT D – Development Project Plans – Civil Site Plans
EXHIBIT E – Building Elevations and Floor Plans
EXHIBIT F – Landscape Plans
EXHIBIT G – Drainage and Utility Easement - Sketch and Description
ARTICLE II
APPROVALS
Section 2.1 Amended Planned Unit Development Approval. The City’s approval of
the Amended PUD pursuant to Resolution 2026-06 (Exhibit B) is subject to the Findings of Fact
and all conditions set forth in that Resolution, and also subject to compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement. The requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Planned Unit
Development Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance, as each may be amended from time to time,
shall apply to the Project and to the Development Property.
Section 2.2 Plan Approval. The Project shall be developed and the Development
Property shall be maintained in accordance with the Plans. If the Plans vary from the written terms
of this Agreement, the written terms shall control. Developer shall not make any changes in the
Plans or the Project without the prior written consent of the City, which consent may be given or
withheld in the City’s sole discretion. The City Council may, by majority vote, delegate approval
of minor modifications to the Plans to the City Administrator.
ARTICLE III
DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY
Section 3.1 Right to Proceed. The Developer may not obtain a building permit for the
Project until the following conditions have been satisfied: (a) this Agreement has been fully
executed by the City and the Developer and has been filed with the City Clerk; (b) this Agreement
has been filed of record in the Office of the Dakota County Recorder or Registrar of Titles, as
applicable; and (c) the Developer has paid the security and fees as set forth in this Agreement.
Section 3.2 Commencement of Development. If the Developer does not commence
construction of the Development within one year from the approval of the Final Development Plan,
the Final Development Plan will lapse and will be of no further effect and the standards of the base
zoning district shall govern. For good cause shown by the Developer, the City Council may extend
for up to one additional year the period for the commencement of construction. For purposes of
this Agreement, commencement of development is deemed to have occurred with the Developer
obtains the necessary permits to commence the installation of the Infrastructure Improvements.
Page 73 of 309
5
Section 3.3 Enforcement of Development Schedule. Enforcement of the development
schedule shall be in accordance with Code Section 12-5B-8.H, as may be amended from time to
time.
Section 3.4 Restrictions on Construction Activity. Throughout the development of
the Project, construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. (Monday
– Friday) and 9:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. (Saturday and Sunday).
Section 3.5 Street Maintenance and Repair; Erosion Control. In the event that City
provides notice to the Developer that there is an excessive buildup of mud or dirt on any existing
roadway as a result of Developer’s construction, Developer shall promptly take such steps as may
be necessary to clean up such street, including sweeping (by mechanical means) within 24 hours
after notification by the City. Should any of the City’s public improvements require repair as a
result of Developer’s construction activities, Developer shall be responsible for ensuring that such
damage is repaired (to a quality comparable to what existed prior to the commencement of
Developer’s construction activities) at no cost to the City. Developer shall erect and maintain
necessary erosion control measures to prevent erosion onto streets, ponds, storm sewer inlets or
other sensitive areas. Developer shall be responsible for obtaining a Mendota Heights Storm Water
Management Permit. Developer shall maintain compliance with the Mendota Heights Land
Disturbance Guidance Document.
Section 3.6 Landscape Letter of Credit. Prior to issuance of a foundation and/or
building permit, the Developer shall provide the City with a landscape letter of credit covering a
minimum of one full growing season-calendar year which is in form reasonably acceptable to the
City in an amount of up to one hundred fifty (150%) (as determined by the City Administrator or
designee) of the full cost of all landscaping, irrigation, and fencing. After one (1) complete
growing season, Developer may request a release (partial or total) of the letter of credit; provided,
however, that the amount to be released (if any) shall be determined by the City in the exercise of
its reasonable judgement. The City shall if requested by the Developer, return the letter of credit
or security to the Developer after the landscape portion of the improvements to the Development
Property has been closed out by the City (which shall not be earlier than one year after the
installation of all landscaping in accordance with the Landscape Plan for the Development
Property.
Section 3.7 Tree Replacement Escrow. The Developer shall post a tree replacement
escrow with the City in the amount outlined in the City’s Fee Schedule. The escrow will be held
by the City until successful completion of final planting inspection, assurance that the trees have
survived for at least one growing season, and are covered by at least a one-year warranty for
replacement. The escrow may be held for longer to ensure viability of trees. Once the escrow is
reimbursed to the Developer, it remains the Developer’s responsibility to maintain the replacement
trees for three years after planting during the three-year maintenance period, and replace any trees
lost during this period.
ARTICLE IV
SITE REQUIREMENTS – SPECIFIC PUD STANDARDS
AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Page 74 of 309
6
Section 4.1 Uses Generally. The permitted use of the Development Property shall be
limited to those uses that are generally permitted and/or conditional in the base zoning district
applicable to the specific Lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Developer acknowledges that
the City’s approval of the PUD was based, in part, on the Developer’s representation that the
Project would be completed according to the Plans presented to the City and as set forth in the
Exhibits. For this reason, any change to the proposed use of a specific Lot must be approved by
the City. In addition, all uses within the Project are subject to the conditions outlined in this
Agreement.
Section 4.2 Building Heights and Material. All buildings shall be restricted to the
heights listed for the underlying zoning district in the Code or this Agreement, and as presented in
the plans provided to the City as part of the PUD approval process. Unless a change is approved
by the City, all building materials must be the same as identified on the plans approved by the
City.
Section 4.3 Building Setbacks. The setbacks on the building to be constructed on the
Development Property are identified on the approved Site Plan (Exhibit D) (the “Site Plan”).
Section 4.4 Parking. The number and location of the parking stalls are generally
identified on the approved Site Plan. The Developer shall not reduce the number of parking stalls
from the number shown on the Site Plan, nor materially change the location of any such parking
stalls, without the prior written consent of the City.
Section 4.5 Signs. The Developer must obtain a sign permit as provided in Code
Section 12-4A-11 prior to the installation of exterior signs for the Project.
Section 4.6 Lighting. All fixtures must be hooded and downcast.
Section 4.7 Stormwater Management, Ponding and Drainage. The Public Works
Director has reviewed the Plans for the stormwater management, the proposed stormwater pond
and the drainage system. Any changes to Plans must be approved by the City Engineer. The City
Engineer, in their sole discretion, may request City Council action on any changes to the approved
stormwater and drainage Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Developer shall provide
the City with a permit from MnDOT for stormwater discharge.
Section 4.8 Drainage and Utility Easement. Developer shall dedicate an area over the
stormwater pond as depicted on Exhibit G. Said easement shall include the entire basin to its high
water level, including all associated storm sewer piping discharging into and out of the pond.
Section 4.9 Landscaping. Developer has provided a Landscape Plan (Exhibit F). The
Developer must install and maintain an irrigation system, as depicted on the Landscape Plan. All
landscaping must be completed as depicted on the Landscape Plan. Developer shall be responsible
for the routine maintenance and replacement of landscape materials listed in the approved
landscape plan throughout the life of the development. The City reserves the right to maintain or
replace landscaping materials should the material require maintenance or replacement. If the City
Page 75 of 309
7
acts to replace or maintain landscape material, the landowner shall be billed for the time and
materials necessary to complete the maintenance and/or replacement action.
Section 4.10 Lot Specific Requirements.
a.Lot 1: an 84-unit multi-family apartment building pursuant to the Plans (Exhibits D
through F).
b.Outlot A: an expansion to the pool deck area, improved sport court, improved patio grilling
area pursuant to the Site Plan (Exhibit D).
Section 4.11 Resolution not Affecting Lots 3, 4 and 5. The City agrees that Resolutions
No. 2026-06 and 2026-22 recorded in the Office of the Dakota County Recorder or Registrar of
Titles, as applicable, on June 8, 2026 as Document No. 3727378 and Document No. 3727385 do
not affect Lots 2, 3, or Outlot B.
ARTICLE V
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
Section 5.1 Prohibition Against Transfer and Assignment. Developer represents and
agrees that, prior to the completion of the Project, unless the Developer shall have received the
prior written approval of the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or
delayed, there shall be no transfer or conveyance of all of any portion of the Development Property
or any change in the ownership of the Developer, whether direct or indirect, nor shall there be any
other change in the identity of the parties in control of the Developer or the degree thereof, by any
other method or means. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there shall be no limitation upon any
involuntary transfer of an ownership interest resulting from the death or disability of any owner or
a transfer to an Affiliate of Developer.
Section 5.2 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon the
successors, heirs, and assigns of the Developer and the City.
Section 5.3 Breach of Agreement. Breach of any material term of this Agreement by
the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits.
Section 5.4 Governing Law, Venue, and Jurisdiction. Minnesota law, without regard
to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this Agreement. This agreement shall be liberally
construed to protect the public’s interest. Venue for all legal proceedings that result out of this
Agreement, or its breach, must be in the state district court with competent jurisdiction in Dakota
County, Minnesota.
Section 5.5 Headings. Any titles of the several parts, articles, and sections of this
Agreement are inserted for convenience and reference only and shall be disregarded in construing
or interpreting any of its provisions.
Page 76 of 309
8
Section 5.6 Counterparts. This agreement is executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 5.7 Complete Agreement. This Agreement is the complete agreement
between the parties hereto with respect to eh matters addressed herein and shall, as of the Effective
Date supersede all prior agreements related thereto, both oral and written.
Section 5.8 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal,
or otherwise unenforceable, that provision shall be deemed to have been severed from this
Agreement and the remainder of this Agreement shall otherwise remain in full force and effect.
Section 5.9 Recording. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall be recorded
against the Development Property.
Section 5.10 No Waiver. The action or inaction of the City or the Developer shall not
constitute a waiver of or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, waivers
or amendments to this Agreement must be in writing, signed by the City and the Developer and
approved by written resolution of the City Council. Any failure of the City or the Developer to
promptly take legal action to enforce the terms of this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release.
Section 5.11 No Metropolitan Significance. The Developer represents to the City that
the PUD is not of “metropolitan significance” and that a state environmental impact statement is
no required. However, is the City or another governmental entity or agency determines that a
federal or state environmental impact statement or any other review, permit, or approval is
required, the Developer shall prepare or obtain it at its own expense. The Developer shall
reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and reasonable attorney’s fees, that the
City incurs in assisting in such preparation.
Section 5.12 Notices and Demands. Any notice required under this Agreement shall be
sufficiently given or delivered upon receipt if personally delivered; three (3) days after dispatched
by U.S. registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requires; or one (1) day after
delivery by national recognized overnight delivery service; at the following addresses:
a. To the City:
City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
With a copy to:
Campbell Knutson
Grand Oak Office Center I
860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290
Eagan, MN 55121
Page 77 of 309
9
Attention: Mendota Heights City Attorney
b.To the Developer:
Riley Family Lexington Heights LLLP
2320 Lexington Avenue South
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
With a copy to:
Gregory D. Soule, Attorney
Malkerson Gunn Martin LLP
5353 Gamble Drive, Suite 225
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Section 5.13 Estoppel Certificates. The City will form time to time, within ten (10)
business days after written request by the Developer, execute, acknowledge and deliver to and in
favor of any proposed lender, purchaser of the Development Property or any portion of the
Development Property, or any assignee, an estoppel certificate, in form reasonably satisfactory to
the City and to said party requesting said certificate, a certificate stating: (a) this Agreement is in
full force and effect; (b) the Agreement has not been modified or amended, or if so, identifying
and describing any such modification or amendment; and (c) the City has not noticed any event of
default on the part of the Developer or any other claim against the Developer, or if so, specifying
the nature of said default or claim.
Section 5.14 No Reliance. The Developer acknowledges that the City’s approval of the
Project is based on the materials provide by the Developer and application of the City’s land use
code. The City’s approval of this Agreement and the Project should not be interpreted as any type
of representation by the City regarding the feasibility of the various components of the Project as
depicted in the Plans.
Section 5.15 Certificate of Completion. Within twenty (20) days of request from
Developer, the City will deliver to Developer a Certificate of Completion certifying that the
Infrastructure Improvements have been completed, and a certification of completion of the
building improvements pursuant to the approved Plans.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Developer have executed this Agreement to
be effective as of the Effective Date first written above.
[Remainder of page left blank intentionally; signature pages follow.]
Page 78 of 309
10
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By:
Stephanie Levine, Mayor
By:
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________________,
2026, by Stephanie Levine and Nancy Bauer, the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the CITY
OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation
and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council.
Notary Public
Page 79 of 309
11
RILEY FAMILY LEXINGTON
HEIGHTS, LLLP, a Minnesota limited
liability limited partnership
By: Riley Family Corporation, a Minnesota
corporation
Its: General Partner
By: _________________
Jonathan P. Riley
Its: President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________________,
2026, by _______________, the _____________ of RILEY FAMILY LEXINGTON
HEIGHTS LLLP, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of such limited liability
company.
Notary Public
This instrument was drafted by:
The City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118
Page 80 of 309
12
EXHIBIT A
Development Property Legal Description
Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1; and Outlots A and B, all in Lexington Heights
Page 81 of 309
13
EXHIBIT B
Resolution No. 2026-06
Page 82 of 309
14
Page 83 of 309
15
Page 84 of 309
16
Page 85 of 309
This page is intentionally left blank
17
Page 86 of 309
18
Page 87 of 309
19
Page 88 of 309
20
EXHIBIT C
Resolution No. 2026-22
Page 89 of 309
21
Page 90 of 309
22
Page 91 of 309
23
Page 92 of 309
24
Page 93 of 309
25
EXHIBIT D
Development Project Plans – Civil Site Plans
Page 94 of 309
26
Page 95 of 309
27
Page 96 of 309
28
Page 97 of 309
29
Page 98 of 309
30
Page 99 of 309
31
Page 100 of 309
32
Page 101 of 309
33
Page 102 of 309
34
Page 103 of 309
35
Page 104 of 309
36
EXHIBIT E
Building Elevations and Floor Plans
Page 105 of 309
37
Page 106 of 309
38
Page 107 of 309
39
Page 108 of 309
40
Page 109 of 309
41
Page 110 of 309
42
Page 111 of 309
43
Page 112 of 309
44
Page 113 of 309
45
Page 114 of 309
46
Page 115 of 309
47
EXHIBIT F
Landscape Plans
Page 116 of 309
48
Page 117 of 309
49
Page 118 of 309
50
EXHIBIT G
Drainage and Utility Easement - Sketch and Description
Page 119 of 309
51
Page 120 of 309
This page is intentionally left blank
6.k
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2026
AGENDA ITEM: Approve the proposal submitted by MN Native Landscapes (MNL) and
authorize Staff to enter into a contract with MNL for the Friendly Marsh
Park Turf-to-Prairie project.
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Natural Resources CONTACT: Krista Spreiter, Natural
Resources Manager
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve the proposal submitted by MN Native Landscapes (MNL) and authorize Staff to enter
into a contract with MNL for the Friendly Marsh Park Turf-to-Prairie project.
BACKGROUND:
As part of the City's update to its Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP), turf and
traditionally maintained areas throughout the City were identified for possible conversion to
native plant communities, offering the chance to reduce the amount of maintenance required
of traditional turf and landscapes, create habitat for pollinators and other wildlife, and add
aesthetic beauty to the City’s public spaces. The Friendly Marsh Turf-to-Prairie project is
identified in the NRMP as a priority project.
The Friendly Marsh Turf-to Prairie project area is currently mowed turf between the city’s trail
on its western border, and a large wetland complex (Friendly Marsh) to the east. The project
area is currently dominated by mowed turf, and is mainly unused and underutilized by park
users.
Project Scope
The goal of the project is to convert and restore approximately 1.75 acres of Friendly Marsh
turf area, reduce the amount of maintenance required of turfgrass, create habitat for
pollinators and other wildlife, and add aesthetic beauty to be enjoyed by users. The project will
include, but is not limited to, the following tasks:
•Turf removal, with the exception of a mowed width area around the perimeter of the
project.
•Planting and installation of mixed-height prairie species native to the area.
•A three-year establishment and maintenance plan to be implemented by the chosen
Page 121 of 309
contractor.
•Where and when appropriate, erosion and sediment control Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to be utilized.
•Pollinator Best Management Practices to be followed in accordance with the MN
Department of Natural Resources Best Management Practices and Habitat Restoration
Guidelines.
City staff issued a request for proposals to multiple qualified contractors for the two-year
project implementation period and maintenance for the first three years after implementation.
Proposals were received from two firms (attached). Staff is recommending the proposal
submitted by MN Native Landscapes for the project for an estimated cost of $14,260.00, over
the span of the project (5 years).
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
The project is included in the 2026 Natural Resources Budget for the amount of $4,400.00. The
estimated cost is $14,260.00 over five years, taken from the Natural Resources budget. The
remaining cost will be included in future budget requests over the subsequent four years.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Friendly Hills Turf to Prairie - RES proposal
2.Mendota Heights Friendly Hills Turf-to-Prairie Proposal 5.26.26
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship
Page 122 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Friendly Hills Turf-to-Prairie Restoration
Project
Page 123 of 309
20276 Delaware Avenue
Jordan, MN 55352
May 26, 2026
Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Manager
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
(651) 255-1123
KSpreiter@mendotaheightsmn.gov
RE Friendly Hills Turf to Prairie
Dear Krista,
Having worked with the City on other projects, we are excited about this opportunity to continue and expand our relationship
on this important project. We commend the city for its commitment to natural resources and health ecosystems within the
city, including converting this park turf area to native prairie vegetation.
Within this proposal, we present our qualifications, implementation strategy, example references, project timeline, and costs.
The proposed tasks follow the intent laid out in the Request for Proposals (RFP).
Please reach out to me with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Matthew Lasch
Operations Manager, Minnesota
mlasch@res.us | 952.447.1919
Page 124 of 309
Table of Contents
1.0 Qualifications .............................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Company Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
1.2 Team Qualifications and Organization ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Experience ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.0 Strategy and Implementation ................................................................................................................... 7
Turf Conversion................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) ........................................................................................................... 7
Invasive Species Movement Practices...................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Pollinator Best Management Practices .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
3.0 Project Timelines and Deadlines ............................................................................................................... 8
4.0 Detailed Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................................... 8
Tables
Table 1. Staffing Table ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2. Project Schedule ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 3. Project Estimate .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Page 125 of 309
Friendly Hils Turf to Prairie Restoration Project | Mendota Heights
4
1.0 Qualifications
1.1 Company Overview
As the nation’s largest nature-based solutions company, Resource Environmental Solutions (“RES”) supports the public and
private sectors with durable, resilient infrastructure for communities through solutions for environmental mitigation,
stormwater and water quality, and climate and flooding resilience. RES has a unique operating model for delivering
ecological uplift, based on science-led design, full delivery, long-term stewardship, and guaranteed performance. From
headwaters to coastal shores, RES designs, builds, and sustains sites that preserve the environmental balance, lifting impaired
ecosystems into restored health and ultimately, self-sufficiency. These projects restore sensitive wetland, prairie, and species
habitats as well as floodplains, streams, river valleys, and coastal and tidal systems. The result is nature -based systems that
cleanse water, shelter wildlife, buffer storms, and sequester carbon from the atmosphere.
RES works closely and creatively with municipalities, developers, operators, landowners, and regulatory agencies to balance
the needs of clients, communities, and resources. Our operating model is built around this approach. We employ teams
covering the full project lifecycle, combining in-house analytics and technical expertise with implementational resources and
capabilities.
We have helped clients successfully permit more than 3,900 projects, creating rich, high -functioning ecosystems as part of
each permit. Our clients include local and state governments, large mining operators, energy production companies, energy
transmission companies, Fortune 500 companies, departments of transportation, and other public-sector organizations. RES
now employs 918 dedicated staff in 48 operational hubs across the country, including a regional office in Jordan.
RES delivers customized solutions tailored to our clients’ needs. RES’ internal resources include environmental, health, safety,
and security (EHS&S) staff, land acquisition specialists, wildlife biologists, Rosgen IV certified stream designers, professi onal
wetland scientists, engineers, hydrologists, QA/QC oversight teams, field ecologists, regulatory project managers, analysts,
certified foresters, arborists, landscape architects, construction managers, superintendents, and field crew members as well
as supporting project controls, government affairs, public relations, financial, legal and analytical staff.
RES’ experience includes:
•Restoration, enhancement, and preservation of 76,150 acres of wetlands
•Restoration of over 678 miles of streams
•Rehabilitation, preservation, and/or management of over 20,392 acres of special-status species habitat
•Currently conducting monitoring and maintenance (including invasive species management) for over 50,225 acres
of mitigation and restoration habitat
•Successful close-out of over 117 mitigation sites
•Permitting and development of over 210 permittee-responsible mitigation projects
•Design, permitting, management, and development of 197 wetland, stream, species, and conservation banks
•Delivery of 20,000 acres of custom, turnkey mitigation solutions
•Design and construction of over 356 stormwater management facilities
•Reductions of over 499 tons of water quality nutrients
•Planting of over 26,911,001 trees across all operating regions
•Development and operation of nurseries in six states including the largest coastal nursery in Louisiana
•Facilitation of compensatory mitigation and nutrient offsets for over 3,980 federal and state permits
•Long-term protection and conservation of over 87,202 acres
•Restoration of over 391 miles of shorelines and levees
We draw on our dedicated, in-house resources and deep experience across all phases of ecological restoration projects in
defining our project approach, which seeks to balance performance and cost in the manner that is most beneficial to our
clients.
Page 126 of 309
Friendly Hills Turf-to-Prairie Restoration Project | Mendota Heights 5
1.2 Team Qualifications and Organization
The project team personnel and contact information will be provided to the city when preparing to start work. The staffing
structure will include a Restoration Manager, Restoration Supervisor, Operator, and Restoration Technicians. The Restoration
Manager will be the primary contact and project manager. The Restoration Supervisor will lead the daily tasks and complete
work along with Restoration Technicians. RES anticipates crews to range from 1 to 10 people, depending on the tasks being
completed.
Matt Lasch is the Operations Manager and will be the initial point of contact. Upon awarding, he will provide the project
team that will manage and execute work. The Restoration Manager will be Eric Glaser. Below is a list of RES staff who will
potentially work at Friendly Hills. All RES field crew members have 4-year degrees in natural resources or related fields—
typical coursework includes general plant identification, ensuring that all RES field crews have baseline knowledge of native
and non-native species. Furthermore, RES Contracting conducts weekly plant identification with all crew members during
the growing season. Identification includes native and non-native species and management approaches for each. During
the dormant season, RES conducts woody plant identification of trees and shrubs. There are also numerous identification
guides available to the field crew year-round.
Table 1. Staffing Table
RES Staff Position Experience
(years)
Pesticide
License
Burn
Certification* % Involvement
Matthew Lasch Operations Manager 20 20093749 S130, S190 25%
Eric Glaser Restoration Manager 7 20226697 S130, S190 75%
Steve Salaba Operator 9 20178484 S130, S190 50%
Thomas Kohn Restoration Supervisor 3 20244913 S130, S190 100%
Jared Johnson Restoration Technician 2 20258368 S130, S190 100%
Andy Harrison Restoration Supervisor 2 20266180 S130, S190 100%
Shykala Brinkman Restoration Technician 2 20270979 S130, S190 100%
Austin Johnson Restoration Technician 2 20273530 S130, S190 100%
Ella Stone Restoration Technician 2 20273895 S130, S190 100%
Luke Saiko Restoration Technician 1 20281234 S130, S190 100%
Ben Stephenson Restoration Technician 0.5 IP S130, S190 100%
Lucas Rognrud Restoration Technician 0.5 IP S130, S190 100%
Page 127 of 309
Friendly Hills Turf-to-Prairie Restoration Project | Mendota Heights 6
1.3 Experience
Additional references and projects can be provided upon request.
Client Relevant past project work performed
Wade Yunker - Natural Resources
Specialist
Jack Distel – Water Resources
Specialist
City of Bloomington
1800 West Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, MN 55431
612-419-9489
952-563-8748
wyunker@bloomingtonmn.gov
jdistel@bloomingtonmn.gov
Bloomington Forest Restoration: RES began working with the City and
Hennepin County in 2023 to remove invasive species, primarily trees and brush,
from a high-quality woodland and savanna near the Nine Mile Creek corridor.
Work included forestry mowing, cutting and treating, foliar follow-up, and pile
burning. Areas within the site contain rare plant communities, including kitten
tail, and work was completed in a way to avoid any collateral damage to plant
populations. RES also worked with the city on restoring and managing natural
areas throughout the city including parks, stormwater basins, and infiltration
areas.
Warren Tuel
Minnesota Department of
Transportation
395 John Ireland Blvd, Mail Stop 620
St Paul, MN 55155
651-366-3624
Warren.Tuel@state.mn.us
I-494 Woodland Restoration: In 2022, RES worked with MNDOT to remove
invasive brush within a section of the MN River Valley Refuge. Work included a
combination of forestry mowing, where applicable, and cutting/treating in
steeper areas. Piles were also made in areas not accessible with equipment. All
cut stumps were treated, and follow-up management will occur as it is part of the
contract.
Becca Tucker
Great River Greening
Program Manager
651-272-3982
rtucker@greatrivergreening.org
Garlough-Marthaler Parks: Great River Greening, along with Dakota County and
other partners, selected RES to complete woody removal and follow-up of
invasive brush within Garlough and Marthaler Parks. While the removal work was
relatively straightforward, there was a lot of coordination and communication
required, given all of the stakeholders involved. Work was also completed in and
around schools. Work included woody removal using a combination of
equipment and hand work, and follow-up management.
Max Samuelson
Natural Resources Specialist
Dakota County
14955 Galaxie Ave
Apple Valley, MN 55124
952-891-7965
Max.Samuelson@CO.DAKOTA.MN.US
Church’s Woods: RES began working with Max and Dakota County in the winter
of 2024-2025 to manage, restore, and enhance the area within Spring Lake Park
Reserve known as Church’s Woods. Work includes invasive tree and shrub
removal, tree thinning, herbicide application, n ative seeding, and mowing. The
project included a significant amount of tree and shrub removal to restore areas
to a more open woodland. Approximately half or more of the project units are
high quality and have some uncommon plant species. Work was proposed and
planned to maximize restoration tasks but also salvage and enhance existing
ecosystems. The initial stages of restoration have resulted in a positive response
from the herbaceous understory.
Dawn Pfarr
Metropolitan Council
390 North Robert Street
St Paul, MN 55101
612-756-1900
Dawn.pfarr@metc.state.mn.us
System-Wide Maintenance: RES has maintained various open spaces within the
Metropolitan Council system since 2009. RES staff meet with a representative
each spring and fall to determine maintenance needs and execute the work. Sites
include water treatment plant facilities, stormwater basins, rain gardens, pump
stations, and natural areas. Work completed has included spot herbicide,
mowing, native seeding, prescribed burning, native planting, erosion control, and
invasive brush removal.
Page 128 of 309
Friendly Hills Turf-to-Prairie Restoration Project | Mendota Heights 7
2.0 Strategy and Implementation
Turf Conversion
These units are degraded grasslands and turf areas that will be converted to native prairie. Site prep is critical to the
successful establishment of native prairie, especially for areas dominated by non-native, cool seasonal grasses. RES
understands the intent of limiting or reducing herbicide use, but it will be necessary to control the non-native species present
in the prairie areas. It is not economically feasible to cover the area with a product that would smother and kill vegetation .
It would also take at least two growing seasons using that method. Intense tilling is not recommended as that would leave
exposed soils that may cause erosion. Site prep will be completed through a combination of herbicide application and
mowing. Establishment will focus on mowing during the first two years with spot herbicide targeting perennial, problematic
species.
Herbicide treatments will be conducted by licensed applicators using select chemicals for target species. Broadcast treatment
will be utilized during preparation using an ATV. Spot herbicide will focus on perennial problematic species or large
infestation areas during management using backpack sprayers. Management mowing will be completed using a tracked
skid steer and front mounted mower or tractor and flail mower. Native seed will be installed using an ATV and seed spreader.
Some hand seeding may be needed.
Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs)
On all projects, RES tries to limit the amount of soil disturbance to avoid the need for erosion control measures. This includes
leaving dead vegetation and root matter in place to hold soil until a native perennial cover can be established. RES does not
anticipate any soil disturbance as part of the restoration and management work at Friendly Hills.
Invasive Species Movement Practices
RES is committed to the recommended practices of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources regarding limiting or
avoiding the spread of invasive species. This includes but is not limited to cleaning equipment, avoiding mud import and
export, cleaning personal footwear and clothing, and early detection of a new species.
Pollinator Best Management Practices
RES uses standard procedures that are best practices for limiting disturbance to pollinators during work and promotes
pollinator habitat as the end goal. In the instances where impact is inevitable, RES approaches it as a short -term loss for a
long-term gain. Materials and products never contain neonicotinoids.
Page 129 of 309
Friendly Hills Turf-to-Prairie Restoration Project | Mendota Heights 8
3.0 Project Timelines and Deadlines
Below is a tentative schedule of tasks to be completed Friendly Hills. This is subject to change based on tasks utilized within
the budget, site response, and seasonal changes or weather. RES will work with City staff to develop a more detailed schedule
after awarding and will provide regular updates on changes or modifications to the schedule. Adjustments to the schedule
based on the latest site conditions will be discussed with City staff prior to implementing work. RES anticipates 1-2 on-site
meetings each year with City staff to assess and discuss tasks and schedule.
Table 2. Project Schedule
4.0 Detailed Cost Estimate
Table 3. Project Estimate
Item Qty Unit Unit Cost Extended
Site Prep Herbicide 2 trip $1,879.00 $3,758.00
Light Soil Prep 1 trip $2,073.00 $2,073.00
Mixed Height Pollinator Prairie Seeding 1.75 acre $3,669.00 $6,420.75
3-Year Management
Management Mowing 3 trip $1,278.00 $3,834.00
Spot Herbicide/Spot Mowing 6 trip $1,784.00 $10,704.00
Prescribed Burn 1 each $3,497.00 $3,497.00
Total $30,286.75
Items as needed:
Additional Site Prep Herbicide 1 trip $1,879.00 $1,879.00
Erosion Control Blanket - Single net Straw 2420 SY $3.17 $7,671.40
Straw Mulch 1.75 acre $2,449.00 $4,285.75
Task 2026 2027 2028 2029
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
Site Prep – herbicide/mowing
Native Seeding
Management mowing
Spot herbicide
Page 130 of 309
Page 131 of 309
8740 77th St NE, Otsego MN 55362 763-295-0010 MNLcorp.com
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Krista Spreiter
651-255-1123
kspreiter@mendotaheightsmn.gov
Subject: Friendly Marsh Turf-to-Prairie Restoration
To Whom It May Concern,
We appreciate the opportunity to submit our proposal. Ecological restoration has been the focal point of
our firm for more than 25 years, and we have a staff of passionate people ready to put their talents to
work for resource-minded clients to improve and protect our lands and waters.
MNL’s mission is simple, to “Heal the Earth”. We execute this mission through our five core values: Passion
for our mission, Grit to get the job done, maintaining a culture of exceptional Craftsmanship,
approaching every opportunity with eagerness and Innovation, and finally encouraging Positivity in all
areas to create successful outcomes.
Attached to our proposal you will find our company history, service and project types, key personnel,
project examples, references, and equipment inventory.
Our team is excited to be considered for the Friendly Marsh Turf-to-Prairie Restoration and we look
forward to discussing our qualifications and expertise further.
Sincerely,
Chelsea Bratvold
Ecological Project Manager and Estimator
763-221-4899
chelsea.bratvold@mnlcorp.com
Page 132 of 309
2
Company Background
Founded in 1998 - MNL, a women owned business, is a leading provider of comprehensive ecological
restoration services and premium native seed/plants. Our four Minnesota operational facilities include
our headquarters in Otsego, and seed production farms in Foley, Glyndon, and Lonsdale. MNL operates
under six main divisions Professional Services, Construction Services, Vegetation Management Services,
Grazing Services, Red Rock Fire, and MNL Seed & Plant Production. Between these divisions, we draw on
decades of experience to solve the ecological challenges of our diverse base of clientele. Whether the
goal of your project is water quality improvement, creating new wildlife habitat, soil stabilization, or
improving your landscapes aesthetics, we have the capabilities to design, implement and manage various
ecological processes as part of your project.
With over 130 dedicated professionals on our team, and through the completion of more than 1,000
ecological service projects each year, MNL is continually developing innovative solutions tailored for
wetlands, prairies, streambanks, rain gardens and shorelines. Our hands-on expertise of site construction,
installation services and vegetation management best practices ensure successful restoration outcomes
across an array of ecological systems. MNL clients encompass a full range of private and public sector
organizations including city and county governments, watershed and conservation districts, state
agencies, environmentally conscious energy developers and private landowners. In addition to our work
throughout Minnesota, MNL provides various products and services to clientele throughout the U.S.
Services & Project Types
•Professional Services
o Wetland services, vegetation management planning and monitoring, stormwater management
planning and permitting, workshops and speaking engagements, research opportunities, stormwater
and erosion BMP design, custom seed mix design, seed procurement and brokerage, ecological
restoration landscaping and design
o Design/Build Project Management
•Construction Services
o Conservation seeding & plant installation, rain garden & infiltration basin construction, lakeshores &
streambanks, bioengineering (riprap, toe wood, tree revetment, brush fascines and mattresses, live
staking), wetland creation
•Vegetation Management Services
o Mowing, spot cutting, aquatic and terrestrial invasive species control, tree and brush removal, plant
community enhancement
•Grazing Services
o Conservation grazing, solar grazing, fire fuel reduction, prairie management
•Red Rock Fire Services
o Prescribed burns, wildland wildfire suppression, emergency management
•Native Seed & Plants
Page 133 of 309
3
Project Description
MNL has read the scope of work and understands the City of Mendota Heights is looking to convert 1.75
acres of turf into native prairie. Our method to complete this project would consist of 3 herbicide
treatments over the course of the 2026 growing season, followed by seeding either in the Fall of 2026 or
Spring of 2027 with a no-till drill implement to ensure seed-to-soil contact and minimize the need for
erosion control. MNL’s team of vegetation management professionals would take over from there with
3 maintenance visits per growing season for the following 3 years.
Key Personnel
Chelsea Bratvold - Project Manager/Estimator
Education: St. Cloud State Univ., BA Psychology & Minor in Business Mgmt.
Certifications/Additional Training: MDA Certified Pesticide Applicators License (Categories A & J); Erosion & Stormwater Construction
Site Manager Certification
Chelsea brings over a decade of project management and coordination experience to MNL’s construction
division. She works closely with our site superintendents to ensure we deliver quality results quickly and
efficiently. Chelsea has a passion for working with people and helping to fulfill MNL’s mission to Heal the
Earth.
Wes Olmschenk – Director of Products
Education: MBA from Drake University; St. John’s Univ., BA in Economics minor in Management, focus in Environmental Studies
Certifications/Additional Training: MN DNR Seed Mix Design
Wes has over 10 years’ experience in native seed design including wetland mitigation banks, solar sites,
pollinator focus areas, emergent wetlands, riverbank/riparian areas, upland prairies and more. He has an
expansive network of native seed producers and collectors leading to advanced knowledge of the market.
Chris Hoye - Manager of Vegetation Management
Education: St. John’s Univ., BA Environmental Studies
Certifications/Additional Training: Adv. Wildland Firefighter Training-Ignition Operations (S-234)
Chris has been a trusted resource in the restoration industry for over 16 years and has supervised MNL’s
Vegetation Management Division for more than ten years. He has extensive experience managing an
array of upper Midwest native plant communities. His years of field experience conducting selective
invasive species control on a wide range of landscapes and ecologically based land management planning
and practices provides the necessary understanding to oversee and provide solutions for all ecological
projects.
Nate Bauerly, Dan Ranweiler, Eric Stay, Aaron Widmark – Project Superintendents
Certifications: MDA Certified Pesticide Applicators License (Categories A & J)
Page 134 of 309
4
Nate, Dan (Bud), Eric, and Aaron are well-trained heavy equipment operators with over sixty years’
combined experience. They have all performed a wide array of operational tasks on critical and sensitive
restoration projects at MNL.
Technical Field Staff
Certifications: pesticide and/or wildland burning certificates available upon request
Our staff of highly experienced field technicians offer a wide range of technical skills unique to the
industry.
Project Examples (partial list)
Photos and additional examples available upon request
Project Name: Weston Solutions
Location: Undisclosed
Owner: Private Client
Completion Date: 2023
Cost: $178,000
Contact: N/A
Description: Site preparation including herbicide treatments, native grass and wildflower seeding, and
maintenance activities on 435 acres of commercial farmland. The project included multiple mixes and
both drilling and broadcast seed installation. The site is currently being maintained through site mowing
and spot weed treatment.
Project Name: Wescott Library Prairie Conversion
Location: Eagan, MN
Owner: City of Eagan
Completion Date: 2022
Cost: $10,600
Contact: Adam Schnaible; 651-675-5300; aschnaible@cityofeagan.com
Description: 1.2-acre turf conversion to pollinator habitat. Herbicide application was completed before
no-till seeding of MNL pollinator native seed mix installation.
Page 135 of 309
5
Project Name: Big Elk Lake Park Prairie Restoration
Location: Clear Lake, MN
Owner: Sherburne County
Completion Date: 2023
Cost: $48,000
Contact: Gina Hugo; 763-765-3308; gina.hugo@co.sherburne.mn.us
Description: No-till drill seed approximately 52 acres of agricultural fields to be restored to native
prairie. Custom seed mix was supplied by MNL which required specific seed origins.
Project Name: Gram Park
Location: Sherburne County, MN
Owner: Sherburne Soil & Water Conservation District
Completion Date: 2022
Cost: $14,000
Contact: Franny Gerde; 763-220-3434; fgerde@sherburneswcd.org
Description: Prairie restoration of approximately 24 acres of open meadow. Site preparation included
prescribed burning and goat grazing. Native seed was installed using a no-till seed drill, which included
a mix of native forbs and grasses. The site was grazed again after seed installation to help control any
volunteer/unwanted species.
Project Name: Wilmes Lake Alum Facility – Native Site Restoration
Location: Woodbury, MN
Owner: South Washington Watershed District
Completion Date: 2024
Cost: $77,251
Contact: Kyle Axtell; 651-714-3718; kyle.axtell@woodburymn.gov
Description: 2.5 acres of native seeding with erosion control blanket and planting of 105 native trees.
Herbicide application was completed before no-till seeding of MNL native seed and tree installation. On-
going maintenance contract in place.
Page 136 of 309
6
Equipment
The following list of MNL’s inventory of specialty machinery, heavy duty equipment, vehicles, trailers,
power equipment, and implements demonstrates the commitment and investment MNL has made in
pursuing our mission to Heal the Earth.
Specialty Machinery:
2 Marooka Track Truck
1 Pisten Bully Snow Cat
2 Marsh Master
Heavy Duty Equipment:
24 Ag. Tractors
QuadTrac 550 Tractor
1 Bulldozer
6 Excavators
3 Forklifts
12 Skid Loaders
2 Front End Loaders
9 ATV’s
4 OHV’s
12 UTV’s
Survey Equipment:
Topcon HiPer VR for field survey
and machine control
Trimble R10-2 for field survey
Vehicles:
7 Dual Rear Wheels up to F550
10 Lg. Multiple Rear Axle Trucks
9 Lg. Single Rear Axle Trucks
33 Single Rear Wheel
Implements/Attachments:
10 Excavating
13 Forestry
14 Misc.
21 Mowers
17 Seed Drills
12 Snow Equipment
10 Straw
22 Tanks/Pumps/Sprayers
25 Tillage
Power Equipment:
27 Chainsaws
2 Cut-Off Saw
29 Weed Whips
6 Planting Augers
15 Leaf Blowers
7 Generators
9 Roto Tiller
1 Mower
1 Sod Cutter
Trailers:
7 Bumper Pull
11 Enclosed Trailers
11 Fifth Wheel or Gooseneck
10 Open Trailers
6 Specific Use
Page 137 of 309
763.295.0010
Qty.Unit Unit Price Total
3 Visits $ 1,470.00 $ 4,410.00
1.75 Acres $ 1,600.00 $ 2,800.00
1.25 Acres $ 840.00 $ 1,050.00
0.5 Acres $ 950.00 $ 475.00
1 LS $ 1,895.00 $ 1,895.00
1 LS $ 1,815.00 $ 1,815.00
1 LS $ 1,815.00 $ 1,815.00
Project Notes:Grand Total 14,260.00$
Pricing good for:
Terms:
Accepted by:Provided by:
Date:Date:
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
MNL
8740 77th St NE
Otsego, MN 55362
estimating@mnlcorp.com
https://mnlcorp.com/
Quotation
Shop Native Seed & Plants
Apache Street, Mendota Heights, MN
Friendly Marsh Turf-to-Prairie Restoration
Women Owned Business
Description
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Krista Spreiter
Category
kspreiter@mendotaheightsmn.gov
651-255-1123
Pricing does not include any applicable sales tax.
Pricing assumes the project area is as shown on the attached map/plan.
Pricing based upon plans, designs, &/or specs. provided to MNL by others.
MNL is not liable for project delays due to situations beyond our control.
Pricing assumes access and parking for crew and equipment.30 Days
5/26/2026
Chelsea Bratvold
Heal the Earth
Project Name:
Project Location:
Pricing does not include any permits.30 Days Net Invoice
Veg Management 2028 Establishment Maintenance: Includes 3 visits per growing
season for mowing and/or herbicide treatment for control of
invasive species.
Fall 2026 or Spring 2027: Installation of Seed Mix using a No-Till
Drill
Material
Establishment Maintenance
Seeding/Planting
Veg Management
Herbicide Treatment Spring-Fall 2026: Herbicide Treatments to Kill Existing Vegetation
using Glyphosate. Additional Chemical may be used to Treat
Burdock and other Invasives under Cottonwood Trees.
Veg Management 2027 Establishment Maintenance: Includes 3 visits per growing
season for mowing and/or herbicide treatment for control of
invasive species.
MNL Upland Dry Prairie Seed Mix - Mixed Height
Material MNL Savanna Seed Mix - Mixed Height
Pricing does not include prevailing wage rates.
2029 Establishment Maintenance: Includes 3 visits per growing
season for mowing and/or herbicide treatment for control of
invasive species.
Page 138 of 309
Great mix for part-sun oak savanna and woodland edge sites
with 25-50% tree cover. Height 3-6'
Scientific Name Common Name
% of
Mix
Seeds/
Sq Ft
PLS
lbs/ac
Bloom
Season
Grasses:Andropogon gerardii Big Bluestem 5.50 2.42 0.66
Bouteloua curtipendula Side-oats Grama 13.00 5.70 1.56
Bromus kalmii Prairie Brome 5.00 1.76 0.60
Elymus hystrix Bottlebrush Grass 5.00 1.67 0.60
Elymus trachycaulus Slender Wheat Grass 7.00 2.13 0.84
Elymus villosus Silky Wild Rye 5.75 1.39 0.69
Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Rye 7.00 1.30 0.84
Koeleria macrantha Junegrass 0.50 3.86 0.06
Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem 20.00 13.22 2.40
Sorghastrum nutans Indian Grass 10.00 5.29 1.20
Sedges/Rushes:Carex blanda Eastern Woodland Sedge 1.25 0.69 0.15
Carex brevior Plains Oval Sedge 1.50 1.92 0.18
Carex molesta Troublesome Sedge 0.50 0.55 0.06
Forbs:Achillea millefolium Yarrow 0.15 1.16 0.02 Summer
Agastache foeniculum Fragrant Giant Hyssop 0.35 1.39 0.04 Summer
Amorpha canescens Leadplant 0.50 0.35 0.06 Summer
Anemone canadensis Canada Anemone 0.10 0.04 0.01 Spring
Anemone virginiana Tall Thimbleweed 0.10 0.12 0.01 Summer
Aquilegia canadensis Columbine 0.50 0.84 0.06 Spring
Artemisia ludoviciana Prairie Sage 0.10 1.10 0.01 Summer
Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed 1.10 0.19 0.13 Summer
Baptisia bracteata Cream Wild Indigo 0.20 0.01 0.02 Spring
Chamerion angustifolium Fireweed 0.05 1.10 0.01 Summer
Coreopsis palmata Prairie Coreopsis 0.20 0.09 0.02 Summer
Dalea purpurea Purple Prairie Clover 4.00 2.64 0.48 Summer
Dalea candida White Prairie Clover 1.50 1.26 0.18 Summer
Desmodium canadense Showy Tick-trefoil 2.35 0.57 0.28 Summer
Drymocallis arguta Prairie Cinquefoil 0.30 3.04 0.04 Summer
Helianthus maximiliani Maximillian's Sunflower 0.40 0.23 0.05 Fall
Lespedeza capitata Round-headed Bushclover 0.75 0.26 0.09 Summer
Liatris aspera Rough Blazing Star 0.20 0.14 0.02 Summer
Monarda fistulosa Wild Bergamot 0.25 0.77 0.03 Summer
Oenothera biennis Common Evening Primrose 0.50 1.98 0.06 Fall
Pseudognaphalium obtusifolium Sweet Everlasting 0.10 4.17 0.01 Summer
Rosa arkansana Prairie Rose 0.25 0.01 0.03 Summer
Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan 1.20 4.87 0.14 Summer
Solidago nemoralis Gray Goldenrod 0.15 1.98 0.02 Fall
Solidago rigida Stiff Goldenrod 0.50 0.90 0.06 Fall
Solidago speciosa Showy Goldenrod 0.20 0.84 0.02 Fall
Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Calico Aster 0.50 5.51 0.06 Fall
Symphyotrichum oolentangiense Sky-blue Aster 0.40 1.41 0.05 Fall
Verbena stricta Hoary Vervain 0.75 0.93 0.09 Summer
Veronicastrum virginicum Culver's Root 0.05 1.76 0.01 Summer
Zizia aptera Heart-leaved Alexanders 0.30 0.16 0.04 Spring
100.00 81.74 12.00
Seeds/sq ft:82.00
Grass Species:10
Sedge/Rush Species:3
Forb Species:31
MNL Savanna Mix
Mixed Height
Seed mixes are subject to change based on availability
Page 139 of 309
Ideal for dry (xeric) or sandy sites, mixed height grasses with total height from 2-5'
Scientific Name Common Name
% of
Mix
Seeds/
Sq Ft
PLS
lbs/ac
Bloom
Season
Grasses:Andropogon gerardii Big Bluestem 5.00 2.20 0.60
Bouteloua curtipendula Side-oats Grama 18.70 8.20 2.24
Bromus kalmii Prairie Brome 2.00 0.71 0.24
Elymus canadensis Canada Wild Rye 5.00 1.15 0.60
Elymus trachycaulus Slender Wheat Grass 7.00 2.13 0.84
Koeleria macrantha Junegrass 0.20 1.54 0.02
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 0.20 0.12 0.02
Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem 21.00 13.88 2.52
Sorghastrum nutans Indian Grass 7.00 3.70 0.84
Sporobolus compositus Rough Dropseed 1.75 2.31 0.21
Sporobolus cryptandrus Sand Dropseed 0.75 6.61 0.09
Sporobolus heterolepis Prairie Dropseed 0.10 0.07 0.01
Sedges/Rushes:Carex brevior Plains Oval Sedge 1.30 1.66 0.16
Forbs:Achillea millefolium Yarrow 0.08 0.62 0.01 Summer
Agastache foeniculum Fragrant Giant Hyssop 0.15 0.60 0.02 Summer
Allium stellatum Prairie Onion 0.20 0.10 0.02 Summer
Amorpha canescens Leadplant 2.25 1.59 0.27 Summer
Artemisia ludoviciana Prairie Sage 0.07 0.77 0.01 Summer
Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed 1.20 0.21 0.14 Summer
Asclepias verticillata Whorled Milkweed 0.20 0.10 0.02 Summer
Baptisia bracteata Cream Wild Indigo 0.30 0.02 0.04 Spring
Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea 6.00 0.71 0.72 Fall
Coreopsis palmata Prairie Coreopsis 0.25 0.11 0.03 Summer
Dalea candida White Prairie Clover 4.25 3.56 0.51 Summer
Dalea purpurea Purple Prairie Clover 6.35 4.20 0.76 Summer
Drymocallis arguta Prairie Cinquefoil 0.30 3.04 0.04 Summer
Echinacea angustifolia Narrow-leaved Coneflower 0.50 0.15 0.06 Summer
Helianthus pauciflorus Stiff Sunflower 0.50 0.09 0.06 Fall
Lespedeza capitata Round-headed Bushclover 0.70 0.25 0.08 Summer
Liatris punctata Dotted Blazing Star 0.25 0.08 0.03 Summer
Monarda punctata Spotted Bee Balm 0.10 0.40 0.01 Summer
Penstemon grandiflorus Large-flower Penstemon 1.00 0.62 0.12 Spring
Pseudognaphalium obtusifolium Sweet Everlasting 0.05 2.08 0.01 Summer
Ratibida columnifera Long-headed Coneflower 0.80 1.48 0.10 Summer
Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan 1.30 5.27 0.16 Summer
Solidago missouriensis Missouri Goldenrod 0.25 2.81 0.03 Fall
Solidago nemoralis Gray Goldenrod 0.15 1.98 0.02 Fall
Solidago ptarmicoides Upland White Goldenrod 0.55 1.55 0.07 Fall
Solidago rigida Stiff Goldenrod 0.20 0.36 0.02 Fall
Symphyotrichum laeve Smooth Blue Aster 0.40 0.97 0.05 Fall
Symphyotrichum oolentangiense Sky-blue Aster 0.50 1.76 0.06 Fall
Tradescantia bracteata Long-bracted Spiderwort 0.20 0.09 0.02 Spring
Verbena stricta Hoary Vervain 0.60 0.74 0.07 Summer
Zizia aptera Heart-leaved Alexanders 0.35 0.19 0.04 Spring
100.00 80.78 12.00
Seeds/sq ft:81.00
Grass Species:12
Sedges/Rush Sp:1
Forb Species:31
Mixed Height
MNL Upland Dry Prairie Mix
Seed mixes are subject to change based on availability
Page 140 of 309
6.l
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2026
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Resolution 2026-38 Accepting a Donation to the Ivy Hills Park
Playground Ribbon Cutting
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Rec CONTACT: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and
Recreation/Assistant Public
Works Director
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve Resolution 2026-38 accepting a donation to the Ivy Hills Park Playground Ribbon
Cutting.
BACKGROUND:
By state law, all donations to the City must be accepted by the City Council by a means of
resolution.
On June 4, the City hosted a ribbon cutting to celebrate the new playground at Ivy Hills Park.
As part of the ribbon cutting, funds were donated in order to have an ice cream truck onsite to
provide ice cream free of cost to those in attendance at the event.
This event was well attended with over 125 people at the park, totaling $754.98 of ice cream
purchased from Mik Mart Ice Cream truck. This generous donation was provided by Jimmy
and Stephanie Levine.
The City is grateful for the generosity of this financial donation.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Resolution 2026-38 A Resolution Formally Acknowledging the Receipt of a Donation to
the Ivy Hills Park Playground Ribbon Cutting
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive
and Responsive Government
Page 141 of 309
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2026-38
A RESOLUTION FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF A DONATION
TO THE IVY HILLS PARK PLAYGROUND RIBBON CUTTING
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03
“Gifts to Municipalities”; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to
municipalities; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this
matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their
donations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights hereby accepts a donation in support of the Ivy Hills Park Playground Ribbon
Cutting.
DONOR DONATION VALUE
Jimmy and Stephanie Levine Ice Cream Giveaway $754.98
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of June 2026.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
Page 142 of 309
6.m
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2026
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Resolution 2026-39 Accepting a Donation to the Cops and
Bobbers Derby Day in Honor of Cliff Timm
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT: Willow Eisfeldt, Recreation
Program Coordinator
Meredith Lawrence, Parks and
Recreation/Assistant Public
Works Director
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve Resolution 2026-39 accepting a donation to the Cops and Bobbers Derby Day in
honor of Cliff Timm.
BACKGROUND:
By state law, all donations to the City must be accepted by the City Council by means of
resolution.
On Thursday, July 16, Cops and Bobbers Derby Day in honor of Cliff Timm will be held at
Roger's Lake Park. Last year, Cops and Bobbers attracted a large group of participants and the
Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby has seen a steady decrease in participation numbers over
the past several years. Cops and Bobbers Derby Day is a combination of the two previous
events, in an effort to revitalize and bring excitement back to the fishing derby.
The City received a $1,000 cash donation from the Cliff Timm Memorial Fund. The City is
grateful for the generosity of this donation.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Resolution 2026-39 A Resolution Formally Acknowledging the Receipt of a Donation to
the Cops and Bobbers Derby Day in Honor of Cliff Timm
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Inclusive and Responsive Government, Premier
Page 143 of 309
Public Services & Infrastructure
Page 144 of 309
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2026-39
A RESOLUTION FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF A DONATION TO
THE COPS AND BOBBERS DERBY DAY IN HONOR OF CLIFF TIMM
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute
465.03 “Gifts to Municipalities”; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to
municipalities; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered
this matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially
recognize their donations.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights formally accepts the following donation:
•Cliff Timm Memorial Fund: $1,000 Cash
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of June, 2026.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
Page 145 of 309
This page is intentionally left blank
6.n
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2026
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Purchase of Bleachers for the Hagstrom-King Park Ballfield
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Rec CONTACT: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and
Recreation/Assistant Public
Works Director
John Boland, Public Works
Superintendent
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve the purchase of bleachers from the Highland Products Group/The Park Catalog in the
amount of $7,545.
BACKGROUND:
The Hampshire Estates Street Improvements include roadway improvements to neighborhoods
adjacent to Hagstrom-King Park. Based on feedback received during the public engagement
process and consistent with city priorities, a trail connection from the Hampshire Drive
neighborhood to the park was included in the project. Additionally, a concrete bleacher pad
(15' x 25') for spectators at the ballfield was installed.
Staff have identified bleachers to purchase that meet ADA accessibility requirements and align
with past bleachers purchased. A quote from the Highland Products Group/The Park Catalog
has been obtained to purchase a 3-row ADA Aluminum Bleacher with a Galvanized Steel
Frame. The bleacher has a capacity of 26 individuals plus two wheelchairs. Staff is familiar with
the vendor and has spoken to another city who has purchased from the vendor before and has
said the vendor is reputable.
The lead time for the bleacher is between 2–4 weeks plus transit. Staff anticipates the bleacher
to be installed in late July or early August.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
The bleacher including shipping and handling is $7,545. There are sufficient funds in the
Special Parks Fund to cover this expense.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 146 of 309
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive
and Responsive Government
Page 147 of 309
6.o
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2026
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Purchase of New Duty Handguns for the Police Department
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Police CONTACT: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve the purchase of new duty handguns for the police department.
BACKGROUND:
The department's current duty handguns were purchased in 2016 and are reaching the end of
their operational lifespan. According to law enforcement industry standards, duty pistols
typically require replacement after 7 to 10 years of operational use.
Maintaining aging firearms increases the risk of mechanical malfunctions and elevates long-
term maintenance costs. Transitioning to newer models ensures that officers are equipped
with the most reliable, accurate, and safe equipment available. Additionally, this purchase
allows the department to have the same platform and caliber for all their duty handguns. This
decreases long-term costs by only needing to armor and purchase ammunition for one caliber
of duty handgun.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
The total cost to purchase new duty handguns is $14,339.00. This cost reflects trading in the
department's current duty handguns. In March, the police department received a donation for
equipment that will cover the total cost of this purchase.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government
Page 148 of 309
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 149 of 3096.p
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 150 of 3096.q
Page 151 of 309
Page 152 of 309
Page 153 of 309
Page 154 of 309
Page 155 of 309
Page 156 of 309
Page 157 of 309
Page 158 of 309
Page 159 of 309
Page 160 of 309
Page 161 of 309
Page 162 of 309
Page 163 of 309
Page 164 of 309
This page is intentionally left blank
7.a
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2026
AGENDA ITEM: A Co-Op Grocery Store’s Model and How it Benefits Mendota Heights
ITEM TYPE: Presentation
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community
Development Manager
ACTION REQUEST:
No action required. The City Council is asked to hear the presentation and is welcome to ask
questions or provide feedback on this student's research project.
BACKGROUND:
William Boland is a Master's student in Healthcare Administration at the University of
Minnesota. He has requested the opportunity to present his final capstone project to the City
Council, which focuses on the relationship between access to healthy food and overall
community wellness. Mr. Boland has prepared a presentation on the health and wellness
impacts to our community if we pursued attracting a Co-Op grocery store to locate within
Mendota Heights.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
Not Applicable.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.A Co-Op Grocery Store's Model and How it Benefits Mendota Heights
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Inclusive and Responsive Government
Page 165 of 309
A Co-Op Grocery
Store’s Model and
How it Benefits
Mendota Heights
By William Boland
Page 166 of 309
Our Current Food Landscape
Featured Study
"US tobacco companies selectively disseminated hyper-palatable foods into the US food system:
Empirical evidence and current implications"
From the 1980s to early 2000s, U.S. tobacco giants Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds steered a large share of
the packaged food market through ownership of leading food companies.
●1985- RJR merges with Nabisco, Philip Morris buys General Foods
●1988 Philip Morris acquired Kraft, and so on and so on
●Tobacco-owned companies were significantly more likely to engineer "hyper-palatable" foods
(high-fat/high-salt or high-carb/high-salt) for mass production (shelf stable, nutrients removed)
●Techniques used to optimize nicotine delivery were applied to formulate products that drive
overconsumption and addiction.
Fazzino TL, et al. Addiction. 2024;119(1):62–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16332 Page 167 of 309
Our grandparents knew no such thing as
‘organic…’
Page 168 of 309
Page 169 of 309
Things continue to deteriorate…
01 ●Tobacco‑owned items included leading brands such as Nabisco cookies/crackers
(Oreo, Teddy Grahams, Ritz, Premium), Kraft/General Foods processed meats
(e.g., Oscar Mayer hot dogs/sausages), frozen dinners, and convenience
meals—essentially, mainstream center‑of‑store products, not niche items.
02 ●CDC estimates that about 55% of total calories for people age 1 and older
in the U.S. came from ultra‑processed foods during 2021–2023.
In that same period, youth (1–18 years) averaged 61.9% of calories from
ultra‑processed foods, while adults averaged 53.0%.
03 ●2020s–2026: Public‑health and policy literature explicitly frames
ultra‑processed food as a “commercial determinant of health,” and multiple
analyses document that tobacco companies’ design, marketing, and R&D
practices helped build today’s ultra‑processed food environment.*
From Tobacco to Ultraprocessed Food: How Industry Engineering Fuels the
Epidemic of Preventable Disease - PubMed Page 170 of 309
The Kevin Hall Study
First randomized, controlled study finds ultra-processed
diet leads to weight gain | Clinical Center
1. Ultra‑processed diets caused people to eat about 500 extra calories per day compared with
minimally processed diets, even though participants could eat as much or as little as they
wanted in both conditions.
2. Participants gained roughly 0.9 kg on the ultra‑processed diet and lost about 0.9 kg on the
minimally processed diet over each two‑week period, tightly tracking the difference in
calorie intake.
3.The two diets were deliberately matched for calories offered, macronutrient ratios, sugar,
sodium, and fiber, indicating that the degree of processing itself—not just nutrients on the
label—drove the overeating and weight change.
4. People ate faster and consumed more energy-dense foods on the ultra‑processed diet,
suggesting that texture, speed of eating, and food structure may blunt normal satiety
signals.
5.Because it was a randomized, tightly controlled inpatient trial, the study provided rare
causal evidence that ultra‑processed foods can directly increase energy intake and
short‑term weight gain, going beyond prior observational associations
Page 171 of 309
What should we be worried about?
Page 172 of 309
Organize and Prove There’s a Need
●Gather an initial core group and clarify why your
community wants a co‑op (access to healthy food, local
economy, etc.).
●Use Food Co‑op Initiative and Co-op Partners.
●Talk with your community: hold introductory meetings,
identify potential owners, and conduct a community
needs survey.
●Do a preliminary feasibility check (population,
competition, income, location options) to see if a store
seems plausible.
●Define and finalize your vision and mission statements.
●Convene a steering committee, set up basic admin
support.
●Sketch a preliminary “sources and uses” budget for
organizing work, then raise small startup funds.
●Decide on an owner equity structure, draft a member
capitalization plan, and recruit owners.
●Incorporate the co‑op, open a bank account, and hold
your first board meeting.
●Build a contact list, launch communication systems, and
use a simple Stage I checklist.
What can we do as a
community?
Page 173 of 309
Public Health Crisis
Loneliness and social isolation affect half of U.S. adults, with
a health impact comparable to smoking and obesity.
Health Risks
Significantly increases risks of heart disease, stroke,
dementia, and depression, driving higher healthcare
spending.
Economic Burden
Associated with $6.7 billion in annual Medicare spending
and reduced workplace productivity.
Call to Action
Urgent investment in social connection is needed at a scale
comparable to past tobacco and obesity efforts.
Not just food, Community
Page 174 of 309
Value Gains
Health Access
Areas with better access to healthy
foods and full-service grocery stores
have lower rates of obesity and
diabetes.
Social Connection
Community programs combining
food access with social interaction
reduce loneliness and isolation
among older adults while improving
nutrition.
Economic Impact
Healthy grocery projects act as
economic anchors, creating jobs,
revitalizing corridors, and increasing
property values and tax revenue.
*Pineda E, et al. Food environment and obesity. BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health. 2024.
**Sen K, et al. Interventions to reduce social isolation and food insecurity in older adults. Front Nutr. 2025.
***National Collaborative on Childhood Obesity Research. Access to healthy food improves health, brings economic benefits. 2016.
Page 175 of 309
Risks to the Community at Large
Specific Metabolic-Related NCD Costs (U.S.)
From CDC’s most recent “Fast Facts” on chronic disease economics
Cardiovascular Disease
Current Annual Cost: $414.7B
Includes $223.2B direct & $191.5B indirect costs.
Projected 2050: ~$2 Trillion/year
Diabetes & Obesity
Diabetes (2022): $640B
Obesity: $173B/year
Obesity is the underlying driver of insulin resistance and
many NCDs.
Chronic Kidney Disease
Annual Spending: $141.1B
Represents >1 in 3 Medicare dollars.
Combined Impact
$1.3 Trillion+ per year
Tightly linked to metabolic dysfunction.
Chronic Disease Spending Share: U.S. health expenditures have reached ~18% of GDP.
Key Takeaway: Chronic disease is responsible for roughly 16% of U.S. GDP in health spending each year.
Data above published by the CDC
Page 176 of 309
Benefits to the Community at Large
“Communities with better access to
full‑service grocery stores and
healthy foods have lower rates of
obesity and diabetes” (HHS)
The U.S. Surgeon General and CDC
both highlight social connection as
a protective factor against serious
illness; stronger community ties
are associated with longer,
healthier lives” (CDC)
Food co‑ops are already a proven business
model: U.S. food co‑ops generate over
$2.4–2.5 billion in annual sales, support
more than 15,000 jobs, and have a higher
local economic multiplier, meaning every
$1,000 spent at a co‑op generates about
$1,604 in local economic activity (NCBA)
The FCI (Food Co-Op Initiative) offers
clear guidance for starting and
maintaining this store model, while
evidence based research further
promotes the value
01
02
03
04
Access to Foods That Support Healthy Dietary Patterns - Healthy People 2030 | odphp.health.gov Page 177 of 309
In Closing…
"Bad company corrupts good character"
(1 Corinthians 15:33)
"You do not rise to the level of your goals. You fall
to the level of your systems."
— James Clear
"The combination of loss aversion with mindless choosing implies that if an option is designated as the
'default,' it will attract a large market share. Default options thus act as powerful nudges."
— Richard Thaler, Nobel Prize winner in Economics
Page 178 of 309
Thank you!
Page 179 of 309
This page is intentionally left blank
9.a
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2026
AGENDA ITEM: City of Mendota Heights FY2025 Audit Report
ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business
DEPARTMENT: Finance CONTACT: Kristen Schabacker, Finance
Director
ACTION REQUEST:
Accept the audit and ask any questions that you may have.
BACKGROUND:
BerganKDV has completed the audit for 2025. The reports for 2025 are the Annual Report &
Basic Financial Statements and the Communications Letter. These reports are included in the
meeting packet. Caroline Stustman from BerganKDV will be presenting the 2025 audit.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
There is no budget impact
ATTACHMENTS:
1.FS - 2025 City of Mendota Heights - Final
2.CL - 2025 City of Mendota Heights - Final
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Premier Public Services & Infrastructure
Page 180 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Annual Report and Basic
Financial Statements
December 31, 2025
Page 181 of 309
Page 182 of 309
This page is intentionally left blank
City of Mendota Heights
Table of Contents
Elected Officials and Administration 1
Independent Auditor's Report 3
Management's Discussion and Analysis 7
Basic Financial Statements
Government-Wide Financial Statements
Statement of Net Position 18
Statement of Activities 19
Fund Financial Statements
Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds 20
Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Position
–Governmental Funds 21
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances
–Governmental Funds 22
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues , Expenditures, and Changes
in Fund Balances to the Statement of Activities – Governmental Funds 23
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance
–Budget and Actual – General Fund 24
Statement of Net Position – Proprietary Funds 25
Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Position
–Proprietary Funds 26
Statement of Cash Flows – Proprietary Funds 27
Notes to Basic Financial Statements 29
Required Supplementary Information
Schedule of Changes in Total OPEB Liability and Related Ratios 66
Schedule of City's Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability General
Employees Retirement Fund 68
Schedule of City's Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability Public
Employees Police and Fire Retirement Fund 68
Schedule of City Contributions General Employees Retirement Fund 69
Schedule of City Contributions Public Employees Police and Fire
Retirement Fund 69
Notes to Required Supplementary Information 70
Supplementary Information
Combining Balance Sheet – Nonmajor Governmental Funds 80
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances
–Nonmajor Governmental Funds 86
Combining Statement of Net Position – Internal Service Funds 92
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position
–Internal Service Funds 93
Combining Statement of Cash Flows – Internal Service Funds 94
Detailed Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance
–Budget and Actual – General Fund 95
Page 183 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Table of Contents
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance
and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed
in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 99
Minnesota Legal Compliance 101
Schedule of Finding and Response on Internal Control 102
Page 184 of 309
1
City of Mendota Heights
Elected Officials and Administration
December 31, 2025
Elected Officials Position Term Expires
Stephanie Levine Mayor December 31, 2026
Joel Paper Council Member December 31, 2028
John Maczko Council Member December 31, 2028
Sally Lorberbaum Council Member December 31, 2026
John Mazzitello Council Member December 31, 2026
Administration
Cheryl Jacobson City Administrator Appointed
Nancy Bauer City Clerk Appointed
Kristen Schabacker Finance Director Appointed
Page 185 of 309
2
(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
Page 186 of 309
3
Independent Auditor's Report
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements
Opinions
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities , the business-type
activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2025 , and the related notes to basic
financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements as listed in the
Table of Contents.
In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the
respective financial position of the governmental activities , the business-type activities, each major
fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Mendota Heights , Minnesota, as of
December 31, 2025, and the respective changes in financial position and , where applicable, cash flows
thereof, and the budgetary comparison for the General Fund for the year then ended in accordance
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis for Opinions
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United
States of America (GAAS) and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government
Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our responsibilities
under those standards are further described in the Auditor 's Responsibilities for the Audit of the
Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the City of
Mendota Heights and to meet our other ethical responsibilities , in accordance with the relevant
ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is
sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.
Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements
The City of Mendota Heights' management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of
the financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America, and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant
to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material
misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
In preparing the financial statements , management is required to evaluate whether there are
conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City's ability
to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial statement date , including any
currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter.
Page 187 of 309
4
Auditor's Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole
are free from material misstatement , whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor's report
that includes our opinions. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute
assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS and
Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk
of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from
error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the
override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood
that, individually or in the aggregate , they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user
based on the financial statements.
In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards, we:
• Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.
• Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements , whether
due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such
procedures include examining , on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements.
• Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit
procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing
an opinion on the effectiveness of City's internal control. Accordingly , no such opinion is
expressed.
• Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant
accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of
the financial statements.
• Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the
aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about City's ability to continue as a going concern for
a reasonable period of time.
We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding , among other
matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit , significant audit findings, and certain internal
control–related matters that we identified during the audit.
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the
Management's Discussion and Analysis, which follows this report letter, and Required Supplementary
Information as listed in the Table of Contents be presented to supplement the basic financial
statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and , although not a part of the
basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), who
considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in
an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited
procedures to the Required Supplementary Information in accordance with auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States of America , which consisted of inquiries of management
about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with
management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements , and other knowledge we
obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide
any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient
evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
Page 188 of 309
5
Supplementary Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that
collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements. The accompanying supplementary
information identified in the Table of Contents is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is
not a required part of the basic financial statements.
Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to
the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The
information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial
statements and certain additional procedures , including comparing and reconciling such information
directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial
statements or to the basic financial statements themselves , and other additional procedures in
accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our
opinion, the accompanying supplementary information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in
relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated
June 9, 2026, on our consideration of the City's internal control over financial reporting and on our
tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws , regulations, contracts, and grant agreements
and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of
internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing , and not to
provide an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting or on compliance.
That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing
Standards in considering the City's internal control over financial reporting and compliance.
St. Cloud, Minnesota
June 9, 2026
Page 189 of 309
6
(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
Page 190 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
7
As management of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the "City"), we offer readers of the City's
financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the
year ended December 31, 2025.
FINANCIAL AND DEVELOPMENT HIGHLIGHTS
The assets and deferred outflows of resources of the City exceeded liabilities and deferred inflows of
resources at the close of the most recent year by $70,658,277 (net position). Of this amount,
$17,669,168 (unrestricted net position) may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens
and creditors.
The City's total net position increased by $4,499,577. Governmental activities resulted in an increase
of net position of $3,999,502. Business-type activities had an increase of net position of $500,075.
As of the close of the current year, the City's governmental funds reported a combined ending fund
balance of $26,238,895, an increase of $2,890,308 from the prior year.
At the end of the year the General Fund had an unassigned fund balance of $13,185,110, or 99.52% of
total General Fund expenditures.
OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The discussion and analysis are intended to serve as an introduction to the City's basic financial
statements. The City's basic financial statements comprise three components: 1) government-wide
financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to basic financial statements. This
report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements
themselves.
Government-Wide Financial Statements
The government-wide financial statements on pages 18 and 19 are designed to provide readers with a
broad overview of the City's finances, in a manner similar to a private-sector business.
The Statement of Net Position presents information on all of the City's assets, deferred outflows of
resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources, with the difference reported as net position.
Over time, increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the
financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating.
The Statement of Activities presents information showing how the City's net position changed during
the most recent year. All changes in net position are reported as soon as the underlying event giving
rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and
expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future
periods (e.g., uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave).
Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are
principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) and from
other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user
fees and charges (business-type activities). The governmental activities of the City include general
government, public safety, public works and economic development. The business-type activities of
the City include sewer and storm water.
Page 191 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
8
OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Fund Financial Statements
A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have
been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other state and local
governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal
requirements. All of the funds of the City can be divided into two categories: Governmental Funds
and Proprietary Funds.
Governmental Funds
Governmental Funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental
activities in the government-wide financial statements. However, unlike the government-wide
financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term inflows and
outflows of spendable resource, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of
the year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government's near-term financial
requirements.
Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide financial
statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar
information presented for governmental activities in the government-wide financial statement. By
doing so, readers may better understand the long-term impact of the City's near-term financial
decisions. Both the Governmental Fund Balance Sheet and Governmental Fund Statement of
Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this
comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities.
The City maintains three individual major governmental funds. Information is presented separately in
the Governmental Fund Balance Sheet and in the Governmental Fund Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances for the following major funds:
•General Fund
•Special Assessments Debt Service Fund
•Street Capital Projects Fund
Data from the other governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation.
Individual fund data for each of these nonmajor governmental funds is provided in the form of
combining statements elsewhere in this report.
The City adopts an annual appropriated budget for its General Fund. A budgetary comparison
statement has been provided for those funds to demonstrate compliance with this budget.
The basic governmental fund financial statements can be found on pages 20 through 24 of this
report.
Proprietary Funds
The City maintains two enterprise funds and two internal service funds as a part of its proprietary
fund type. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business-type
activities in the government-wide financial statements. The City uses enterprise funds to account for
its sewer and storm water operations.
Page 192 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
9
OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Proprietary Funds (Continued)
Proprietary Funds provide the same type of information as the government-wide financial
statements, only in more detail. The proprietary fund financial statements provide separate
information for the following funds:
Enterprise Funds
•Sewer Utility Fund
•Storm Water Utility Fund
Internal service funds are an accounting device used to accumulate and allocate costs internally
among the City's various functions. The City uses internal service funds to account for compensated
absences and city hall functions. The internal service funds are combined into a single, aggregated
presentation in the proprietary fund financial statements. Individual fund data for the internal
service funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report.
The basic proprietary fund financial statements can be found on pages 25 through 27 of this report.
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data
provided in the government-wide and fund financial statements. The notes to basic financial
statements can be found on pages 29 through 64 of this report.
Other Information
The combining statements referred to earlier in connection with non-major governmental funds are
presented immediately following the required supplementary information on budgetary comparisons.
Combining and individual fund statements and schedules can be found on pages 80 through 97 of this
report.
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
As noted earlier, net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial
position. In the case of the City, assets and deferred outflows of resources exceeded liabilities and
deferred inflows of resources by $70,658,277 at the close of the most recent year.
Page 193 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
10
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
The largest portion of the City's net position ($41,331,873 or 58.50%) reflects its investment in
capital assets (e.g., land, buildings, machinery and equipment, sewer main lines and storm sewers
and infrastructure) less any related debt used to acquire those assets that is still outstanding. The
City uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not
available for future spending. Although the City's investment in its capital assets is reported net of
related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from
other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities.
Net Position
2025 2024 2025 2024 2025 2024
Assets
Current and other assets 35,895,727$ 32,128,191$ 4,262,821$ 4,147,902$ 40,158,548$ 36,276,093$
Capital assets 49,485,290 48,487,778 15,285,372 14,942,868 64,770,662 63,430,646
Deferred outflows of resources
related to pensions and OPEB 5,297,971 6,502,068 20,197 17,184 5,318,168 6,519,252
Total assets and deferred
outflows of resources 90,678,988$ 87,118,037$ 19,568,390$ 19,107,954$ 110,247,378$ 106,225,991$
Liabilities
Long-term liabilities outstanding 27,277,220$ 27,576,208$ 79,684$ 107,043$ 27,356,904$ 27,683,251$
Other liabilities 4,908,207 4,997,798 315,487 322,680 5,223,694 5,320,478
Deferred inflows of resources
related to pensions, OPEB and
leases 6,965,656 7,015,628 42,887 47,934 7,008,543 7,063,562
Total liabilities and deferred
inflows of resources 39,151,083$ 39,589,634$ 438,058$ 477,657$ 39,589,141$ 40,067,291$
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets 26,046,501$ 25,394,793$ 15,285,372$ 14,942,868$ 41,331,873$ 40,337,661$
Restricted 11,657,236 10,296,683 - - 11,657,236 10,296,683
Unrestricted 13,824,168 11,836,927 3,845,000 3,687,429 17,669,168 15,524,356
Total net position 51,527,905$ 47,528,403$ 19,130,372$ 18,630,297$ 70,658,277$ 66,158,700$
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota's Net Position
Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Totals
A portion of the of the City's net position ($11,657,236) represents resources that are subject to
external restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of unrestricted net position
($17,669,168) may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors.
At the end of the current year, the City is able to report positive balances in all three categories of
net position, both for the government as a whole, as well as for its separate governmental and
business-type activities.
Page 194 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
11
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Governmental Activities
Governmental activities increased the City's net position by $3,999,502. Key elements of this
increase are as follows:
City's Changes in Net Position
2025 2024 2025 2024 2025 2024
Revenues
Program revenues
Charges for services 3,057,875$ 4,444,361$ 3,494,063$ 3,232,235$ 6,551,938$ 7,676,596$
Operating grants and contributions 1,055,887 1,133,495 - 31,435 1,055,887 1,164,930
Capital grants and contributions 4,045,019 2,442,848 - -4,045,019 2,442,848
General revenues
Taxes 13,418,416 12,914,941 - - 13,418,416 12,914,941
Tax increment 327,954 323,631 - - 327,954 323,631
Unrestricted investment earnings 858,253 942,819 155,355 142,879 1,013,608 1,085,698
Franchise fees 416,343 382,044 - - 416,343 382,044
Total revenues 23,179,747 22,584,139 3,649,418 3,406,549 26,829,165 25,990,688
Expenses
General government 2,974,920 2,801,829 - - 2,974,920 2,801,829
Public safety 7,031,051 6,753,141 - - 7,031,051 6,753,141
Public works 8,836,012 6,614,732 - - 8,836,012 6,614,732
Economic development 341,095 295,547 - - 341,095 295,547
Interest on long-term debt 616,187 577,326 - - 616,187 577,326
Sewer - - 2,200,185 2,056,849 2,200,185 2,056,849
Storm water - - 330,138 397,511 330,138 397,511
Total expenses 19,799,265 17,042,575 2,530,323 2,454,360 22,329,588 19,496,935
Increase (decrease) in net
position before transfers 3,380,482 5,541,564 1,119,095 952,189 4,499,577 6,493,753
Transfers 619,020 242,608 (619,020)(242,608)- -
Increase (decrease) in net position 3,999,502 5,784,172 500,075 709,581 4,499,577 6,493,753
Net position - beginning 47,528,403 41,744,231 18,630,297 17,920,716 66,158,700 59,664,947
Net position - ending 51,527,905$ 47,528,403$ 19,130,372$ 18,630,297$ 70,658,277$ 66,158,700$
City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota's Net Position
Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Totals
Page 195 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
12
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Governmental Activities (Continued)
Below are specific graphs which provide comparisons of the governmental activities revenues and
expenditures:
Charges for
Services
13%
Operating Grants
and Contributions
5%
Capital Grants
and Contributions
17%
Taxes
59%Unrestricted
Investment
Earnings
4%
Franchise fees
2%
Governmental Activities -Revenues
General
Government
15%
Public Safety
35%
Public Works
45%Economic
Development
2%
Interest and Fees
on Long-Term
Debt
3%
Governmental Activities -Expenses
Page 196 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
13
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Business-Type Activities
Business-type activities increased net position by $500,075. Below are graphs showing the business-
type activities revenue and expense comparisons:
Charges for
Services
96%
Unrestricted Investment Earnings
4%
Business-Type Activities -Revenues
Sewer
87%
Storm Water
13%
Business-Type Activities -Expenses
Page 197 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
14
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FUNDS
Governmental Funds
The focus of the City's governmental funds is to provide information on near-term inflows, outflows,
and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City's financing
requirements. In particular, unassigned fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a
government's net resources available for spending at the end of the year.
At the end of the current year, the City's governmental funds reported combined ending fund
balances of $26,238,895. Nonspendable fund balances are already allocated for prepaid items
($332,515) and inventory ($22,068). Approximately 33.70% ($8,842,677) constitutes restricted fund
balance. Restricted fund balance would include Debt Service, Special Park, Street Capital Projects,
Police Forfeiture, TIF Districts, Local Affordable Housing Aid and Street Light District Funds, all of
which have specific uses for the funds they receive. The City also has a committed fund balance of
$1,854,051 (7.07%). This represents fund balance that is to be used for the water system, Par 3 Golf
Course, and civil defense needs. The City has assigned fund balance of $2,087,722 (7.96%). This
number represents the fund balances for the various reserve accounts. The remaining category of
fund balance is the unassigned fund balance. The City has $13,099,862 of unassigned fund balance
which is approximately 49.93% of the combined governmental fund balance at December 31, 2025.
The General Fund's fund balance increased by $62,313 in 2025. Revenues were greater than
anticipated and operating expenditures were lower than budgeted amounts. The capital outlay
expenditures were not included in the 2025 budget.
The Special Assessments Debt Service Fund increased by $58,490 in 2025. This fund accounted for
debt service payments for prior street improvement projects that were financed through the
issuance of bonds.
The Street Capital Project Fund increased by $1,418,558. This fund accounted for the costs and
resources associated with the Friendly Hills street improvement project.
The nonmajor governmental funds increased by $1,350,947. These funds received revenues from
water surcharges, Par 3 Golf Course, and park dedication fees. Nonmajor funds account for the
Special Park, Civil Defense, Par 3 Golf Course, and Street Light District activity. The City also has
nonmajor funds for future purchases of equipment, facility needs and minor infrastructure projects.
Proprietary Funds
The City's proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the government-wide
financial statements, but in more detail. The unrestricted net position in the respective Proprietary
Funds are sewer $2,875,145 and storm water $969,855. The Sewer Utility Fund had a decrease in net
position in 2025 of $17,081 and the Storm Water Utility Fund had an increase in net position in 2025
of $517,156.
Page 198 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
15
BUDGETARY HIGHLIGHTS
General Fund
The General Fund budget was not amended during 2025.
During the year, revenues exceeded budgeted estimates by $977,234, while expenditures were less
than anticipated by $278,754. Expenditures for each category were under budgeted amounts.
Capital outlay purchases were not included in the 2025 budget.
The General Fund experienced greater than budgeted revenues in some categories. The City received
higher than budgeted amounts for licenses and permits and intergovernmental revenue. Investment
earnings exceeded budgeted amounts. The City takes a conservative approach when budgeting for
revenues that are not consistent from year to year.
Overall, the General Fund balance increased by $62,313, an increase of approximately 0.46%.
CAPITAL ASSET AND DEBT ADMINISTRATION
Capital Assets
The City's investment in capital assets for its governmental and business type activities as of
December 31, 2025, amounts to $64,770,662 (net of accumulated depreciation/amortization). This
investment in capital assets includes land, buildings, machinery and equipment, sewer main lines and
storm sewers and infrastructure.
Capital Assets
(Net of Depreciation/Amortization)
2025 2024 2025 2024 2025 2024
Land 8,790,170$ 8,790,170$ -$ -$ 8,790,170$ 8,790,170$
Construction in progress 6,027,681 7,805,247 31,087 - 6,058,768 7,805,247
Buildings and structures 7,848,224 7,777,941 - - 7,848,224 7,777,941
Machinery and equipment 4,718,422 3,496,650 463,686 498,856 5,182,108 3,995,506
Leased equipment 506,468 556,048 - - 506,468 556,048
Subscription asset 31,082 62,164 - - 31,082 62,164
Other improvements 1,718,643 1,661,101 - - 1,718,643 1,661,101
Storm sewers - - 14,790,599 14,444,012 14,790,599 14,444,012
Infrastructure 19,844,600 18,338,457 - - 19,844,600 18,338,457
Total capital assets 49,485,290$ 48,487,778$ 15,285,372$ 14,942,868$ 64,770,662$ 63,430,646$
Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Totals
Additional information on the City's capital assets can be found in Note 6.
Page 199 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Management's Discussion and Analysis
16
CAPITAL ASSET AND DEBT ADMINISTRATION (CONTINUED)
Long-Term Debt
At the end of the current year, the City had total long-term debt outstanding of $21,660,000, an
increase of $370,000 from 2024. $21,660,000 for general obligation (G.O.) improvement debt which
is supported in part by special assessments.
Outstanding Debt
G.O. Improvement Bonds, G.O. Bonds and Revenue Bonds:
2025 2024
G.O. Improvement Bonds 16,610,000$ 15,820,000$
G.O. Bonds 5,050,000 5,470,000
Total 21,660,000$ 21,290,000$
Governmental Activities
The City maintains a AAA rating from Standard & Poor's.
Minnesota Statutes limit the amount of G.O. debt a Minnesota city may issue to 2% of total estimated
market value. The current debt limitation for the City is $64,380,829. Of the City's outstanding debt,
$5,050,000 is counted within the statutory limitation.
Additional information on the City's long-term debt can be found in Note 7.
Economic Factors and Next Year's Budgets and Rates
In 2025, the taxable market value for the City was $3,219,041,452. This represents an increase of
3.18% from 2024. The City is expecting a slight increase in taxable market value for 2026.
These factors were considered in preparing the City's budget for 2026.
Requests for Information
This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the City's finances for all those with
an interest in the government's finances. Questions concerning any of the information provided in
this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the Director of
Finance, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118.
Page 200 of 309
17
BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Page 201 of 309
See notes to basic financial statements. 18
City of Mendota Heights
Statement of Net Position
December 31, 2025
Governmental
Activities
Business-Type
Activities Total
Assets
Cash and investments
(including cash equivalents)27,212,041$ 3,127,623$ 30,339,664$
Property tax receivable 91,513 - 91,513
Accounts receivable 210,623 896,008 1,106,631
Interest receivable 56,324 10,315 66,639
Due from other governments 2,022,154 2,299 2,024,453
Special assessments receivable
Delinquent 9,134 5,462 14,596
Deferred 3,115,849 52,310 3,168,159
Lease receivable due within one year 36,076 - 36,076
Lease receivable due after one year 2,682,688 - 2,682,688
Inventories 22,068 - 22,068
Prepaid items 341,157 168,804 509,961
Land held for resale 96,100 - 96,100
Capital assets not being depreciated
Land and improvements 8,790,170 - 8,790,170
Construction in progress 6,027,681 31,087 6,058,768
Capital assets being depreciated, net of accumulated depreciation/amortization
Infrastructure 19,844,600 14,790,599 34,635,199
Buildings and structures 7,848,224 - 7,848,224
Other improvements 1,718,643 - 1,718,643
Leased equipment 506,468 - 506,468
Subscription asset 31,082 - 31,082
Machinery and equipment 4,718,422 463,686 5,182,108
Total assets 85,381,017 19,548,193 104,929,210
Deferred Outflows of Resources
Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions 2,923,593 19,915 2,943,508
Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB 2,374,378 282 2,374,660
Total deferred outflows of resources 5,297,971 20,197 5,318,168
Total assets and deferred outflows of resources 90,678,988$ 19,568,390$ 110,247,378$
Liabilities
Accounts and contracts payable 904,833$ 62,755$ 967,588$
Deposits payable - 185,324 185,324
Due to other governments 115,390 6,895 122,285
Salaries and benefits payable 355,716 14,224 369,940
Interest payable 281,000 - 281,000
Developers' escrow deposits 12,395 - 12,395
Bond principal payable
Payable within one year 2,295,000 - 2,295,000
Payable after one year 20,646,199 - 20,646,199
Lease payable
Payable within one year 128,044 - 128,044
Payable after one year 338,481 - 338,481
Subscription payable
Payable within one year 31,065 - 31,065
Compensated absences payable
Payable within one year 594,811 30,217 625,028
Payable after one year 347,341 17,469 364,810
Other post employment benefits (OPEB) payable
Payable within one year 189,953 - 189,953
Payable after one year 3,082,414 16,032 3,098,446
Net pension liability 2,862,785 62,215 2,925,000
Total liabilities 32,185,427 395,131 32,580,558
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions 4,071,406 37,954 4,109,360
Deferred inflows of resources related to lease receivable 2,718,764 - 2,718,764
Deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB 175,486 4,933 180,419
Total deferred inflows of resources 6,965,656 42,887 7,008,543
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets 26,046,501 15,285,372 41,331,873
Restricted for
Police forfeiture 31,641 - 31,641
Debt service 6,094,479 - 6,094,479
Capital projects 4,718,524 - 4,718,524
Street light maintenance 43,577 - 43,577
Park dedication 525,305 - 525,305
American Rescue Plan Act 862 - 862
Local affordable housing aid 124,382 - 124,382
Tax increment 118,466 - 118,466
Unrestricted 13,824,168 3,845,000 17,669,168
Total net position 51,527,905 19,130,372 70,658,277
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and net position 90,678,988$ 19,568,390$ 110,247,378$
Page 202 of 309
See notes to basic financial statements. 19
Program Revenues
Expenses
Charges for
Services
Operating
Grants and
Contributions
Capital Grants
and
Contributions
Governmental
Activities
Business-Type
Activities Total
Governmental activities
General government 2,974,920$ 354,493$ 59,620$ 123,622$ (2,437,185)$ -$ (2,437,185)$
Public safety 7,031,051 736,796 772,356 - (5,521,899) - (5,521,899)
Public works 8,836,012 1,966,586 223,911 3,921,397 (2,724,118) - (2,724,118)
Economic development 341,095 - - - (341,095) - (341,095)
Interest on long-term debt 616,187 - - - (616,187) - (616,187)
Total governmental activities 19,799,265 3,057,875 1,055,887 4,045,019 (11,640,484) - (11,640,484)
Business-type activities
Sewer 2,200,185 2,750,904 - - - 550,719 550,719
Storm water 330,138 743,159 - - - 413,021 413,021
Total business-type activities 2,530,323 3,494,063 - - - 963,740 963,740
Total governmental and
business-type activities 22,329,588$ 6,551,938$ 1,055,887$ 4,045,019$ (11,640,484) 963,740 (10,676,744)
General revenues
Property taxes 13,418,416 - 13,418,416
Franchise fees 416,343 - 416,343
Tax increments 327,954 - 327,954
Unrestricted investment earnings 858,253 155,355 1,013,608
Total general revenues 15,020,966 155,355 15,176,321
Transfers 619,020 (619,020) -
Change in net position 3,999,502 500,075 4,499,577
Net position - beginning 47,528,403 18,630,297 66,158,700
Net position - ending 51,527,905$ 19,130,372$ 70,658,277$
Functions/Programs
Net (Expense) Revenues
and Changes in Net Position
City of Mendota Heights
Statement of Activities
Year Ended December 31, 2025
Page 203 of 309
See notes to basic financial statements. 20
Capital Projects
General Fund
Special
Assessments
Debt Service
Street Capital
Projects
Other
Governmental
Funds
Total
Governmental
Funds
Assets
Cash and investments
(including cash equivalents)13,634,197$ 3,374,028$ 3,253,791$ 5,892,038$ 26,154,054$
Taxes receivable - delinquent 73,080 11,606 - 6,827 91,513
Special assessments receivable
Delinquent 4,225 4,909 - - 9,134
Deferred 42,206 3,019,141 42,644 11,858 3,115,849
Accounts receivable 199,535 - - 11,088 210,623
Interest receivable 30,373 6,770 4,571 13,977 55,691
Due from other funds 82,201 - - - 82,201
Due from other governments 152,083 57,968 1,798,393 13,710 2,022,154
Lease receivables 2,718,764 - - - 2,718,764
Inventories 22,068 - - - 22,068
Prepaid items 325,172 - - 7,343 332,515
Land held for resale - - - 96,100 96,100
Total assets 17,283,904$ 6,474,422$ 5,099,399$ 6,052,941$ 34,910,666$
Liabilities
Accounts and contracts payable 439,843$ -$ 235,685$ 223,376$ 898,904$
Due to other funds - - - 82,201 82,201
Due to other governments 114,749 - - 512 115,261
Salaries and benefits payable 346,292 - - 3,886 350,178
Developers' escrow deposits 12,395 - - - 12,395
Total liabilities 913,279 - 235,685 309,975 1,458,939
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Unavailable revenue - property taxes 73,080 11,606 - 6,827 91,513
Unavailable revenue - state shared tax - - 1,277,572 - 1,277,572
Deferred Inflows of Resources related
to lease receivable 2,718,764 - - - 2,718,764
Unavailable revenue - special assessments 46,431 3,024,050 42,644 11,858 3,124,983
Total deferred inflows of resources 2,838,275 3,035,656 1,320,216 18,685 7,212,832
Fund Balances
Nonspendable 347,240 - - 7,343 354,583
Restricted - 3,438,766 3,543,498 1,860,413 8,842,677
Committed - - - 1,854,051 1,854,051
Assigned - - - 2,087,722 2,087,722
Unassigned 13,185,110 - - (85,248) 13,099,862
Total fund balances 13,532,350 3,438,766 3,543,498 5,724,281 26,238,895
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources, and fund balances 17,283,904$ 6,474,422$ 5,099,399$ 6,052,941$ 34,910,666$
City of Mendota Heights
Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds
December 31, 2025
Page 204 of 309
See notes to basic financial statements. 21
City of Mendota Heights
Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet to
the Statement of Net Position - Governmental Funds
December 31, 2025
Total fund balances - governmental funds 26,238,895$
Capital assets used in governmental activities are not current financial resources and, therefore,
are not reported as assets in governmental funds:
Cost of capital assets 89,143,051
Less accumulated depreciation/amortization (40,122,592)
Long-term liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the current period and,
therefore, are not reported as liabilities in the funds.
Long-term liabilities at year-end consist of:
General obligation (G.O.) bond principal payable (21,660,000)
Lease payable (466,525)
Subscription payable (31,065)
Unamortized bond premium (1,281,199)
OPEB payable (3,261,970)
Net pension liability (2,833,722)
Deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources are created as a result of various
differences related to pensions and OPEB that are not recognized in the governmental funds:
Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions (4,053,676)
Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions 2,914,289
Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB 2,374,195
Deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB (172,286)
Delinquent receivables will be collected in subsequent years, but are not available soon enough to
pay for the current period's expenditures and, therefore, are deferred in the funds:
Property taxes 91,513
Special assessments 9,134
Revenues in the Statement of Activities that do not provide current financial resources are not
reported as revenues in the funds:
Deferred special assessments 3,115,849
State shared tax 1,277,572
Governmental funds do not report a liability for accrued interest until due and payable.(281,000)
Internal service funds are used by management to charge the cost of engineering, compensated
absences and City Hall expenses to individual funds. The net position of the funds are considered
governmental and included in the government-wide Statement of Net Position. 527,442
51,527,905$ Total net position - governmental activities
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position are different because:
Page 205 of 309
See notes to basic financial statements. 22
Capital Projects
General Fund
Special
Assessments
Debt Service
Street Capital
Projects
Other
Governmental
Funds
Total
Governmental
Funds
Revenues
Property taxes 10,804,573$ 1,702,597$ -$ 919,926$ 13,427,096$
Tax increments - - - 327,954 327,954
Franchise fees 416,343 - - - 416,343
Special assessments - 532,454 867,418 - 1,399,872
Licenses and permits 748,913 - - - 748,913
Intergovernmental 942,328 - 514,391 123,622 1,580,341
Charges for services 792,746 - - 543,132 1,335,878
Fines and forfeitures 51,813 757 - - 52,570
Miscellaneous revenue
Investment income 457,435 101,958 78,946 210,382 848,721
Refunds and reimbursements - - 1,666,235 - 1,666,235
Other 242,902 - - 440,436 683,338
Total revenues 14,457,053 2,337,766 3,126,990 2,565,452 22,487,261
Expenditures
Current
General government 2,420,939 - - 187,780 2,608,719
Public safety 6,193,211 - - - 6,193,211
Public works 4,099,905 - - 355,936 4,455,841
Economic development - - - 341,095 341,095
Debt service
Principal 158,050 1,835,000 - 420,000 2,413,050
Interest and other charges - 556,707 - 164,725 721,432
Capital outlay
General government 71,603 - - 59,996 131,599
Public safety 299,807 - - 1,015,013 1,314,820
Public works 5,100 - 4,808,407 681,573 5,495,080
Total expenditures 13,248,615 2,391,707 4,808,407 3,226,118 23,674,847
Excess of revenues over
(under) expenditures 1,208,438 (53,941) (1,681,417) (660,666) (1,187,586)
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Issuance of debt - 2,625,000 - - 2,625,000
Bond premium - 268,059 - - 268,059
Insurance recoveries 60,776 - - - 60,776
Transfers in 47,550 47,119 4,555,092 2,252,075 6,901,836
Transfers out (1,254,451) (2,827,747) (1,455,117) (240,462) (5,777,777)
Total other financing sources (uses) (1,146,125) 112,431 3,099,975 2,011,613 4,077,894
Net change in fund balances 62,313 58,490 1,418,558 1,350,947 2,890,308
Fund Balances
Beginning of year 13,470,037 3,380,276 2,124,940 4,373,334 23,348,587
End of year 13,532,350$ 3,438,766$ 3,543,498$ 5,724,281$ 26,238,895$
City of Mendota Heights
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances - Governmental Funds
Year Ended December 31, 2025
Page 206 of 309
See notes to basic financial statements. 23
2,890,308$
Capital outlays are reported in governmental funds as expenditures. However, in the Statement of
Activities, the cost of those assets is allocated over the estimated useful lives as depreciation
expense:
Capital outlays 6,872,623
Depreciation expense (3,121,828)
Loss on disposal of capital assets (2,220,609)
Assets contributed to enterprise funds (505,039)
Governmental funds recognized pension contributions as expenditures at the time of payment
whereas the Statement of Activities factors in items related to pensions on a full accrual
perspective. 239,481
OPEB are not reported as expenditures in the governmental funds because they do not require the
use of current financial resources; instead, they are expensed in the Statement of Activities. (358,985)
Principal payments on long-term debt are recognized as expenditures in the governmental funds
but have no effect on net position in the Statement of Activities. 2,413,050
Premiums on the issuance of long-term debt provide current financial resources to governmental
funds and have no effect on net position. These amounts are reported in the governmental funds
as an other financing source and constitute long-term liabilities in the Statement of Net Position. (268,059)
Premiums are recognized when debt is issued in the governmental funds but amortized over the
life of the debt in the Statement of Activities. 134,205
Interest on long-term debt in the Statement of Activities differs from the amount reported in the
governmental funds because interest is recognized as an expenditure in the funds when it is due
and thus requires use of current financial resources. In the Statement of Activities, however,
interest expense is recognized as the interest accrues, regardless of when it is due. (28,960)
Proceeds from long-term debt are recognized as an other financing source in the governmental
funds but have no effect on net position in the Statement of Activities:
Bonds payable (2,625,000)
Revenues in the Statement of Activities that do not provide current financial resources are not
reported as revenues in the funds. 583,668
Activities of the internal service funds are presented separately from the governmental funds.
However, the functions, from a government-wide perspective, are governmental. (5,353)
3,999,502$ Change in net position - governmental activities
Net change in fund balances - governmental funds
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Activities are different because:
City of Mendota Heights
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances to
the Statement of Activities - Governmental Funds
Year Ended December 31, 2025
Page 207 of 309
See notes to basic financial statements. 24
City of Mendota Heights
Budget and Actual - General Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balance -
Budget and Actual - General Fund
Year Ended December 31, 2025
Budgeted
Amounts Variance with
Original Actual
and Final Amounts
Revenues
Property taxes 10,887,020$ 10,804,573$ (82,447)$
Franchise fees 350,000 416,343 66,343
Licenses and permits 464,200 748,913 284,713
Intergovernmental 753,750 942,328 188,578
Charges for services 757,349 792,746 35,397
Fines and forfeitures 67,500 51,813 (15,687)
Miscellaneous revenues
Investment income 50,000 457,435 407,435
Other 150,000 242,902 92,902
Total revenues 13,479,819 14,457,053 977,234
Expenditures
Current
General government 2,511,213 2,420,939 (90,274)
Public safety 6,551,992 6,193,211 (358,781)
Public works 4,306,114 4,099,905 (206,209)
Debt service:
Principal 158,050 158,050 -
Capital outlay
General government - 71,603 71,603
Public safety - 299,807 299,807
Public works - 5,100 5,100
Total expenditures 13,527,369 13,248,615 (278,754)
Excess of revenues over
(under) expenditures (47,550) 1,208,438 1,255,988
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Insurance recoveries - 60,776 60,776
Transfers in 47,550 47,550 -
Transfers out - (1,254,451) (1,254,451)
Total other financing sources (uses)47,550 (1,146,125) (1,193,675)
Net change in fund balance -$ 62,313 62,313$
Fund Balance
Beginning of year 13,470,037
End of year 13,532,350$
Final Budget -
Over (Under)
Page 208 of 309
See notes to basic financial statements. 25
Sewer Utility
Storm Water
Utility Total
Internal
Service Funds
Assets
Current assets
Cash and investments 2,120,459$ 1,007,164$ 3,127,623$ 1,057,987$
Special assessment receivable
Delinquent 5,462 - 5,462 -
Deferred 52,310 - 52,310 -
Accounts receivable 704,191 191,817 896,008 -
Interest receivable 7,043 3,272 10,315 633
Due from other governments 2,299 - 2,299 -
Prepaid expenses 168,804 - 168,804 8,642
Total current assets 3,060,568 1,202,253 4,262,821 1,067,262
Noncurrent assets
Capital assets not being depreciated
Land - - - 25,000
Construction in progress 31,087 - 31,087 -
Capital assets being depreciated
Buildings - - - 2,279,024
Sewer main lines and storm sewers 15,796,757 6,156,659 21,953,416 -
Improvements other than buildings - - - 48,431
Machinery and equipment 769,264 - 769,264 66,969
Total capital assets 16,597,108 6,156,659 22,753,767 2,419,424
Less accumulated depreciation (6,589,053) (879,342) (7,468,395) (1,954,593)
Net capital assets 10,008,055 5,277,317 15,285,372 464,831
Total noncurrent assets 10,008,055 5,277,317 15,285,372 464,831
Total assets 13,068,623 6,479,570 19,548,193 1,532,093
Deferred Outflows of Resources
Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions 16,702 3,213 19,915 9,304
Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB 241 41 282 183
Total deferred outflows of resources 16,943 3,254 20,197 9,487
Total assets and deferred outflows of resources 13,085,566$ 6,482,824$ 19,568,390$ 1,541,580$
Liabilities and Net Position
Current liabilities
Accounts payable 33,711$ 29,044$ 62,755$ 5,929$
Developers' escrow deposits - 185,324 185,324 -
Salaries and benefits payable 13,670 554 14,224 5,538
Due to other governments 5,375 1,520 6,895 129
Noncurrent liabilities due within one year 30,217 - 30,217 594,811
Total current liabilities 82,973 216,442 299,415 606,407
Noncurrent liabilities
Compensated absences 47,686 - 47,686 942,152
OPEB payable 13,701 2,331 16,032 10,397
Net pension liability 52,177 10,038 62,215 29,063
Less amount due within one year (30,217) - (30,217) (594,811)
Total noncurrent liabilities 83,347 12,369 95,716 386,801
Total liabilities 166,320 228,811 395,131 993,208
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB 4,216 717 4,933 3,200
Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions 31,830 6,124 37,954 17,730
Total deferred inflows of resources 36,046 6,841 42,887 20,930
Net Position
Investment in capital assets 10,008,055 5,277,317 15,285,372 464,831
Unrestricted 2,875,145 969,855 3,845,000 62,611
Total net position 12,883,200 6,247,172 19,130,372 527,442
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources,
and net position 13,085,566$ 6,482,824$ 19,568,390$ 1,541,580$
City of Mendota Heights
Statement of Net Position - Proprietary Funds
December 31, 2025
Page 209 of 309
See notes to basic financial statements. 26
Sewer Utility
Storm Water
Utility Total
Internal
Service Funds
Operating Revenues
Charges for services 2,702,018$ 743,159$ 3,445,177$ 260,000$
Total operating revenues 2,702,018 743,159 3,445,177 260,000
Operating Expenses
Wages and salaries 199,582 28,322 227,904 86,890
Employee benefits 53,632 6,400 60,032 34,772
Materials and supplies 30,565 - 30,565 -
Repairs and maintenance 156,572 64,300 220,872 -
Professional services 35,649 129,613 165,262 4,994
Insurance 11,357 - 11,357 7,896
Utilities 26,269 - 26,269 48,198
Depreciation 216,784 61,567 278,351 35,285
Travel 17 - 17 -
Miscellaneous 26,259 39,936 66,195 56,850
Sewer charges - MCES 1,443,499 - 1,443,499 -
Total operating expenses 2,200,185 330,138 2,530,323 274,885
Operating income (loss)501,833 413,021 914,854 (14,885)
Nonoperating Revenues
(expenses)
Investment income 106,076 49,279 155,355 9,532
Fines and forfeitures 869 - 869 -
Special assessments 7,054 - 7,054 -
Other income 40,963 - 40,963 -
Total nonoperating revenues 154,962 49,279 204,241 9,532
Change in net position
before capital contributions
and transfers 656,795 462,300 1,119,095 (5,353)
Capital contributions 75,465 429,574 505,039 -
Transfers out (749,341) (374,718) (1,124,059) -
Change in net position (17,081) 517,156 500,075 (5,353)
Net Position
Beginning of year 12,900,281 5,730,016 18,630,297 532,795
End of year 12,883,200$ 6,247,172$ 19,130,372$ 527,442$
Net change in the net position reported above 500,075$
Amounts reported for business-type activities in the Statement of Activities
are different because:
Transfers in of capital assets from governmental activities 505,039
Capital contributions reported above (505,039)
Change in net position of business-type activities 500,075$
Year Ended December 31, 2025
City of Mendota Heights
Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes
in Fund Net Position - Proprietary Funds
Page 210 of 309
See notes to basic financial statements. 27
Sewer Utility
Storm Water
Utility Total
Internal
Service Funds
Cash Flows - Operating Activities
Receipts from customers and users 2,654,222$ 717,439$ 3,371,661$ 260,000$
Payments to suppliers (1,800,266) (228,524) (2,028,790) (102,460)
Payments to employees (261,293) (38,444) (299,737) (23,905)
Miscellaneous revenue 33,395 - 33,395 -
Net cash flows - operating activities 626,058 450,471 1,076,529 133,635
Cash Flows - Noncapital
Financing Activities
Transfer to other funds (749,341) (374,718) (1,124,059) -
Due to other funds - - - -
Due from other funds - - - -
Net cash flows - noncapital
financing activities (749,341) (374,718) (1,124,059) -
Cash Flows - Capital and Related
Financing Activities
Acquisition of capital assets (115,815) - (115,815) (7,650)
Cash Flows - Investing Activities
Interest and dividends received 103,015 47,920 150,935 9,280
Net change in cash and cash equivalents (136,083) 123,673 (12,410) 135,265
Cash and Cash Equivalents
Beginning of year 2,256,542 883,491 3,140,033 922,722
End of year 2,120,459$ 1,007,164$ 3,127,623$ 1,057,987$
Reconciliation of Operating Income
(Loss) to Net Cash Flows -
Operating Activities
Operating income (loss)501,833$ 413,021$ 914,854$ (14,885)$
Adjustments to reconcile operating income
(loss) to net cash flows - operating activities
Operating activities
Miscellaneous revenue 33,395 - 33,395 -
Depreciation expense 216,784 61,567 278,351 35,285
Accounts receivable (48,940) (25,720) (74,660) -
Due from other governments 1,144 - 1,144 -
Prepaid items (33,900) - (33,900) 1,041
Developers' excrow deposits - 22,319 22,319 -
Accounts and contracts payable (34,816) (16,994) (51,810) 14,414
Due to other governmental units (1,363) - (1,363) 23
Salaries payable 4,212 (869) 3,343 1,107
OPEB payable 1,775 399 2,174 1,332
Pension related items (14,737) (3,252) (17,989) (6,914)
Compensated absences payable 671 - 671 102,232
Total adjustments 124,225 37,450 161,675 148,520
Net cash flows - operating activities 626,058$ 450,471$ 1,076,529$ 133,635$
Noncash Investing, Capital, and
Financing Activities
Contributions of capital assets 75,465$ 429,574$ 505,039$ -$
City of Mendota Heights
Statement of Cash Flows - Proprietary Funds
Year Ended December 31, 2025
Page 211 of 309
28
(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
Page 212 of 309
29
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The City of Mendota Heights is a statutory city governed by an elected mayor and four council
members. The accompanying financial statements present the government entities for which the
government is considered to be financially accountable.
The accounting policies of the City conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America as applicable to governmental units. The following is a summary of the more
significant policies.
A.Reporting Entity
The financial statements present the City and its component units . The City includes all funds,
organizations, institutions, agencies, departments, and offices that are not legally separate from
such. Component units are legally separate organizations for which the elected officials of the City
are financially accountable and are included within the basic financial statements of the City
because of the significance of their operational or financial relationships with the City.
The City is considered financially accountable for a component unit if it appoints a voting majority of
the organization's governing body and it is able to impose its will on the organization by significantly
influencing the programs, projects, activities, or level of services performed or provided by the
organization, or there is a potential for the organization to provide specific financial benefits to or
impose specific financial burdens on , the City.
As a result of applying the component unit definition criteria above , the City has no component
units.
B.Government-Wide and Fund Financial Statements
The government-wide financial statements (i.e., the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of
Activities) display information about the reporting government as a whole. Governmental activities,
which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues , are reported separately
from business-type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support.
The Statement of Activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given
function or segment is offset by program revenues . Direct expenses are those that are clearly
identifiable with a specific function or segment . Interest on general long-term debt is considered an
indirect expense and is reported separately in the Statement of Activities . Program revenues include
1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase , use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or
privileges provided by a given function or segment and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted
to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or segment . Taxes and
other items not properly included among program revenues are reported instead as general
revenues. Internally dedicated revenues are reported as general revenues rather than program
revenues.
Depreciation expense that can be specifically identified by function is included in the direct
expenses of that function. Depreciation expense relating to assets that serve multiple functions is
presented as unallocated depreciation in the Statement of Activities. Interest on general long -term
debt is considered an indirect expense and is reported separately in the Statement of Activities. The
effect of interfund activity has been removed from these statements.
Page 213 of 309
30
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
B.Government-Wide and Fund Financial Statements (Continued)
Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds and proprietary funds . Major
individual governmental funds and major individual enterprise funds are reported as separate
columns in the fund financial statements.
The Internal Service Funds are presented in the internal service fund financial statements . Because
the principal user of internal services is the City 's governmental activities, the financial statements
of the Internal Service Fund is consolidated into the governmental column when presented in the
government-wide financial statements. The cost of these services is reported in the appropriate
functional activity.
C.Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation
The accounting and financial reporting treatment applied is determined by its measurement focus
and basis of accounting. The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic
resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting , as are the proprietary fund
financial statements. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability
is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows . Property taxes are recognized as revenues
in the year for which they are levied . Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as
all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Governmental fund financial
statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified
accrual basis of accounting. Under this basis of accounting, transactions are recorded in the following
manner.
1.Revenue Recognition
Revenue is recognized when it becomes measurable and available. "Measurable" means the
amount of the transaction can be determined and "available" means collectible within the current
period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. Property tax
revenue is generally considered as available if collected within 60 days after year -end. State
revenue is recognized in the year to which it applies according to Minnesota Statutes and
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Minnesota Statutes
include state aid funding formulas for specific years. Federal revenue is recorded in the year in
which the related expenditure is made. Other revenue is considered available if collected within
60 days.
2.Recording of Expenditures
Expenditures are generally recorded when a liability is incurred. The exceptions to this general
rule are that interest and principal expenditures in the Debt Service Fund, compensated
absences, and claims and judgments are recognized when payment is due.
The City applies restricted resources first when an expenditure is incurred for a purpose for
which both restricted and unrestricted fund balances are available. Further, the District applies
unrestricted funds in this order if various levels of unrestricted fund balances exist : committed,
assigned, and unassigned.
Page 214 of 309
31
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
C.Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation (Continued)
Description of Funds:
Major Governmental Funds:
General Fund – This fund is the general operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all
financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund.
Special Assessments Debt Service Fund – This fund receives all special assessment payments and is
dedicated for the repayment of debt incurred on a specific project.
Street Capital Projects Fund – This fund is used to account for the proceeds and disbursements of
funds for street improvement expenditures.
Proprietary Funds:
Sewer Utility Fund – This fund is used to account for the City's sewer utility.
Storm Water Utility Fund – This fund is used to account for the City's storm water utility.
Additional Fund Types:
Internal Service Funds – These funds account for the financing of goods or services provided by
one department to other departments of the City on a cost -reimbursement basis. The City's
Internal Service Funds account for compensated absences and City Hall expenses.
As a general rule, the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government -wide
financial statements. Exceptions to this general rule are charges between the City 's utility functions
and various other functions of the City. Elimination of these charges would distort the direct costs
and program revenues reported for the various functions concerned.
Proprietary Funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating
revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in
connection with a proprietary fund's principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues
of the City's Enterprise Funds and Internal Service Funds are charges to customers for sales and
services. Operating expenses for the Enterprise Funds and Internal Service Funds include the cost of
sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and
expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses.
D.Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity
1.Deposits and Investments
The City's cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits, and
short-term investments with original maturities of three months or less from the date of
acquisition. Investments for the City are reported at fair value.
Page 215 of 309
32
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
D.Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity
(Continued)
1.Deposits and Investments (Continued)
Minnesota Statutes authorizes the City to invest in obligations of the U.S. Treasury , agencies, and
instrumentalities, shares of investment companies whose only investments are in the
aforementioned securities, obligations of the State of Minnesota or its municipalities , bankers'
acceptances, future contracts, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements , and commercial
paper of the highest quality with a maturity of no longer than 270 days and in the Minnesota
Municipal Investment Pool.
Minnesota Statutes requires all deposits made by cities with financial institutions to be
collateralized in an amount equal to 110% of deposits in excess of Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) insurance.
Certain investments for the City are reported at fair value as disclosed in Note 3. The City
categorizes its fair value measurements within the fair value hierarchy established by generally
accepted accounting principles. The hierarchy is based on the valuation inputs used to measure
the fair value of the asset. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices in active markets for identical assets;
Level 2 inputs are significant other observable inputs; Level 3 inputs are significant unobservable
inputs.
2.Receivables and Payables
All trade and property tax receivables are shown at a gross amount since both are assessable to
the property taxes and are collectible upon the sale of the property.
The City levies its property tax for the subsequent year during the month of December .
December 28 is the last day the City can certify a tax levy to the County Auditor for collection
the following year. Such taxes become a lien on January 1 and are recorded as receivables by the
City at that date . The property tax is recorded as revenue when it becomes measurable and
available. Dakota County is the collecting agency for the levy and remits the collections to the
City three times a year. The tax levy notice is mailed in March with the first half of the payment
due on May 15 and the second half due on October 15. Taxes not collected as of December 31
each year are shown as delinquent taxes receivable.
The County Auditor prepares the tax list for all taxable property in the City , applying the
applicable tax rate to the tax capacity of individual properties , to arrive at the actual tax for
each property. The County Auditor also collects all special assessments , except for certain
prepayments paid directly to the City.
The County Auditor submits the list of taxes and special assessments to be collected on each
parcel of property to the County Treasurer in January of each year.
3.Inventories
Inventories are valued at cost, which approximates market, using the first in, first out (FIFO)
method. Inventory consists of expendable supplies held for consumption . Inventories of
governmental funds are recorded as expenditures when consumed rather than when purchased.
Page 216 of 309
33
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
D.Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity
(Continued)
3.Inventories (Continued)
Inventory – land held for resale represents land owned by the City with the intent to sell to
developers. This land is recorded at the expected net realizable value.
4.Prepaid Items
Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are
recorded as prepaid items in both government -wide and fund financial statements. Prepaid items
are recorded as an expenditure at the time of consumption.
5.Capital Assets
Capital assets, which include property , plant, equipment, intangible, and infrastructure assets
(e.g., roads, sidewalks, easements, and similar items), are reported in the applicable
governmental or business-type activities columns in the government-wide financial statements
but are not reported in the fund financial statements . Capital assets are defined by the City as
assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $25,000, and an estimated useful life in excess
of one year. Such assets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased
or constructed. Donated capital assets are recorded at acquisition value at the date of donation.
The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or
materially extend assets lives are not capitalized.
Property, plant, and equipment of the City are depreciated using the straight -line method over
the following estimated useful lives:
Assets
Buildings 15 - 100
Other improvements 10 - 40
Machinery and equipment 3 - 25
Infrastructure 30 - 100
Years
Capital assets not being depreciated include land and land improvement and construction in
progress.
6.Lease Receivable
The City is a lessor for numerous noncancellable leases. The City recognizes a lease receivable
and a deferred inflow of resources in the government -wide and governmental fund financial
statements.
At the commencement of a lease, the City measures the lease receivable at the present value of
payments expected to be received during the lease term. Subsequently , the lease receivable is
reduced by the principal portion of lease payments received. The deferred inflow of resources is
initially measured as the initial amount of the lease receivable , adjusted for lease payments
received at or before the lease commencement date.
Page 217 of 309
34
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
D.Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity
(Continued)
6.Lease Receivable (Continued)
Subsequently, the deferred inflow of resources is recognized as revenue over the life of the lease
term in a systematic and rational manner.
Key estimates and judgments include how the City determines (1) the discount rate , (2) lease
term, (3) lease receipts, and (4) amortization.
The City determines the discount rate for leases based on the applicable State and Local
Government Securities (SLGS) rate. The lease term includes the noncancellable period of the
lease. Lease receipts included in the measurement of the lease receivable is composed of fixed
payments from the lessee.
7.Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources
In addition to assets, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section
for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element represents a
consumption of net assets that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an
outflow of resources (expense/expenditure) until that time. The City presents deferred outflows
of resources on the Statements of Net Position for deferred outflows of resources related to
pensions and OPEB for various estimate differences that will be amortized and recognized over
future years.
In addition to liabilities, the statement of financial position and fund financial statements will
sometimes report a separate section for deferred inflows of resources. This separate financial
statement element represents an acquisition of net assets that applies to a future period(s) and
so will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time. The City has four
items that qualify for reporting in this category. The governmental funds report unavailable
revenues from three sources: property taxes, special assessments, and state shared tax. These
amounts are deferred and recognized as an inflow of resources in the period that the amounts
become available. The City presents deferred inflows of resources on the Statement s of Net
Position for deferred inflows of resources related to pensions and OPEB for various estimate
differences that will be amortized and recognized over future years . Deferred inflows of
resources related to lease receivable is reported in both the government -wide Statement of Net
Position and the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet.
8.Compensated Absences\Severance
The City allows employees to accrue vacation based on years of service to carry over to the next
year. Accrued vacation shall be used in the year following the year which said time is earned and
any time accrued will be paid out at termination . At the end of the year the vacation balance
cannot exceed 200 hours.
All permanent full-time employees accrue personal leave at the rate of 4 hours per month , to a
maximum of 320 hours. Any balances in excess of 320 hours will be converted to cash
compensation or additional vacation time at a ratio of 50%.
Page 218 of 309
35
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
D.Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity
(Continued)
8.Compensated Absences\Severance (Continued)
All compensated absences pay is accrued when incurred in the government -wide and proprietary
fund financial statements. A liability for these amounts is reported in governmental funds only if
they have matured as a result of employee termination or similar circumstances . These liabilities
are paid by the governmental fund the employee provided most of its service to . The unused
vacation and sick leave of the proprietary funds is included in accrued liabilities of the respective
fund.
The liability for compensated absences reported in the Statement of Net Position consists of
leave that has not been used that is attributable to services already rendered, accumulates, and
is more likely than not to be used for time off or otherwise paid in cash or settled through
noncash means. The liability also includes amounts for leave that has been used for time off but
has not yet been paid in cash or settled through noncash means and certain other types of leave.
9.Long-Term Obligations
In the government-wide financial statements and proprietary fund types in the fund financial
statements, long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the
applicable governmental activities , business-type activities, or proprietary fund type Statement
of Net Position. Bond premiums and discounts are deferred and amortized over the life of the
bonds using the straight-line method. Bonds payable are reported net of the applicable bond
premium or discount.
In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and
discounts, as well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount of debt
issued is reported as other financing sources . Premiums received on debt issuances are reported
as other financing sources while discounts on debt issuances are reported as other financing uses .
Issuance costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received , are reported as
debt service expenditures.
10. Pensions
For purposes of measuring the net pension liability, deferred outflows/inflows of resources, and
pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the Public Employees
Retirement Association (PERA) and the relief association and additions to/deductions from PERA 's
and the relief association's fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they
are reported by PERA and the relief association except that PERA 's fiscal year end is June 30. For
this purpose, plan contributions are recognized as of employer payroll paid dates and benefit
payments and refunds are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit
terms. Investments are reported at fair value.
Page 219 of 309
36
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
D.Assets, Liabilities, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources, and Net Position or Equity
(Continued)
11. Fund Equity
a.Classification
In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report fund classifications that comprise
a hierarchy based primarily on the extent to which the City is bound to honor constraints on
the specific purpose for which amounts in those funds can be spent.
•Nonspendable Fund Balances – These are amounts that cannot be spent because they
are not in spendable form, or they are legally or contractually required to be
maintained intact.
•Restricted Fund Balances – These are amounts that are restricted to specific purposes
either by a) constraints placed on the use of resources by creditors, grantors,
contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments or b) imposed by law through
constitutional provisions or enabling legislation.
•Committed Fund Balances – These are amounts that can only be used for specific
purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by the City Council (highest level of decision
making authority) through resolution.
•Assigned Fund Balances – These are amounts that are constrained by the City 's intent
to be used for specific purposes but are neither restricted nor committed . Assignments
are made by the City's Administrator or Finance Director based on the City Council's
direction.
•Unassigned Fund Balances – These are residual amounts in the General Fund not
reported in any other classification. The General Fund is the only fund that can report
a positive unassigned fund balance . Other funds would report a negative unassigned
fund balance should the total of nonspendable , restricted and committed fund
balances exceed the total net resources of that fund.
b.Minimum Fund Balance
•The City will strive to maintain a General Fund unassigned fund balance of 75% of the
following year's budgeted operating expenditures.
12. Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of
contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements. Estimates also affect the
reported amounts of revenue and expenditures/expense during the reporting period. Actual
results could differ from those estimates.
Page 220 of 309
37
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
E.Budgetary Information
The City Council adopts an annual budget for the General Fund and certain special revenue and
capital project funds. The American Rescue Plan Act special revenue fund is not budgeted for. The
amounts shown in the financial statements as "budget" represent the original budgeted amount, and
all revisions made during the year. The City follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary
data reflected in the financial statements:
1.The City Administrator prepares and presents to the City Council a proposed operating budget
for the year commencing the following January 1. The operating budget included proposed
expenditures and means of financing them.
2.Public hearings are conducted to obtain taxpayer comments.
3.The City Council deliberates on and adopts the budget on a basis consistent with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America and legally enacts the budget
by passage of a resolution.
4.Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device during the year.
5.The City Council must approve any budget appropriation transfers between departments and
any increases in budget appropriations to the extent actual revenues exceed estimated
revenues.
6.Reported budget amounts are as originally adopted or as amended by the City Council
approved supplemental appropriations and budget transfers.
Annual appropriations lapse at year -end. No revisions were made to the budgets during the year.
NOTE 2 – STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE, AND ACCOUNTABILITY
A.Deficit Fund Balances
The following funds had deficit fund balances at December 31, 2025:
Other Nonmajor Capital Projects Fund
Pilot Knob Improvement 85,248$
NOTE 3 – DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS
Cash balances of the City's funds are combined (pooled) and invested to the extent available in
various investments authorized by Minnesota Statutes. Each fund's portion of this pool (or pools) is
displayed on the financial statements as "cash and cash equivalents" or "investments." For purposes of
identifying risk of investing public funds, the balances and related restrictions are summarized
below.
A.Deposits
In accordance with applicable Minnesota Statutes, the City maintains deposits at depository banks
authorized by the City Council.
Page 221 of 309
38
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 3 – DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED)
A. Deposits (Continued)
Custodial Credit Risks – Deposits: This is the risk that in the event of bank failure , the City's deposits
may not be returned to it. The City addresses custodial credit risk by having the authority from the
City Council to maintain deposits with various financial institutions that are members of the Federal
Reserve System. The City's policy states all deposits must be collateralized in compliance with
Minnesota Statutes § 118A. As of December 31, 2025, the City's bank balance was not exposed to
custodial credit risk because it was insured through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
and fully collateralized with securities held by the pledging financial institution 's trust department or
agent in the City's name.
As of December 31, 2025, the City had deposits as follows:
Checking 1,152,609$
Total deposits 1,152,609$
B. Investments
As of December 31, 2025, the City had the following investments:
Fair
Credit Value Less Than 1 - 5
Ratings 12/31/25 1 Year Years
Negotiable CD's NR 4,482,793$ 783,908$ 3,698,885$
US Government Securities AA+3,031,735 1,385,228 1,646,507
Mutual Funds NR 2,661,047 2,661,047 -
Money Market Funds NR 19,010,780 19,010,780 -
Total 29,186,355$ 23,840,963$ 5,345,392$
Investment Maturities
Investment Type
Credit Risk: This is the risk that an issuer or other counterparty to an investment will not fulfill its
obligations. State law limits investments based on type. The City's investment policy addresses credit
quality by allowing the City to invest only in instruments permitted by Minnesota Statutes § 118A.04-
05.
Page 222 of 309
39
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 3 – DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS (CONTINUED)
B.Investments (Continued)
Concentration of Credit Risk : This is the risk of loss attributed to the magnitude of an investment in
a single issuer. The City's policy states the City will attempt to diversify its investments according to
type and maturity. The policy states the portfolio will contain both short -term and long-term
investments and will attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements.
Custodial Credit Risk – Investments: This is the risk that in the event of the failure of the
counterparty, the City will not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities
that are in the possession of an outside party . The City's investment policy states that to ensure
safety when considering an investment, it is verified to make certain funds in excess of insurance are
not made at the same institution. The City's brokers carry SIPC and private insurance to cover the
City's investment holdings; however , given the size of the City's portfolio in relation to the insurance,
it is unlikely the City would receive the full value of their investments upon default of the
counterparty.
Interest Rate Risk: This is the risk that market values of securities in a portfolio would decrease due
to changes in market interest rates . As a means of limiting its exposure to fair value losses arising
from rising interest rates, the City's investment policy states the City will hold investments with
laddered maturities so that funds become available on a regular schedule.
The City has the following recurring fair value measurements as of December 31 , 2025:
•$21,671,827 investments are valued using calculated Net Asset Value (Level 1 inputs)
•$7,514,528 of investments are valued using a matrix pricing model (Level 2 inputs)
C.Deposits and Investments
The following is a summary of total deposits and investments:
Deposits (Note 3.A.)1,152,609$
Investments (Note 3.B.)29,186,355
Petty cash 700
Total cash and investments 30,339,664$
Deposits and investments are presented in the December 31, 2025, basic financial statements as
follows:
Statement of Net Position
Cash and investments 30,339,664$
Page 223 of 309
40
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 4 – INTERFUND ACTIVITIES
A.Interfund Receivables and Payable
The following is a summary of the City's due to/due from other funds at December 31, 2025:
Fund Due to Due from Reason
General Fund -$ 82,201$
Other governmental funds 82,201 - Cash deficit
Total 82,201 82,201
The balances above will be repaid as financing becomes available.
B.Interfund Transfers
The composition of interfund t ransfers as of December 31, 2025, was as follows:
Street Other
Capital Governmental
Projects Funds Total
Transfers out
General -$ -$-$1,254,451$ 1,254,451$
Special assessments
debt service 22,250 - 2,805,497 - 2,827,747
Street capital projects - - 683,773 771,344 1,455,117
Other governmental
funds 4,500 47,119 14,911 173,932 240,462
Sewer utility 11,150 - 714,985 23,206 749,341
Storm Water Utility 9,650 - 335,926 29,142 374,718
Total 47,550$ 47,119$ 4,555,092$ 2,252,075$ 6,901,836$
Special
Assessments
Debt Service
Transfer In
General
The purpose of the above transfers is to distribute bond proceeds and to provide funding for capital
improvement projects, capital outlay, and operating purposes.
Page 224 of 309
41
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 5 – LEASE RECEIVABLE
The City leases three cell towers. Revenue from these leases for the year ended December 31 , 2025,
was $148,585.
Year Ending
December 31,Principal Interest
2026 36,076$ 124,946$
2027 46,619 121,837
2028 56,733 119,506
2029 67,697 116,686
2030 79,572 113,337
2031-2035 612,396 494,662
2036-2040 579,828 349,299
2041-2045 854,316 179,956
2046-2050 385,327 23,980
Total 2,718,564$ 1,644,209$
Lease Receivable
Page 225 of 309
42
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 6 – CAPITAL ASSETS
Capital asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2025, was as follows:
Beginning Ending
Balance Increases Decreases Balance
Governmental activities
Capital assets not being
depreciated/amortized
Land and improvements 8,790,170$ -$ -$ 8,790,170$
Construction in progress 7,805,247 4,911,791 6,689,357 6,027,681
Total capital assets
not being depreciated
/amortized 16,595,417 4,911,791 6,689,357 14,817,851
Capital assets being
depreciated/amortized
Buildings and structures 12,946,005 405,864 - 13,351,869
Machinery and equipment 8,002,731 1,917,416 250,792 9,669,355
Leased equipment 884,778 - 89,996 794,782
Subscription asset 93,246 - - 93,246
Other improvements 3,915,578 201,763 7,549 4,109,792
Infrastructure 45,617,600 3,489,839 381,859 48,725,580
Total capital assets
being depreciated
/amortized 71,459,938 6,014,882 730,196 76,744,624
Buildings and structures 5,168,064 335,581 - 5,503,645
Machinery and equipment 4,506,081 612,953 168,101 4,950,933
Leased equipment 328,730 49,580 89,996 288,314
Subscription asset 31,082 31,082 - 62,164
Other improvements 2,254,477 144,221 7,549 2,391,149
Infrastructure 27,279,143 1,983,696 381,859 28,880,980
Total accumulated
depreciation/amortization 39,567,577 3,157,113 647,505 42,077,185
Total capital assets being
depreciated/amortized, net 31,892,361 2,857,769 82,691 34,667,439
Governmental activities
capital assets, net 48,487,778$ 7,769,560$ 6,772,048$ 49,485,290$
Less accumulated depreciation/
amortization for
Page 226 of 309
43
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 6 – CAPITAL ASSETS (CONTINUED)
Beginning Ending
Balance Increases Decreases Balance
Business-type activities
Capital assets not being
depreciated
Land -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction in progress - 31,087 - 31,087
Total capital assets not
being depreciated - 31,087 - 31,087
Capital assets being
depreciated
Machinery and equipment 769,265 - - 769,265
Sewer main lines and storm sewers 21,363,648 589,768 - 21,953,416
Total capital assets
being depreciated 22,132,913 589,768 - 22,722,681
Less accumulated depreciation for
Machinery and equipment 270,409 35,170 - 305,579
Sewer main lines and storm sewers 6,919,636 243,181 - 7,162,817
Total accumulated
depreciation 7,190,045 278,351 - 7,468,396
Total capital assets being
depreciated, net 14,942,868 311,417 - 15,254,285
Business-type activities capital
assets, net 14,942,868$ 342,504$ -$ 15,285,372$
Depreciation/amortization expense was charged to functions/programs of the City as follows:
Governmental activities
General government 194,137$
Public safety 650,717
Public works 2,276,974
Internal service funds 35,285
Total depreciation/amortization expense - governmental activities 3,157,113$
Business-type activities
Sewer utility 216,784$
Storm water utility 61,567
Total depreciation expense - business-type activities 278,351$
Page 227 of 309
44
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 7 – LONG-TERM DEBT
A. G.O. Bonds
The City issues G.O. Bonds to provide for financing street improvements, major capital equipment
purchases and utility improvements . Debt service is funded through property taxes , special
assessments, and utility charges.
G.O. Bonds are direct obligations and pledge the full faith and credit of the City.
B.Components of Long -Term Liabilities
Interest Original Final Principal Due Within
Rates Issue Maturity Outstanding One Year
Long-term liabilities
Government activities
G.O. Improvement Bonds, including
Refunding Bonds
G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2014A 0.85%-3.40%1,030,000$ 02/01/35 310,000$ 85,000$
G.O. Refunding Bond, Series 2014B 1.50%-3.00%885,000 02/01/27 145,000 70,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds 2015A .90%-3.00%1,200,000 02/01/36 590,000 50,000
G.O. Refunding Bond, Series 2015C 2.00%-2.50%1,995,000 02/01/28 505,000 165,000
G.O. Reconstruction Bonds, Series 2016A 1.00%-2.50%1,020,000 02/01/37 470,000 80,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2017A 2.00%-2.50%1,340,000 02/01/30 655,000 130,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2018A 3.00%-4.00%1,080,000 02/01/30 560,000 115,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2019A 2.00%-3.00%3,035,000 02/01/31 1,445,000 250,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2020A 1.20%-2.00%3,295,000 02/01/32 2,165,000 325,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2021A 2.00%-3.00%2,420,000 02/01/34 1,675,000 225,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2022A 5.00%-4.00%1,880,000 02/01/33 1,695,000 190,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2023A 4.00%-5.00%1,015,000 02/01/34 1,015,000 95,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2024A 5.00%2,755,000 02/01/35 2,755,000 80,000
G.O. Improvement Bonds of 2025A 4.00-5.00%2,625,000 02/01/37 2,625,000
Total improvement bonds 16,610,000 1,860,000
G.O. Bonds, including refunding bonds
G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds 3.00%-4.00%7,000,000 02/01/35 5,050,000 435,000
Lease Liability 466,525 128,044
Subscription Liability 31,065 31,065
Net Premium on Bonds 1,281,199 -
Compensated absences payable 942,152 594,811
Total governmental activities 24,380,941 3,048,920
Business-type activities
Compensated absences payable 47,686 30,217
Total all long-term liabilities 24,428,627$ 3,079,137$
Long-term bonded indebtedness listed above were issued to finance acquisition and construction of
capital facilities or to refinance (refund) previous bond issues.
Debt Service Funds will be used to pay general government principal and interest l iabilities. The
General Fund and Sewer Utility Fund will pay for the corresponding compensated absence liability.
The General Fund will pay the lease liability.
Page 228 of 309
45
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 7 – LONG-TERM DEBT (CONTINUED)
C.Changes in Long-Term Liabilities
Long-term liability activity for the year ended December 31, 2025, was as follows:
Beginning Ending Due Within
Balance Additions Reductions Balance One Year
Governmental activities
Bonds Payable
G.O. Improvements Bonds 15,820,000$ 2,625,000$ 1,835,000$ 16,610,000$ 1,860,000$
G.O. Bonds 5,470,000 - 420,000 5,050,000 435,000
Leases Liability 594,753 - 128,228 466,525 128,044
Subscription Liability 60,887 - 29,822 31,065 31,065
Unamortized premium 1,147,345 268,059 134,205 1,281,199 -
Compensated absences payable *839,920 102,232 - 942,152 594,811
Total governmental
activities 23,932,905 2,995,291 2,547,255 24,380,941 3,048,920
Business-type activities
Compensated absences payable *47,015 671 - 47,686 30,217
Total government 23,979,920$ 2,995,962$ 2,547,255$ 24,428,627$ 3,079,137$
*The change in the compensated absences liability is presented as a net change.
D.Long-Term Debt
The annual requirements to amortize all bonded debt outstanding follows:
Year Ending
December 31,Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total
2026 1,860,000$ 532,558$ 2,392,558$ 435,000$ 147,150$ 582,150$
2027 2,010,000 501,364 2,511,364 455,000 131,625 586,625
2028 2,200,000 430,558 2,630,558 470,000 117,750 587,750
2029 2,010,000 357,070 2,367,070 480,000 103,500 583,500
2030 2,020,000 287,770 2,307,770 495,000 88,875 583,875
2031-2035 5,905,000 626,053 6,531,053 2,715,000 208,575 2,923,575
2036-2037 605,000 19,849 624,849 - - -
Total 16,610,000$ 2,755,222$ 19,365,222$ 5,050,000$ 797,475$ 5,847,475$
Governmental Activities
G.O. BondsImprovement Bonds
The City leases squad cars and vehicle and body camera equipment under noncancelable leases. The
City also has an agreement with Saint Paul Regional Water Services that the City pays half of the cell
tower revenue for those located on the water tower to SPRWS.
Page 229 of 309
46
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 7 – LONG-TERM DEBT (CONTINUED)
D.Long-Term Debt (Continued)
The following is a schedule by years of future minimum payments required under th e leases as of
December 31 , 2025:
Year Ending
December 31,Principal Interest Total
2026 128,044$ 20,229$ 148,273$
2027 72,377 15,271 87,648
2028 53,323 12,605 65,928
2029 19,354 10,200 29,554
2030 21,856 9,175 31,031
2031-2035 154,458 25,583 180,041
2036-2040 17,113 215 17,328
Total 466,525$ 93,278$ 559,803$
Lease Payable
Year Ending
December 31,Principal Interest Total
2026 31,065$ 1,295$ 32,359$
Total 31,065$ 1,295$ 32,359$
Subscription Payable
NOTE 8 – CONDUIT DEBT
From time-to-time, the City has issued Industrial Development and Housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds
in accordance with the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act . These obligations are issued
to provide financial assistance to private -sector entities for the acquisition and construction of
industrial and commercial facilities deemed to be in the public interest . The obligations are secured
by the property financed and are payable solely from payments received on the underlying mortgage
loans. Upon repayment of the obligations , ownership of the acquired facilities transfers to the
private-sector entity served by the debt issuance . Neither the City, the State of Minnesota, nor any
political subdivision thereof, is obligated in any manner for the repayment of the obligations .
Accordingly, the Bonds are not reported as liabilities in the accompanying financial statements.
The aggregate amount of all conduit debt obligations outstanding as of December 31 , 2025, was
$10,570,000 .
Page 230 of 309
47
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 9 – FUND BALANCE DETAIL
Fund equity balances are classified below to reflect the limitations and restrictions of the respective
Funds.
Special Street Other
General Assessment Capital Governmental
Fund Debt Service Projects Funds Total
Nonspendable
Inventories 22,068$ -$ -$ -$ 22,068$
Prepaid items 325,172 - - 7,343 332,515
Restricted
Park dedication fees - - - 525,305 525,305
Capital projects - - 3,543,498 155,094 3,698,592
Street light maintenance - - - 42,468 42,468
Police - - - 31,641 31,641
Debt service - 3,438,766 - 862,195 4,300,961
Grant Funding - -- 125,244 125,244
Tax increment financing - -- 118,466 118,466
Committed
Water system maintenance - - - 1,465,210 1,465,210
Par 3 golf course - - - 240,823 240,823
Emergency preparedness
and civil defense - - - 148,018 148,018
Assigned
Capital projects - - - 2,087,722 2,087,722
Unassigned 13,185,110 - - (85,248) 13,099,862
Total 13,532,350$ 3,438,766$ 3,543,498$ 5,724,281$ 26,238,895$
NOTE 10 – RISK MANAGEMENT
The City purchases commercial insurance coverage through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust (LMCIT) with other cities in the state which is a public entity risk pool currently operating as a
common risk management and insurance program . The City pays an annual premium to the LMCIT for
its insurance coverage. The LMCIT is self-sustaining through commercial companies for excess claims.
The City is covered through the pool for any claims incurred but unreported , however, retains risk
for the deductible portion of its insurance policies . The amount of these deductibles is considered
immaterial to the financial statements.
There were no significant reductions in insurance or settlements in excess of insurance coverage for
any of the past three years.
Workers compensation coverage is provided through a pooled self -insurance program through the
LMCIT. The City pays an annual premium to LMCIT . For workers compensation, the City is not subject
to a deductible. The City's workers compensation coverage is not retrospectively rated . However, the
actual premium is adjusted based on audited payroll amounts.
Page 231 of 309
48
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS
The City participates in various pension plans. Total pension expense for the year ended
December 31 , 2025, was $464,402. The components of pension expense are noted in the following
plan summaries.
The General Fund and Sewer and Stormwater Funds typically liquidate the liability related to the
pensions.
Public Employees' Retirement Association
A.Plan Description
The City participates in the following cost -sharing multiple-employer defined benefit pension plans
administered by PERA. PERA's defined benefit pension plans are established and administered in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapters 353, 353D, 353E, 353G, and 356. Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 356 defines each plan 's financial reporting requirements. PERA's defined benefit pension
plans are tax qualified plans under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
General Employees Retirement Plan
Membership in the General Plan includes employees of counties , cities, townships, schools in non-
certified positions, and other governmental entities whose revenues are derived from taxation , fees,
or assessments. Plan membership is required for any employee who is expected to earn more than
$425 in a month, unless the employee meets exclusion criteria.
Public Employees Police and Fire Plan
Membership in the Police and Fire Plan includes full -time, licensed police officers and firefighters
who meet the membership criteria defined in Minnesota Statutes § 353.64 and who are not earning
service credit in any other PERA retirement plan or a local relief association for the same service.
Employers can provide Police and Fire Plan coverage for part -time positions and certain other public
safety positions by submitting a resolution adopted by the City 's governing body. The resolution must
state that the position meets plan requirements.
B.Benefits Provided
PERA provides retirement, disability, and death benefits. Benefit provisions are established by state
statute and can only be modified by the state Legislature. Vested, terminated employees who are
entitled to benefits , but are not receiving them yet, are bound by the provisions in effect at the time
they last terminated their public service. When a member is vested, they have earned enough
service credit to receive a lifetime monthly benefit after leaving public service and reaching an
eligible retirement age. Members who retire at or over their Social Security full retirement age with
at least one year of service qualify for a retirement benefit.
Page 232 of 309
49
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
B. Benefits Provided (Continued)
General Employees Plan Benefits
General Employees Plan requires three years of service to vest. Benefits are based on a member 's
highest average salary for any 5 successive years of allowable service , age, and years of credit at
termination of service. Two methods are used to compute benefits for General Plan members.
Members hired prior to July 1, 1989, receive the higher of Step or Level formulas. Only the Level
formula is used for members hired after June 30 , 1989. Under the Step formula , General Plan
members receive 1.2% of the highest average salary for each of the first 10 years of service and 1.7%
for each additional year. Under the Level formula , General Plan members receive 1.7% of the highest
average salary for all years of service. For members hired prior to July 1 , 1989, a full retirement
benefit is available when age plus years of service equal 90 and normal retirement age is 65.
Members can receive a reduced requirement benefit as early as age 55 if they have three or more
years of service. Early retirement benefits are reduced by .25% for each month under age 65.
Members with 30 or more years of service can retire at any age with a reduction of .25% for each
month the member is younger than age 62. The Level formula allows General Plan members to
receive a full retirement benefit at age 65 if they were first hired before July 1 , 1989, or at age 66 if
they were hired on or after July 1, 1989. Early retirement begins at age 55 with an actuarial
reduction applied to the benefit.
Benefit increases are provided to benefit recipients each January. The postretirement increase is
equal to 50% of the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) announced by the SSA , with a minimum increase
of at least 1% and a maximum of 1.5%. The 2025 annual increase was 1.25%. Recipients that have
been receiving the annuity or benefit for at least a full year as of the June 30 before the effective
date of the increase will receive the full increase. Recipients receiving the annuity or benefit for at
least one month but less than a full year as of the June 30 before the effective date of the increase
will receive a reduced prorated increase.
Police and Fire Plan Benefits
Benefits for the Police and Fire Plan members hired before July 1 , 2010, are vested after three years
of service. Members hired on or after July 1, 2010, are 50% vested after five years of service and
100% vested after 10 years. After five years , vesting increase by 10% each full year of service until
members are 100% vested after 10 years. Police and Fire Plan members receive 3% of highest average
salary for all years of service. Police and Fire Plan members receive a full retirement benefit when
they are 55 and vested, or when their age plus their years of service equals 90 or greater if they
were first hired before July 1 , 1989. Early retirement starts at age 50, and early retirement benefits
are reduced by 0.417% each month members are younger than age 55.
Benefit increases are provided to benefit recipients each January. The postretirement increase is
fixed at 1%. Recipients that have been receiving the annuity or benefit for at least 36 months as of
the June 30 before the effective date of the increase will receive the full increase. Recipients
receiving the annuity or benefit for at least 25 months but less than 36 months as of the June 30
before the effective date of the increase will receive a reduced prorated increase.
Page 233 of 309
50
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
C.Contributions
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353, 353E, 353G, and 356 sets the rates for employer and employee
contributions. Contribution rates can only be modified by the state Legislature.
General Employees Fund Contributions
General Plan members were required to contribute 6.5% of their annual covered salary in fiscal year
2025, and the City was required to contribute 7.5% for General Plan members. The City's
contributions to the General Employees Fund for the year ended December 31 , 2025, were $257,060.
The City's contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute.
Police and Fire Fund Contributions
Police and Fire Plan members were required to contribute 11.8% of their annual covered salary in
fiscal year 2025 and the City was required to contribute 17.7% for Police and Fire Plan members. The
City's contributions to the Police and Fire Fund for the year ended December 31 , 2025, were
$433,555. The City's contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute.
D.Pension Costs
General Employees Fund Pension Costs
At December 31 , 2025, the City reported a liability of $1,184,752 for its proportionate share of the
General Employees Fund 's net pension liability. The City's net pension liability reflected a reduction
due to the State of Minnesota's contribution of $16 millio n. The State of Minnesota is considered a
non-employer contributing entity and the State's contribution meets the definition of a special
funding situation. The State of Minnesota's proportionate share of the net pension liability associated
with the City totaled $28,580.
The net pension liability was measured as of June 30 , 2025, and the total pension liability used to
calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The
City's proportionate share of the net pension liability was based on the City 's contributions received
by PERA during the measurement period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1 , 2024, through
June 30, 2025, relative to the total employer contributions received from all of PERA 's participating
employers. The City's proportionate share was 0.0358% at the end of the measurement period and
0.0330% for the beginning of the period.
Page 234 of 309
51
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
D. Pension Costs (Continued)
General Employees Fund Pension Costs (Continued)
City's proportionate share of the net pension liability 1,184,752$
State of Minnesota's proportionate share of the net pension
liability associated with the City 28,580
Total 1,213,332$
For the year ended December 31, 2025, the City recognized pension expense of $31,181 for its
proportionate share of General Employees Plan's pension expense. Included in the amount, the City
recognized $(4,384) as pension expense (and grant revenue) for its proportionate share of the State
of Minnesota's contribution of $16 million to the General Employees Fund.
At December 31 , 2025, the City reported its proportionate share of the General Employees Plan 's
deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources , related to pensions from the
following sources:
Differences between expected and actual economic experience 106,750$ -$
Changes in actuarial assumptions 28,545 244,583
Net difference between projected and actual investment
earnings - 462,326
Changes in proportion 115,428 15,840
Contributions paid to PERA subsequent to the measurement
date 128,530 -
Total 379,253$ 722,749$
Deferred
Outflows of
Resources
Deferred
Inflows of
Resources
Page 235 of 309
52
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
D.Pension Costs (Continued)
General Employees Fund Pension Costs (Continued)
The $128,530 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from City
contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net
pension liability in the year ended December 31 , 2026. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows
and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as
follows:
Pension
Year Ending Expense
December 31,Amount
(94,331)$
(163,810)
(129,671)
(84,214)
Total (472,026)$
2026
2027
2028
2029
Police and Fire Fund Pension Costs
At December 31, 2025, the City reported a liability of $1,740,248 for its proportionate share of the
Police and Fire Fund's net pension liability. The net pension liability was measured as of
June 30, 2025, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was
determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The City 's proportionate share of the net
pension liability was based on the City's contributions received by PERA during the measurement
period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1, 202 4, through June 30, 2025, relative to the total
employer contributions received from all of PERA 's participating employers. The City's proportionate
share was 0.1485% at the end of the measurement period and 0.1616% for the beginning of the
period.
Page 236 of 309
53
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
D.Pension Costs (Continued)
Police and Fire Fund Pension Costs
The State of Minnesota contributed $18 million to the Police and Fire Fund in the plan fiscal year
ended June 30, 2025. The contribution consisted of $9 million in direct state aid that meets the
definition of a special funding situation and $9 million in supplemental state aid that does not meet
the definition of a special funding situation. The $9 million direct state aid was paid on
October 1, 2024. The direct state aid payment will increase by $17.7 million, which was paid on
October 1, 2025. Thereafter, by October 1 of each year, the State will pay $26.7 million to the Police
and Fire Fund until the fund is 110% funded for a minimum of three consecutive years (on an
actuarial value of assets basis). The $9 million in supplemental state aid will continue until the fund
and the State Patrol Plan (administered by the Minnesota State Retirement System) are 100% funded
for three consecutive years (on an actuarial value of assets basis). The State of Minnesota 's
proportionate share of the net pension liability associated with the City totaled $60,326.
City's proportionate share of the net pension liability 1,740,248$
State of Minnesota's proportionate share of the net pension
liability associated with the City 60,326
Total 1,800,574$
For the year ended December 31, 2025, the City recognized pension expense of $433,221 for its
proportionate share of the Police and Fire Plan's pension expense. Included in this amount, the City
recognized $29,188 as pension expense (and grant revenue) for its proportionate share of the State
of Minnesota's contribution of $9 million to the Police and Fire Fund.
The State of Minnesota is not included as a non -employer contributing entity in the Police and Fire
Pension Plan pension allocation schedules for the $9 million in supplemental state aid because this
contribution was not considered to meet the definition of a special funding situation . The City
recognized $13,368 for the year ended December 31 , 2025, as revenue and an offsetting reduction of
the net pension liability for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota 's on-behalf
contributions to the Police and Fire Fund.
At December 31 , 2025, the City reported its proportionate share of the Police and Fire Plan 's
deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the
sources on the following page.
Page 237 of 309
54
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
D.Pension Costs (Continued)
Police and Fire Fund Pension Costs (Continued)
Differences between expected and actual economic experience 844,336$ -$
Changes in actuarial assumptions 1,434,441 2,300,383
Net difference between projected and actual investment
earnings - 788,168
Changes in proportion 68,700 298,060
Contributions paid to PERA subsequent to the measurement
date 216,778 -
Total 2,564,255$ 3,386,611$
Deferred
Inflows of
Resources
Deferred
Outflows of
Resources
The $216,778 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from City
contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net
pension liability in the year ended December 31 , 2026. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows
and inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows:
Pension
Expense
Amount
396,165$
(437,092)
(956,540)
(58,605)
16,938
Total (1,039,134)$
2028
2029
2030
Year Ending
December 31,
2026
2027
Page 238 of 309
55
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
D.Pension Costs (Continued)
Police and Fire Fund Pension Costs (Continued)
E.Long-Term Expected Return on Investment
The State Board of Investment , which manages the investments of PERA , prepares an analysis of the
reasonableness on a regular basis of the long -term expected rate of return using a building-block
method in which best -estimate ranges of expected future rates of return are developed for each
major asset class. These ranges are combined to produce an expected long -term rate of return by
weighting the expected future rates of return by the target asset allocation percentages. The target
allocation and best estimates of geometric real rates of return for each major asset class are
summarized in the following table:
Domestic equity 33.5 %5.10 %
International equity 16.5 5.30
Fixed income 25.0 0.75
Private markets 25.0 5.90
Total 100.0 %
Asset Class
Target
Allocation
Long-Term
Expected Real
Rate of Return
F.Actuarial Assumptions
The total pension liability for each of the cost -sharing defined benefit plans was determined by an
actuarial valuation as of June 30, 2025, using the entry -age normal actuarial cost method. The long-
term rate of return on pension plan investments used to determine the total liability is 7.0%. The
7.0% assumption is based on a review of inflation and investments return assumptions from a number
of national investment consulting firms. The review provided a range of investment return rates
considered reasonable by the actuary. An investment return of 7.0% is within that range.
Inflation is assumed to be 2.25% for the General Employees Plan and the Police and Fire Plan. Benefit
increases after retirement are assumed to be 1.5% for the General Employees Plan and 1% for the
Police and Fire Plan.
Salary growth assumptions in the General Employees Plan range in annual increments from 11.5%
after one year of service to 3.0% after 27 years of service. In the Police and Fire Plan, salary growth
assumptions range in annual increments from 10.75% after one year of service to 3.0% after 23 years
of service.
Page 239 of 309
56
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
F.Actuarial Assumptions (Continued)
Mortality rates for the General Employees Plan are based on the Pub -2010 General Employee
Mortality Table. Mortality rates for the Police and Fire Plan are based on the Pub -2010 Public Safety
Employee Mortality tables. The tables are adjusted slightly to fit PERA 's experience.
Actuarial assumptions for the General Employees Plan are reviewed every four years. The General
Employees Plan was last reviewed in 2022. The assumption changes were adopted by the Board and
became effective with the July 1 , 2023, actuarial valuation. The Police and Fire Plan was reviewed in
2024. The assumption changes were adopted by the board and became effective with the
July 1, 2025, actuarial valuation.
The following changes in actuarial assumptions and plan provisions occurred in 20 25:
General Employees Fund
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The combined service annuity loading factors increased from 15% to 19% for vested
terminated members and from 3% to 44% for non -vested, terminated members. The assumed
post-retirement benefit increase changed from 1.25% to 1.5%.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The post-retirement benefit increase formula changed to 100% of the Social Security annual
increase, between 1% and 1.75% , beginning January 1, 2026. If the funded ratio (on a market
value of assets basis) is less than 85% for the last two consecutive annual valuations or is less
than 80% in the most recent actuarial valuation, the maximum is reduced to 1.5%. Previously,
the benefit increase was 50% of the Social Security annual increase, between 1% and 1.5%.
•The 1% additional employer contribution is eliminated when the plan reaches 98% funded
status (on an actuarial value of assets basis); this contribution was previously scheduled to
stop when the plan reached 100% funded status.
Police and Fire Fund
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•Assumed rates of salary increases were reduced slightly.
•Assumed rates of retirement were adjusted, resulting in an overall increase in unreduced
(full) retirements and an overall increase in reduced (early) retirements.
•Assumed rates of withdrawal were modified; the new rates will increase predicted
terminations, especially in the first few years of employment.
•Assumed rates of disabled retirement were significantly increased, especially for ages over
age 30.
•Continued used of Pub -2010 Public Safety Mortality Table with rates adjusted to better fit
observed experience.
•Percent married assumption for female retirees lowered from 70% to 65%.
•Minor changes were made to form of payment assumptions for retirees.
•Minor changes were made to assumptions made with respect to missing participant data.
Page 240 of 309
57
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
F.Actuarial Assumptions (Continued)
Police and Fire Fund (Continued)
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions (Continued)
•The combined service annuity load changed from 33% to 13% for vested, terminated members
and from 2% to 38% for non-vested, terminated members.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The period of time needed for benefit recipients to receive their first benefit increase was
reduced by one year (from 36 months to 24 months for a full increase).
•The January 1, 2026, benefit increase changed from 1% to 3%; subsequent January 1 increases
will be 1%.
•The threshold to end the $9 million annual state aid contribution changed from the earlier of
July 1, 2048, or 90% funded for both PERA Police & Fire and MSRS State Patrol for three
consecutive years to 100% funded for both PERA Police & Fire and MSRS State Patrol for three
consecutive years (on an actuarial value of assets basis).
•The threshold to end the additional $9 million annual state aid contribution changed from the
earlier of July 1, 2048 or 100% funded for a minimum of three consecutive years to 110%
funded for a minimum of three consecutive years (on an actuarial value of assets basis).
•An additional $17.7 million in direct state aid will be paid annually each October 1 beginning
October 1, 2025, through June 30, 2048.
•Joint and survivor actuarial equivalent factors were updated to reflect changes in
assumptions.
G.Discount Rate
The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability in 2025 was 7.0%. The projection of
cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that contributions from Plan members and
employers will be made at rates set in Minnesota Statutes. Based on these assumptions, the fiduciary
net positions of the General Employees and Police and Fire plans were projected to be available to
make all projected future benefit payments of current plan members. Therefore , the long-term
expected rate of return on pension plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit
payments to determine the total pension liability.
Page 241 of 309
58
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Public Employees' Retirement Association (Continued)
H.Pension Liability Sensitivity
The following presents the City's proportionate share of the net pension liability for all plans it
participates in, calculated using the discount rate disclosed in the preceding paragraph , as well as
what the City's proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a
discount rate 1 percentage point lower or 1 percentage point higher than the current discount rate:
1% Decrease in Current 1% Increase in
Discount Rate Discount Rate Discount Rate
(6.0%)(7.0%)(8.0%)
City's proportionate share of
the General Employees Fund
net pension liability 2,877,572$ 1,184,752$ (188,510)$
1% Decrease in Current 1% Increase in
Discount Rate Discount Rate Discount Rate
(6.0%)(7.0%)(8.0%)
City's proportionate share of
the Police and Fire Fund
net pension liability 4,559,819$ 1,740,248$ (575,064)$
I.Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position
Detailed information about each pension plan's fiduciary net position is available in a separately
issued PERA financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary
information. That report may be obtained on the internet at www.mnpera.org.
Defined Contribution Pension Plan – Volunteer Firefighter's Relief Association
The Mendota Heights Firefighter's Relief Association is the administrator of a single employer defined
benefit pension plan established to provide benefits for members of the Mendota Heights Fire
Department per Minnesota State Statutes.
The Association issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and
required supplementary information. That report may be obtained by writing to Mendota Heights
Firefighter's Association, 2121 Dodd Road Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 or by calling 651-249-
7640.
The City contributes to the Mendota Heights Volunteer Fire Department Relief Association (the
"Association") that provides pension benefits to its members under a single employer defined
contribution plan. Since fire department members are volunteers , contributions to the Association
are not based on payroll but rather on years of active service. All active firefighters may apply for
membership in the Association and shall become a member immediately upon approval by the Board
of Trustees.
Page 242 of 309
59
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 11 – PENSION PLANS (CONTINUED)
Defined Contribution Pension Plan – Volunteer Firefighter's Relief Association (Continued)
Under an Annual Contribution Agreement, the City's contribution to the Association is determined by
multiplying $7,500 by the number of years of active service completed by members of the
Association for the plan year , prorated by months for members who did not complete a full year of
active service. The City also contributes a portion of the Association 's administrative fees each year.
For 2025, that contribution was $249,375. Required and actual employer contributions to the plan
during 2025 were $249,375. In addition, the City passes through state aid allocated to the plan in
accordance with state statutes. For 2025, the state aid was $175,939. Members of the Association are
not allowed to make voluntary contributions to the plan.
Members are not vested in their accounts until they attain 10 years of active service , at which time
they become 60% vested. Thereafter, the vested portion of their accounts increases by 4% annually
until they achieve 100% vesting after having served for 20 years.
Plan provisions were established and may only be amended by amendments to the Association bylaws
which require a majority vote by the Board of Trustees.
NOTE 12 – POST EMPLOYMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN
A.Plan Description
The City provides a single employer defined benefit healthcare plan to eligible retirees (as required
by Minnesota Statue § 471.61) and police or firefighters disabled in the line of duty (as required by
Minnesota Statute § 299A.465). The required contributions are based on projected pay -as-you-go
financing requirements. As of January 1 , 2025, there were 17 retirees participating in the City's
healthcare plan.
B.Benefits Provided
Retirees and their spouses contribute to the healthcare plan at the same rate as City employees. This
results in the retirees receiving an implicit rate subsidy. Contribution requirements are established
by the City, based on the contract terms with Blue Cross Blue Shield and Delta Dental.
C.Contributions
The City makes direct subsidy payments towards retiree health insurance premiums. For the year
2025, the City contributed $151,506.
D.Members
As of January 1, 2024, the following were covered by the benefit terms:
Inactive employees or beneficiaries currently receiving benefits 17
Active employees 43
Total 60
Page 243 of 309
60
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 12 – POST EMPLOYMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN (CONTINUED)
E.Actuarial Assumptions
The total OPEB liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of January 1, 2024, using the
following actuarial assumptions , applied to all periods included in the measurement , unless
otherwise specified:
Inflation 2.50%
Healthcare cost trend increases 6.25% initially, grading to 5% over five years
and then to 4.00% over the next 48 years
Mortality assumption Pub-2010 Public Retirement Plans
Headcount-Weighted Mortality Tables
(General, Safety) with MP-2021
Generational Improvement Scale
Key Methods and Assumptions Used in Valuation of Total OPEB Liability
The actuarial assumptions used in the January 1 , 2024, valuation were based on the results of an
actuarial experience study for the period January 1 , 2023, through January 1, 2024.
The discount rate used to measure the total OPEB liability was 4.20% based on 20-year municipal
G.O. Bonds.
Page 244 of 309
61
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 12 – POST EMPLOYMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN (CONTINUED)
F.Total OPEB Liability
The City's total OPEB liability of $3,288,399 was measured as of January 1, 2025, and was determined
by an actuarial valuation as of January 1, 2024.
Total
OPEB
Liability
Balance at January 1, 2024 3,455,270$
Changes for the year
Service cost 18,947
Interest 125,684
Changes of assumptions (155,370)
Differences between expected and actual experience -
Benefit payments (156,132)
Net changes (166,871)
Balance at January 1, 2025 3,288,399$
Changes of assumptions and other inputs reflect the following changes:
•The discount rate was changed from 3.70% to 4.20%.
G.OPEB Liability Sensitivity
The following presents the City's total OPEB liability calculated using the discount rate of 4.20% as
well as the liability measured using 1% lower and 1% higher than the current discount rate.
1% Decrease Current 1% Increase
in Discount Rate in Discount Rate in Discount Rate
(3.20%)(4.20%)(5.20%)
3,614,736$ 3,288,399$ 3,006,709$
Total OPEB Liability/(Asset)
Page 245 of 309
62
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 12 – POST EMPLOYMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN (CONTINUED)
G.OPEB Liability Sensitivity (Continued)
The following presents the total OPEB liability of the City , as well as what the City's total OPEB
liability would be if it were calculated using healthcare cost trend rates that are 1% lower and 1%
higher than the current healthcare cost trend rates.
1% Decrease in
Trend Rate
Current
Trend Rate
1% Increase in
Trend Rate
2,986,077$ 3,288,399$ 3,634,960$
Total OPEB Liability/(Asset)
(5.25%
Decreasing to
4.0%)
(6.25%
Decreasing to
5.0%)
(7.25%
Decreasing to
6.0%)
H.OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources
Related to OPEB
For the year ended December 31, 2025, the City recognized OPEB expense of $514,000. At
December 31 , 2025, the Distract reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of
resources related to OPEB from the following sources :
Deferred Deferred
Outflows of Inflows of
Resources Resources
Liability losses 2,066,899$ -$
Assumption changes 156,255 180,419
Subsequent contributions 151,506 -
Total 2,374,660$ 180,419$
Page 246 of 309
63
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 12 – POST EMPLOYMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN (CONTINUED)
H.OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources
Related to OPEB (Continued)
The $151,506 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to post employment benefits
resulting from City contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a
reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended December 31 , 2026. Other amounts reported
as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to post-employment benefits will be
recognized in pension expense as follows:
OPEB
Year Ending Expense
December 31, Amount
369,372$
371,869
365,231
361,920
292,690
281,653
Total 2,042,735$
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Thereafter
NOTE 13 – JOINT VENTURES
A.Dakota 911
The City is a member of Dakota 911. Dakota 911 was created by a joint powers agreement between
Dakota County and several cities. Its purposes include the establishment , operation, and
maintenance of joint law enforcement, fire, EMS, and other emergency communications systems.
Members are obligated to pay their proportional share of operating and capital expenditures on an
annual basis. The City paid $286,092 for 2025. Members do not maintain an equity interest other
than if Dakota 911 were to terminate. Withdrawing members forfeit any interest in Dakota 911.
Information regarding Dakota 911 can be obtained at the website www.dakota911mn.gov.
B.Local Government Information Systems Association (LOGIS)
The consortium of approximately 30 government entities provides computerized data processing and
support services to its members. LOGIS is a legally separate entity; the entities appoint a voting
majority of its board, and the consortium is fiscally independent of the City. For 2025, the City paid
$412,302 for computer application support and computer hardware for the City 's network. Complete
financial statements of the consortium may be obtained at the LOGIS offices located at 5750 Duluth
Street, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422.
Page 247 of 309
64
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Basic Financial Statements
NOTE 14 – CONTINGENCIES
The City has various claims and litigation that arise in the normal course of business. The City has
evaluated the impact of these items for the December 31 , 2025, financial statements and
determined they do not have a material effect on financial position or changes in financial position.
NOTE 15 – COMMITED CONTRACTS
At December 31 , 2025, the City had commitments of $4,294,552 for uncompleted construction
contracts.
NOTE 16 – TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
The City has entered into Tax Increment Financing agreement s which meet the criteria for disclosure
under Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 77 Tax Abatement Disclosures. The
City's authority to enter into these agreements comes from Minnesota Statute § 469. The City
entered into this agreement for the purpose of redevelopment.
Under these agreements, the City and developer agree on an amount of development costs to be
reimbursed to the developer by the City though tax revenues from the additional taxable value of
the property generated by the development (tax increment). A "pay-as-you-go" note is established
for this amount, on which the City makes payments for a fixed period of time with available tax
increment revenue after deducting for certain administrative costs.
During the year ended December 31 , 2025, the City generated $327,954 in tax increment revenue
and made $295,159 in payments to developers.
NOTE 17 – NEW STANDARDS ISSUED BUT NOT YET IMPLEMENTED
GASB Statement No. 103, Financial Reporting Model Improvements. The changes required by this
Statement provide clarity, enhance the relevance of information, provide more useful information
for decision-making and provide for greater comparability amongst government entities. This
Statement will be effective for the year ending December 31, 2026.
GASB Statement No. 104, Disclosure of Certain Capital Assets . The disclosures required by this
Statement provide users of the financial statements with essential information about certain types of
capital assets. This Statement will be effective for the year ending December 31, 2026.
Page 248 of 309
65
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Page 249 of 309
See notes to required supplementary information. 66
December 31,December 31,December 31,December 31,
2025 2024 2023 2022
Total OPEB Liability
Service cost 18,947$ 19,961$ 18,147$ 24,213$
Interest 125,684 38,126 23,338 14,864
Differences between expected
and actual experience - 2,387,617 - 540,952
Changes of assumptions (155,370) 176,395 (67,149) 12,919
Benefit payments (156,132) (198,102) (182,694) (143,921)
Net change in total
OPEB liability (166,871) 2,423,997 (208,358) 449,027
Beginning of year 3,455,270 1,031,273 1,239,631 790,604
Total OPEB Liability 3,288,399$ 3,455,270$ 1,031,273$ 1,239,631$
4,292,252$ 4,167,235$ 3,600,817$ 3,495,939$
76.61%82.92%28.64%35.46%
Note: Schedule is intended to show ten year trend. Additional years will be reported as they become available.
Covered-employee payroll
Total OPEB liability as a percentage
of covered-employee payroll
City of Mendota Heights
Schedule of Changes in Total OPEB Liability
and Related Ratios
Page 250 of 309
67
December 31, December 31, December 31, December 31,
2021 2020 2019 2018
20,191$ 17,009$ 22,733$ 24,002$
23,267 31,249 30,230 31,883
- 22,848 - -
26,487 30,297 (20,053) -
(122,081) (126,784) (115,317) (94,257)
(52,136) (25,381) (82,407) (38,372)
842,740 868,121 950,528 988,900
790,604$ 842,740$ 868,121$ 950,528$
3,469,012$ 3,359,818$ 3,460,084$ 3,359,305$
22.79%25.08%25.09%28.30%
Page 251 of 309
See notes to required supplementary information. 68
City's Covered
Payroll
2016 0.0315%2,557,644$ 33,392$ 2,591,036$ 1,954,600$ 130.85%68.91%
2017 0.0290%1,851,341 23,303 1,874,644 1,870,160 98.99%75.90%
2018 0.0281%1,558,873 51,096 1,609,969 1,887,853 82.57%79.53%
2019 0.0291%1,608,874 49,998 1,658,872 2,058,880 78.14%80.23%
2020 0.0296%1,774,655 54,701 1,829,356 2,113,013 83.99%79.06%
2021 0.0319%1,362,273 41,634 1,403,907 2,294,880 59.36%87.00%
2022 0.0324%2,566,091 75,343 2,641,434 2,430,307 105.59%76.67%
2023 0.0316%1,767,037 48,604 1,815,641 2,509,800 70.41%83.10%
2024 0.0330%1,221,526 31,586 1,253,112 2,796,493 43.68%89.08%
2025 0.0358%1,184,752 28,580 1,213,332 3,237,907 36.59%90.78%
For Fiscal
Year Ended
June 30,
City's
Proportion of
the Net
Pension
Liability
(Asset)
City's
Proportionate
Share of the
Net Pension
Liability (Asset)
State's
Proportionate
Share
(Amount) of
the Net
Pension
Liability
Associated
with the City
City's
Proportionate
Share of the
Net Pension
Liablility and
the State's
Proportionate
Share of the
Net Pension
Liablility
Associated
with the City
City's Covered
Payroll
City's
Proportionate
Share of the
Net Pension
Liability
(Asset) as a
Percentage of
its Covered
Payroll
Plan Fiduciary
Net Position
as a
Percentage of
the Total
Pension
Liability
2016 0.1550%6,220,420$ N/A 6,220,420$ 1,496,272$ 415.7%63.88%
2017 0.1500%2,011,679 N/A 2,011,679 1,543,389 130.3%85.43%
2018 0.1527%1,613,882 N/A 1,613,882 1,609,556 100.3%88.84%
2019 0.1643%1,726,959 N/A 1,726,959 1,733,152 99.6%89.26%
2020 0.1686%2,207,154 52,363$ 2,259,517 1,902,465 116.0%87.19%
2021 0.1575%1,201,558 54,662 1,256,220 1,902,228 63.2%93.66%
2022 0.1628%7,084,413 309,465 7,393,878 1,977,853 358.2%70.53%
2023 0.1568%2,707,732 109,059 2,816,791 2,059,107 131.5%86.47%
2024 0.1616%2,125,799 81,035 2,206,834 2,237,503 95.0%90.17%
2025 0.1485%1,740,248 60,326 1,800,574 2,254,169 77.2%91.78%
Last Ten Years
For Fiscal
Year Ended
June 30,
State's
Proportionate
Share
(Amount) of
the Net
Pension
Liability
Associated
with the City
City's
Proportionate
Share of the
Net Pension
Liablility and
the State's
Proportionate
Share of the
Net Pension
Liablility
Associated
with the City
Public Employees Police and Fire Retirement Fund
of Net Pension Liability
City of Mendota Heights
Schedule of City's Proportionate Share
of Net Pension Liability
Last Ten Years
Schedule of City's Proportionate Share
General Employees Retirement Fund
City's
Proportionate
Share
(Percentage)
of the Net
Pension
Liability
(Asset)
City's
Proportionate
Share (Amount)
of the Net
Pension
Liability (Asset)
City's
Proportionate
Share of the
Net Pension
Liability
(Asset) as a
Percentage of
its Covered
Payroll
Plan Fiduciary
Net Position
as a
Percentage of
the Total
Pension
Liability
Page 252 of 309
See notes to required supplementary information. 69
2016 139,806$ 139,806$ -$ 1,864,080$ 7.50%
2017 137,806 137,806 - 1,837,413 7.50%
2018 146,272 146,272 - 1,950,293 7.50%
2019 157,416 157,416 - 2,098,880 7.50%
2020 166,196 166,196 - 2,215,947 7.50%
2021 178,657 178,657 - 2,382,093 7.50%
2022 186,921 186,921 - 2,492,280 7.50%
2023 193,712 193,712 - 2,582,827 7.50%
2024 226,381 226,381 - 3,018,413 7.50%
2025 257,060 257,060 - 3,427,467 7.50%
2016 245,917$ 245,917$ -$ 1,518,006$ 16.20%
2017 251,584 251,584 - 1,552,988 16.20%
2018 266,168 266,168 - 1,643,012 16.20%
2019 311,718 311,718 - 1,839,044 16.95%
2020 344,654 344,654 - 1,947,198 17.70%
2021 349,826 349,826 - 1,976,418 17.70%
2022 350,782 350,782 - 1,981,819 17.70%
2023 382,877 382,877 - 2,163,147 17.70%
2024 394,207 394,207 - 2,227,158 17.70%
2025 433,555 433,555 - 2,449,463 17.70%
Last Ten Years
Contributions
as a
Percentage of
Covered
Payroll
Statutorily
Required
Contribution
Statutorily
Required
Contribution
Contributions
in Relation to
the Statutorily
Required
Contributions
Contribution
Deficiency
(Excess)
Contributions
in Relation to
the Statutorily
Required
Contributions
Fiscal Year
Ending
December 31,
City's Covered
Payroll
Contributions
as a
Percentage of
Covered
Payroll
Schedule of City Contributions -
Public Employees Police and Fire Retirement Fund
Fiscal Year
Ending
December 31,
City of Mendota Heights
Schedule of City Contributions -
General Employees Retirement Fund
Last Ten Years
Contribution
Deficiency
(Excess)
City's Covered
Payroll
Page 253 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
70
General Employees Fund
2025 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The combined service annuity loading factors increased from 15% to 19% for vested,
terminated members and from 3% to 44% for non -vested, terminated members.
•The assumed post-retirement benefit increase changed from 1.25% to 1.5%.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The post-retirement benefit increase formula changed to 100% of the Social Security annual
increase, between 1% and 1.75%, beginning January 1, 2026. If the funded ratio (on a market
value of assets basis) is less than 85% for the last two consecutive annual valuations or is less
than 80% in the most recent actuarial valuation, the maximum is reduced to 1.5%. Previously,
the benefit increase was 50% of the Social Security annual increase, between 1% and 1.5%.
•The 1% additional employer contribution is eliminated when the plan reaches 98% funded
status (on an actuarial value of assets basis); this contribution was previously scheduled to
stop when the plan reached 100% funded status.
2024 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•Rates of merit and seniority were adjusted, resulting in slightly higher rates.
•Assumed rates of retirement were adjusted as follows : increase the rate of assumed
unreduced retirements , slight adjustments to Rule of 90 retirement rates , and slight
adjustments to early retirement rates for Tier 1 and Tier 2 members.
•Minor increase in assumed withdrawals for males and females.
•Lower rates of disability.
•Continued use of Pub-2010 general mortality table with slight rate adjustments as
recommended in the most recent experience study.
•Minor changes to form of payment assumptions for male and female retirees.
•Minor changes to assumptions made with respect to missing participant data.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The workers' compensation offset for disability benefits was eliminated. The actuarial
equivalent factors updated to reflect the changes in assumptions.
2023 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The investment return assumption and single discount rate were changed from 6.5% to 7.0%.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•Additional one-time direct state aid contribution of $170.1 million will be contributed to the
Plan on October 1, 2023.
•The vesting period for those hired after June 30 , 2010 was changed from five years of
allowable service to three years of allowable service.
•The benefit increase delay for early retirements on or after January 1 , 2024, was eliminated.
•A one-time non-compounding benefit increase equal to 2.5% minus the actual adjustment will
be payable in a lump sum for calendar year 2024 by March 31 , 2024.
2022 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The mortality improvement scale was changed from scale MP -2020 to scale MP-2021.
Page 254 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
71
General Employees Fund (Continued)
2022 Changes
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
2021 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The investment return and single discount rates were changed from 7.5% to 6.5% for financial
reporting purposes.
•The mortality improvement scale was changed from scale MP -2019 to scale MP-2020.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
2020 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The price inflation assumption was decreased from 2.5% to 2.25%.
•The payroll growth assumption was decreased from 3.25% to 3.0%.
•Assumed salary increase rates were changed as recommended in the June 30 , 2019,
experience study. The net effect is assumed rates that average 0.25% less than previous
rates.
•Assumed rates of retirement were changed as recommended in the June 30 , 2019, experience
study. The changes result in more unreduced (normal) retirements and slightly fewer Rule of
90 and early retirements.
•Assumed rates of termination were changes as recommended in the June 30 , 2019,
experience study. The new rates are based on service and are generally lower than the
previous rates for years 2-5 and slightly higher thereafter.
•Assumed rates of disability were changed as recommended in the June 30 , 2019, experience
study. The change results in fewer predicted disability retirements for males and females.
•The base mortality table for healthy annuitants and employees was changed from the RP -2014
table to the Pub-2010 General Mortality table , with adjustments. The base mortality table for
disabled annuitants was changed from the RP -2014 disabled annuitant mortality table to the
Pub-2010 General/Teacher disabled annuitant mortality table , with adjustments.
•The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale MP -2018 to Scale MP-2019.
•The assumed spouse age difference was changed from two years older for females to one year
older.
•The assumed number of married male new retirees electing the 100% Joint and Survivor
option changed from 35% to 45%. The assumed number of married female new retires electing
the 100% Joint and Survivor option changed from 15% to 30%. The corresponding number of
married new retirees electing the Life annuity option was adjusted accordingly.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•Augmentation for current privatized members was reduced to 2.0% for the period July 1 , 2020
through December 31, 2023, and 0.0% thereafter. Augmentation was eliminated for
privatizations occurring after June 30, 2020.
2019 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2017 to MP-2018.
Page 255 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
72
General Employees Fund (Continued)
2019 Changes (Continued)
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The employer supplemental contribution was changed prospectively , decreasing from $31.0
million to $21.0 million per year . The State's special funding contribution was changed
prospectively, requiring $16.0 million due per year through 2031.
2018 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2015 to MP-2017.
•The assumed benefit increase was changed from 1.0% per year through 2044 and 2.5% per
year thereafter to 1.25% per year.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The augmentation adjustment in early retirement factors is eliminated over a five -year period
starting July 1, 2019, resulting in actuarial equivalence after June 30 , 2024.
•Interest credited on member contributions decreased from 4.00% to 3.00%, beginning
July 1, 2018.
•Deferred augmentation was changed to 0.00%, effective January 1, 2019. Augmentation that
has already accrued for deferred members will still apply.
•Contribution stabilizer provisions were repealed.
•Annual increases were changed from 1.00% per year with a provision to increase to 2.50%
upon attainment of 90.00% funding ratio to 50.00% of the Social Security Cost of Living
Adjustment, not less than 1.00% and not more than 1.50%, beginning
January 1, 2019.
•For retirements on or after January 1, 2024, the first benefit increase is delayed until the
retiree reaches normal retirement age . This does not apply to Rule of 90 retirees, disability
benefit recipients, or survivors.
•Actuarial equivalent factors were updated to reflect revised mortality and interest
assumptions.
2017 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The CSA loads were changed from 0.8% for active members and 60% for vested and non -vested
deferred members. The revised CSA loads are now 0.0% for active member liability , 15% for
vested deferred member liability and 3% for non -vested deferred member liability.
•The assumed annual increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year for all years to 1.0% per
year through 2044 and 2.5% per year thereafter.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The State's contribution for the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund equals $16 ,000,000
in 2017 and 2018, and $6,000,000 thereafter.
•The Employer Supplemental Contribution for the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund
changed from $21,000,000 to $31,000,000 in calendar years 2019 to 2031. The State 's
contribution changed from $16 ,000,000 to $6,000,000 in calendar years 2019 to 2031.
2016 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year through
2035 and 2.5% per year thereafter to 1.0% per year for all future years.
Page 256 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
73
General Employees Fund (Continued)
2016 Changes (Continued)
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions (Continued)
• The assumed investment return was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. The single discount rate was
changed from 7.9% to 7.5%.
• Other assumptions were changed pursuant to the experience study dated June 30 , 2015. The
assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, the inflation was decreased by 0.25% to
3.25% for payroll growth and 2.50% for inflation.
Changes in Plan Provisions
• There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
Page 257 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
74
Police and Fire Fund
2025 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•Assumed rates of salary increases were reduced slightly.
•Assumed rates of retirement were adjusted, resulting in an overall increase in unreduced
(full) retirements and an overall increase in reduced (early) retirements.
•Assumed rates of withdrawal were modified; the new rates will increase predicted
terminations, especially in the first few years of employment.
•Assumed rates of disabled retirement were significantly increased, especially for ages over
age 30.
•Continued used of Pub -2010 Public Safety Mortality Table with rates adjusted to better fit
observed experience.
•Percent married assumption for female retirees lowered from 70% to 65%.
•Minor changes were made to form of payment assumptions for retirees.
•Minor changes were made to assumptions made with respect to missing participant data.
•The combined service annuity load changed from 33% to 13% for vested, terminated members
and from 2% to 38% for non-vested, terminated members.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The period of time needed for benefit recipients to receive their first benefit increase was
reduced by one year (from 36 months to 24 months for a full increase).
•The January 1, 2026, benefit increase changed from 1% to 3%; subsequent January 1 increases
will be 1%.
•The threshold to end the $9 million annual state aid contribution changed from the earlier of
July 1, 2048, or 90% funded for both PERA Police & Fire and MSRS State Patrol for three
consecutive years to 100% funded for both PERA Police & Fire and MSRS State Patrol for three
consecutive years (on an actuarial value of assets basis).
•The threshold to end the additional $9 million annual state aid contribution changed from the
earlier of July 1, 2048 or 100% funded for a minimum of three consecutive years to 110%
funded for a minimum of three consecutive years (on an actuarial value of assets basis).
•An additional $17.7 million in direct state aid will be paid annually each October 1 beginning
October 1, 2025, through June 30, 2048.
•Joint and survivor actuarial equivalent factors were updated to reflect changes in
assumptions.
2024 Changes
Changes in Plan Provisions
•The State contribution of $9.0 million per year will continue until the earlier of 1) both the
Police and Fire Plan and the State Patrol Retirement Fund attain 90% funded status for three
consecutive years (on an actuarial value of assets basis) or 2) July 1 , 2048. The contribution
was previously due to expire after attaining a 90% funded status for one year.
•The additional $9.0 million contribution will continue until the Police and Fire Plan is fully
funded for a minimum of three consecutive years on an actuarial value of assets basis , or
July 1, 2048, whichever is earlier. This contribution was previously due to expire upon
attainment of fully funded status on an actuarial value of assets basis for one year (or
July 1, 2048 if earlier).
Page 258 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
75
Police and Fire Fund (Continued)
2023 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The investment return assumption was changed from 6.5% to 7.0%.
•The single discount rate was changed from 5.4% to 7.0%.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•Additional one-time direct state aid contribution of $19.4 million will be contributed to the
Plan on October 1, 2023.
•Vesting requirement for new hires after June 30 , 2014, was changed from a graded 20-year
vesting schedule to a graded 10-year vesting schedule, with 50% vesting after five years,
increasing incrementally to 100% after 10 years.
•A one-time non-compounding benefit increase of 3.0% will be payable in a lump sum for
calendar year 2024 by March 31 , 2024.
•Psychological treatment is required effective July 1 , 2023, prior to approval for a duty
disability benefit for a psychological condition relating to the member 's occupation.
•A total and permanent duty disability benefit was added , effective July 1, 2023.
2022 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The mortality improvement scale was changed from scale MP -2020 to scale MP-2021.
•The single discount rate was changed from 6.5% to 5.4%.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
2021 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The investment return and single discount rates were changed from 7.5% to 6.5% for financial
reporting purposes.
•The inflation assumption was changed from 2.5% to 2.25%.
•The payroll growth assumption was changed from 3.25% to 3.0%.
•The base mortality table for healthy annuitants and employees was changed from the RP -2014
table to the Pub-2010 Public Safety mortality table. The mortality improvement scale was
changed from MP-2019 to MP-2020.
•The base mortality table for disabled annuitants was changed from the RP -2014 healthy
annuitant mortality table (with future mortality improvement according to scale MP -2019) to
the Pub-2010 Public Safety disabled annuitant mortality table (with future mortality
improvement according to scale MP-2020).
•Assumed rates of salary increase were modified as recommended in the July 14 , 2020,
experience study. The overall impact is a decrease in gross salary increase rates.
•Assumed rates of retirement were changed as recommended in the July 14 , 2020, experience
study. The changes resulted in slightly more unreduced retirements and fewer assumed early
retirements.
•Assumed rates of withdrawal were changed from select and ultimate rates to service -based
rates. The changes resulted in more assumed terminations.
•Assumed rates of disability were increased for ages 25 -44 and decreased for ages over 49.
Overall, proposed rates resulted in more projected disabilities.
•Assumed percent married for active female members was changed from 60% to 70%. Minor
changes to form of payment assumptions were applied.
Page 259 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
76
Police and Fire Fund (Continued)
2021 Changes (Continued)
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
2020 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2018 to MP-2019.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
2019 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2017 to MP-2018.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
2018 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2016 to MP-2017.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•Annual increases were changed to 1.00% for all years , with no trigger.
•An end date of July 1 , 2048, was added to the existing $9.0 million state contribution.
•New annual state aid will equal $4.5 million in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 , and $9.0 million
thereafter until the plan reaches 100% funding , or July 1, 2048, if earlier.
•Member contributions were changed from 10.80% to 11.30% of pay , effective January 1, 2019,
and 11.80% of pay, effective January 1, 2020.
•Employer contributions were changed from 16.20% to 16.95% of pay , effective
January 1, 2019, and 17.70% of pay , effective January 1 , 2020.
•Interest credited on member contributions decreased from 4.00% to 3.00%, beginning
July 1, 2018.
•Deferred augmentation was changed to 0.00%, effective January 1, 2019. Augmentation that
has already accrued for deferred members will still apply.
•Actuarial equivalent factors were updated to reflect revised mortality and interest
assumptions.
2017 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•Assumed salary increases were changed as recommended in the June 30 , 2016, experience
study. The net effect is proposed rates that average 0.34% lower than the previous rates.
•Assumed rates of retirement were changed , resulting in fewer retirements.
•The CSA load was 30% for vested and non -vested deferred members. The CSA has been
changed to 33% for vested members and 2% for non -vested members.
•The base mortality table for healthy annuitants was changed from the RP -2000 fully
generational table to the RP -2014 fully generational table (with a base year of 2006), with
male rates adjusted by a factor of 0.96. The mortality improvement scale was changed from
Scale AA to Scale MP-2016. The base mortality table for disabled annuitants was changed from
the RP-2000 disabled mortality table to the mortality tables assumed for healthy retirees.
Page 260 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
77
Police and Fire Fund (Continued)
2017 Changes (Continued)
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions (Continued)
•Assumed termination rates were decreased to 3% for the first three years of service. Rates
beyond the select period of three years were adjusted , resulting in more expected
terminations overall.
•Assumed percentage of married female members was decreased from 65% to 60%.
•Assumed age difference was changed from separate assumptions for male members (wives
assumed to be three years younger) and female members (husbands assumed to be four years
older) to the assumption that males are two years older than females.
•The assumed percentage of female members electing Joint and Survivor annuities was
increased.
•The assumed annual increase rate was changed from 1% for all years to 1% per year through
2064 and 2.5% thereafter.
•The single discount rate was changed from 5.6% per annum to 7.5% per annum.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
2016 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
•The assumed post-retirement benefit increase rate was changed from 1.0% per year through
2037 and 2.5% thereafter to 1.0% per year for all future years.
•The assumed investment return was changed from 7.9% to 7.5%. The single discount rate
changed from 7.9% to 5.6%.
•The single discount rate changed from 7.90% to 5.60%.
•The assumed future salary increases , payroll growth, and inflation was decreased by 0.25% to
3.25% for payroll growth and 2.50% for inflation.
Changes in Plan Provisions
•There have been no changes since the prior valuation.
Page 261 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Notes to Required Supplementary Information
78
OPEB
2025 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
• The discount rate was changed from 3.70% to 4.20%.
2024 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
• The discount rate was changed from 4.00% to 3.70%.
2023 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
• The discount rate was changed from 2.00% to 4.00%.
• The inflation rate was changed from 2.00% to 2.50%.
2022 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
• The health care trend rates were changed to better anticipate short term and long-term
medical increases.
• The mortality tables were updated from the Pub-2010 Public Retirement Plans Headcount -
Weighted Mortality Tables (General , Safety) with MP-2019 Generational Improvement Scale to
the Pub-2010 Public Retirement Plans Headcount -Weighted Mortality Tables (General, Safety)
with MP-2021 Generational Improvement Scale.
• The salary increase rates were updated to reflect the latest experience study.
• The retirement and withdrawal rates were updated to reflect the latest experience study.
• The inflation rate was changed from 2.50% to 2.00%.
2021 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
• The discount rate decreased from 2.90% in 2020 to 2.00% in 2021.
2020 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
• The discount rate decreased from 3.80% in 2019 to 2.90% in 2020.
• The healthcare trend rates, mortality tables, and salary increase rates were updated.
2019 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
• The discount rate increased from 3.30% in 2018 to 3.80% in 2019 .
• The healthcare trend rates, mortality tables, and salary increase rates were updated.
2018 Changes
Changes in Actuarial Assumptions
• The discount rate decreased from 4.00% in 2017 to 3.30% in 2018.
There are no assets accumulated in a trust.
Page 262 of 309
79
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Page 263 of 309
80
Water Revenue Special Park Civil Defense Street Lighting
Assets
Cash and investments 1,458,036$ 524,265$ 147,351$ 48,290$
Taxes receivable - delinquent - - 170 1,109
Special assessments receivable
Deferred - - - -
Accounts receivable - - - -
Interest receivable 3,778 1,040 381 60
Due from other governments 3,396 - 286 -
Prepaid items - - - -
Land held for resale - - - -
Total assets 1,465,210$ 525,305$ 148,188$ 49,459$
Liabilities
Accounts and contracts payable -$ -$-$5,882$
Due to other funds - - - -
Due to other governments - - - -
Salaries and benefits payable - - - -
Total liabilities - - - 5,882
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Unavailable revenue - property taxes - - 170 1,109
Unavailable revenue - special assessments - - - -
Total deferred inflows of resources - - 170 1,109
Fund Balances
Nonspendable - - - -
Restricted - 525,305 - 42,468
Committed 1,465,210 - 148,018 -
Assigned - - - -
Unassigned - - - -
Total fund balances 1,465,210 525,305 148,018 42,468
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources, and fund balances 1,465,210$ 525,305$ 148,188$ 49,459$
City of Mendota Heights
Combining Balance Sheet -
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
December 31, 2025
Special Revenue
Page 264 of 309
81
Par 3 Golf
Course
Police
Forfeiture Fund
American
Rescue Plan
Act
Local
Affordable
Housing Aid
Par 3 G.O.
Bonds
Fire Station
Bonds
245,167$ 31,554$ 862$ 124,382$ 133,344$ 720,342$
- - - - 175 4,117
- - - - - -
56 - - - - -
540 87 - - 360 1,046
- - - - 85 7,018
7,343 - - - - -
- - - - - -
253,106$ 31,641$ 862$ 124,382$ 133,964$ 732,523$
542$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
- - - - - -
512 - - - - -
3,886 - - - - -
4,940 - - - - -
- - - - 175 4,117
- - - - - -
- - - - 175 4,117
7,343 - - - - -
- 31,641 862 124,382 133,789 728,406
240,823 - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
248,166 31,641 862 124,382 133,789 728,406
253,106$ 31,641$ 862$ 124,382$ 133,964$ 732,523$
Special Revenue Debt Service
Page 265 of 309
82
Equipment
Replacement
Reserve
Infrastructure
Reserve Facility Reserve
Water Tower
Capital Project
Assets
Cash and investments 1,096,287$ 13,281$ 152,607$ 676,260$
Taxes receivable - delinquent 1,005 8 - -
Special assessments receivable
Deferred - - - -
Accounts receivable - - - -
Interest receivable 2,152 - 347 1,826
Due from other governments 2,632 - - -
Prepaid items - - - -
Land held for resale - - - -
Total assets 1,102,076$ 13,289$ 152,954$ 678,086$
Liabilities
Accounts and contracts payable 35,427$ -$ 24,478$ -$
Due to other funds - - - -
Due to other governments - - - -
Salaries and benefits payable - - - -
Total liabilities 35,427 - 24,478 -
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Unavailable revenue - property taxes 1,005 8 - -
Unavailable revenue - special assessments - - - -
Total deferred inflows of resources 1,005 8 - -
Fund Balances
Nonspendable - - - -
Restricted - - - -
Committed - - - -
Assigned 1,065,644 13,281 128,476 678,086
Unassigned - - - -
Total fund balances 1,065,644 13,281 128,476 678,086
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources, and fund balances 1,102,076$ 13,289$ 152,954$ 678,086$
Capital Projects
City of Mendota Heights
Combining Balance Sheet -
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
December 31, 2025
Page 266 of 309
83
Pilot Knob
Improvement
Pre-1998 Non-
Increment
Special
Assessment
Capital Project
TIF District
No. 2
Fire Hall
Remodel
-$ 105,491$ 142,482$ 227,502$ 304$
111 - - - 132
- - 11,858 - -
- - 11,032 - -
- 340 1,653 327 -
293 - - - -
- - - - -
- 96,100 - - -
404$ 201,931$ 167,025$ 227,829$ 436$
3,340$ -$ 73$ 120,510$ -$
82,201 - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
85,541 - 73 120,510 -
111 - - - 132
- - 11,858 - -
111 - 11,858 - 132
- - - - -
- - 155,094 107,319 -
- - - - -
- 201,931 - - 304
(85,248) - - - -
(85,248) 201,931 155,094 107,319 304
404$ 201,931$ 167,025$ 227,829$ 436$
Capital Projects
Page 267 of 309
84
(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
Page 268 of 309
85
Capital Projects
TIF District
No. 3
Total
Nonmajor
Governmental
Funds
Assets
Cash and investments 44,231$ 5,892,038$
Taxes receivable - delinquent - 6,827
Special assessments receivable
Deferred - 11,858
Accounts receivable - 11,088
Interest receivable 40 13,977
Due from other governments - 13,710
Prepaid items - 7,343
Land held for resale - 96,100
Total assets 44,271$ 6,052,941$
Liabilities
Accounts and contracts payable 33,124$ 223,376$
Due to other funds - 82,201
Due to other governments - 512
Salaries and benefits payable - 3,886
Total liabilities 33,124 309,975
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Unavailable revenue - property taxes - 6,827
Unavailable revenue - special assessments - 11,858
Total deferred inflows of resources 18,685
Fund Balances
Nonspendable - 7,343
Restricted 11,147 1,860,413
Committed - 1,854,051
Assigned - 2,087,722
Unassigned - (85,248)
Total fund balances 11,147 5,724,281
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of
resources, and fund balances 44,271$ 6,052,941$
City of Mendota Heights
Combining Balance Sheet -
Nonmajor Governmental Funds
December 31, 2025
Page 269 of 309
86
Water Revenue Special Park Civil Defense Street Lighting
Revenues
Property taxes -$ -$ 24,290$ 84,716$
Tax increments - - - -
Intergovernmental - - - -
Charges for services 160,535 - - -
Miscellaneous
Investment income 56,903 15,656 5,718 904
Other - 324,000 - 4,375
Total revenues 217,438 339,656 30,008 89,995
Expenditures
Current
General government - - 20,129 23,147
Public works 300 10,892 - -
Economic development - - - -
Debt service
Principal - - - -
Interest and other charges - - - -
Capital outlay
General government - - 12,396 47,600
Public safety - - - -
Public works - 46,833 - -
Total expenditures 300 57,725 32,525 70,747
Excess of revenues over
(under) expenditures 217,138 281,931 (2,517) 19,248
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers in - 29,142 - -
Transfers out (17,911) (1,500) - -
Total other financing sources (uses)(17,911) 27,642 - -
Net change in fund balances 199,227 309,573 (2,517) 19,248
Fund Balances
Beginning of year 1,265,983 215,732 150,535 23,220
End of year 1,465,210$ 525,305$ 148,018$ 42,468$
Special Revenue
City of Mendota Heights
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
and Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Governmental Funds
Year Ended December 31, 2025
Page 270 of 309
87
Par 3 Golf
Course
Police
Forfeiture
Fund
American
Rescue Plan
Act
Local
Affordable
Housing Aid
Par 3 G.O.
Bonds
Equipment
Certficates
-$ -$ -$ -$ 100$ -$
- - - - - -
- - - 123,622 - -
382,597 - - - - -
8,130 1,305 - - 5,419 1
177 - - - - -
390,904 1,305 - 123,622 5,519 1
- - - - - -
300,569 - - - - -
- - - 43,876 - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
300,569 - - 43,876 - -
90,335 1,305 - 79,746 5,519 1
- - - - - -
- - - - - (47,119)
- - - - - (47,119)
90,335 1,305 - 79,746 5,519 (47,118)
157,831 30,336 862 44,636 128,270 47,118
248,166$ 31,641$ 862$ 124,382$ 133,789$ -$
Debt ServiceSpecial Revenue
Page 271 of 309
88
Debt Service
Fire Station
Bonds
Equipment
Replacement
Reserve
Infrastructure
Reserve
Facility
Reserve
Revenues
Property taxes 613,728$ 177,264$ -$ -$
Tax increments - - - -
Intergovernmental - - - -
Charges for services - - - -
Miscellaneous
Investment income 15,690 32,410 - 5,219
Other - - 111,884 -
Total revenues 629,418 209,674 111,884 5,219
Expenditures
Current
General government - - - -
Public works - 19,047 - 23,228
Economic development - -- -
Debt service
Principal 420,000 - - -
Interest and other charges 164,725 - - -
Capital outlay
General government - - - -
Public safety - 678,767 - 336,246
Public works - 428,204 111,893 69,618
Total expenditures 584,725 1,126,018 111,893 429,092
Excess of revenues over
(under) expenditures 44,693 (916,344) (9) (423,873)
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers in - 1,281,971 - 169,618
Transfers out - - - -
Total other financing sources (uses)- 1,281,971 - 169,618
Net change in fund balances 44,693 365,627 (9) (254,255)
Fund Balances
Beginning of year 683,713 700,017 13,290 382,731
End of year 728,406$ 1,065,644$ 13,281$ 128,476$
City of Mendota Heights
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
and Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Governmental Funds
Year Ended December 31, 2025
Capital Projects
Page 272 of 309
89
Water Tower
Capital Project
Pilot Knob
Improvement
Pre-1998
Non-Increment
Special
Assessment
Capital Project
TIF District
No. 2
Fire Hall
Remodel
-$ 19,813$ -$ -$ -$ 15$
- - - - 254,344 -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
27,498 - 5,119 24,888 4,919 -
- - - - - -
27,498 19,813 5,119 24,888 259,263 15
143 144,361 - - - -
- - - 1,900 - -
- - - - 229,956 -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - 25,025 - -
143 144,361 - 26,925 229,956 -
27,355 (124,548) 5,119 (2,037) 29,307 15
- - - 771,344 - -
- - (173,932) - - -
- - (173,932) 771,344 - -
27,355 (124,548) (168,813) 769,307 29,307 15
650,731 39,300 370,744 (614,213) 78,012 289
678,086$ (85,248)$ 201,931$ 155,094$ 107,319$ 304$
Capital Projects
Page 273 of 309
90
(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
Page 274 of 309
91
Capital Projects
TIF District
No. 3
Total Other
Governmental
Funds
Revenues
Property taxes -$ 919,926$
Tax increments 73,610 327,954
Intergovernmental - 123,622
Charges for services - 543,132
Miscellaneous
Investment income 603 210,382
Other - 440,436
Total revenues 74,213 2,565,452
Expenditures
Current
General government - 187,780
Public works - 355,936
Economic development 67,263 341,095
Debt service
Principal - 420,000
Interest and other charges - 164,725
Capital outlay
General government - 59,996
Public safety - 1,015,013
Public works - 681,573
Total expenditures 67,263 3,226,118
Excess of revenues over
(under) expenditures 6,950 (660,666)
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers in - 2,252,075
Transfers out - (240,462)
Total other financing sources (uses)- 2,011,613
Net change in fund balances 6,950 1,350,947
Fund Balances
Beginning of year 4,197 4,373,334
End of year 11,147$ 5,724,281$
City of Mendota Heights
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
and Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Governmental Funds
Year Ended December 31, 2025
Page 275 of 309
92
Compensated
Absences
City Hall
Sinking Fund Total
Assets
Current assets
Cash and investments
(including cash equivalents)922,224$ 135,763$ 1,057,987$
Interest receivable - 633 633
Prepaid expenses - 8,642 8,642
Total current assets 922,224 145,038 1,067,262
Noncurrent assets
Capital assets
Land - 25,000 25,000
Buildings - 2,279,024 2,279,024
Improvements other than buildings - 48,431 48,431
Machinery and equipment - 66,969 66,969
Total capital assets - 2,419,424 2,419,424
Less accumulated depreciation - (1,954,593) (1,954,593)
Net capital assets - 464,831 464,831
Total assets 922,224 609,869 1,532,093
Deferred Outflows of Resources
Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB - 183 183
Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions - 9,304 9,304
Total deferred outflows of resources - 9,487 9,487
Total assets and deferred outflows of resources 922,224$ 619,356$ 1,541,580$
Liabilities
Current liabilities
Accounts and contracts payable -$ 5,929$ 5,929$
Salaries and benefits payable - 5,538 5,538
Due to other governments - 129 129
Noncurrent liabilities due within one year 586,341 8,470 594,811
Total current liabilities 586,341 20,066 606,407
Noncurrent liabilities
Compensated absences 922,224 19,928 942,152
OPEB payable - 10,397 10,397
Net pension liability - 29,063 29,063
Less amount due within one year (586,341) (8,470) (594,811)
Total noncurrent liabilities 335,883 50,918 386,801
Total liabilities 922,224 70,984 993,208
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB - 3,200 3,200
Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions - 17,730 17,730
Total deferred inflows of resources - 20,930 20,930
Net Position
Investment in capital assets - 464,831 464,831
Unrestricted - 62,611 62,611
Total net position - 527,442 527,442
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources,
and net position 922,224$ 619,356$ 1,541,580$
December 31, 2025
Combining Statement of Net Position - Internal Service Funds
City of Mendota Heights
Page 276 of 309
93
City of Mendota Heights
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes
in Net Position - Internal Service Funds
Year Ended December 31, 2025
City Hall
Sinking Fund Total
Operating Revenues
Charges for services 260,000$ 260,000$
Operating Expenses
Wages and salaries 86,890 86,890
Employee benefits 34,772 34,772
Professional services 4,994 4,994
Insurance 7,896 7,896
Utilities 48,198 48,198
Depreciation 35,285 35,285
Miscellaneous 56,850 56,850
Total operating expenses 274,885 274,885
Operating loss (14,885) (14,885)
Nonoperating Revenues
Investment income 9,532 9,532
Change in net position (5,353) (5,353)
Net Position
Beginning of year 532,795 532,795
End of year 527,442$ 527,442$
Page 277 of 309
94
Compensated
Absences
City Hall
Sinking Fund Total
Cash Flows - Operating Activities
Receipts from customers and users -$ 260,000$ 260,000$
Payments to suppliers - (102,460) (102,460)
Payments to employees 101,189 (125,094) (23,905)
Net cash flows - operating activities 101,189 32,446 133,635
Cash Flows - Capital And Related
Financing Activities
Acquisition of capital assets - (7,650) (7,650)
Cash Flows - Investing Activities
Interest and dividends received - 9,280 9,280
Net change in cash and cash equivalents 101,189 34,076 135,265
Cash and Cash Equivalents
Beginning of year 821,035 101,687 922,722
End of year 922,224$ 135,763$ 1,057,987$
Reconciliation of Operating
Loss to Net Cash Flows -
Operating Activities
Operating loss -$ (14,885)$ (14,885)$
Adjustments to reconcile operating
Loss to net cash flows -
Operating activities
Depreciation expense - 35,285 35,285
Prepaid items - 1,041 1,041
Accounts payable - 14,414 14,414
Due to other governmental units - 23 23
Salaries payable - 1,107 1,107
OPEB payable - 1,332 1,332
Pension related items - (6,914) (6,914)
Compensated absences payable 101,189 1,043 102,232
Total adjustments 101,189 47,331 148,520
Net cash flows - operating activities 101,189$ 32,446$ 133,635$
City of Mendota Heights
Combining Statement of Cash Flows - Internal Service Funds
Year Ended December 31, 2025
Page 278 of 309
95
Budgeted
Amounts Variance with
Original Actual
and Final Amounts
Revenues
Property taxes 10,887,020$ 10,804,573$ (82,447)$
Franchise fees 350,000 416,343 66,343
Licenses and permits 464,200 748,913 284,713
Intergovernmental revenue
Fire aid 140,000 175,939 35,939
Police aid 195,000 251,763 56,763
Other grants and aids 418,750 514,626 95,876
Total intergovernmental revenue 753,750 942,328 188,578
Charges for services 757,349 792,746 35,397
Fines and forfeitures 67,500 51,813 (15,687)
Miscellaneous revenues
Investment income 50,000 457,435 407,435
Other 150,000 242,902 92,902
Total miscellaneous revenues 200,000 700,337 500,337
Total revenues 13,479,819 14,457,053 977,234
Expenditures
General government
Mayor and council
Salaries and benefits 24,321 24,414 93
Contracted services 36,050 28,134 (7,916)
Administration and finance
Salaries and benefits 1,232,625 1,234,106 1,481
Materials and supplies 14,700 17,166 2,466
Contracted services 500,550 487,599 (12,951)
Capital outlay - 26,370 26,370
City of Mendota Heights
Detailed Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual -
Final budget -
over (under)
General Fund
Year Ended December 31, 2025
Page 279 of 309
96
Budgeted
Amounts Variance with
Original Actual Final budget -
And final Amounts Over (under)
Expenditures (Continued)
General government (continued)
Elections
Salaries and benefits 48,401$ 49,319$ 918$
Materials and supplies 10,300 4,355 (5,945)
Contracted services 5,500 711 (4,789)
Information technology
Materials and supplies 207,736 174,124 (33,612)
Contracted services 176,952 187,257 10,305
Planning and zoning
Salaries and benefits 157,728 157,962 234
Materials and supplies 2,000 828 (1,172)
Contracted services 39,750 27,228 (12,522)
Recycling
Materials and supplies 1,000 390 (610)
Contracted services 53,600 17,995 (35,605)
Miscellaneous
Contracted services - 9,351 9,351
Capital outlay - 45,233 45,233
Total general government 2,511,213 2,492,542 (18,671)
Public safety
Police protection
Salaries and benefits 4,028,851 4,014,607 (14,244)
Materials and supplies 328,100 233,265 (94,835)
Contracted services 997,150 781,817 (215,333)
Debt Service 158,050 158,050 -
Capital outlay - 178,107 178,107
Fire protection
Salaries and benefits 383,307 373,041 (10,266)
Materials and supplies 221,413 209,061 (12,352)
Contracted services 593,171 581,420 (11,751)
Capital outlay - 121,700 121,700
Total public safety 6,710,042 6,651,068 (58,974)
General Fund
Year Ended December 31, 2025
(Continued)
Detailed Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual -
City of Mendota Heights
Page 280 of 309
97
Budgeted
Amounts Variance with
Original Actual Final budget -
And final Amounts Over (under)
Expenditures (Continued)
Public works
Code enforcement
Materials and supplies 4,250$ 6,705$ 2,455$
Contracted services 340,375 517,242 176,867
Street maintenance
Salaries and benefits 1,345,917 1,360,679 14,762
Materials and supplies 184,600 157,916 (26,684)
Contracted services 505,688 363,206 (142,482)
Parks
Salaries and benefits 1,120,923 1,080,417 (40,506)
Materials and supplies 231,000 209,980 (21,020)
Contracted services 573,361 403,760 (169,601)
Capital outlay - 5,100 5,100
Total public works 4,306,114 4,105,005 (201,109)
Total expenditures 13,527,369 13,248,615 (278,754)
Excess of revenues over
(under) expenditures (47,550) 1,208,438 1,255,988
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Insurance recoveries - 60,776 60,776
Transfer in 47,550 47,550 -
Transfer out - (1,254,451) (1,254,451)
Total other financing sources (uses)47,550 (1,146,125) (1,193,675)
Net change in fund balance -$ 62,313 62,313$
Fund Balance
Beginning of year 13,470,037
End of year 13,532,350$
Year Ended December 31, 2025
(Continued)
Detailed Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual -
General Fund
City of Mendota Heights
Page 281 of 309
98
(THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY)
Page 282 of 309
99
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of
Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with
Government Auditing Standards
Independent Auditor's Report
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing
Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (Government Auditing Standards),
the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major
fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Mendota Heights , Minnesota as of
and for the year ended December 31 , 2025, and the related notes to the basic financial statements ,
which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon
dated June 9, 2026.
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements , we considered the City's internal
control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are
appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial
statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City 's
internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City 's internal
control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions , to prevent,
or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency , or a
combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a
material misstatement of the City's financial statements will not be prevented , or detected and
corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency , or a combination of
deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness , yet important enough
to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of
this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be
material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and therefore , material weaknesses or significant
deficiencies may exist that were not identified. We did identify a certain deficiency in internal
control, described in the accompanying Schedule of Finding and Response on Internal Control that we
consider to be a material weakness as audit finding 202 5-001.
Page 283 of 309
100
Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City 's financial statements are free
from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws ,
regulations, contracts, and grant agreements , noncompliance with which could have a direct and
material effect on the financial statements. However , providing an opinion on compliance with those
provisions was not an objective of our audit , and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The
results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be
reported under Government Auditing Standards.
City's Response to the Finding
Government Auditing Standards requires the auditor to perform limited procedures on the City's
response to the findings identified in our audit are described in the accompanying Schedule of
Findings and Responses on Internal Control. The City 's response was not subjected to the other
auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and , accordingly, we express no
opinion on the response.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and
compliance and the result of that testing , and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the
City's internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in
accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City's internal control and
compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
St. Cloud, Minnesota
June 9, 2026
Page 284 of 309
101
Minnesota Legal Compliance
Independent Auditor's Report
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America, and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing
Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States , the financial statements of the
governmental activities , the business-type activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining
fund information of the City of Mendota Heights , Minnesota as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2025, and the related notes to financial statements, which collectively comprise the
City's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated June 9, 2026.
In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the City
failed to comply with the provisions of the contracting – bid laws, depositories of public funds and
public investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness , claims and disbursements,
miscellaneous provisions , and tax increment financing sections of the Minnesota Legal Compliance
Audit Guide for Cities, promulgated by the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 6.65,
insofar as they relate to accounting matters. However, our audit was not directed primarily toward
obtaining knowledge of such noncompliance . Accordingly, had we performed additional procedures,
other matters may have come to our attention regarding the City 's noncompliance with the above
referenced provisions , insofar as they relate to accounting matters.
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the results
of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not
suitable for any other purpose.
St. Cloud, Minnesota
June 9, 2026
Page 285 of 309
102
City of Mendota Heights
Schedule of Findings and Response on
Internal Control
CURRENT AND PRIOR YEAR INTERNAL CONTROL FINDING:
Material Weakness:
Audit Finding 2025-001 – Lack of Segregation of Accounting Duties
The City had a lack of segregation of accounting duties due to a limited number of office employees.
The lack of adequate segregation of accounting duties could adversely affect the City 's ability to
initiate, record, process, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in
the financial statements. This lack of segregation of accounting duties can be demonstrated in the
following areas, which is not intended to be an all-inclusive list:
• The Finance Director has the ability to receipt City service revenue , prepares the deposit
receipts, is responsible for coding , and prepares the Treasurer's report for the City Council.
• The Utility Billing Clerk enters consumption into the utility billing system , prepares and
reviews utility bills, applies payments to customer accounts, and has the ability to make
adjustments to customer accounts.
• The Finance Director performs year -end reconciliations and closing entries without review.
In addition to having responsibilities in the cycles listed above , the City's Finance Director has full
general ledger access and the ability to write and post In addition to having responsibilities in the
cycles listed above, the City's Finance Director has full general ledger access and the ability to write
and post journal entries. While we believe this access is necessary to efficiently perform the
financial duties required, this access allows the ability to override many of the controls and
segregation the City has in place.
During the course of our engagement, we proposed a material audit adjustment that would not have
been identified as a result of the City's existing internal control system and, therefore, could have
resulted in a material misstatement of the City's financial statements. The material misstatement
detected as a result of audit procedures was corrected by management.
The City has implemented certain controls to mitigate the risk due to the lack of segregation of
accounting duties, including but not limited to reviewing adjustments to customer accounts before
they are posted, having a non-finance employee prepare bank reconciliations and review of all
journal entries. However, due to the number of staff needed to properly segregate all of the
accounting duties, the cost of obtaining desirable segregation of accounting duties can often exceed
benefits which could be derived. However , management and the City Council must remain aware of
this situation and should continually monitor the accounting system , including changes that occur.
We recommend that the City review the internal control process over the year -end closing process to
ensure segregation or independent review be implemented whenever practical and cost effective.
City's Response:
The City is aware of the lack of segregation of duties . There are processes in place to have multiple
staff perform duties as to ensure one person is not responsible for all parts of any process . The
addition of staff to further segregate duties is not cost effective.
Page 286 of 309
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
Communications Letter
December 31, 2025
Page 287 of 309
0
City of Mendota Heights
Table of Contents
Report on Matters Identified as a Result of
the Audit of the Basic Financial Statements 1
Material Weakness 3
Required Communication 4
Financial Analysis 9
Emerging Issues 18
Page 288 of 309
1
Report on Matters Identified as a Result of
the Audit of the Basic Financial Statements
Honorable Mayor, Members
of the City Council and Management
City of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the governmental activities,
business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City
of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2025, in accordance with
auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable
to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General
of the United States, we considered the City's internal control over financial reporting (internal
control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the
purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing
an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an
opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over financial reporting.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding
paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material
weaknesses or significant deficiencies and, therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies
may exist that have not been identified. In addition, because of inherent limitations in internal
control, including the possibility of management override of controls, misstatements due to error, or
fraud may occur and not be detected by such controls. However, as discussed below, we identified a
certain deficiency in internal control that we consider to be a material weakness.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent,
or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a
combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a
reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City's basic financial statements will not
be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A reasonable possibility exists when the
likelihood of an event occurring is either reasonably possible or probable as defined as follows:
• Reasonably possible. The chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote
but less than likely.
• Probable. The future event or events are likely to occur.
The material weakness identified is stated within this letter.
A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over
financial reporting that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit
attention by those charged with governance.
Page 289 of 309
2
The City's written response to the material weakness identified in our audit has not been subjected
to audit procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we
express no opinion on it.
The accompanying memorandum also includes financial analysis provided as a basis for discussion.
The matters discussed herein were considered by us during our audit and they do not modify the
opinion expressed in our Independent Auditor's Report dated June 9, 2026, on such statements.
The purpose of this communication, which is an integral part of our audit, is to describe for the
Members of the City Council and management and others within the City and state oversight agencies
the scope of our testing of internal control and the results of that testing. Accordingly, this
communication is not intended to be and should not be used for any other purpose.
St. Cloud, Minnesota
June 9, 2026
Page 290 of 309
3
City of Mendota Heights
Material Weakness
Lack of Segregation of Accounting Duties
The City had a lack of segregation of accounting duties due to a limited number of office employees.
The lack of adequate segregation of accounting duties could adversely affect the City's ability to
initiate, record, process, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in
the financial statements. This lack of segregation of accounting duties can be demonstrated in the
following areas, which is not intended to be an all-inclusive list:
•The Finance Director has the ability to receipt City service revenue, prepares the deposit
receipts, is responsible for coding, and prepares the Treasurer's report for the City Council.
•The Utility Billing Clerk enters consumption into the utility billing system, prepares and
reviews utility bills, applies payments to customer accounts, and has the ability to make
adjustments to customer accounts.
In addition to having responsibilities in the cycles listed above, the City's Finance Director has full
general ledger access and the ability to write and post journal entries. While we believe this access
is necessary to efficiently perform the financial duties required, this access allows the ability to
override many of the controls and segregation the City has in place.
The City has implemented certain controls to mitigate the risk due to the lack of segregation of
accounting duties, including but not limited to reviewing adjustments to customer accounts before
they are posted, having a non-finance employee prepare bank reconciliations and review of all
journal entries. However, due to the number of staff needed to properly segregate all of the
accounting duties, the cost of obtaining desirable segregation of accounting duties can often exceed
benefits which could be derived. However, management and the City Council must remain aware of
this situation and should continually monitor the accounting system, including changes that occur.
During the course of our engagement, we proposed a material audit adjustment that would not have
been identified as a result of the City's existing internal control system and, therefore, could have
resulted in a material misstatement of the City's financial statements. The material misstatement
detected as a result of audit procedures was corrected by management.
We recommend that the City review the internal control process to ensure segregation or
independent review be implemented whenever practical and cost effective.
Page 291 of 309
4
City of Mendota Heights
Required Communication
We have audited the basic financial statements of the governmental activities, business-type
activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of and for
the year ended December 31, 2025. Professional standards require that we advise you of the
following matters related to our audit.
Our Responsibility in Relation to the Financial Statement Audit
As communicated in our engagement letter, our responsibility, as described by professional
standards, is to form and express opinions about whether the basic financial statements prepared by
management with your oversight are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our audit of the basic
financial statements does not relieve you or management of its respective responsibilities.
Our responsibility, as prescribed by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain
reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance about whether the basic financial statements are free of
material misstatement. An audit of the basic financial statements includes consideration of internal
control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's
internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, as part of our audit, we considered the
internal control of the City solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to
provide any assurance concerning such internal control.
We are also responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our
professional judgement, relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting
process. However, we are not required to design procedures for the purpose of identifying other
matters to communicate to you.
Generally accepted accounting principles provide for certain Required Supplementary Information
(RSI) to supplement the basic financial statements. Our responsibility with respect to the RSI, which
supplements the basic financial statements, is to apply certain limited procedures in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards. However, the RSI was not audited and, because the
limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any
assurance, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI.
Our responsibility for the supplementary information accompanying the basic financial statements,
as described by professional standards, is to evaluate the presentation of the supplementary
information in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole and to report on whether the
supplementary information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial
statements as a whole.
Our Responsibility in Relation to Government Auditing Standards
As communicated in our engagement letter, part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether
the basic financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of the City's
compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements,
noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of basic
financial statement amounts. However, the objective of our tests was not to provide an opinion on
compliance with such provisions.
Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit
We conducted our audit consistent with the planned scope and timing we previously communicated
to you.
Page 292 of 309
5
City of Mendota Heights
Required Communication
Compliance with All Ethics Requirements Regarding Independence
The engagement team, others in our firm, as appropriate, our firm, and our network firms have
complied with all relevant ethical requirements regarding independence.
Significant Risks
We addressed the following significant risks of material misstatement identified in our planning
procedures:
•Risk of Improper Revenue Recognition – Revenue recognition is considered a fraud risk on
substantially all engagements as it is generally the largest line item impacting a City's change
in fund balance or net position.
•Risk of Misappropriation of Assets – Misappropriation of Assets is considered a risk in
substantially all engagements as assets may be misappropriated due to fraud or error.
•Risk of Management Override of Controls – Management override of internal control is
considered a risk in substantially all engagements as management may be incentivized to
produce better results.
•Lease Valuation - Lease Receivable and Related Deferred Inflows of Resources - These are
material to the financial statements and involve significant estimates.
•Pension Valuation - Net Pension Liability, Deferred Outflows of Resources Related to Pensions,
and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions - These are generally material to the
financial statements and involve significant estimates.
•Other Post-Employment Benefits Valuation - Total OPEB Liability, Deferred Outflows of
Resources Related to OPEB, and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB - These are
generally material to the financial statements and involve significant estimates.
•Compensated Absences Valuation – Compensated absences balance are generally material to
the financial statements and involve significant estimates.
Qualitative Aspects of the City's Significant Accounting Practices
Significant Accounting Policies
Management has the responsibility to select and use appropriate accounting policies. A summary of
the significant accounting policies adopted by the City is included in the notes to the basic financial
statements. There have been no initial selection of accounting policies and no changes to significant
accounting policies or their application during 2025. No matters have come to our attention that
would require us, under professional standards, to inform you about (1) the methods used to account
for significant unusual transactions and (2) the effect of significant accounting policies in
controversial or emerging areas for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus.
Significant Accounting Estimates and Related Disclosures
Accounting estimates and related disclosures are an integral part of the basic financial statements
prepared by management and are based on management's current judgements. Those judgements
are normally based on knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions
about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their
significance to the basic financial statements and because of the possibility that future events
affecting them may differ markedly from management's current judgements. The most sensitive
estimates affecting the basic financial statements related to:
Lease Receivable and Related Deferred Inflows of Resources - These balances are based on
estimates and judgments determined by the City related to the discount rate, lease term, and
lease payments.
Page 293 of 309
6
City of Mendota Heights
Required Communication
Qualitative Aspects of the City's Significant Accounting Practices (Continued)
Significant Accounting Estimates and Related Disclosures (Continued)
Total Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Liability, Deferred Outflows of Resources Related
to OPEB, and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB – These balances are based on an
actuarial study using the estimates of future obligations of the City for post employment
benefits.
Net Pension Liability, Deferred Outflows of Resources Related to Pensions and Deferred Inflows of
Resources Related to Pensions – These balances are based on an allocation by the pension plans
using estimates based on contributions.
Compensated Absences Liability – This balance is an estimate based on assumption of hours more
likely than not to be used by employees while employed by the City and paid out upon separation
of employment.
We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the accounting estimates and
determined that they are reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole
and in relation to the applicable opinion units.
Financial Statement Disclosures
Certain basic financial statement disclosures involve significant judgment and are particularly
sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The basic financial statement
disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
Significant Difficulties Encountered during the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management relating to the performance
of the audit.
Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements
For the purposes of this communication, professional standards require us to accumulate all
known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that we believe are
trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Further, professional
standards require us to also communicate the effects of uncorrected misstatements related to
prior periods on the relevant classes of transactions, account balances or disclosures, and the
basic financial statements taken as a whole and each applicable opinion unit.
The following bullet point summarizes the uncorrected financial statement misstatement whose
effects in the current and prior periods, as determined by management, are immaterial, both
individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole and each applicable
opinion unit. Uncorrected misstatements or matters underlying those uncorrected misstatements
could potentially cause future-period financial statements to be materially misstated, even though
the uncorrected misstatements are immaterial to the financial statements currently under audit.
•Capital assets are understated.
•SBITA right–to–use assets and liabilities are understated.
Page 294 of 309
7
City of Mendota Heights
Required Communication
Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements (Continued)
In addition, professional standards require us to communicate to you all material, corrected
misstatements that were brought to the attention of management as a result of our audit
procedures. The following material misstatement that we identified as a result of our audit
procedures was brought to the attention of and corrected by management.
•Due from Other Governments and intergovernmental revenue.
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a
matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting,
or auditing matter, which could be significant to the City's basic financial statements or the
auditor's report. No such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.
Representations Requested from Management
We have requested certain written representations from management, which are included in the
management representation letter.
Management's Consultations with Other Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and
accounting matters. Management has informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no
consultations with other accountants regarding auditing and accounting matters.
Other Significant Matters, Findings, or Issues
In the normal course of our professional association with the City, we generally discuss a variety of
matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, significant events
or transactions that occurred during the year, operating and regulatory conditions affecting the City,
and operational plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material misstatement. None of the
matters discussed resulted in a condition to our retention as the City's auditor.
Other Information Included in Annual Reports
Pursuant to professional standards, our responsibility as auditors for other information, whether
financial or nonfinancial, included in the City's annual reports, does not extend beyond the
information identified in the audit report, and we are not required to perform any procedures to
corroborate such other information.
We applied certain limited procedures to the RSI that supplements the basic financial statements.
Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the
information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our
inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the
basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any
assurance on the RSI.
With respect to the supplementary information accompanying the financial statements, we made
certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content and methods of preparing the
information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior
period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial
statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying
accounting records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial
statements themselves.
Page 295 of 309
8
City of Mendota Heights
Required Communication
Other Information Included in Annual Reports (Continued)
Our responsibility also includes communicating to you any information which we believe is a material
misstatement of fact. Nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that such information,
or its manner of presentation, is materially inconsistent with the information, or manner of its
presentation, appearing in the basic financial statements.
Page 296 of 309
9
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
The following pages provide graphic representation of select data pertaining to the financial position
and operations of the City for the past four years. Our analysis of each graph is presented to provide
a basis for discussion of past performance and how implementing certain changes may enhance
future performance. We suggest you view each graph and document if our analysis is consistent with
yours. A subsequent discussion of this information should be useful for planning purposes.
General Fund Revenues
The General Fund revenues for the past five years are depicted in the following graph.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Other $328,838 $129,072 $694,601 $1,255,903 $1,168,493
Charges for Services 736,356 641,490 687,087 698,812 792,746
Intergovernmental 521,938 735,603 1,278,100 886,048 942,328
Licenses and Permits 619,710 731,480 572,587 769,288 748,913
Taxes and Assessments 8,243,823 8,935,145 9,601,169 10,402,220 10,804,573
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
General Fund Revenues
General Fund revenue increased $444,782, or 3.2%, during the year, from $14,012,271 in 2024 to
$14,457,053 in 2025. The largest fluctuation occurred in taxes and assessments, which increased
$402,353 due to an increase in the amount of taxes levied in 2025. All other categories remained
fairly consistent with the prior year.
Page 297 of 309
10
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
General Fund Revenues (Continued)
Taxes and
Assessments
75%
Licenses and
Permits
5%
Intergovernmental
7%
Charges for
Services
5%
Other
8%
2025 General Fund Revenues
Taxes and
Assessments
74%
Licenses and
Permits
6%Intergovernmental
6%
Charges for
Services
5%
Other
9%
2024 General Fund Revenues
Page 298 of 309
11
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
General Fund Expenditures
The General Fund expenditures for the past five years are depicted in the following graph.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Debt Service $-$45,017 $95,847 $133,600 $158,050
Capital Outlay 54,611 251,876 103,048 477,053 376,510
General
Government 1,757,792 2,066,147 1,890,903 2,275,110 2,420,939
Public Works 2,795,095 3,172,510 3,643,062 3,944,090 4,099,905
Public Safety 5,034,195 5,106,234 5,619,367 6,097,209 6,193,211
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
General Fund Expenditures
General Fund expenditures increased $321,553, or 2.5%, from $12,927,062 in 2024 to $13,248,615 in
2025. Public safety increased from 2024 by $96,002, or 1.6%. This increase is due in part to an
increase in wages. Public works increased $155,815, or 3.9% due in part to an increase in wages.
General government expenditures increased $145,829 or 6.4% due to an increase in wages.
Page 299 of 309
12
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
General Fund Expenditures (Continued)
General
Government
18%
Public Safety
47%
Public Works
31%Capital Outlay
3%
Debt Service
1%
2025 General Fund Expenditures
General
Government
18%
Public Safety
47%
Public Works
30%Capital Outlay
4%Debt Service
1%
2024 General Fund Expenditures
Page 300 of 309
13
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
General Fund Expenditures (Continued)
The table below presents a comparison of budget and actual General Fund revenues and
expenditures by function. In total, the fund's expenditures were $278,754, or 2.1%, under budgeted
expenditures of $13,527,369. The fund's revenue was $977,234, or 7.2%, over budgeted revenues of
$13,479,819.
Licenses and permits revenue was $284,713 over budget due to budgeting conservatively.
Intergovernmental revenue was $188,578 over budget due to budgeting conservatively. Other
revenue was $484,650 over budget due to better market conditions at year end. All other functions
were consistent with the budgeted amounts.
Public Safety expenditures were under budget by $358,781. This was due to decreased workers comp
costs and lower than budgeted lease costs for the police department. Capital outlay expenditures
were $376,510 over budget due to the City not budgeting these expenditures. Public works
expenditures were under budget due to conservative budgeting. All other functions were relatively
consistent with the budgeted amounts.
Variance
Original and Final Budget -
Final Budget Amounts Over (Under)
Revenues
Taxes and assessments 10,887,020$ 10,804,573$ (82,447)$
Franchise fee 350,000 416,343 66,343
Licenses and permits 464,200 748,913 284,713
Intergovernmental 753,750 942,328 188,578
Charges for services 757,349 792,746 35,397
Other 267,500 752,150 484,650
Total revenues 13,479,819 14,457,053 977,234
Expenditures
General government 2,511,213 2,420,939 (90,274)
Public safety 6,551,992 6,193,211 (358,781)
Public works 4,306,114 4,099,905 (206,209)
Capital outlay - 376,510 376,510
Debt service
Principal 158,050 158,050 -
Total expenditures 13,527,369 13,248,615 (278,754)
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Insurance recoveries - 60,776 60,776
Transfers in 47,550 47,550 -
Transfers out - (1,254,451)(1,254,451)
Total other financing sources (uses)47,550 (1,146,125) (1,193,675)
Net change in fund balances -$ 62,313$ 62,313$
Page 301 of 309
14
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
General Fund Operations
The bar chart below highlights General Fund results for the last five years.
80%
100%
120%
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenues $10,450,665 $11,172,790 $12,833,544 $14,012,271 $14,457,053
Expenditures 9,641,693 10,641,784 11,352,227 12,927,062 13,248,615
Fund Balance 11,349,217 11,485,305 12,482,362 13,470,037 13,532,350
Fund Balance as a Percent of
the Year's Expenditures 118%108%110%104%102%
General Fund Operations
As shown in the chart, the City's fund balance increased to its highest point in the five years
presented. The amount of fund balance as a percentage of the current year's expenditures has
fluctuated over the 5 years presented, decreasing to 102% for 2025. The City implemented a policy in
accordance with GASB 54 whereby the General Fund's unassigned fund balance is at least 75% of the
subsequent year's budgeted expenditures. As of December 31, 2025, the City's unassigned General
Fund balance of $13,185,110 was 94.4% of 2026 budgeted expenditures.
Page 302 of 309
15
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
Tax Capacity, Levy, and Rates
The chart below graphs the tax capacity, certified tax levy, and City tax rate for 2021 through 2025.
The tax capacity is based on total tax capacity, prior to adjustments for captured Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) and fiscal disparities. The certified tax levy amount is also prior to fiscal disparity
adjustments.
With improving market values, the City's tax capacity increased from 2021 to 2025 by $9,278,062 or
32.1%. In 2025, the City's tax capacity increased $1,287,414 or 3.5%.
$28,860,073 $29,863,820
$34,416,918
$36,850,721 $38,138,135
$10,482,617 $11,194,705 $11,947,424 $12,889,319 $13,593,381
37.85%
39.74%
36.89%37.26%
39.12%
0.00%
4.00%
8.00%
12.00%
16.00%
20.00%
24.00%
28.00%
32.00%
36.00%
40.00%
44.00%
48.00%
52.00%
56.00%
60.00%
64.00%
68.00%
$-
$2,500,000
$5,000,000
$7,500,000
$10,000,000
$12,500,000
$15,000,000
$17,500,000
$20,000,000
$22,500,000
$25,000,000
$27,500,000
$30,000,000
$32,500,000
$35,000,000
$37,500,000
$40,000,000
$42,500,000
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Tax Capacity, Levy, and Rates*
Total Tax Capacity Certified Tax Levy Tax Capacity Rate
*Property tax data was obtained from Dakota County.
Page 303 of 309
16
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
Enterprise Funds
Sewer Utility Fund
The following graph presents a five-year history of the Sewer Utility Fund. Due to the nature and cost
of Sewer Utility Fund assets, it is often difficult to establish sewer rates that are sufficient to cover
the current year's use of the assets represented by depreciation expense. Ideally, Sewer Utility Fund
revenues should cover all operating expenses, including depreciation.
The Sewer Utility Fund had an operating income of $501,833, which included recognition of $216,784
of depreciation expense. Revenues exceeded expenses in all five years presented. Net position of the
fund decreased $17,081 after factoring in nonoperating revenues, and net transfers.
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Charges for Services $2,386,252 $2,411,225 $2,482,543 $2,547,161 $2,702,018
Operating Expenses 2,273,926 2,169,268 2,030,589 2,056,849 2,200,185
Operating Income 112,326 241,957 451,954 490,312 501,833
Operating Income Excluding Depreciation 314,413 447,592 651,661 702,543 718,617
Sewer Fund
Page 304 of 309
17
City of Mendota Heights
Financial Analysis
Enterprise Funds (Continued)
Storm Water Fund
The Storm Water Fund had an operating income of $413,021, which included recognition of
depreciation expense of $61,567. Net position increased $517,156 in 2025 after factoring in
nonoperating revenues and transfers out. The fund has shown operating income for all years
presented.
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Charges for Services $582,537 $586,430 $589,829 $647,637 $743,159
Operating Expenses 404,573 190,036 448,669 397,511 330,138
Operating Income 177,964 396,394 141,160 250,126 413,021
Operating Income Excluding Depreciation 232,408 450,838 196,567 307,397 474,588
Storm Water Fund
Page 305 of 309
18
City of Mendota Heights
Emerging Issues
Executive Summary
The following is an executive summary of financial related updates to assist you in staying current on
emerging issues in accounting and finance. This summary will give you a preview of the new
standards that have been recently issued and what is on the horizon for the near future. The most
recent and significant updates include:
•Accounting Standard Update – GASB Statement No. 103 – Financial Reporting Model
Improvements
GASB has issued GASB Statement No. 103 relating to changes in financial reporting
requirements. The changes provide clarity, enhance the relevance of information, provide
more useful information for decision-making, and provide for greater comparability amongst
government entities.
•Accounting Standard Update – GASB Statement No. 104 – Disclosure of Certain Capital
Assets
GASB has issued GASB Statement No. 104 relating to capital asset disclosures. The disclosures
required by this Statement provide users of the financial statements with essential
information about certain types of capital assets.
The following is an extensive summary of the current updates. As your continued business partner,
we are committed to keeping you informed of new and emerging issues. We are happy to discuss
these issues with you further and their applicability to your City.
Page 306 of 309
19
City of Mendota Heights
Emerging Issues
Accounting Standard Update – GASB Statement No. 103 – Financial Reporting Model
Improvements
The objective of this Statement is to improve key components of the financial reporting model to
enhance its effectiveness in providing information that is essential for decision making and assessing
a government's accountability. This Statement also addresses certain application issues.
This Statement addresses 5 areas of the financial statements (1) Management's Discussion and
Analysis (MD&A), (2) Unusual or Infrequent Items, (3) Presentation of the Proprietary Fund Statement
of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Position, (4) Major Component Unit Information,
and (5) Budgetary Comparison Information.
This Statement continues the requirement that the MD&A precede the basic financial statements as
part of the Required Supplementary Information (RSI). This Statement requires that the information
presented in MD&A be limited to the related topics discussed in five sections: (1) Overview of the
Financial Statements, (2) Financial Summary, (3) Detailed Analyses, (4) Significant Capital Asset and
Long-Term Financing Activity, and (5) Currently Known Facts, Decisions, or Conditions. The
Statement stresses that detailed analyses should explain why balances and results of operations
changed, rather than stating amounts and "boilerplate" discussions.
This Statement describes unusual or infrequent items as transactions and other events that are either
unusual in nature or infrequent in occurrence. Furthermore, governments are required to display the
inflows and outflows related to each unusual or infrequent item separately as the last presented
flow(s) of resources prior to the net change in resource flows in the government-wide, governmental
fund, and proprietary fund statements of resource flows.
This Statement requires that the proprietary fund statement of revenues, expenses, and changes in
fund net position continue to distinguish between operating and nonoperating revenues and
expenses. The Statement provides clarification regarding operating and nonoperating revenues and
expenses. Also, this Statement requires that a subtotal for operating income (loss) and noncapital
subsidies be presented before reporting other nonoperating revenues and expenses.
This Statement requires governments to present each major component unit separately in the
reporting entity's statement of net position and statement of activities if it does not reduce the
readability of the statements. If the readability of those statements would be reduced, combining
statements of major component units should be presented after the fund financial statements.
This Statement requires governments to present budgetary comparison information using a single
method of communication - RSI. Governments also are required to present (1) variances between
original and final budget amounts and (2) variances between final budget and actual amounts. An
explanation of significant variances is required to be presented in notes to RSI.
GASB Statement No. 103 is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2025. Earlier
application is encouraged.
Information provided above was obtained from www.gasb.org.
Page 307 of 309
20
City of Mendota Heights
Emerging Issues
Accounting Standard Update – GASB Statement No. 104 – Disclosure of Certain Capital Assets
The objective of this Statement is to provide users of government financial statements with essential
information about certain types of capital assets.
This Statement requires certain types of capital assets continue to be disclosed separately in the
capital assets note disclosures including presentation of capital assets by major class and separate
disclosure of lease assets, subscription assets, and intangible right-to-use assets.
This Statement requires additional disclosures for capital assets held for sale. A capital asset is held
for sale if (a) the government has decided to pursue the sale of the capital asset and (b) it is
probable that the sale will be finalized within one year of the financial statement date.
Governments should disclose (1) the ending balance of capital assets held for sale, with separate
disclosure for historical cost and accumulated depreciation by major class of asset , and (2) the
carrying amount of debt for which the capital assets held for sale are pledged as collateral for each
major class of asset.
GASB Statement No. 104 is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2025. Earlier
application is encouraged.
Information provided above was obtained from www.gasb.org.
Page 308 of 309
This page is intentionally left blank
9.b
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2026
AGENDA ITEM: Municipal Campus Building Project - Police Station and City Hall Update
ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business
DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Cheryl Jacobson, City
Administrator
Kelly McCarthy, Police Chief
ACTION REQUEST:
Informational. A project update will be provided by city staff and/or ICS.
BACKGROUND:
The Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Building Project is the proposed construction of a
new City Hall/Police Department facility and associated site improvements to meet the current
and future needs of the City and its residents. The new building will replace the current facility,
which faces significant health, safety, infrastructure, security and accessibility challenges.
Key goals include improved safety and security, inclusive and accessible design, flexible and
functional spaces, and responsible, sustainable use of public resources while supporting the
City Council's project pillars of fiscal responsibility, long-term value to residents, efficient and
effective municipal services, and co-location to maximize operational efficiency, safety, and
security.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
None, for this project update.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Premier Public Services & Infrastructure
Page 309 of 309