06 16 2026 CC Work Session Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING AGENDA
June 16, 2026 at 4:30 PM
Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights
1. Call to Order
2. Discussion
a. Municipal Campus Building Project -- Police Station and City Hall
3. Adjourn
Alternative formats or auxiliary aids are available to individuals with disabilities upon request.
Please contact City Hall at 651-452-1850 or by emailing cityhall@mendotaheightsmn.gov.
Page 1 of 4
This page is intentionally left blank
2.a
City Council Work Session Memo
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Municipal Campus Building Project -- Police Station and City Hall
ACTION REQUEST:
As conversations regarding the Municipal Campus Building Project continue, several policy-
level questions warrant further discussion, due diligence and restatement of intent by the City
Council before further direction on project scope and building design is provided to the project
team.
Staff requests that the City Council discuss and provide clarification on its long-term vision,
service assumptions, project priorities, and desired scope of the Municipal Campus Building
Project. Staff are also seeking confirmation on whether the Council's original objectives for the
project remain unchanged or whether modifications should be considered. If the Council's
priorities have evolved since the project began, staff request clear policy direction so that
future design efforts, cost estimates, and project recommendations can be aligned with the
Council's updated vision.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council's original direction to the project team was to evaluate a "dig-once, future-
ready" Municipal Campus building capable of supporting the City's long-term operational
needs. The Council established guiding project pillars, so that a future building would (be):
• Fiscally responsible with transparent scope and costs
• Provide long-term value to residents
• Efficient and effective public safety and municipal services
• Co-located to maximize efficiency, safety, and security
The current schematic design was developed using a 20-year planning horizon. Long-range
planning assumptions include modest organizational growth over the next two decades,
recognizing that future operational, staffing, technology, and service needs cannot be
predicted with certainty. The design focuses on operational needs, workplace functionality,
public accessibility, and service delivery requirements.
As the project moves into design development, several policy questions have emerged that
Page 2 of 4
would benefit from Council discussion and direction:
1. Project priorities and tradeoffs. The Council established project pillars to guide the
development of a new building. As project scope, costs and community expectations continue
to be evaluated, the Council is asked to revisit its guiding principles and discuss their
importance moving forward. Specifically, the Council should consider whether project pillars
are equally important, whether some should receive greater or lesser emphasis moving
forward, and what level of long-term value, operational efficiency, and flexibility should be
emphasized.
2. Define "future-ready". Public discussion has raised questions about the appropriate size,
planning horizon, and long term flexibility of the proposed building. To provide direction for
the next phase of design, the City Council is asked to clarify what it considers to be a "future-
ready" building. This includes addressing whether the Council's vision has shifted from a long-
term dig-once, future-ready facility toward a facility designed primarily around immediate
operational needs, what planning horizon should be considered—immediate need (2026), 10
year need, or 20 year need and how much flexibility should be incorporated for future
operational, staffing, technology or public service needs?
3. Define "right-sized." The term right-sized has been used frequently throughout public
discussions. The City Council is asked to provide clarification on how this concept should
guide the design. This includes identifying what right-sizing means from a Council perspective,
determining which elements of the current schematic design are or are not considered right-
sized and evaluating which spaces, functions, operational capabilities, or future flexibility
should be reconsidered to achieve a right-sized building.
4. City Service priorities. As part of its long-term facility planning, the City Council is asked to
clarify its service (level) priorities and how priorities should be included in a new city hall and
police station building. To provide clear direction for design development, the Council is asked
to identify whether any service level adjustments/reductions are wanted. The Council is also
asked to discuss whether other alternatives should be evaluated, including the potential costs
and operational impacts associated with renovating other city facilities for temporary or
permanent use under this project.
5. Public Vote. Some residents have asked that they have the opportunity to vote on the
Municipal Campus Building project. Under Minnesota law, City Councils are elected to make
decisions regarding municipal operations, facilities, budgeting and long-term infrastructure
planning on behalf of the community. Projects involving essential public facilities, such as city
halls, police and fire stations and public works facilities are typically considered and acted upon
by the governing body through a public process that includes meetings, public hearings, and
opportunities for resident feedback. For this reason, state law does not require an automatic
citywide vote for every municipal facility project. Instead, the City Council is responsible for
reviewing the community's operational needs, evaluating project costs and financing options,
considering public input and making decisions they believe are in the best interest of the
community. Further discussion regarding the financing of a new building will include
Page 3 of 4
information on Minnesota's statutory financing process, including petitions for referendum.
Separate from financing considerations, the Council should discuss whether it wishes to
consider submitting the project to a general vote.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 4 of 4