The URL can be used to link to this page

08 18 2026 CC Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA August 18, 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. Presentation of a Citizen's Award of Merit a. Presentation of a Citizen's Award of Merit 6. 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. 7. 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 August 5, 2026, City Council Meeting b. Approve Contracts for the 2026 Street Maintenance & Striping projects c. Approve Resolution 2026-53 Resolution Formally Authorizing Participation in the 2027 Minnesota Department of Public Safety Traffic Enforcement Grant d. Approve Purchase Order for Main Lift Station Flow Meter e. Authorize a Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County and the City of West St. Page 1 of 65 Paul for Delaware Avenue Reconstruction Improvements f. Approve Claims List 8. Presentations a. MRPA Award of Excellence b. Overview of Police Staffing and Operations 9. Public Hearings 10. New and Unfinished Business a. Municipal Campus Building Project Update 11. Community / City Administrator Announcements 12. City Council Comments 13. Adjourn Next Meeting September 1, 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 65 5.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 18, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Presentation of a Citizen's Award of Merit ITEM TYPE: Presentation DEPARTMENT: Police CONTACT: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain ACTION REQUEST: No action needed. BACKGROUND: On June 29, 2026, the Mendota Heights Police Department was actively looking for a missing, endangered person. Earlier that day, a citizen, Michael Mealman, took notice of a male. Michael later received an alert about the missing, endangered person and realized it was the same person he had seen earlier. Without hesitation, Michael drove back to the area he had seen the male and located him. Michael contacted 911 and waited with the individual until police arrived. For these actions, the Mendota Heights Police Department is presenting Michael with the Citizen's Award of Merit. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 3 of 65 This page is intentionally left blank CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Wednesday, August 5, 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, Mazzitello, and Maczko were also present. Councilor Paper was absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Levine presented the consent agenda and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Lorberbaum moved approval of the consent agenda as presented, pulling item C. a.Approval of July 21, 2026, City Council Minutes b.Approval of July 21, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes c.Approval of the July 22, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes d.Acknowledge Minutes from the May 26, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting e.Acknowledge Minutes from the May 20, 2026, Airport Relations Commission Meeting f.Authorize Signer for Solid Waste Abatement Grant from Dakota County g.Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for Holy Family Maronite Catholic Church h.Approve Geotechnical Evaluation Contract for the 2027 Street Improvements Project i.Approval of Claims List Page 4 of 65 7.a August 5, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 14 Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS C)APPROVAL OF THE JULY 22, 2026, CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES Councilor Maczko noted that the date should be reflected as Wednesday, July 22nd rather than Tuesday. He referenced page four, where he inquired about the current bond rate. He stated that the consultant noted that there were ways that the project could be funded outside of general obligation bonds, which would be a way to avoid a reverse referendum. He noted that he made a comment that he would be opposed to any funding mechanism that would avoid the option of a reverse referendum. He felt it important that the statement be reflected in the minutes. Councilor Mazzitello commented that typically the Council requests that the City Clerk go back to the video to document the appropriate statement that was made. It was noted that there is no video for a work session. Councilor Maczko moved to approve THE JULY 22, 2026, CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES WITH THE NOTED CHANGES. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PRESENTATIONS A)SWEARING IN CEREMONY FOR MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIREFIGHTERS Fire Chief Dan Johnson recognized the work of the new firefighters and all members of the department who assisted in getting the new firefighters to this point. Captain Becky Johnson introduced Firefighters Chris Jones, Joe Fitzgerald, John Samec, Nick Segl, and Rachel Miller. These firefighters have completed the in-house fire academy, obtained their certifications, and completed their 12-month probationary period. Mayor Levine administered the Oath of Office to the firefighters. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2026-47 DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 149-FOOT WIRELESS MONOPOLE TO BE LOCATED AT 739 WENTWORTH AVENUE (WENTWORTH PARK) (PLANNING CASE NO. 2026-05) Page 5 of 65 August 5, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 14 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the Council was being asked to adopt Resolution 2026-47 Denying a Conditional Use Permit for a 149-foot wireless monopole to be located at Wentworth Avenue. Doug Barker, The Towers LLC, spoke about the need for a tower, which is driven by use. He explained that the City Ordinance provides a hierarchy of properties to review for this type of use, which led to the proposed park location. He stated that the City entered into a lease agreement, which left them with no option other than pursuing this site. He stated that The Towers LLC and Verizon have no interest in being a bad neighbor to the community or its citizens. He commented that the City signed the agreement, which specifies that there are no encumbrances on the property, noting that this has been found to be untrue. He stated that at the last meeting, residents discovered that $305,000 would need to be repaid to the DNR to remove the encumbrances. He explained that they never would have pursued this site if they had known about the encumbrance, and if this were to move forward, the applicant would pay the $305,000 to remove the encumbrances from the property. He explained the time and funds that have been spent on this process and stated that a tower is needed in this area because of the need for coverage. He stated that if this is denied, they will come back with the best location they can find, disregarding the hierarchy in the Ordinance. He commented that this site complies with all portions of the Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. He commented that the change to the monopine design does provide the Council with the flexibility to approve the request with the proposed setbacks and asked that the Council approve the request. Councilor Maczko moved to approve RESOLUTION 2026-47 DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 149-FOOT WIRELESS MONOPOLE TO BE LOCATED AT 739 WENTWORTH AVENUE. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Lorberbaum stated that public safety has always been a priority for her and they need to do something, but it needs to be the right solution for all residents. She stated that she has recently provided information to the City related to alternatives they can look at. She commented that based on the facts presented, she cannot approve the request tonight in this location. Councilor Maczko stated that he was surprised to be making this motion tonight, as when this started, it was a priority for residents to have better cellular coverage in that area. He recognized that cellular communication has become almost the sole means of communication, as fewer people tend to have landlines. He stated that as this process worked through, there were many good points brought forward that they need to listen to. He stated that he is disappointed in the emails that he and other Councilmembers received, about the Council being responsible for causing division in the community and neighbors not getting along. He did not believe that behavior to be accurate to the type of community that Mendota Heights is. He recognized that there are people who experience problems with cellular coverage along with public safety, but acknowledged that this proposal would not solve the problem with coverage throughout the entire community. He agreed that this is not a simple problem with a simple solution and that they need to find a more comprehensive approach to addressing the issues with coverage that exist in the community. He agreed that this application does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. He commented that the process of public engagement works when people get involved, and this is an example of that. He asked that residents do that respectfully and respect the positions of others. Page 6 of 65 August 5, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 14 Councilor Mazzitello stated that it is unfortunate that he has to vote on this tonight, as he lives 400 feet from Wentworth Park and has zero cellular coverage in his home. He stated that he was looking forward to this tower, but cannot vote for it as his job as an elected official is to do what is best for the community rather than based on his own personal opinion. He stated that over the past six months he has received many letters, phone calls, and has been called names because this issue pitted people in the subservice area against residents who are not in the subservice area, and that is wrong. He stated that this type of behavior is not of Mendota Heights. He was pleased to hear that this issue will come back, noting that although he is unsure of the exact location, a tower is needed in this vicinity. He commented that cell towers are everywhere, sticking above tree canopies, and visible to others because they have to be. He stated that a typical cellular antenna has ranges from one to three miles in terms of the service provided. He noted the similarity to cellular service and the loss of FM radio when traveling through hills and valleys in more rural areas. He stated that this two- to 2.5 square mile area of Mendota Heights is not a dead zone, but it is an unreliable zone. He noted that there are four towers that surround this area, but because of the topography, a tower will need to be at least 135 feet tall. He commented that he will not be around when this request comes back, as he will not be seeking another term, which is why he is providing these comments tonight. He stated that when this comes back, they need to find a way to make this work. He stated that the towers on buildings are as high as they can be, because they were not allowed to be higher, but noted that the towers on Two Rivers and Deerwood Bank need to be taller to broadcast into the valley. He asked the Council to help his neighborhood after he is gone from the Council. Councilor Lorberbaum stated that for people looking at alternatives, besides cell towers, small cells would be an option, as that could be installed into street lights and utility poles. She noted that it is just one solution they can review. Councilor Mazzitello commented that each microcell unit requires an antenna and has a smaller radius; therefore, to cover the entire area with microcells would require a lot of antennas. He stated that he looked into that option. He stated that most of the comments he received were in opposition to the request, but he received one comment encouraging the Council to look into Space Mobile. He stated that he reached out and had conversations with Starlink and Space Mobile, and they are looking into technology that would allow a cell phone to switch from a land tower to a satellite, but that technology does not yet exist. He stated that the timeframe for that was about ten years and perhaps after that time, towers could be removed. He noted that most of the comments received were some of the nastiest that he has received in his 18 years with the City. Mayor Levine thanked the Planning Commission, staff, Buell Consulting, and the community for the work and input that has been provided throughout this process. She stated that the City Council recognizes the need for improved cell service and nothing about this vote changes that. She stated that cellular service is not something that is nice to have, but something that they must have. She appreciated the input received with positive solutions. She stated that this application has gone through the CUP process, which requires a public hearing, and recognized that land use decisions can be long and messy, but the process works. She stated that in this case, there is information they did not have at the beginning of the process, which is a credit to the community. She stated that with the information before her, she will support the recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission to deny the request. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Page 7 of 65 August 5, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 14 B) RESOLUTION 2026-48 APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 39 PERCENT AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1044 BROMPTON PLACE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2026-10) Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to consider Resolution 2026-48 approving a variance to allow an impervious surface coverage of 39 percent at the property located at 1044 Brompton Place. Councilor Lorberbaum moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2026-48 APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF 39 PERCENT AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1044 BROMPTON PLACE. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Lorberbaum wanted to make it clear that this action is being approved due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the applicant, and that this will not alter the character of the neighborhood. She stated that while she appreciates that the rain garden is going in, that does not set a precedent. Mayor Levine commented that the Code was revised and they were aware that some parts of the revision need to be adjusted. She stated that pervious pavers are allowed, but slatted decking is considered impervious, even though the rain goes through it, so that does not make sense. She asked that slatted decking be considered as a pervious surface in the future when the revisions are next discussed. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 C) RESOLUTION 2026-49 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN 8- FOOT SECURITY FENCE AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1500 COMMERCE DRIVE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2026-11) Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to consider Resolution 2026-49 approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow an eight-foot security fence at the property located at 1500 Commerce Drive. Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2026-49 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN EIGHT-FOOT SECURITY FENCE AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1500 COMMERCE DRIVE. Councilor Maczko seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Lorberbaum commented that she visits the application locations and noticed that there was a tent set up in the parking area where they were doing motorcycle tricks and therefore could see the need for the fence. Mayor Levine welcomed the new business, Chadwell Supply, to Mendota Heights. Page 8 of 65 August 5, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 14 Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 D) RESOLUTION 2026-50 APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT/FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR UPDATES TO FREESTANDING SIGNAGE AND SIGNAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES WITHIN THE MENDOTA PLAZA PUD LOCATED AT 750 NORTH PLAZA DRIVE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2026-12) Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to consider adoption of Resolution 2026-50 approving a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment/Final Development Plan for updates to freestanding signage and signage design guidelines within the Mendota Plaza PUD located at 750 North Plaza Drive. Councilor Lorberbaum appreciated the staff explanation and bulleted list of items that will be included in the Development Agreement. She asked for more information on allowed colors for the sign. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that color is not regulated in the existing City standards for dynamic display. She stated that the applicant did mention at the concept review that the intention is for the sign to be black, brick, and more modern and that they do not intend to use color, but noted that they do not have anything prohibiting the use of color. Councilor Maczko commented that this was developer-written and believed that the PUD requirements should be similar to existing regulations in the city. He asked how consistent the proposal from the developer is with the existing regulations. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that there are areas that are more consistent and areas that are different because the City regulations do not go into the level of detail proposed by the applicant. Councilor Maczko commented that if the applicant is proposing something better, that is great, but was more interested in knowing about the differences. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented on the items that would be consistent with the City regulations. She noted that the Sign Ordinance was not included in the Zoning Code update and is on her agenda to review. She believed that the regulations proposed by the applicant would be reasonable to consider adopting into the Sign Ordinance when they do that review. Councilor Mazzitello thanked the owners of the Mendota Plaza, noting that this is the sixth or seventh update to the property to keep it current and in good condition. Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2026-50 APPROVING A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN – AMENDMENT TO THE MENDOTA PLAZA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 750 NORTH PLAZA DRIVE. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Further discussion: Mayor Levine asked if the applicant would like to add anything. Page 9 of 65 August 5, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 14 Mike Sturdivant, Paster Properties, appreciated the comments they have received throughout this process as well as the assistance provided by staff. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 E) RESOLUTION 2026-51 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWO ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1960 LEXINGTON AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2026-13) Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to consider Resolution 2026-51 approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow two additions to the existing religious institution structure located at 1960 Lexington Avenue. Mayor Levine invited the applicant to address the Council if desired. Chris Thielen, Thielen & Green, spoke on behalf of the applicant and explained that they have worked with the church and congregation for the past year in order to support proposed additions to the space. Councilor Mazzitello commented that it is encouraging to see church communities growing within Mendota Heights. Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2026-51 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWO ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 1960 LEXINGTON AVENUE. Councilor Maczko seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Lorberbaum commented that she looks forward to seeing growth of a religious institution. Mayor Levine recognized that the church was also approved for a temporary liquor license tonight and commented that she enjoys attending the festivities at the church. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 F) RESOLUTION 2026-52 APPROVING A MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1175 ORCHARD PLACE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2026-14) Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to consider Resolution 2026-52 approving a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit for construction of two accessory structures at the property located at 1175 Orchard Place. Page 10 of 65 August 5, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 of 14 Councilor Mazzitello asked if the hot tub is considered an accessory structure because it is in the ground, as opposed to sitting on pavers. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the concept of an accessory structure was updated during the zoning update and provided examples of other structures that are now also considered to be accessory structures. Councilor Lorberbaum moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2026-52 APPROVING A MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) PERMIT FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND HOT TUB AT 1175 ORCHARD PLACE. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 G) MUNICIPAL CAMPUS BUILDING PROJECT – RESOLUTION 2026-46 DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAN B SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR THE POLICE STATION AND CITY HALL MUNICIPAL CAMPUS BUILDING PROJECT Mayor Levine provided brief background information on the resolution presented by Councilor Maczko at the last meeting, which was tabled to allow the work session and discussions with TRAA to occur. She provided a summary of the discussion that occurred at the July 22nd work session, where the city and TRAA came to a solution agreed upon by all parties. She stated that ICS then presented proposed costs associated with the alternative schematic design. Councilor Mazzitello moved to REMOVE RESOLUTION 2026-46 DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAN B SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR THE POLICE STATION AND CITY HALL MUNICIPAL CAMPUS BUILDING PROJECT FROM THE TABLE. Councilor Maczko seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence provided a recap of the discussion that occurred with TRAA related to the ballfield and Municipal Campus project and the work that staff has done following the work session to obtain quotes. She stated that staff continues to work with TRAA on both short-term and long-term solutions, and staff will return to the City Council when quotes are received. She anticipated that quotes would be received within the next 1.5 weeks. Mayor Levine noted the rough estimate that was provided to retrofit an existing field to be of the same standard as Mertensotto Field. Councilor Lorberbaum noted that they would also need to ensure that the smaller field is replaced. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence acknowledged the direction from the Council to keep the same number and quality of fields. Page 11 of 65 August 5, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 of 14 Mayor Levine spoke about the great collaboration that occurred at the work session between the Council, staff, and representatives from TRAA. Kyle Walter, ICS, provided additional background information and presented information that was reviewed at the work session. The Council was being asked to consider Resolution 2026-46 directing the development of a Plan B Schematic Design for the Police Station and City Hall Municipal Campus Building Project. Councilor Mazzitello asked if the projected relocation cost includes the schematic design cost and inflationary adjustment. Mr. Walter replied that those costs are not included and confirmed that the relocation cost could be near $2,000,000 with those additions. Councilor Maczko referenced the current schedule, where construction would begin in the fall of 2027 to spring of 2028 with completion in the fall of 2028 or spring of 2029. Mr. Walter explained that once the scope is further defined, they would be able to narrow that timeline. Councilor Maczko noted that it would seem there would only be a four-month difference in the timelines. Mr. Walter confirmed that the difference would be four or five months in the timelines. He confirmed the delay would cause an escalation increase in project costs of $250,000 to $750,000. Councilor Maczko stated that when this was approved in December of 2025, he had many questions about moving forward, and it seems that the decision was made to move forward to schematic design and several options would be presented. He stated that one of those included schematic design for the current location and schematic design for the changed location, with a check-in to occur for the Council to review those. He commented that in June, he again had concerns moving out of schematic design into detailed design as he did not feel they had done adequate work to move out of schematic design and was told that they would figure that out as they continued to move forward. He stated that they still do not have the results from the soil borings, and he feels railroaded that this continues to move forward without changing anything, which is why he made the motion at the last meeting. He commented that his motion was tabled and he was disappointed that the work session revolved around new computer renditions of what the building in the field location would look like, with a five-minute discussion and a couple brief options showing that a building could fit in the current location without impacts to the field and the additional costs that would be associated with that option. He noted that Councilor Paper commented at the last meeting that the citizens deserve to have another option to look at, if they can prove it can be done. He stated that he would like to be in the range of the low to mid $20,000,000s, and the response from the consultant was that for that price they would receive a building of similar square footage to the current building. He stated that it has been mentioned that renovating the existing building to meet the current needs would have a cost of 60 to 70 percent of a new building, whereas previously it was stated that the existing building could be renovated for $6,000,000, which is 20 to 30 percent of the cost. He asked for more information on the discrepancy between those figures. Page 12 of 65 August 5, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 10 of 14 Mr. Walter stated that he has had conversations with Councilor Maczko and City Administrator Jacobson; he cannot take direction from one member of the Council and can only take direction from the full Council, which was to proceed with a dig once option for a new facility in the ballfield location. He stated that prior to that, all options were presented to the Council. He stated that if there is direction from the full Council, they can go back to review other options. He stated that the programming discussions did indicate that additional square footage would be necessary, and ultimately direction was provided to reduce to the 20-year plan. He stated that after schematic design, the Council asked the square footage to be reduced to the immediate need for programming, which is what was presented. Councilor Maczko commented that if they can invest $6,000,000 into the current building, that would seem to be a savings of $14,000,000 that could be put towards the expansion to meet the other needs. He stated that nothing he has seen at the work session did a lot to move the marker on the cost. He stated that he is even more convinced that they need to relook at that option. He stated that he asked if there was a mold and water issue but was told that it has been remediated and the issues within the garage could be dealt with during a remodel. He noted that option would also be more sustainable as they would not be tearing something down and starting anew, recognizing that option would still involve relocation costs. Councilor Lorberbaum commented that there is a lot she does not know and there have been a lot of changes. She stated that they keep hearing the figure $33,100,000, but changes have been made to reduce the size and cost. She asked for the current reduced size and cost. Mr. Walter commented that three options were presented at the work session with associated costs that included the needs of today, the ten-year solution, and the 20-year solution. He stated that he did not have those exact numbers with him but noted that the reduction in size from today’s need to the 20-year need is 2,000 square feet. He stated that a reduction of 2,000 square feet would not result in savings of millions of dollars. Councilor Maczko believed that the size reduction resulted in a cost estimate of $30,000,000 or $31,000,000. Mr. Walter provided additional explanation on the proposed budget, noting that the State funds for CJN were included in that budget, confirming that the total cost was projected at $35,000,000, but was reduced by $4,000,000 that was allocated by the State. He confirmed that reducing the size of the building by 2,000 square feet will not reduce the cost to $20,000,000. He asked for direction from the Council on whether they are looking to meet the programming needs or a certain budget amount. He stated that they can review the option of renovating and expanding the current facility if that is the desire of the Council. Mayor Levine stated that there is a motion on the table and that is not what is being discussed. Councilor Lorberbaum recapped some of the things that have been said related to estimated project cost, whether or not there is an issue with mold that exists, and is unsure of the truth, which makes it difficult to make a decision. She stated that she is very uncomfortable and recognizes there is a cost of nearly $400,000 for a new schematic design. She asked if there is any room for negotiation in that cost. Mr. Walter commented that they are willing to negotiate depending upon the detail desired for the schematic design. Page 13 of 65 August 5, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 11 of 14 Councilor Lorberbaum stated that with the other unknowns- they do not know the results of the soil borings, they do not know the costs related to the ballfield, the Summit building is no longer an option for relocation, and yet she continues to feel pushed to move forward to avoid inflation costs. She stated that there is an election in 90 days and the people who sit on the Council after that time may be different. She stated that they could spend the money on a new schematic design, and whoever is elected and sitting on the Council in January may reject both of those designs. She asked if they should take a pause to ensure they spend the money the right way rather than having to redo things because members of the Council may change. Mayor Levine encouraged the Council to speak to the motion before them. Councilor Mazzitello stated that he has absolutely nothing to gain by speaking on this issue as he is not running for reelection, but he is compelled to speak the truth to the people he represents. He stated that he does not support moving with Plan B because, for over one year, they discussed different options to discuss the issues that exist with the Police Department and City Hall, which included renovations, demolition, and building a new building on this site. He stated that he is a 34-year-degree civil engineer and the first two-thirds of his career were spent working for the United States Air Force in land development, building buildings. He stated that they unanimously chose the build-once option because this current building was not built to be expanded. He stated that while it may have been the intent and design plan for the building to be expanded to the west, that is not what was built. He noted that it is consistent with other things that were constructed in the 1980s, such as roads that showed appropriate plans but that were not constructed to that standard. He stated that this building was built as cheaply as possible in the 1980s, and all corners that were cut were cut. He stated that while the finishes are nice, every piece of material is as cheap as you can make it, and there have been water issues in the basement since the late 90s due to stormwater intrusion and rising groundwater levels. He commented that there is condensation from humidity in the lower level because of the second-rate HVAC system that was installed. He stated that to touch or renovate this building is to tear it down. He stated that the foundation walls are not capable of the load that would be placed upon them from an expansion. He stated that, unbeknownst to ICS or anyone else, he took the concept plan to a friend of his and showed him the schematic design after the reduction and asked him to evaluate it for the needs of a modern 2026 Police Department and City Hall for a 12,000-population community that employs 20 people. He stated that there is another narrative that only eight people are employed at City Hall, which is inaccurate, and noted that showing 20 to 24 workstations within City Hall is appropriate. He stated that the current building was not maintained and explained that when something is built cheaply and not maintained, it really does not last. He commented that mechanical systems needed to be updated, water issues needed to be resolved, and a new roof was needed, but the roof trusses were not strong enough to hold a second layer of shingles. He provided additional examples of cheap shortcuts that were taken in lieu of real improvements and/or repairs. He stated that the requirements for a government building and Police Department are vastly different than they were in 1986, and while he wishes that a City Hall and Police Department could be safe and secure in a shoddily built building, they are not. He commented that people working in and visiting City Hall and the Police Department should feel safe. He explained that because of those reasons, they unanimously decided that the City needs a new building, so it does not make sense to spend additional time and money reviewing an option that is not feasible and has already been reviewed. He stated that the Council moved forward in the right direction in December of 2025 and believed they needed to keep Page 14 of 65 August 5, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 12 of 14 moving in that direction. He commented that at the next meeting they would speak about how they could fund this project. Mayor Levine stated that she is going to focus on the resolution at hand, directing development of a Plan B schematic design for the Police Station and City Hall Municipal Campus project. She commented on the input that has been received and community engagement that has occurred, not just this project, but throughout her time on the Council. She stated that one constant has been the need to improve the Police Station. She recognized that residents support the Police Department and commented that something needs to be done and they cannot continue to kick the can down the road. She stated that over the past 12 months they have looked at multiple options and nothing has been off the table, and over time, they landed on the build-once-future option for an estimated cost of $33,000,000, which was unanimously supported in December of 2025. She stated that since that time she has heard both support and concerns from the public. She recognized the concerns related to cost and the desire to build in the current location to avoid impacts to the field. She stated that at the last meeting Councilor Maczko proposed the resolution being considered today. She stated that the direct costs to move the field are around $160,000, acknowledging that does not count the improvements that will be made to the other fields but noted that those are nominal costs. She stated that, on the other hand, the costs for a new schematic design, related delays, and relocation costs would be over $2,000,000. She asked if the public would rather include the cost of the project by $2,000,000, noting that cost is unrecoverable whereas the funds to put into ballfields would result in better fields. She stated that TRAA has been part of this discussion and they have been satisfied. She stated that after receiving feedback from the community, the Council provided direction to shrink the plan from the build-once-future-ready option. She noted that the intention was to build to suit future needs now, when it will be cheaper, and save another Council and additional staff from having to expand in the future. She stated that Mendota Heights is the only city in the state to receive a grant of $4,000,000 for this type of project. She spoke about the poor condition of the Police Department and the environment that Officers are working in. She stated that she does not want to run up costs in this process, and any delay will increase costs, which is not fiscally responsible. She urged the other members of the Council not to support the Resolution as proposed. Councilor Mazzitello stated that they have to live with the decision that was made in the past to save taxpayer funds in return for the shortened lifespan of the facility. He called the question on the Resolution. Ayes: 1 (Maczko) Nays: 3 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming community events and activities. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Maczko commented that there were 38 Night to Unite parties last night and thanked those who planned and participated in parties. He noted the recent community education catalog that has been released with upcoming programming. He recognized the new firefighters and their families for the contributions they provide to the community. He stated that when people get engaged and you listen to them, sometimes you need to change what you are thinking and refocus. He stated that there seems to be Page 15 of 65 August 5, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 13 of 14 a disconnect between what they are thinking and what residents want. He stated that there are good opportunities to visit and network with local businesses that are opening. Councilor Lorberbaum thanked all the residents who participated in Night to Unite, noting that it was a great opportunity to speak with residents and see residents having fun. She stated that she spoke with residents who are working two jobs and cannot afford the property tax increase for the new building, noting that the residents trust and respect the decision-making process. She stated that she is supportive of leaving Mertensotto Field untouched, but she is not willing to spend $400,000 for another schematic design. She believed that could be done for a lower cost. She was worried about putting band-aids on the existing building and the future costs that would bring. She likened the process to the decision whether to continue to fix a vehicle that continues to break down or purchase a new vehicle. She stated that there is a need for a safe, secure, and accessible building for the lowest cost. She stated that they need to do something, and she is concerned that in 90 days, new people may be elected who may change the direction they are going. She recommended a pause until 2027, as it is important to make sure they go in the right direction. She also noted the two upcoming business openings. She stated that she read the 934-page packet for this meeting and shared a statement that was provided by a resident, and believed that is what they need to keep in mind. Councilor Mazzitello stated that he provided a lot of information and research tonight and explained that the Council is elected to make decisions for the residents. He noted that if residents do not like that, they should take the opportunity to vote every two years but asked that those decisions be made based on fact. He stated that last week they somberly commemorated the day Officer Patrick was murdered on Dodd Road, noting that it is also a joyous experience because of the love and sacrifices that Officer Patrick had and made for the community. He stated that it was great to see five new firefighters sworn in and pinned tonight and stated that the community cannot lose its sense of community. He also recognized the work of Community Development Manager Sarah Madden, who did an outstanding job presenting many cases tonight. He shared number nine on his top nine list of the things Mendota Heights has done in the last 18 years that he has served the city. Mayor Levine commented that in her time as Mayor, she has always allowed public comments to be made on items on the agenda, even when it is not required by law. She stated that she honestly did not know that people wanted to speak tonight and asked that in the future, residents alert her that they would like to speak on an item on the agenda. She also reviewed other ways that residents can communicate with members of the City Council outside of a formal meeting. She commented that it was fantastic to visit resident parties last night for Night to Unite, thanking the members of the community, Police, and Fire who participated in the parties. She stated that the people are what make Mendota Heights a great community. ADJOURN Councilor Mazzitello moved to adjourn. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Page 16 of 65 August 5, 2026 Mendota Heights City Council Page 14 of 14 ____________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Nancy Bauer City Clerk Page 17 of 65 7.b REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 18, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Contracts for the 2026 Street Maintenance & Striping projects ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Lucas Ritchie, Assistant City Engineer ACTION REQUEST: Approve contracts for the 2026 Street Maintenance & Striping Projects. BACKGROUND: Annual crack sealing and seal coating are performed to extend pavement life and maintain streets within the City. These treatments serve as an intermediate pavement preservation method between larger pavement rehabilitation projects. The City previously secured crack sealing, seal coating, and striping services through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with other South Metro cities, with the City of Burnsville serving as the coordinating agency. Following completion of the 2025 annual improvements, the JPA agreement concluded. The JPA may be reinstated in a future year depending on participating agencies and project needs. Staff solicited quotes for crack sealing and seal coating roadways identified for maintenance based on pavement condition and the City's pavement management program. Striping is required on roadways receiving seal coating improvements because existing pavement markings are covered during the seal coating process. No modifications to existing pavement markings are proposed as part of this work. Two quotes were received for each project as follows: Project Contractor Bid Amount Crack Seal & Seal Coating Pearson Bros $84,283.65 Crack Seal & Seal Coating Allied Blacktop $87,380.00 Page 18 of 65 Street Striping Sir-Lines-A-Lot $24,729.18 Street Striping Century Traffic $39,204.48 The street maintenance areas include: •Mendota Heights Road from Dodd Road to Delaware Avenue (crack sealing and seal coating) •Mendakota Drive (crack sealing) •South Plaza Drive (crack sealing) •Lexington Highlands neighborhood (crack sealing) •Orchard Heights Lane (crack sealing) •Lemay Shores Drive & Court (crack sealing) •Public Works Facility parking lot (crack sealing) The 2026 striping will occur on: •Mendota Heights Road from Dodd Road to Delaware Avenue FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Funding for street maintenance and pavement markings is included in the Public Works annual street maintenance and pavement marking budgets. The available funds within the respective budgets are sufficient to complete the proposed improvements. The 2026 budget is $115,000. The total cost for the 2026 Crack Seal & Seal Coating Project is $84,283.65, and the total cost for the 2026 Street Striping Project is $24,729.18. Staff recommends that the City Council award contracts to Pearson Bros in the amount of $84,283.65 to complete the 2026 Crack Seal & Seal Coating Project and to Sir-Lines-A-Lot in the amount of $24,729.18 to complete the 2026 Street Striping Project. ATTACHMENTS: 1.2026 Street Maintenance Areas CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 19 of 65 Page 20 of 65 This page is intentionally left blank 7.c REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 18, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Resolution 2026-53 Resolution Formally Authorizing Participation in the 2027 Minnesota Department of Public Safety Traffic Enforcement Grant ITEM TYPE: Resolution DEPARTMENT: Police CONTACT: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain ACTION REQUEST: Authorize the Mendota Heights Police Department to participate in the 2027 MN Department of Public Safety Traffic Enforcement Grant. BACKGROUND: Historically, the City of Mendota Heights has participated in the Dakota County Traffic Safety Group through a joint powers agreement (JPA). The purpose of this group was to partner with other Dakota County agencies to provide increased traffic enforcement and driver education, thereby increasing community safety. These grant-funded efforts focused primarily on impaired driving, distracted driving, speeding, and seatbelt use. The current JPA for the Dakota County Traffic Safety Group would expire in 2030. However, the criteria for participation in the traffic safety grant that supported this JPA has changed. Now, agencies who wish to receive grant funds for traffic safety must individually apply for those funds and manage them at the agency level. This resolution allows Mendota Heights to receive grant funds and continue participation in providing increased traffic enforcement to enhance the safety of the citizens of the City of Mendota Heights. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: There is no budgetary impact. Grant funds accepted will be used towards traffic enforcement initiatives. Grant management will be completed during staff working hours. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2026-53 Resolution Formally Authorizing Participation in the 2027 Minnesota Department of Public Safety Traffic Enforcement Grant CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Page 21 of 65 Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 22 of 65 City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2026-53 RESOLUTION FORMALLY AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE 2027 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT GRANT WHEREAS, the Office of Traffic Safety has a mandate to promote the safety of those who use public roadways; and WHEREAS, the National Highway Traffic Administration provides funding to the Office of Traffic Safety to reduce traffic crashes and deaths, injuries, and property damage resulting from those crashes; and WHEREAS, the Office of Traffic Safety, through the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, opened a grant to address traffic safety; and WHEREAS, grants awarded through this process would be used to reduce traffic crashes and deaths, injuries, property damage resulting from those crashes, and address traffic safety concerns; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights desires to support the efforts to address the traffic safety concerns, thereby increasing safety on roadways in Mendota Heights. NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights does hereby authorize the Mendota Heights Police Department to participate in the 2027 Minnesota Department of Public Safety Traffic Enforcement Grant. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 18th day of August 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By_________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: By______________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 23 of 65 This page is intentionally left blank 7.d REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 18, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Purchase Order for Main Lift Station Flow Meter ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Lucas Ritchie, Assistant City Engineer ACTION REQUEST: Authorize the issuance of a purchase order for the purchase and installation of a flow meter at the City's Main Lift Station. BACKGROUND: The City’s Main Lift Station is a critical component of the sanitary sewer system and provides an important location for monitoring wastewater flows entering the downstream collection system. Staff recommends installing a flow meter at the Main Lift Station to provide continuous flow data for system operations, planning, and evaluation of sanitary sewer conditions. In addition to providing valuable information regarding overall system flows, the flow meter will provide additional data to support the City’s ongoing investigation and mitigation of sanitary sewer odors. The City has been monitoring hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) concentrations at multiple locations within the sanitary sewer system as part of its Bioxide treatment program. Flow data at the Main Lift Station will allow staff to evaluate H₂S concentrations in relation to wastewater flow conditions and identify potential correlations between flow patterns, peak periods, and elevated H₂S levels. Staff solicited pricing for the flow meter and installation. The quotes received were: •William E. Young Co. – $6,476.58 for the flow meter and associated equipment •Municipal Service – $3,740.00 for installation •Total – $10,216.58 An additional quote of $17,055 was received from Electric Pump. Based on the quotes received, staff recommend proceeding with the William E. Young Co. equipment and Municipal Service installation, which provides the lowest overall cost. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Page 24 of 65 Staff recommends authorizing a purchase order in the amount of $10,216.58 for the purchase and installation of the Main Lift Station flow meter. The expenditure will be funded through the Sanitary Sewer Fund, which has sufficient available fund balance to accommodate the purchase. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 25 of 65 7.e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 18, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Authorize a Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County and the City of West St. Paul for Delaware Avenue Reconstruction Improvements ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Lucas Ritchie, Assistant City Engineer ACTION REQUEST: Authorize a Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County and the City of West St. Paul for the design, right-of-way acquisition, construction, maintenance, and cost participation associated with the Delaware Avenue Reconstruction Project (Dakota County Project No. 63-33 (Mendota Heights Project No. 202408). BACKGROUND: Dakota County, the City of Mendota Heights, and the City of West St. Paul are partnering on the reconstruction of Delaware Avenue (County State Aid Highway 63) between Marie Avenue and Dodd Road (TH 149). The project is intended to address aging infrastructure along the corridor while improving roadway operations, safety, drainage, and pedestrian and bicycle connectivity through the addition of separated trail facilities. The attached Joint Powers Agreement formalizes the roles and responsibilities of Dakota County, Mendota Heights, and West St. Paul related to the project. Dakota County will serve as the lead agency and will be responsible for project administration, including design engineering, right-of-way acquisition, bidding, construction administration, and coordination of project maintenance activities. The Cities will retain final decision-making authority within their respective jurisdictions and will participate in project costs in accordance with the Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan Cost Participation Policy. Under the agreement, Dakota County will participate in 85 percent of eligible engineering, right-of-way, and construction costs, with the Cities of Mendota Heights and West St. Paul each being responsible for 7.5 percent of eligible project costs. Final project costs will be based on actual project expenses at the time of construction. The project is anticipated to begin construction in 2027 and continue through 2028. Improvements within Mendota Heights will include roadway reconstruction, pedestrian and Page 26 of 65 bicycle improvements, drainage improvements, and intersection and safety enhancements along the Delaware Avenue corridor. As part of the project, the City has elected to include stormwater pond dredging improvements at Somerset Country Club. This additional work provides an opportunity to complete needed stormwater improvements in coordination with the County reconstruction project. Dakota County cost participation for this work will be determined based on estimated stormwater inflows from County highway facilities in accordance with applicable Dakota County cost participation policies. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The City’s estimated share of eligible project costs will be approximately 7.5 percent of the final project costs associated with the Delaware Avenue Reconstruction project. The final City cost obligation for roadway and trail improvements will be based on actual project expenses following completion of construction and will be funded through available Municipal State Aid funds. The City has also elected to include stormwater pond dredging improvements at Somerset Country Club as part of the project. The City’s share of these costs will be determined based on applicable Dakota County cost participation policies and the estimated contribution of County roadway drainage to the pond. The City’s share of costs associated with the stormwater pond dredging will be funded through the Stormwater Utility Fund, which has sufficient available budget to complete the improvement. The project is included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program, with funding identified through the applicable funding sources described above. ATTACHMENTS: 1.JPA - DAKOTA COUNTY, CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL (DCA24225) & CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS (DCA24226) CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 27 of 65 Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN ENGINEERING/RIGHT-OF-WAY/CONSTRUCTION/MAINTENANCE, AND COST PARTICIPATION BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF DAKOTA, THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, AND, THE CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL FOR DAKOTA COUNTY PROJECT NO. 63-33 and 4-18 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PROJECT NO. 202408 WEST ST. PAUL PROJECT NO. 25-3 SYNOPSIS: Dakota County, the City of Mendota Heights and the City of West St. Paul agree to participate collaboratively on County Project CP 63-33. County Project 63-33 will include preliminary and final design engineering, right-of-way acquisition, construction, ongoing maintenance, and cost share of the Delaware Avenue Reconstruction along County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 63 between Marie Avenue and Dodd Road along the border of West St. Paul and Mendota Heights. The project will reconstruct Delaware Avenue with a trail along the west side of Delaware Avenue. Dakota County and West St. Paul will participate on County Project 4-18. County Project 4-18 will include preliminary and final design engineering, right-of-way acquisition, construction, ongoing maintenance, and cost share for trail and sidewalk improvements along Butler Avenue from Delaware Avenue to Smith Avenue. County Project 4-18 is planned for construction in 2027 and County Project 63-33 is planned for construction across 2027 and 2028. Page 28 of 65 Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page | 2 THIS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), is made and entered into by and between the County of Dakota referred to in this Agreement as "the County", a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, and the City of Mendota Heights, referred to in this agreement as “Mendota Heights”, and the City of West St. Paul, referred to in this Agreement as " West St. Paul " (collectively the “Cities”) municipal corporations existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and witnesses the following: WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes sections 162.17, subd. 1 and 471.59, subd. 1, two governmental units may enter into an agreement to cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties, and one of the participating governmental units may exercise one of its powers on behalf of the other governmental units; and WHEREAS, to provide a safe and efficient transportation system, the County and the Cities are proceeding with County Projects 63-33 and 4-18 and City of Mendota Heights Project 202408 and City of West St. Paul Project 25-3; and WHEREAS, the purpose and need for County Project 63-33 bordering the Cities of Mendota Heights and West St. Paul is to address aging infrastructure along CSAH 63 (Delaware Avenue) from Marie Avenue to Trunk Highway (TH) 149 (Dodd Road); and WHEREAS, the purpose and need for County Project 4-18 in the City of West St. Paul is to improve safety and accessibility for area students and residents to walk, bike, and roll to St. Joseph’s Catholic School and Heritage STEM Middle School and other nearby destinations as identified as part of the Dakota County School Travel Safety Assessment (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, to address the purpose and need of County Project 63-33, the project will include the reconstruction of CSAH 63 (Delaware Avenue) from Marie Avenue to Trunk Highway (TH) 149 (Dodd Road), which will include roadway modernization, intersection and safety improvements, drainage improvements, and will add separated pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to the corridor; and Page 29 of 65 Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page | 3 WHEREAS, to address the purpose and need of County Project 4-18, the project will add trail and sidewalk to CR 4 (Butler Avenue) between CSAH 63 (Delaware Avenue) and Manomin Avenue; and WHEREAS, to more efficiently deliver the Projects, the County and the Cities mutually desire to partner with one another in exercising their joint powers to complete preliminary and final design, right-of-way acquisition, construction, administration, and maintenance of the Projects, as well as to determine each parties’ respective share of Project costs; and WHEREAS, the County and Cities have included the Project in their Capital Improvement Programs and will jointly participate in the costs of said design engineering, right of way acquisition, construction, maintenance, per the Cost Sharing Policy within the Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan (July 2021); and NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed the County and Cities will share Project responsibilities as detailed in this Agreement and, in accordance with the County’s adopted cost share policy, jointly participate in Project costs as set forth herein. The above recitals are incorporated by reference and are made a part hereof as if fully set forth below. 1.Project Administration. The County shall be the lead agency for design, right-of-way acquisition, construction, construction administration, and maintenance of the Project. Subject to the requirements below, the County and the Cities shall each retain final decision-making authority within their respective jurisdictions. 2.Preliminary Engineering. “Preliminary Engineering” shall be defined as engineering work completed through preliminary layouts, which includes, but is not limited to: a.Surveying and mapping. b.Engineering studies and reports c.Public involvement process d.Environmental reports e.Geotechnical information f.Drainage designs Page 30 of 65 Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page | 4 g.Traffic evaluation of various alternatives h.Preliminary layouts (30% Plans) 3. Engineering. Engineering costs shall include the cost of preparing all preliminary/final designs, plans, specifications and proposals, surveying, mapping, consultant engineering, right-of-way mapping, construction engineering, construction management, construction inspection and all related materials testing, including the cost of County and City staff time, as well as the cost of facilitating public and/or third- party agency involvement. 4.Plans, Specifications and Award of Contract. The County/Cities will prepare plans and specifications consistent with County and City design standards, State-Aid design standards and MnDOT standards and specifications. The parties’ mutual concurrence with the plans and specifications is required prior to advertising for bids. Within 7 days of opening bids for the construction contract, the lead agency shall submit a copy of the low bid and an abstract of all bids together with the request for concurrence to the State and the award of the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder. The lead agency may award the contract for construction to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in accordance with state law. If a bid is not awarded, this Agreement shall terminate for the specific project that is not awarded, and all costs incurred as of the date of termination shall be apportioned in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The construction contract shall be performed in accordance with approved plans, specifications and special provisions which are made a part hereof by reference with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 5.Street Lighting, Trail Lighting and Maintenance Costs. Upon completion of the Project, electrical power necessary for the operation of the streetlights (including roundabout lighting, trail lighting and underpass lighting) and maintenance of the streetlights will be provided in accordance with County policies included in the current adopted 2040 Dakota County Transportation Plan Policy F.17 Street Lighting Maintenance. 6. Right-of-Way. If any easements are necessary for completion of the Project during construction, the County, as the lead agency, will undertake all actions necessary to acquire, including but not limited to, temporary highway right-of-way, wetland damage Page 31 of 65 Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page | 5 mitigation and banking, drainage and ponding, and water pollution control best management practices for the Project. The costs of acquiring any necessary right-of- way for the Project, shall be shared based on the County’s and Cities’ share of the final construction costs in accordance with the current Dakota County Transportation Plan and Cost Participation policy F.3 Right-of-Way. If necessary, the Cities shall convey to the County, at no cost, all necessary permanent highway and temporary easements, on forms approved by the County Attorney’s office, on all adjacent City-controlled real property for Project purposes. Additionally, if necessary, the Cities shall convey rights to the County, at no cost, all public easements, and rights-of-way necessary for Project purposes, including the right to grade within drainage and utility easements as necessary. Any right-of-way costs for new sanitary sewer, water mains and appurtenances, and aesthetic elements outside of the right-of-way needed for the highway improvements shall be the responsibility of the Cities. 7.City Permits. The Cities will issue the County and its contractors a permit to work within their respective rights-of-way allowing the County and its contractors to work on city street right-of-way for the Project. The County, or its contractors, must secure a city building permit for retaining walls and/or other structures, and any other City permits as required by City Code for work within city rights of way, and the Cities hereby agree to waive their respective permit fees for the permits obtained by the County. Nothing in this Agreement or any permit issued by the Cities shall prevent the use of the public right-of-way by utilities, communication providers, or any other entity entitled by law to use public right-of-way. The Cities will process permits for utility work and other activities within their respective rights-of-way. 8. Construction. Construction costs shall include all highway and roadway construction items, including removals; mobilization and traffic control, temporary widening or other measures if required as part of traffic control or project staging; mitigation as required by state and federal permits including accessibility requirements; replacement or restoration of fences, landscaping and driveways when affected by construction; replacement or adjustment of sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer systems, if Page 32 of 65 Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page | 6 required due to construction; wetland mitigation and banking; and all other construction aspects outlined in the plan except for elements as called out under this Agreement or County policies included in the current adopted Dakota County Transportation Plan. 9. Construction Standards. All construction, including traffic control, shall be accomplished in accordance with applicable State Aid, County and City standards, specifications, and policies to the satisfaction of the County and Cities. The County and Cities reserves the right to inspect construction materials and methods as needed. 10. Municipal Construction Items. The Cities may elect to perform concurrent work outside what is necessary to complete the Project, such as new utility installation, utility servicing, improving adjacent streets and access modifications not required by the project. Except as noted below, the Cities shall be responsible for 100% of the following costs, including design of said elements: • Pond Dredging (Soil Management work) at Somerset Country Club for CP 63-33 –City of Mendota Heights: o The City of Mendota Heights has elected to include pond dredging at the Somerset Country Club property as part of County Project 63-33. This will include stormwater pond dredging Somerset Country Club property. County cost participation will be determined by estimated inflows from County highway facilities in accordance with Policies F.1, F.3, and F.7. • Sanitary Sewer Improvements for CP 63-33 –City of West St. Paul o The City of West St. Paul has elected to include Sanitary sewer pipe reconstruction work as part of the project. This will be a 100% cost share of the City of West St. Paul as it is an elective improvement not necessary for the project. This includes improvements in the following areas:  Marie Avenue to ~1,800 LF north of Wentworth Avenue: Replacement of existing 8” sanitary sewer pipe and spot manhole replacement and lining from Betty Lane to Thompson Avenue.  Betty Lane to Ruby Drive: Intermittent segments of sewer lining of existing 8” sanitary sewer pipe. Page 33 of 65 Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page | 7 Emerson Avenue to Dodd Road: Replacement of existing 8” sanitary sewer pipe and most of the sanitary sewer manholes. Existing Lift Station generator at corner of Delaware Avenue and Emerson Avenue to be relocated as part of the project. 11.Cost Share. After application of all applicable cost sharing provisions of this Agreement and the Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan (July 2021) Appendix A (Attachment A) polices F.1 through F.19, the County will participate in the Project as shown in the Opinion of Cost Participation (Attachment B) and as defined below after deducting federal and state cost participation amounts. It is understood that the Opinion of Cost Participation reflects an estimated cost share at the time of Agreement execution. Final costs will be based on actuals at the time of construction. The County and Cities of Mendota Heights and West St. Paul shall participate in the cost share of County Project 63-33 as follows: •F.1, Table 4 for Replacement and Modernization – Highway Replacement: This is a roadway modernization project to address roadway operation, safety improvements and fill the trail gaps on the corridor. Per the Dakota County Cost Participation policy, the County shall participate 85 percent for engineering costs, right-of-way acquisition and construction costs and the Cities shall each participate 7.5 percent. All costs associated with the Project shall be based on actual costs at the time of construction. For County Project 63-33, Saint Paul Regional Water Services (“SPRWS”) has also elected to voluntarily replace portions of the watermain. For watermain replacement work that is voluntarily replaced by SPRWS not impacted by the project, SPRWS shall pay 100% of those costs. Watermain replacement work to be impacted by project CP 63-33 (from Marie Ave to Moreland Avenue) as a result of the project improvements shall be a cost share split of 50 percent County/Cities and 50 percent SPRWS. The 50 percent share responsibility between the County/Cities shall be further cost shared between the County and Cities based on the cost share split of 85 Page 34 of 65 Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page | 8 percent County and 7.5 percent each by the Cities of Mendota Heights and West St. Paul. This includes watermain work in the following areas: From Station 1+00 to Station 7+00 (~601 ft) From Station 10+00 to Station 14+50 (~456 ft) 3 Horizontal offsets along Delaware Avenue from Marie Avenue to Moreland Avenue. o Watermain work that is voluntarily replaced by SPRWS along with the projects will be included in a separate agreement between the County and SPRWS. The County and City of West St. Paul shall participate in the cost share of County Project 4-18 as follows: •F.1, Table 4 for Replacement and Modernization – Highway Replacement: This is a roadway modernization project to address roadway operation, safety improvements and trail gaps on the corridor. Per the Dakota County Cost Participation policy, the County shall participate 85 percent for engineering costs, right-of-way acquisition and construction costs and the City of West St. Paul shall participate 15 percent. All costs associated with the Project shall be based on actual costs at the time of construction. The County will be responsible for 100 percent of the cost for existing pavement retained and/or rehabilitated through mill and overlay, resurfacing, reclamation, or other methods, as part of CP 4-18. 12.Project Cost Updates. The lead agency must provide updated cost estimates showing the County and Cities shares of Project costs annually at the time of Capital Improvement Program development. Updated cost estimates will also be provided by the lead agency at the following times: •At construction plan milestones (30%/60%/90%/Final) •prior to advertising a construction contract; •after bid opening (prior to contract award); Page 35 of 65 Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page | 9 •during construction if total contract changes exceed $25,000; •once per year following the construction season until the Project is complete. Project cost estimate updates include actual and estimated costs for Engineering Costs, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, construction, and administration. The parties acknowledge that Project cost estimates are subject to numerous variables causing the estimates to be subject to change and the updates are provided for informational purposes in good faith. Each agency is responsible for informing their respective council or board regarding Project costs estimates. 13.Payment. The County shall administer the contract and act as the paying agent for all payments to the Contractor. Payments to the Contractor will be made as Project work progresses and when certified by the County Engineer. In the event the County owes payment to a City, then the City shall invoice the County for the amount owed. Upon presentation of an itemized claim by one agency to the other, the receiving agency shall reimburse the invoicing agency for its share of the costs incurred under this Agreement upon receipt or within a maximum of 35 days from the presentation of the claim. If any portion of an itemized claim is questioned by the receiving agency, the remainder of the claim shall be promptly paid, and accompanied by a written explanation of the amounts in question. Payment of any outstanding amount will be made following good faith negotiation and documentation of actual costs incurred in carrying out the work. 14.Change Orders and Supplemental Agreements. Any change orders or supplemental agreements that affect any of the Project’s cost participation must be approved by the authorized representative of each party prior to execution of work. The City of Mendota Heights appointed representative is Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director/ City Engineer, and the City of West St. Paul appointed representative is Ross Beckwith Public Works Director / City Engineer and the County’s appointed representative is Luke Lortie, Assistant County Engineer or their successors. All Parties shall endeavor to provide timely approval of change orders and supplemental agreements so as not to delay construction operations. Page 36 of 65 Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page | 10 15.Amendments. Any amendments to this Agreement will be effective only after approval by each governing body and execution of a written amendment document by duly authorized officials of each body. 16.Effective Dates for Design and Construction of Project. This Agreement will be effective upon execution by duly authorized officials of each governing body and shall continue in effect until all work to be carried out in accordance with this Agreement has been completed. Absent an amendment, however, in no event will this Agreement continue in effect after December 31, 2031. 17.Final Acceptance. Final completion of the Project must be approved by both the County and the Cities. 18.Pavement Maintenance. Upon acceptance of the Project, the Cities shall be responsible for all pavement maintenance within their respective City-owned right-of- way. The County shall be responsible for all pavement maintenance within County- owned right-of-way unless necessitated by a failure of a City utility system or installation of new City-owned facilities. 19.Pavement Marking and Traffic Signing Maintenance. Pavement markings will be installed as applicable for the operation of the highway and intersections along the Project area as outlined in the plans. The City shall be responsible for all pavement marking and sign maintenance within City right-of-way and the County shall be responsible for all pavement marking and sign maintenance within the County right- of-way unless necessitated by installation of new facilities. 20.Drainage Area and Stormwater or Drainage Facilities Maintenance. Upon final acceptance of the Project, maintenance of any drainage areas and any stormwater or drainage facilities shall be provided in accordance with the current County and City Maintenance Agreement. 21.Sidewalks and Trails. Upon final acceptance of the Project, maintenance of sidewalks and trails shall be provided in accordance with the current adopted Dakota County Transportation Plan, Policy F.8: Participate in pavement preservation, overlay, or Page 37 of 65 Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page | 11 reconstruction of trails and sidewalks along the county highway system up to 100 percent. The city is responsible for snow and ice removal. 22.Subsequent Excavation. After completion of the Project, and after expiration of the warranty period regarding repair, if excavation within the County right-of-way is necessary to repair or install water, sanitary sewer, or other City utilities, the City shall apply for a permit from the County and shall be responsible to restore the excavated area and road surface to substantially the condition at the time of disturbance. If the City employs its own contractor for the above-described water, sewer or other utility repair or installation, the City shall hold the County harmless from any and all liability incurred due to the repair or installation of said water, sewer or other municipal utility including, but not limited to, the costs of repair as well as liability to third parties injured or damaged as a result of the work. If the City fails to have the highway properly restored, the County Engineer may have the work done and the City shall pay for the work within 35 days following receipt of a written claim by the County. 23.Rules and Regulations. The County and the Cities shall abide by Minnesota Department of Transportation standard specifications, rules, and contract administration procedures unless amended by the contract specifications. 24.Indemnification. The County agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Cities against any and all claims, liability, loss, damage, or expense arising under the provisions of this Agreement and caused by or resulting from negligent acts or omissions of the County and/or those of County employees or agents. The Cities agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County against any and all claims, liability, loss, damage, or expense arising under the provisions of this Agreement for which the City is responsible, including future operation and maintenance of facilities owned by the City and caused by or resulting from negligent acts or omissions of the City and/or those of City employees or agents. All parties to this agreement recognize that liability for any claims arising under this agreement are subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Municipal Tort Claims Law; Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. In the event of any claims or actions filed against either party, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to allow a claimant to obtain separate judgments or separate liability Page 38 of 65 Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page | 12 caps from the individual parties. The County shall include the Cities as additional insured in the contract documents. 25.Employees of Parties. Any and all persons engaged in the work to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the Cities, for any purpose, including Worker’s Compensation, and any and all claims that may or might arise out of said employment context on behalf of said employees while so engaged. Any and all claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the County’s employees while so engaged on any of the work contemplated herein shall not be the obligation or responsibility of the Cities. Any and all persons engaged in the work to be performed by the Cities shall not be considered employees of the County for any purpose, including Worker’s Compensation, and any and all claims that may or might arise out of said employment context on behalf of said employee while so engaged. Any and all claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omissions of the part of the Cities’ employees while so engaged on any of the work contemplated herein shall not be the obligation or responsibility of the County. 26.Audits. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sec 16 C. 05, Subd. 5, any books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the County and the City relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the County or the City and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor as appropriate. The County and the City agree to maintain these records for a period of six years from the date of performance of all services covered under this Agreement. 27.Integration and Continuing Effect. The entire and integrated agreement of the Parties contained in this Agreement shall supersede all prior negotiations, representations or agreements between the City and the County regarding the Project; whether written or oral. All agreements for future maintenance or cost responsibilities shall survive and continue in full force and effect in accordance with the Dakota County Transportation Plan after completion of the construction provided for in this Agreement. 28.Authorized Representatives. The authorized representatives for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement are: Page 39 of 65 Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page | 13 COUNTY OF DAKOTA Erin Laberee, Dakota County Engineer (or successor) 14955 Galaxie Ave. Apple Valley, MN 55124 Office: (952) 891-7100 Erin.Laberee@co.dakota.mn.us CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Ryan Ruzek, City Engineer (or successor) 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Office: [651-255-1152] rruzek@mendotaheightsmn.gov CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL Ross Beckwith, City Engineer (or successor) 1616 Humboldt Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55118 Office: [651-552-4130] rbeckwith@wspmn.gov All notices or communications required or permitted by this Agreement shall be either hand delivered or mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the above addresses. Either party may change its address by written notice to the other party. Mailed notice shall be deemed complete two business days after the date of mailing. [SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW] Page 40 of 65 Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page | 14 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officials. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By Public Works Director Mayor (SEAL) By City Attorney Date By City Clerk Date: Page 41 of 65 Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page | 15 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officials. CITY OF WEST ST PAUL RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By Public Works Director Mayor (SEAL) By City Attorney Date By City Clerk Date: Page 42 of 65 Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page | 16 COUNTY OF DAKOTA RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: __________________________ By: County Engineer Assistant County Manager, Physical Development Division Date: COUNTY BOARD RESOLUTION No. 26-039 Date: January 20, 2026 Page 43 of 65 ATTACHMENT A Goal 1: Limited Resources are Directed to the Highest Priority Needs of the Transportation System F.1 Cost Participation - Roadway For cities with populations over 5,000, the county will participate in engineering and construction costs for county highway and associated improvements as defined in Table 4 after deducting federal and state cost participation amounts, for the following cost-shared items, individually or in combination, for projects included in the adopted County CIP: 1.Highway construction. 2.Mitigation required by local, state and federal permits, including accessibility requirements. 3.Eligible storm sewer and other drainage facilities based on contributing flows meeting State Aid sharing factors. 4.Replacement or restoration of fences, landscaping, and driveways when affected by construction. 5.Centerline drainage culverts. 6.Existing traffic signals as part of a roadway project. 7.Replace or adjust sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer systems, if required due to county highway construction. 8.Replace or adjust privately owned public utilities when utilities exist within privately held easements. 9.Eligible water pollution control best management practice items based on the county's share of contributing flows and meeting National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards such as outlet structures, sedimentation basins and ponds, and temporary erosion control. This includes recognition of the best management practices and systems necessary to meet all local, county, state or federal storm water treatment requirements. 10.Trail and sidewalks along county highways including pedestrian crossing improvements such as beacons, median refuges and bump outs, and overpasses or underpasses, including the Transportation share of greenway crossings, as deemed necessary by the county for safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicycles in the highway right-of-way. 11.Lighting of sidewalks and trails adjacent to county highways in marked school zones and pedestrian crossings in county highways right-of-way. 12.Transit infrastructure improvements on highways, including bus pullouts, bus shelter pads, and other pedestrian facilities determined necessary to support transit. The county will be responsible for 100 percent of the costs of existing pavement retained and/or rehabilitated through mill and overlay, resurfacing, reclamation, or other methods, as part of the final project. Applicable cost share policies will be applied to all other new construction or reconstruction involving excavation, installation, and placement of other new or reconstructed infrastructure. All other maintenance responsibilities not stated within a policy are county responsibilities. This policy (F.1) also is applied to the county highway portion of trunk highway projects. Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page 44 of 65 Investment Goal Activities by County/City Share NOTE: The county is responsible for operation, maintenance and power cost for enhanced or dynamic signing unless otherwise noted. F.2 Cost Participation - Aesthetic Participate in aesthetics up to three percent of the county share of highway construction costs (excluding right-of-way, bridges, ponds, and storm sewers) prior to application of federal, state, or jurisdictional transfer funds. The county share of aesthetic participation may not exceed the local cost share for aesthetics. Aesthetics may include landscaping, plantings, decorative pavements, surface treatments, or decorative fencing. The county will not participate in aesthetics on preservation or management projects. Aesthetic elements are subject to clear zone and sight line requirements, may not hinder normal maintenance operations, or degrade safety or operation of the highway, including trail or sidewalk facilities. The county will not participate in additional right-of-way necessary for only aesthetic enhancements. The local agency is responsible for maintenance of all aesthetic elements. Failure to maintain aesthetic elements may result in the local agency no longer being eligible for aesthetic funding participation. The county reserves the right to remove non- maintained aesthetic elements and recover costs from the local agency. Please refer to individual policies for specific details. Investment County City Cost Share Goal Activities Share Share Comments Policy Paved Highway Surface 100% 0% Gravel Highway Surface Bridge Rehabilitation Preservation Traffic Safety and Operation F.17 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities F.8 Retaining Wall Rail Crossings Storm Sewer Maintenance up to Up to 80% County for leads and up to 80% F.7 80%City for mainline Small Safety Projects up to 100%F.15 Management Roundabouts up to 15%+15% City share per City leg F.13 85% New Traffic Signals 55% 45%F.4 Highway Replacement 85% 15%Includes improvements such as turn lanes,F.1 Replacement and Bridge Replacement medians, shoulders, trails, sidewalks and F.2 Modernization Gravel Road Paving school zone and pedestrian crossing lighting.F.3 Lane Reductions Does not include additional through lanes,F.19 2- to 3-Lane Modernization small safety projects, traffic signals or interchanges. Signal Replacement and Modernization up to Cost split per leg F.4 100% Replacement and Aesthetics up to Up to 3% of construction cost F.2 Modernization 3% and Expansion Principal Arterials - non-Freeway 85% 15%Does not include small safety projects,F.1 traffic signals or interchanges F.2 10-ton Routes and 6-lane -1/2 mile spacing 75% 25%Does not include small safety projects,F.3 Expansion roundabouts, traffic signals or interchanges F.14 All Other Expansion Projects 55% 45% Interchanges avg. legs Average of legs Table 4. Dakota County Highway Cost Share Policy Overview Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page 45 of 65 F.3 Cost Participation - Right-of-Way For cities with populations over 5,000, the county will participate in the cost of right-of-way for county highway and associated improvements as defined in Table 4 for existing highways where right-of-way is required for: 1. The construction of items described in F.1, (1-11), F.4 (Traffic Signals), and F.13 (Roundabouts) provided city land use decisions have supported right-of-way needs in the corridor. 2. The county's portion of storm sewer and other drainage facilities based on contributing flows meeting State Aid sharing factors. 3. The county portion of water pollution control best management practice items based on the county's share of the contributing flows and meeting NPDES standards. This includes recognition of the best management practices and systems necessary to meet all local, county, state or federal storm water treatment requirements. F.4 Cost Participation – Traffic Signals Traffic signals on county highways including construction costs for attached streetlights, interconnection, pre-emption, etc., will be eligible for the following county engineering and construction item participation after subtracting federal and/or state funds as follows: 1. New traffic signal installation, both independent installations or when included with a broader highway project, up to 55 percent county funds. 2. Existing traffic signal replacement or modernization including operational revisions for independent intersection projects such as flashing yellow arrows and pedestrian indications up to the percentage of intersection approach legs under county jurisdiction. 3. 100 percent of traffic signal removals and any directly associated intersection revision construction costs as independent or included in a broader highway project. 4. County standard for signal poles is galvanized. Initial painting and maintenance re-painting costs are aesthetic and is at city cost. F.5 Cost Participation Involving Federal and State Funds Subtract from the county eligible project costs, funds received from regional federal solicitation, Trunk Highway Fund, Trunk Highway Jurisdictional Transfer Fund, or federal or state grants, with the balance of remaining costs divided according to applicable county policies. F.6 Cost Participation for Populations Less Than 5,000 Pay all costs for eligible construction and reconstruction for county highway improvements in cities with populations less than 5,000 and all townships. F.7 Cost Participation for Storm Sewer System Maintenance Share the cost of city maintenance of the following elements of county transportation facility storm water drainage systems: 1. Roadway catch basins and pipes connecting catch basins to mainline pipes are eligible for up to 80 percent county participation, or the county share of contributing flows, whichever is less. 2. Mainline pipes at a minimum of 20 percent or the county’s share of contributing flows, whichever is greater. 3. Storm water treatment and mitigation facilities based on the county's share of contributing flows. Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page 46 of 65 4.To be eligible for county participation, a system-wide maintenance agreement between the county and local agency will be required to identify system-wide storm water roles and cost responsibilities. These cost share agreements are for actual repair and replacement projects and not for routine maintenance activities such as cleaning. 5.To be eligible for county participation, storm sewer repair and maintenance projects must be included in the currently adopted CIP or be approved by the county prior to incurring costs. F.8 Multi-Use Trails and Sidewalk Maintenance Participate in pavement preservation, overlay, or reconstruction of trails and sidewalks along the county highway system up to 100 percent. The city is responsible for snow and ice removal. To be eligible for county participation in trails and sidewalks, a system-wide maintenance agreement between the county and local agency will be required to identify system-wide trail and sidewalk roles and cost responsibilities. F.9 Transit Capital and Operating Consider participation in transit capital and operating enhancements, or pilot projects, up to 50 percent after application of federal or state funds available for the project as determined by the county. F.10 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Costs Subtract from the county eligible project costs, the costs of highway improvements or other highway costs (e.g. turn lanes, traffic controls, etc.), which are, in the determination of the county, the result of tax increment financing plan or an amendment to a TIF plan with the balance of costs divided according to policies. County Board resolution is required for any significant deviation from this policy. F.11 Township Allotment Fund As requested by the township and approved by the County Engineer, use the "township allotment" to fund: 1.50 percent of township road or bridge construction projects. 2.Intersection lighting of county highways, including energy costs. (Energy costs will be submitted on an annual basis.) 3.Sign replacement funding. F.12 Capital Improvement Program Annually prepare and review the five-year Transportation, Transportation Sales and Use Tax and Regional Railroad Authority CIP’s. F.13 Cost Participation – Roundabouts Participate up to 85 percent of the costs for eligible engineering and construction items, including streetlights and other features determined as necessary for operation, for roundabouts as described in Policy F.1. as follows: o County Intersections: 25 percent base level of participation plus 15 percent for each county approach leg of the intersection. o Trunk Highway Intersections: 85 percent for each county leg of the intersection after application of federal and/or state funds. The county does not participate in strictly aesthetic elements for roundabout projects. Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page 47 of 65 F.14 Cost Participation – Future County Road Segments At county discretion, participate in the construction and engineering costs in accordance with F.1 for constructing local roadways that are identified as future county highway segments to county standards, over and above the costs that would have been incurred to construct the segment to city collector street standards. F.15 Cost Participation – Small Safety Projects The county may participate up to 100 percent of the engineering and construction costs of the following project types based on county review or prioritization to improve the safety of the transportation system, provided that they would not otherwise be included in a larger management, replacement and modernization or expansion project, or permit request: 1.Median closures or modifications; 2.Access closures or modifications; 3.Streetlights at intersections, marked pedestrian crossing locations and lighting along county highway trails within school zones with demonstrated safety benefit based on county evaluation – Participate up to 100 percent for power and maintenance costs; 4.Turn lanes or channelization at the intersection of two county highways; 5.Pedestrian crossing improvements including median refuges, bump outs, and pavement markings; 6.Guardrail Installation; and 7.ADA required safety improvements including curb ramps, sidewalk and bus shelter pads, and sidewalk connections within county highway right-of-way. F.16 Cost Participation – Local Roadway System The county may participate up to 85 percent, as defined on Table 4, of the costs for construction of local roadways necessary to directly mitigate physical, safety or operational deficiencies on the county highway system. Actual participation amount shall be based on the quantifiable benefit to the county highway system, as determined by the county based on engineering study. Local roadway construction costs that will be considered include: 1.Costs associated with relocation and construction of portions of the local roadway system to provide for its continuity and operation at a level that approximates its condition prior to construction of a county highway project. 2.Costs associated with improvements necessary to adequately accommodate county highway traffic detoured onto a local roadway during county highway construction. 3.Costs to improve local roadways to adequately accommodate traffic turning from the county highway onto a local roadway due to the addition of turn lanes on the county highway. 4.Costs directly associated with removal or consolidation of existing access to the county highway system. 5.Costs associated with construction of a local roadway that directly mitigates an existing county highway safety or operational issue or directly eliminates or significantly delays the need to expand the county highway system. F.17 Traffic Signal and Street Lighting Power Costs and Maintenance Responsibilities Participate in the maintenance and power costs for new and replacement traffic signals and standard streetlights as follows. Aesthetically enhanced and decorative streetlights are subject to Policy F.2. A.New and Replacement Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page 48 of 65 a.Installation (New and Replacement) Streetlights at intersections, marked pedestrian crossing locations and lighting along county highway trails within school zones with demonstrated safety benefit based on county evaluation – Participate up to 100 percent for power and maintenance costs. b.Street lighting at roundabouts – The county will be responsible for power costs and maintenance on county-county and state-county intersection roundabouts and the city will be responsible on city-county intersection roundabouts. c.Street lighting, maintenance and power costs for traffic signals – The county will participate in power costs for traffic signals including the streetlight up to the percentage of intersection approach legs under county jurisdiction. The streetlights must be energy saving and connected to the service cabinet. Street lighting is the luminaire, pole and all wiring located above the signal mast arm. The city is responsible for maintenance of streetlights and all costs for unmetered services. Painting maintenance of streetlights for signals is 100 percent city responsibility. B.Existing a.Energy saving light retrofits - The county does not participate. Cities may elect to retrofit streetlights at their cost and by permit through the county. F.18 County Advanced Funding for City Cost Participation The county will consider advancing the local share of a project, consistent with adopted county cost participation policies, in the approved CIP’s by agreement with the city involved when all the following criteria are met: 1.The county determines there is a need on the county transportation system that should be addressed sooner than city funding allows. 2.The county has the available funds to pay the city cost share at the time the cost will be incurred. 3.The city submits a request to the county explaining the reason(s) for the county to advance fund their share. 4.The plan for city repayment is defined in an agreement between the city and county. 5.County advance funding is limited to a maximum 3-year period. F.19 Left Turn Lane/Access Permit Process In cities over 5,000 in population, the county will participate up to 85 percent of one half (42.5 percent) of the engineering, right-of-way and construction costs for left turn lanes required by the county through the access permitting process on high speed, two-lane, undivided county highways to accommodate a new access across from an existing access that does not have an existing left turn or bypass lane. For locations in cities under 5,000 in population or townships, the county may participate up to 50 percent of the engineering, right-of-way and construction costs. Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page 49 of 65 Updated 8/10/2026 POLICY CODE COUNTY CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL SPLIT NOTES F.4 R 85%15.0%General Cost split for the Project (85/15) F.1 M 100%0.0%Surface improvements to Butler Ave WS 85.0%7.50%Watermin share between agencies W 0%0%100% SPRWS responsibility Estimated costs or estimated percentages E Any pending costs that are likely to hit the project P Actual project costs A CIP Budgets from current year C 85% CODE ESTIMATE NOTES %R M SPRWS R - Kimley Horn (Preliminary & Final Design)A incl. ROW 186,956$ N/A N/A N/A 32,992$ N/A - Kimley Horn (Final Design Amendment 1)A 22,141$ N/A N/A N/A 3,907$ -$ -Public Engagement Mailing/Advertisement -$ N/A N/A N/A -$ N/A Design Totals 209,097$ -$ -$ 36,899$ -$ Combined (County/City) Eng/Admin - DESIGN (20%)E percentage 20.0%41,819$ N/A N/A N/A 7,380$ N/A Combined (County/City) Eng/Admin - R/W (12.5%)E percentage 12.5%26,137$ N/A N/A N/A 4,612$ N/A County Eng/Admin - CONST. (6%)E percentage 6.0%36,709$ N/A N/A N/A 6,478$ N/A DC/Cities Labor Totals 104,665$ -$ -$ -$ 18,470$ -$ - Henning (Appraisals)KH Contract 82,039$ N/A N/A N/A 14,478$ N/A - Henning (Review Appraisals)KH Contract -$ N/A N/A N/A -$ N/A -R/W (Settled)A 19,635$ N/A N/A N/A 3,465$ N/A -R/W (Unsettled)P 1,955$ N/A N/A N/A 345$ N/A -Commissioners Time E 4,250$ N/A N/A N/A 750$ N/A -County Attorney Time E 6,800$ N/A N/A N/A 1,200$ N/A Right of Way Totals 114,679$ -$ -$ -$ 20,238$ -$ - Construction Estimate (60% Estimate, minus watermain)E 60% Estimate 313,679$ 30,747$ 320,000$ -$ 55,355$ - Watermain Work E 78,200$ -$ -$ 73,600$ 13,800$ N/A -Contingency (10%)E percentage 10%75,257$ -$ -$ -$ 13,281$ N/A -Incentives (1%)E percentage 1.0%6,118$ -$ -$ -$ 1,080$ N/A -Mn/Dot Testing (0.8%)E percentage 0.8%4,895$ -$ -$ -$ 864$ N/A -Permits E -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ N/A Construction Totals 478,149$ 30,747$ 320,000$ 73,600$ 84,379$ -$ 906,590$ 30,747$ 320,000$ 73,600$ 159,987$ -$ 937,337$ 159,987$ 73,600$ 320,000$ 1,490,924$ City of West St Paul Total SPRWS Total PROJECT TOTALS COLUMN TOTALS 1,631,800$ 1,490,924$ USDOT Total CP 04-18 - COST SPLIT SUMMARY Dakota County TotalCOLNSTRUCTIONConstruction (Global 85/15, specific items broken out below) 719,781$ Total construction costs, not including watermain (broken out separately by agency cost share below) 165,600$ Separated out watermain work to capture splits 1,150,000$ 986,875$ 88,538$ Using 10% contingency from PRE 60% estimate 7,198$ 5,758$ 8,000$ 150,000$ 134,917$ 143,750$ 123,136$ RIGHT OF WAYRight of Way (85/15 Split) 96,517$ Part of the KH contract; broke out from K-H contract on 7/23/26 (90.5% To 63-33, 9.5% to 4-18) Part of the KH contract 23,100$ *Will fine-tune cost-splits as the appraisal process progresses. 2,300$ appraisal offers are being reviewed. 5,000$ *Will fine-tune cost-splits as the appraisal process progresses. 49,199$ 20% of KH design contract, including pending amendments - costs captured in CP 63-33 30,750$ 43,187$ 188,050$ 245,996$ Total Labor Costs (85/15 Split)Combine as a general cost (capturing all staff time across county/cities) DRAFT Amendment 10/26/25 - applied 12% of contract to 4-18 City of West St. Paul (100%) USDOT Award (trail construction)PROJECT DELIVERYPreliminary & Final Design (85/15 Split) 219,948$ Executed contract (DCA21933) - applied 12% of contract to 4-18 26,048$ Comments CP 4-18 | Butler Ave Sidewalk & Trail Improvements CIP Programmed Budgets Total (Estimated if not known) Dakota County (85%) Dakota County (100%) SPRWS (100%) City of West St. Paul (15%) Insert CIP Budget CP 4-18 | Butler Ave Sidewalk & Trail Improvements Cost Split Worksheeet TYPE REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION MILL & OVERLAY / MICROSURFACING WATERMAIN - 50% OF COST SPLIT BETWEEN AGENCIES WATERMAIN - 100% SPRWS Estimated Cost Pending Actual Cost Attachment BDakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page 50 of 65 Updated 8/10/2026 POLICY CODE COUNTY %CITY 1 % MENDOTA HTS CITY 2 % WEST ST. PAUL SPLIT NOTES F.4 R 85%7.5%7.5%General Cost split for the Project (85/15) GC GC -100.0%-Parts of the Improvement for MH - Pond Dredging SAN SAN --100.0%WSP Sanitary Sewer Replacement (Marie Ave to Wentworth Ave / Emerson Ave to Dodd Road) = 100% WSP WS 85.0%7.50%7.50%Watermain 50/50 Split between DC/MH/WSP (85/15 of 50% between County & 2 cities) W 0%0%0%100% SPRWS responsibility Estimated costs or estimated percentages E Any pending costs that are likely to hit the project P Actual project costs A CIP Budgets from current year C 85% CODE ESTIMATE NOTES %R N/A SPRWS R R GC SAN DELAWARE AVE - FROM MARIE TO DODD RD. - Kimley Horn (Preliminary & Final Design)A incl. ROW 689,711$ N/A N/A 60,857$ 60,857$ N/A N/A - Kimley Horn (Final Design Amendment 1)A 184,510$ N/A N/A 16,280$ 16,280$ -$ -$ -Public Engagement Mailing/Advertisement A 2,364$ N/A N/A 209$ 417$ N/A N/A Design Totals 876,585$ -$ -$ 77,346$ 77,554$ -$ -$ Combined (County/City) Staff Eng/Admin - DESIGN (20%)E percentage 20.0%175,317$ N/A N/A 15,469$ 15,469$ N/A N/A Combined (County/City) Eng/Admin - R/W (12.5%)E percentage 12.5%109,573$ N/A N/A 9,668$ 9,668$ N/A N/A County Eng/Admin - CONST. (6%)E percentage 6.0%606,859$ N/A N/A 53,546$ 53,546$ N/A N/A DC/Cities Labor Totals 891,749$ -$ -$ 78,684$ 78,684$ -$ -$ - Henning (Appraisals)KH Contract 786,214$ N/A N/A 69,372$ 69,372$ N/A N/A - Henning (Review Appraisals)KH Contract -$ N/A N/A -$ -$ N/A N/A -R/W (Settled)A 1,541,348$ N/A N/A 136,001$ 136,001$ N/A N/A -R/W (Unsettled)P 286,620$ N/A N/A 25,290$ 25,290$ N/A N/A -Commissioners Time E 10,200$ N/A N/A 900$ 900$ N/A N/A -County Attorney Time E 17,000$ N/A N/A 1,500$ 1,500$ N/A N/A Right of Way Totals 2,641,382$ -$ 233,063$ 233,063$ -$ -$ - Construction Estimate (90% Estimate, minus watermain)E 90% Estimate 9,066,271$ -$ -$ 799,965$ 799,965$ 248,321$ 984,675$ - Watermain Work (shared)E 423,700$ -$ 498,470.00$ 37,385$ 37,385$ N/A N/A - Watermain Work (100% SPRWS)E -$ 479,600.00$ -Contingency (10%)E percentage 10%1,136,938$ -$ -$ 100,318$ 100,318$ N/A N/A -Incentives (1%)E percentage 1.0%101,143$ -$ -$ 8,924$ 8,924$ N/A N/A -Mn/Dot Testing (0.8%)E percentage 0.8%80,915$ -$ -$ 7,140$ 7,140$ N/A N/A -Permits E -$ -$ -$ -$ N/A N/A Construction Totals 10,808,966$ -$ 978,070$ 953,732$ 953,732$ 248,321$ 984,675$ 15,218,681$ -$ 978,070$ 1,342,825$ 1,343,033$ 248,321$ 984,675$ 15,218,681$ 1,591,145$ 2,327,708$ 978,070$ 20,115,605$ REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION WATERMAIN - 100% SPRWS SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT - 100% WSP TYPE CIP Programmed Budgets Dakota County (85%) Dakota County (100%) City of West St. Paul (7.5%) City of West St. Paul (100%) City of Mendota Heights (7.5%) City of Mendota Heights (100%) WATERMAIN - 50% OF COST SPLIT BETWEEN AGENCIES GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS (POND DREDGING) *Will fine-tune cost-splits as the appraisal process progresses. Total Labor Costs (85/15 Split) 1,160,000$ 600,000$ Preliminary & Final Design (85/15 Split) Right of Way (85/15 Split) Part of the KH contract; broke out from K-H contract on 7/23/26 (90.5% To 63-33, 9.5% to 4-18) Part of the KH contract Comments 337,200$ Total (Estimated if not known) Insert CIP Budget SPRWS (100%)PROJECT DELIVERYRIGHT OF WAYCOLNSTRUCTIONCP 63-33 | Delaware Ave Reconstruciton 20,115,396$ 1,049,116$ COLUMN TOTALS 206,255$ 128,910$ 713,952$ 1,337,574$ 118,992$ 95,194$ 14,927,496$ 12,000$ 20,000$ 11,899,197$ 3,107,508$ 1,813,350$ *Will fine-tune cost-splits as the appraisal process progresses. 996,940$ 479,600$ CP 63-33 | Delaware Ave Reconstruciton Cost Split Worksheeet Estimated Cost Pending Actual Cost 811,425$ 217,070$ 2,781$ 1,031,276$ 924,958$ Executed contract (DCA21933) - applied 88% of contract to 63-33 Executed in May 2026 - applied 88% of contract to 63-33 misc. print and mail jobs appraisal offers are being reviewed. Combine as a general cost (capturing all staff time across county/cities) 20% of KH design contract, including pending amendments Dakota County Total City of West St Paul Total SPRWS Total PROJECT TOTALS City of Mendota Heights Total Total construction costs, not including watermain (broken out separately by agency cost share below) Watermain 50/50 Split between DC/MH/WSP (85/15 of 50% between County & 2 cities) 100% SPRWS responsibility Using 10% contingency from PRE 60% estimate Construction (Global 85/15, specific items broken out below) 18,260,000$ 2,000,000$ 14,500,000$ CP 63-33 - COST SPLIT SUMMARY Dakota County Contract #DCA24225/DCA24226 CP 63-33/4-18 Page 51 of 65 Page 52 of 657.f Page 53 of 65 Page 54 of 65 Page 55 of 65 Page 56 of 65 Page 57 of 65 Page 58 of 65 Page 59 of 65 Page 60 of 65 Page 61 of 65 Page 62 of 65 This page is intentionally left blank 8.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 18, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: MRPA Award of Excellence ITEM TYPE: Presentation DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Accept the MRPA Award of Excellence for the category of "Administrative and Management." BACKGROUND: Chelsea Swenhaugen, Recreation Coordinator for the City of Inver Grove Heights, representing the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association (MRPA) will present the 2025 MRPA Award of Excellence to the City of Mendota Heights. The MRPA annually recognizes communities for excellence in administrative and management projects. The Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation team was awarded the 2025 MRPA Award of Excellence for the Park System Master Plan. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 63 of 65 This page is intentionally left blank 8.b REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 18, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Overview of Police Staffing and Operations ITEM TYPE: Presentation DEPARTMENT: Police CONTACT: Kelly McCarthy, Police Chief ACTION REQUEST: Informational. BACKGROUND: Staff will provide high-level overview of police operations. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 64 of 65 This page is intentionally left blank 10.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 18, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Municipal Campus Building Project Update ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator 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 Police Station and City Hall. The new building will replace the existing facility located at 1101 Victoria Curve, which was built in the late 1980s. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None, for this project update. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 65 of 65