Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
09 01 2026 CC Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 1, 2026 at 6:00 PM Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Pledge of Allegiance 4.Approval of the Agenda The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions or deletions to the agenda. These items may be submitted after the agenda preparation deadline. 5.Public Comments - for items not on the agenda Public comments provide an opportunity to address the City Council on items which are not on the meeting agenda. All are welcome to speak. Individuals should address their comments to the City Council as a whole, not individual members. Speakers are requested to come to the podium and must state their name and address. Comments are limited to three (3) minutes. No action will be taken; however, the Mayor and Council may ask clarifying questions as needed or request staff to follow up. 6.Consent Agenda Items on the consent agenda are approved by one motion of the City Council. If a councilmember requests additional information or wants to make a comment on an item, the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Items removed from the consent agenda will be taken up as the next order of business. a.Approve Minutes from the August 18, 2026, City Council Meeting b.Approve Minutes from the August 18, 2026, City Council Work Session Meeting c.Approve Minutes from the August 20, 2026, City Council Work Session Meeting d.Acknowledge the June and July Par 3 Financial Reports e.Approve Resolution 2026-54 Approving an Administrative MRCCA Minor Development Permit for 1143 Orchard Circle [Planning Case No. 2026-16] f.Adopt Resolution 2026-55 Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $1,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2026A Page 1 of 217 g.Approve June 2026 and July 2026 Treasurer's Report h.Approve Purchase Order for Lift Station Security Improvements i.Approve Out of Metro Travel Request j.Acknowledge 1Q & 2Q Financial and Building Activity Reports k.Approve Claims List 7.Presentations a.Police Department Squad Program Update 8.Public Hearings 9.New and Unfinished Business a.Municipal Campus Building Project — Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet b.Municipal Campus Building Project Update 10.Community / City Administrator Announcements 11.City Council Comments 12.Adjourn Next Meeting September 15, 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 217 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, August 18, 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 PRESENTATION OF A CITIZEN’S AWARD OF MERIT Police Chief Kelly McCarthy provided information on an incident that occurred on June 29, 2026, and the actions taken by Michael Mealman. She presented Mr. Mealman with the Citizen’s Award of Merit. Mr. Mealman commented that he worked a long, ten-hour day, and when he received the alert, he made the decision to go back to the area where he had seen someone matching that description. He then called the police and stayed with the man until the police arrived. Mayor Levine thanked Mr. Mealman for his efforts. Councilor Maczko thanked Mr. Mealman for not walking away and making the decision to be involved. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Levine commented that many years ago, a group of neighbors came to the City Council to request a dog run at the Marie Park hockey rink. She stated that the chambers were full of people who wanted to be heard and instead, the Mayor held the vote without public input. She remembered feeling frustrated, which is one of the reasons her practice has been to allow public comment, and for almost six years that Page 3 of 217 6.a August 18, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 14 has happened, until two weeks ago when a vote was taken before the public spoke. She commented that was unintentional, and she recognized that the job of the Council is to listen to residents. She stated that going forward, public comments will be a regular part of the Municipal Campus Project item, after the staff report is provided. She stated that public comments are comments that are not vetted and occur just before discussion and a vote of the Council. She recognized that public comment is not the same as a conversation or input provided through email, where there would be an opportunity to fact-check. 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 items A and F. a.Approval of August 5, 2026 City Council Minutes b.Approve Contracts for the 2026 Street Maintenance and 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. Paul for Delaware Avenue Reconstruction Improvements f.Approval of Claims List Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A) APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 5, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Councilor Maczko stated that at the last Council meeting there was a comment made about protocol and that if there was a question about the minutes, that should be presented to the City Clerk, who can then review the recording. He asked what the official record of a meeting is, whether that is the video or the approved minutes. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that the official record of the proceedings is the minutes, as the City is not required to cablecast or record City Council meetings. She referenced Councilor Maczko’s request and stated that the approved action was to amend the minutes, noting that the City Clerk would follow that direction to amend the minutes. Councilor Maczko asked if he followed the appropriate protocol or whether he should have brought that concern to the City Clerk ahead of the meeting. He asked where the amended minutes would be found. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson commented that grammatical changes are often sent to her ahead of a meeting and are then made ahead of a meeting where those minutes will be reviewed. Page 4 of 217 August 18, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 14 City Clerk Nancy Bauer explained the process that she follows for the work session minutes, noting that if there are changes proposed to the regular meetings, she can go back to the notes of the meeting to verify that information. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that minutes can be approved with the amendment proposed. Councilor Lorberbaum stated that she often sends a note to staff and the Mayor with proposed changes ahead of the meeting. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson commented that those are not substantive changes, so the full Council does not need to review those. She stated that substantive changes are presented before the Council for consideration. Councilor Maczko reiterated that grammatical changes can be submitted to staff and substantive changes should be presented at the Council meeting. Councilor Maczko moved to approve THE AUGUST 5, 2026 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS PRESENTED. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 F) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS LIST Councilor Maczko referenced the line item for ICS, noting that to date through July 31st, the City has spent $1,295,000, which averages about $240,000 per month or $200 per hour. He stated that would average out to 7.5 people per day working five days per week. He commented that there is not a lot of detail and therefore had questions, noting that there was also billing for construction management when they have not yet done any construction. Mayor Levine commented that this is consideration of the claims list and believed that this is a broader question that should occur separately related to the contract with ICS. Councilor Maczko commented that he would like more information on the details of that payment. Mayor Levine commented that would still be a separate item and broader question. She stated that there will be additional follow-up from staff that can be brought back with information on the ICS contract. Councilor Maczko asked for clarification on the action item before the Council and whether it is Council approval to pay these bills, or acknowledgement that these bills have been paid. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson commented that she understands that Councilor Maczko would like a breakdown of billings submitted by ICS and paid by the City, with more detail related to whether the charge is related to people hours or a percentage of the contract. She asked that Councilor Maczko provide staff with additional time to supply that information. Page 5 of 217 August 18, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 14 Finance Director Kristen Schabacker explained that the claims list is a list of the bills and once approved by the Council, the City runs the checks and mails them out. Councilor Maczko asked if he could request the check to be pulled and held, pending additional information. Finance Director Kristen Schabacker explained that the check would be printed, but she would hold it and/or void it. Councilor Maczko moved to approve THE CLAIMS LIST, PULLING THE PAYMENT TO ICS PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve THE CLAIMS LIST. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 1 (Maczko) PRESENTATIONS A) MRPA AWARD OF EXCELLENCE Chelsea Swenhaugen, Recreation Coordinator for the City of Inver Grove Heights, spoke in representation of the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association (MRPA) and presented the 2025 MRPA Award of Excellence to the City of Mendota Heights. Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence commented that this is an award for the entire community, thanking all those who were involved in making this project successful. She also thanked Ms. Swenhaugen for attending tonight. B) OVERVIEW OF POLICE STAFFING AND OPERATIONS Police Chief Kelly McCarthy provided a high-level overview of Police operations, including staffing, staffing models, training, and training expenses. She provided more information on calls for service and call types, other data points, community events, regional partnerships, and public data. She provided an example of the actual scope of a call versus what is publicly shared. She noted that future presentations would be provided on additional Police programs. Councilor Lorberbaum asked for more information on TDZ and street racing. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy replied that TDZ is Towards Zero Deaths, a State-funded grant project that historically brought together multiple agencies to focus on reducing traffic fatalities. She stated that the program is changing this year to be more localized. She commented that there is a street racing task force the department also participates in. The Council thanked Police Chief Kelly McCarthy and the department for the work they do. Page 6 of 217 August 18, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 14 PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) MUNICIPAL CAMPUS BUILDING PROJECT UPDATE Kyle Watler, ICS, provided a project update for the Municipal Campus Building Project. Councilor Lorberbaum asked about the current price of the building as proposed, recognizing the State funding of $4,000,000 towards the project. Mr. Walter stated that the current cost would be $35,251,452, which, after the State funding, would be $31,251,452. Councilor Lorberbaum asked about the current size of the facility and what the reduction was. Mr. Walter stated that the square footage based on the current need was around 48,000 to 49,000 square feet. He stated that the 20-year need was around 51,000 square feet. He noted that any further reduction would reduce the current programming needs. Councilor Maczko asked what the State bonding funds can be used to pay for. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson replied that the grant is for predesign and design. Councilor Maczko asked if that would include construction management. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson replied that the grant was not specifically written for construction or construction management. Councilor Maczko recognized the total contract with ICS is for $3,900,000, which included construction management, and asked if the City would need to request approval from the legislature if it wanted to spend the State funds on other project aspects. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson explained that if the City wanted to add in construction, that would require a change from the legislature. Mayor Levine commented that the City has been allocated $4,000,000 and it was her understanding that the $4,000,000 would be able to be used fully on the predesign and design. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that it is their assumption that they will be close to the $4,000,000 in expenses for the predesign and design services. Councilor Maczko referenced the contract amount with ICS of $3,900,000 and change, which included construction management and some other elements. He noted that some of that cost was incurred prior to Page 7 of 217 August 18, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 14 the signing of the bill, and it was his understanding that the City would need to cover the costs that were incurred before that time. He commented that it would seem they cannot use all of the $4,000,000 that was allocated. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that is a potential. She stated that they would need to review the billing breakdown to better hone in on that number and predict forward with the design work that remains. Mr. Walter stated that they also need to clarify additional expenses that may be outside of ICS, such as geotechnical work and a test well. Councilor Maczko asked if the ICS contract cost is going to increase because of the B3 requirements. Mr. Walter replied that the contract is based on the total project cost and, as the cost has changed, there will be an associated cost for the contract. He stated that they want to get a better understanding before ICS presents the updated numbers. Mayor Levine welcomed public input. Sandra Krebsbach, 1230 Culligan Lane, recognized that this is not an easy task for the Council, as it has always been known that there would be work required on this facility. She spoke about how this process has moved without real input from the residents. She commented that residents always expected that there would be a referendum and, if this is the right project, that is the path the City should be following. She did not believe the City should continue to spend money on planning when there is opposition in the community. She provided examples of past projects that involved a referendum and commented that the Council has the ability to stop this process and follow a similar process. She recognized that would not be a quick or smooth process, but that is the path that should be followed. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that the initial proposal included space beyond what the City actually needs. She asked what would happen if CJN no longer finds it necessary to be in this location. She agreed that the Police Department has needs beyond what is currently available and supports addressing those needs. She spoke about the huge cost that is to be borne by the residents, as the proposed amount for this project is the largest to ever be proposed by the City. She was unclear as to what has been included or excluded, as the project scope has changed, and believed that they need much more engagement from the residents. She commented that previous major projects have included more public input and a referendum. She commented that a significant number of former Mayors and Councilmembers have expressed concerns about this project. She stated that a building that would meet the City’s current needs, with some flexibility for future needs, would serve the residents for the long-term. She suggested that further thought and time be given to the project with additional input from residents. Scott Van, 1870 Hunter Lane, stated that he is not against including CJN, but he is not in favor of the B3 and geothermal. He commented on the technological sophistication and maintenance that would be required for those elements, along with the additional staffing that would be required to support those needs. He stated that many residents support renovation and expansion of the current facility and would like that option reviewed again. He asked the Council to slow the project down and wait to see what the election brings. He did not want to see this go too far only to start over again. Page 8 of 217 August 18, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 14 Holly Farber, 1701 James Road, thanked the Council for taking on this difficult situation and considering the complex factors. She commented that this is not a discretionary project as government infrastructure is a need. She commented that the people she has spoken to appreciate that the Council is not just thinking about the needs of today, but also the needs of the future. She disagreed with previous speakers about the way citizens have been informed about the project, noting that a lot of information has been provided by City Hall about the needs and options. She also disagreed with the concept of a remodel, as that would be sending good money after bad, and she would prefer this to be done right. She commented that experts have said that the remodel option is not the way to proceed. She stated that the concept of a referendum is not appropriate for this type of project and should not be confused with community input. She stated that this project is not an amenity but a necessity and therefore did not believe a referendum would be appropriate, although they should continue to receive public input. She recognized that there will be a lot of different perspectives provided and that the Council was elected to make tough decisions. Neil Garlock, 538 W Annapolis Street, referenced the Fire Hall project that was completed in 2017/2018, where a remodel/expansion was completed, and believed that a similar path could be followed for this project in order to reduce costs. He believed that this is a fine building that is salvageable and could be remodeled to save money. He asked that the process slow down to allow them to see who the next Council will be after the election. He thanked the members of the Council for the work they do and encouraged them to listen to the input of the community. Lynn Burrow, 1219 Victoria Curve, stated that she has not seen any documentation that the building would be a teardown. She stated that there should be a report if the $10,000,000 building is a teardown, and she wants to see the evidence that this building is a teardown. She commented that residents are angry and frustrated and stated that the Height Highlights is junk mail to most people. She stated that residents are asking to pause this project in anticipation of the election. Dewy Smith, 1088 William Court, commented on his discussions with his neighbors, noting that they have all questioned what is wrong with the existing building. He stated that a list and photos of what is specifically wrong with the building need to be provided to residents. He asked that a short video be made to identify the elements that cannot effectively be remediated through renovation. He explained that residents see a beautiful building, inside and out, and they need to know what is wrong with the building. He stated that perhaps a new Police Station is built on the existing campus to address the needs. John Farber, 1701 James Road, commented that the Council needs to be straight or truthful that it is not the new building or nothing. He stated that the Council voted based on their unanimous vote to move forward with a new building on the opinions of experts related to whether the existing building could/should be renovated. He recognized that there are options related to size and cost, and they need to be truthful and fair, noting that all the information has been provided on the City website. He asked that residents go to the website and read all those documents that are available. He stated that this is a tough decision and because of shortcuts that were taken on the existing building, they need to make sure that this decision is done right. He stated that this is not a time when they can do nothing. He stated that if they do not move forward with the project, they will need to contract for Police services through another department. Page 9 of 217 August 18, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 of 14 Jessica Larson, 850 Cheri Lane, commented that she has appreciated the Coffee with the Council events as that has allowed her to have conversations with Councilmembers about the project. She stated that when she first saw the price for the project her thought was that they were being fleeced and that they are being milked for their money by the consultant. She stated that this is a needed project and there are needs for the Police Department, but the price tag is concerning. Jane Skjerven, 691 Cheyenne Lane, commented that it has been interesting looking at the different social media opinions and topics. She stated that sometimes people speak about defunding the Police Department, but she has not heard anywhere that the Police Department is going to be defunded. She stated that has not been addressed, and she did not see a plan for that. She wanted to clearly note that everyone means for the Police to get what they need, whether that is in a new building or adding onto this building. She stated that mold is often mentioned and acknowledged that mold happens and there are different kinds, recognizing that black mold is the type that poses health risks. She asked for results of the testing that was done on the mold. She stated that many people are not ready for the new building because they do not feel it is necessary and because of the cost in an uncertain economy. Joe Nides, 2094 Patricia Street, recognized that this is a large task before the Council with people on all sides of the aisle. He stated that this item continues to be the last item on the agenda and was disappointed that public comments were not allowed at the last meeting. He stated that last month he suggested that the City Council host a table at the food truck festival to engage the members of the community on this topic and was happy to see the Council accept his suggestion. He stated that a group of residents also attended to spread their message and information about the project cost. He urged fiscal responsibility and asked the Council to look at renovating and expanding the current building. He recognized that there would be a cost to that type of project, but it would be less than the proposed project. He recognized that they need to address the wants and needs of the Police Station. He also commented on the ballfield, which has been talked about for the last three months. He believed that the cost for renovation and expansion could occur for under $20,000,000. He asked for a comparison of the renovation and addition versus the project proposed today. He asked that every resident attend the meeting on September 1st to speak their mind. Cathleen Helmstetter, 1248 Culligan Lane, reminded everyone that the residents already carry over $20,000,000 in debt in this city, and if they add another $35,000,000, that is a lot of debt to carry. She asked what would happen to the other projects the City needs to complete when they already have that much debt. Ms. Krebsbach stated that she would like to see this go to referendum rather than a reverse referendum. She stated that people support the Mendota Heights Police Department and are very satisfied with the services they provide. She commented that this is not an issue about the Police Department because everyone understands there are needs that need to be addressed. Mr. Van clarified that the mold issue has been talked about on social media, but that is a past issue that was remediated. Mayor Levine expressed thanks for those residents who provided input tonight and closed the public input process. She welcomed input from the Council. Page 10 of 217 August 18, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 of 14 Councilor Maczko stated that he has a question about a referendum, as statements have been made that a referendum would not be allowed for this type of project, and asked for clarification from legal counsel. City Attorney Amy Schmidt explained that a referendum on the question of whether to do a project is not allowed under State Statute, as that is a decision of the City Council. She stated that if the City were to put a question on the ballot, it would be a yes-or-no question and would be considered to be an advisory election, which is not allowed under State Statute for a statutory city. Councilor Maczko recognized that the decision whether to proceed with a project is the decision of the Council. He asked for more information on the financing tools the City could utilize and whether a referendum would be allowed on whether to bond for the project. City Attorney Amy Schmidt reviewed the financing options available for this type of project. She provided more information on general obligation bonds versus general obligation bonds for a capital improvement project. She stated that CIP general obligation bonds are subject to a reverse referendum. She described the process that would be followed if CIP general obligation bonds are used for the project and the reverse referendum opportunity that exists following the required public hearing. She stated that if the question is then placed on the ballot and is not approved by voters, the Council would need to decide whether to abandon the project, find another way to finance the project, or wait one year to place the question on the ballot again. Councilor Maczko asked if there is anything that prevents the City Council from taking this to referendum if they wanted to. City Attorney Amy Schmidt provided further clarification on the Statute for general obligation bonds and stated that it would not prohibit the Council from putting a question on the ballot related to CIP general obligation bonds, but is unsure if that has ever been done. Councilor Maczko stated that he could not find anything that would prohibit the Council from putting that question on a referendum, even though this type of project is listed as an exception. He noted that there would be another type of financing that could be chosen for the project that would not provide a path for a referendum or reverse referendum. City Attorney Amy Schmidt confirmed there are financing options that are not subject to referendum or reverse referendum. Councilor Maczko asked and received confirmation that the decision related to the issuance of the debt could go forward to a referendum, although that is not required. He hoped that would clear things up, that the Council could choose the path of a referendum relating to how it is funded. City Attorney Amy Schmidt reiterated that a referendum could not be done on whether or not to do the project, but that it could be possible to do a referendum related to the general obligation debt that would be used for the project. She explained that CIP debt is an exception and therefore does not require a referendum but would be subject to a reverse referendum if a petition is received. Page 11 of 217 August 18, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 10 of 14 Councilor Lorberbaum stated that the question was posed at the last meeting as to whether they wanted to spend $397,000 for schematics to be designed for Plan B, which would look at a different shape for a new building that would allow the ballfield to remain in the same place. She commented that while she would like to preserve the field, she did not want to spend an additional $397,000 for those schematics, as she believed it could be done for less. She stated that in a few months, there will be different people sitting at the dais, and the project details could be changed. She stated that they began the budgeting process tonight and they can do a lot with $400,000 in this city. She commented on the fluctuations in the price and size of the building but noted that has been frustrating, as she has not been receiving detailed information. She understood that the price will continue to evolve as they continue forward. She stated that there are renovation plans that were around $25,000,000 and did not believe $31,000,000 to be that much of a difference, while recognizing that it is a higher cost. She stated that there is a lot of information they do not know, such as the results of the soil borings and the cost of the ballfield relocation. She stated that every month, ICS bills the City for $240,000 to $250,000 per month, which is a lot of money. She acknowledged that they may go in a different direction after the election, and if they keep going this way, they will continue to be billed by ICS. Councilor Lorberbaum moved to PAUSE THE MUNICIPAL CAMPUS PROJECT UNTIL ESTIMATES ARE PROVIDED FROM STAFF ON THE BORINGS, BALLFIELDS, AND RELOCATION COSTS, AND UNTIL THE NEW MEMBERS ARE SITTING ON THE COUNCIL. Councilor Maczko seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Mazzitello stated that when the Council started this process, they plotted a course that included a timeline to avoid additional inflation, to bid the project this winter. He stated that if the bid is extending into the spring or summer, the bids will be higher as contractors will have their workloads set and prices will increase. He stated that they would then wait until next winter, which will have additional inflation costs. He did not believe they should pause the process but should continue to receive the requested information, noting that the soil borings are going to occur later this week. He stated that soil corrections have been included in the cost estimate and therefore if corrections are needed, that is already included in the project budget, and if corrections are not needed, that would reduce the project cost. Councilor Maczko commented that they do not know what the future will be, and he has been involved in projects that bid in the spring that have been favorable and unfavorable. He supported slowing down because he thinks it is the right thing to do. He commented that it is troubling that this has become divisive, not in the need for something but in what that something is. He stated that it is obvious that the public has not been brought along for this. He stated that he did vote to move forward to schematic design, noting that he was being a team player in that vote as he provided additional parameters that he wanted included in the process. He stated that he disagrees with the quality of the building and the statements that costs were being cut during that process, noting the high-quality finishes that are provided in the building. He recognized that the Building Code has changed between then and now and there would be a cost of $6,000,000 to bring the existing building up to Code. He stated that the building was estimated at a value of $10,000,000, and he was told by ICS that the cost today would be $20,000,000 to get the same-sized building they have today. He stated that he wants the residents to have a good feeling when they pass by the building in the future and not feel like this was something that was forced on them. He commented that Councilor Mazzitello is not running again, so there will be at least one new member of the Council. Page 12 of 217 August 18, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 11 of 14 He believed that they need to follow the path of a referendum and work with the community to find a solution that will be supported by the public. Mayor Levine stated that her thinking is slightly different, noting that she does support bringing the community along. She stated that it has been frustrating as they have tried to engage the community from the beginning, noting the communications plan that was developed and implemented. She commented on different community events they have attended to talk about this project and to involve the community. She stated that at the Touch a Truck event, people she spoke with were unaware of the project, but when she asked them how they learned about the event, they replied that they read about it in Heights Highlights, noting that in that same edition there was information about the Municipal Campus project. She stated that she was not involved in general City business when the Fire Station was built, as she voted to elect people to make those decisions. She recognized that not all people have the time and bandwidth to be involved in City business. She commented that there are nearly 12,000 people in the community who enjoy the services provided by the City but are not thinking about or spending time dealing with City business. She commented that those are the decisions tasked to the City Council, and the Council needs to come up with a plan to renovate or build new rather than putting that on the public. She stated that the Council went through all the possibilities and made the decision to build new. She commented that when they began this process one year ago, they considered all possibilities and options, and the bulk of the work was done at the Council level because of the time necessary to do so. She stated that the Council and Oversight Committee have done the work, and while they started off believing that they could renovate, it became clear that was not the path to follow; not because of the Council Chambers, which is beautiful, but because of the conditions below in the Police Department. She encouraged residents to tour the Police Department and asked them which wall they would keep. She stated that this building is sick, is not safe, is not secure, and is far too small for the Police. She commented that when they looked at the difference between renovating and building new, it became clear that they needed to build new. She commented that you do not renovate a building when the cost is 78 percent of building new. She explained that this is a long-term decision they are making for the future of the City, and they need to follow the advice of the experts and not throw good money after bad. She stated that building new was the harder decision to choose because they knew it would be a heavier lift to explain to the community that they are going to take down a beloved building to build a new one. She stated that it would be so much easier to renovate, but that is not the right decision. She commented that once they knew they were building new, they decided to scale for future needs but heard the input of the community and therefore scaled back down to the current needs, but with the ability to expand in the future. She stated that when she has had conversations with people who are on the other side of the issue, they often end up on the same side once she provides them with additional information. She commented that stopping would be the easy decision, but if they do nothing, they would lose the Police, as they cannot continue to be in that basement. She stated that delaying the project will also increase the cost and push these hard decisions onto another Council. She stated that this decision has been delayed and they cannot continue to delay because they need to obtain the best construction bids to ensure taxpayers are getting the best value for their dollars. She recognized that it is unknown as to what will happen in the election, but she will go down knowing that she did the right thing for the community to ensure there is a right-sized, safe, and secure building for the Police Department and City Hall. Councilor Lorberbaum stated that she is not changing the plan, but would give people who are voted in and remain in after the election a chance to weigh in without ICS continuing to bill them $240,000 a month. She stated that this would also provide time to provide the documentation that has been requested. Page 13 of 217 August 18, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 12 of 14 Mayor Levine commented that they can do two things at once, answering questions and providing information while continuing to move forward. She noted the request for a video to be created and stated that there is a video that has already been made and is readily available for residents to watch. She encouraged residents not to judge the building from what it looks like outside and in the Council Chambers, but from the basement because that is what is unsafe. She stated that an elevator shaft with water at the bottom is disgusting and needs to be replaced. She stated that they have met with TRAA to discuss the ballfield, and it did not take long to develop a plan for relocation of the field without losing field quality or quantity. She suggested that residents review the space study that was completed by ICS, which shows it is better to build new. Councilor Maczko asked about the Public Works building. Mayor Levine commented that building is in good condition and has been renovated as it needed to be over time. Councilor Maczko commented that the locker rooms in that facility are in worse shape than the Police Department. Councilor Maczko asked how Mendakota Park will be renovated, in addition to other needs. Mayor Levine commented that this is a bigger priority and they will renovate parks over time and incrementally. She commented that if they wait and delay, the needs will not change and the project will only become more expensive. Councilor Maczko referenced the costs identified in the ICS study, noting that the $6,000,000 would renovate the existing building to Code while dealing with major issues, recognizing that would not provide additional space. Mayor Levine referenced the ratio of renovation to building new and stated that the 78 percent shows that it would not be a fiscally responsible decision to renovate. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson asked for clarification on the motion. Councilor Lorberbaum clarified that the motion is for a pause in the project, so ICS will not do anything, with exceptions for staff to receive boring information, ballfield relocation costs, and information on mold or teardown. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson asked for clarification on the relocation cost. Councilor Lorberbaum replied that the relocation cost would show what it would cost to relocate existing staff in a renovation plan. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that there is no Plan B at this point. Page 14 of 217 August 18, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 13 of 14 Councilor Maczko commented that he would like to pause the whole thing right now, with the exception of the borings that are underway. He stated that staff would need help to get those answers and could not do it alone. Mayor Levine asked and received confirmation that ICS is under contract, so she was unsure that could be paused. City Attorney Amy Schmidt stated that she would need to check the contract to know the impact and whether that could be deemed a breach. Mayor Levine stated that this motion could then put the City in a position to breach a contract. Councilor Lorberbaum restated the motion that if allowed by contract, the City would place a pause on the Municipal Campus project activity with the exception of the soil borings. Councilor Maczko agreed to the change. Ayes: 2 (Lorberbaum and Maczko) Nays: 2 (Levine and Mazzitello) The motion failed. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming community events and activities. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Maczko thanked the citizen who was recognized tonight for taking the time to become involved, as getting involved is not always appreciated and/or easy, but it makes a difference. He stated that the discussion and time being put into the campus project is worth the effort, and the difference of opinions is good as well. He cautioned against saying the Police Department will go away if the project does not go as planned, as the majority of the department does not spend much time in the building. He stated that does not mean they do not need anything and should not be taken care of, but he does not believe the building is unsafe. He believed there were solutions to move forward. He stated that getting rid of the Police Department would take five votes from the Council and did not believe that would happen. He believed they could find a solution that fits what everyone needs, and they have to be willing to listen to input they have asked for. Councilor Lorberbaum commented that new information will come and at least one new person will join the Council. She stated that she would like to pause and not continue to be billed by ICS. She stated that Bricksworth Beer Company opened and has had lots of happy customers. She stated that Happy Joe’s is opening Monday, August 24th. She encouraged residents to visit the new businesses. She commented that today is Never Give Up Day and encouraged residents to celebrate small victories and continue to push towards their goals. She stated that next week is National Park Week, with entrance free fee days on August 25th for the National Park Service's 110th birthday. Page 15 of 217 August 18, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 14 of 14 Councilor Mazzitello commented that there is a budget worksession on Thursday at 4:30 p.m. which is open to the public. He reemphasized his offer for anyone to speak with him about the Municipal Campus project, noting that he would buy them a cup of coffee and they could sit and talk rather than people posting things on social media. He stated that a long time ago, when this process started, the Council decided there is no way they were going to give up the Police Department because that is part of what makes the community what it is. He stated that he will be ending his 18-year service to the City at the end of the year and continued to share some of the best things that have occurred during that time. He also shared a historical quote. Mayor Levine clarified that the driving force behind the Municipal Campus plan is to preserve the Police Department. She stated that if they do nothing with this building, the eventual result will be the loss of the Police Department, as they need to address the space, security, and safety needs of the building. ADJOURN Councilor Mazzitello moved to adjourn. Councilor Maczko seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 8:53 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Nancy Bauer City Clerk Page 16 of 217 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the City Council Work Session Tuesday, August 18, 2026 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the work session to order at 4:30 p.m. Councilors Lorberbaum, Mazzitello and Maczko were in attendance. Councilor Paper was absent. Others present included: City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence, Community Development Manager Sarah Madden, Assistant City Engineer Lucas Ritchie, Police Chief Kelly McCarthy, and City Clerk Nancy Bauer. 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE – STAFF CHECK IN Community Development Manager Madden requested City Council direction regarding the preparation of a Request for Proposals for the 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update. She identified three topics for Council consideration: (1) whether the RFP should include the creation of an ad- hoc advisory committee or whether the Planning Commission should serve as the primary advisory body for the update; (2) whether there are specific public engagement initiatives or strategies the Council would like incorporated into the process; (3) whether there are any special topic areas the Council would like to include in the 2050 Comprehensive Plan in addition to the required elements. Councilor Mazzitello asked if the RFP included a complete rewrite or an update of the plan. Community Development Manager Madden clarified that the 2050 Plan would be an update rather than a complete rewrite. She noted that the update would address the minimum required elements, provide additional opportunities for public engagement, and potentially include additional areas of focus. She also expressed support for strengthening the Economic Development strategy within the plan. Councilor Mazzitello agreed with Community Development Manager Madden’s comments. He noted that there was an error in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan regarding the density of houses. The code does not match the comprehensive plan which needs to be corrected. Mayor Levine inquired about the Metropolitan Council plan for changes to density. Community Development Manager Madden said there are new requirements and goals for the 2050 Comprehensive Plan, and they would be discussed at a future time. Page 17 of 217 6.b August 18, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 2 Community Development Manager Madden questioned whether specialized expertise may be needed for certain topics within the plan, and noted that the Natural Resources Commission could assist with the climate section. The Bourne site was also identified as a topic that may require discussion regarding redevelopment strategies. Councilor Mazzitello asked what an ad-hoc advisory committee would look like. Community Development Manager Madden stated it would be a short-term advisory group and look similar to the Natural Resources Commission. Councilor Maczko agreed with the update rather than a rewrite of the plan. He stated that an ad- hoc advisory committee could be beneficial in supporting the Planning Commission and in encouraging broader community engagement. He suggested that the Planning Commission should take the lead in the process and noted that the need for an ad hoc committee may depend on the extent of the changes in the proposed plan. Councilor Lorberbaum expressed support for involving the Planning and Natural Resources Commissions. She agreed that the plan should be updated and include input from others. The City Council generally agreed that the Planning Commission should serve as the lead advisory body for the 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update and that an ad hoc committee would not be necessary. Council members emphasized the importance of public engagement, including reaching residents where they are and using targeted focus groups similar to those used during the Parks Master Plan process. The Council also discussed concerns related to Metropolitan Council requirements, strengthening the Economic Development component of the plan, and reaching out to individuals and stakeholders who were involved in the development of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission would play a primary role in guiding public engagement throughout the update process. FY2027 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET REVIEW City Administrator Jacobson and Finance Director Schabacker presented an overview of the proposed FY 2027 budget and preliminary property tax levy. Staff reported that department budget requests had been reviewed and that the preliminary budget and levy would be presented for approval at the September 15 City Council meeting. The Council reviewed property valuation information provided by Dakota County, including changes in residential, commercial, and overall property values. Finance Director Schabacker also reviewed the City’s tax rate in comparison with other Dakota County communities and the anticipated impact on Mendota Heights taxpayers. The proposed overall tax levy represents a 3.56 percent increase over 2026, while the General Fund budget reflects a 4.81 percent increase. Staff reviewed major budget assumptions and cost drivers, including proposed cost-of-living adjustments, health insurance contributions, the Minnesota Paid Leave Program, and anticipated workers’ compensation costs. The results of the annual compensation study were also discussed, including proposed market adjustments for three positions. Staff also reviewed the City’s seven- step pay scale. Labor and benefit costs were reported to comprise approximately 65 percent of the General Fund budget. Page 18 of 217 August 18, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 3 The Council reviewed several General Fund revenue sources and assumptions, including licensing fees, building and heating permits, right-of-way permits, forestry fees, park and field use fees, and revenues associated with police and fire service contracts. Staff explained that some revenue estimates were conservative and that certain revenues fluctuate based on development activity, utility work, and other factors. The Council also discussed the methodology used to calculate contract revenues from neighboring communities for police and fire services. The Council discussed the City Council budget, including the proposed funding of community fireworks. Staff noted that $25,000 was included for fireworks. The Council discussed the possibility of outside funding through the Mendota Heights Community Foundation. Councilor Lorberbaum stated that the Foundation would like to pay for the AED’s installed in city parks first but that they have not raised enough money for those costs and that it would be unlikely that the Foundation would be able to contribute to funding fireworks. Councilor Maczko stated that a list should be created of items being considered for removal from the budget. Staff reviewed proposed City Council budget requests, including the installation of Council Chamber microphones to provide audio recordings of Council work sessions and the purchase of City-issued iPads for Council members to facilitate a transition to electronic meeting packets. The Council discussed the benefits and challenges of moving to paperless packets, including potential cost and time savings, note-taking, device security, and public records considerations. Staff noted that several City commissions have already transitioned to paperless meeting materials. ADJOURNMENT A motion to adjourn was made by Councilor Mazzitello, seconded by Councilor Lorberbaum, and unanimously carried. The meeting ended at approximately 6:46 pm. _________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 19 of 217 This page is intentionally left blank CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the City Council Work Session Thursday, August 20, 2026 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the work session to order at 4:30 p.m. Councilors Lorberbaum, Mazzitello and Maczko were in attendance. Councilor Paper was absent. Others present included: City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence, Community Development Manager Sarah Madden, Assistant City Engineer Lucas Ritchie, Police Chief Kelly McCarthy, Police Sergeant Wayne Wegener, and City Clerk Nancy Bauer. Present for the Fire Department portion of the budget discussion was Fire Chief Dan Johnson, Assistant Fire Chief Scott Goldenstein, and Firefighters Tom Mattini and T.J. Samec. FY2027 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY BUDGET REVIEW City Administrator Jacobson began with the Fire Department and Fire Relief Association budgets. The Council reviewed the proposed Fire Department budget, which reflects an overall increase of 8.34 percent for FY 2027. Staff explained that a portion of the increase is related to higher information technology service costs, including the addition of cybersecurity services. The Council discussed a significant increase in the Fire Department’s IT services budget. Staff explained that the Fire Department maintains a separate IT services line item and that the proposed amount includes the additional costs associated with cybersecurity services. Fire Chief Johnson also reviewed the proposed increase in the miscellaneous operating supplies budget. The increase includes $4,000 toward the potential purchase of a rescue boat, for which the city received a quote of approximately $7,500 from a vendor. The miscellaneous operating supplies line item is also used for the purchase of other operational equipment and supplies, such as fans and AEDs. The Council discussed the Fire Department’s budget request for an administrative structure study. Fire Chief Johnson explained that the proposed study would engage a consultant to conduct an objective assessment of the Department’s administrative structure and provide recommendations for an administrative model that would support the long-term sustainability of the paid-on-call Fire Department model. Page 20 of 217 6.c August 20, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 2 In response to a Council inquiry, Chief Johnson stated that the purpose of the study is to position the Fire Department for long-term success, continue to support the Department as it moves forward, and ensure that required responsibilities and administrative functions are being effectively fulfilled. Mayor Levine asked if the goal was to keep the fire department as a paid-on-call staffing model. Fire Chief Johnson stated that is the goal; however, due to significant administrative and operational responsibilities associated with the Fire Chief position; there may be a need for a full-time Fire Chief. Fire Chief Johnson reported another budget request is for the replacement of high-pressure rescue lifting air bag system. The current air bag system is aging and approaching the end of its useful service life. The Council discussed a last-minute budget request to replace the audiovisual equipment at the Fire Station. Assistant City Administrator Torkelson reported that the existing system had malfunctioned and was no longer operational. Staff are pursuing repair options; however, replacement parts are difficult to obtain and there are limited local technicians available to service the system. The equipment is used for firefighter training and Emergency Operations Center activities and was installed as part of the Fire Station remodel approximately six years ago. The Council also discussed whether a funding source was available to allow for the replacement of the equipment in 2026. City Administrator Jacobson suggested that the Cable Fund could be used to fund the purchase this year. Councilmembers discussed whether or not the Emergency Preparedness Fund could be used and whether funds used for the purchase in 2026 could be reimbursed in next year’s budget. The Council discussed the proposed 7 percent increase to the firefighter retirement contribution, as requested by the Fire Relief Association. Firefighter Mattaini reported that the increase would equate to approximately $560 annually per firefighter and would help support firefighter retention. In response to a Council question, he explained that the proposed increase was developed after reviewing pension and PERA benefit increases among other fire departments. The Council reviewed the Storm Water Utility budget, which operates as a self-supporting fund. Staff noted that the Council approved a storm water utility rate increase in July 2026. Funds support programs and improvements including curb-cut rain gardens, surface water treatment, storm sewer improvements, and pond maintenance. Public Works Director Ruzek reviewed proposed expenditures, including the required 10-year update to the City’s Surface Water Management Plan, with the current plan having been adopted in 2018. Staff also presented a request to hire a consultant to develop a plan for addressing Lake Augusta and to evaluate options for establishing a lake outlet and maintaining a normal lake level. The study would also identify potential grant funding opportunities. The Council discussed the Storm Water Utility Fund balance and a reduction in the professional services budget resulting from the completion of a five-year pond inspection program and recent pond improvement projects. Page 21 of 217 August 20, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 3 The Council and residents discussed ongoing concerns regarding Lake Augusta, including elevated water levels, water quality, odor, dead trees, cormorants, and phosphorus levels. Barbara Kauffman, 2126 Lake Augusta Drive, noted she has been a resident of Mendota Heights for 50 years. A report was recently done by Catholic Cemeteries as they are concerned about grave sites being under water and she quoted from the report. She also stated that the stench is unbearable and the cormorants are back. She hopes a solution can be found to correct the lake issues. Mary Beth Schueller, 2094 Acacia Drive, noted the lake was named after Henry Sibley’s daughter. There were studies that showed the construction of the highways disturbed the natural flow of the lake. Councilor Maczko raised concerns about whether cormorant activity and associated waste may be contributing to water quality issues in Lake Augusta. It was noted that cormorants are attracted to the lake in part by the presence of dead trees and that the lake’s lack of an outlet limits natural circulation and flushing. Staff also noted elevated phosphorus levels in the lake and that a previous phosphorus treatment had not been effective. Public Works Director Ruzek explained that the proposed study is focused on establishing and controlling a normal lake level and is not intended to directly address water pollution or cormorant-related issues. He added that an outlet could potentially improve water quality by allowing some water to be pumped from the lake, creating a flushing effect. If a lower normal lake level is established, shoreline restoration may also be necessary. Kitty Haight, noted she has lived in Augusta Shores since 2001, stated the lake was clear when she moved into Augusta Shores. There have been studies done on cormorants and there are multiple problems with Laka Augusta that would need to be addressed. Councilor Lorberbaum inquired if there is any responsibility that Resurrection Cemetery would have regarding their private property along Lake Augusta. Public Works Director Ruzek explained that Lake Augusta is a natural landlocked basin and that increased rainfall intensity and development within the watershed have contributed to higher lake levels. Potential funding options for a future outlet project could include grants, property owner assessments where permitted, contributions or easements from surrounding property owners, or City funding. The Council noted that the requested funding would support a design and feasibility study and identify potential grant opportunities, with the understanding that grant funding could require a local match. The Council reviewed the Natural Resources budget, which shows a 3.42 percent decrease from the prior year. Public Works Director Ruzek highlighted the primary changes and discussed several proposed initiatives, including funding for the development of a potential landscape ordinance. The Council discussed the purpose of a landscape ordinance, including establishing standards for vegetation and landscaping associated with new development. Staff also noted that a shoreline management ordinance is currently being developed. Public Works Director Ruzek noted that Page 22 of 217 August 20, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 4 funds were proposed in the budget for the climate action and resiliency plan as part of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan. This is a top priority of the Natural Resources Commission. The budget request to develop a Valley Park Natural Resource Master Plan was discussed. Public Works Director Ruzek noted in the budget is a request for a forestry mower mulching head that would support Natural Resources activities. The Council then moved to review the Administration budget. City Administrator Jacobson noted that the Administration budget supports a broad range of City services and highlighted proposed increases for required safety training, employee training, and professional membership dues. Public Works Director Ruzek reviewed a budget request for a cellular signal coverage study. Councilor Macko noted that Eagan had done a similar study. Assistant City Administrator Torkelson reviewed a proposed national community survey to obtain statistically significant information regarding residents’ experiences living in the city. The survey would provide reliable data to help inform future decision-making. The Council discussed potential methods for residents to participate, including mail, email, and online responses. Assistant City Administrator Torkelson reviewed the budget request for Microsoft Copilot licenses for designated office staff which would integrate generative artificial intelligence (AI) into Microsoft 365 applications. This would allow management over the data for security, compliance and data protection. The Council also discussed employee and organizational memberships, with Councilor Maczko requesting a list of memberships and associated costs. Staff also presented a budget request for digital asset management software that would provide a centralized and secure system for storing, organizing, searching, and sharing City photographs and videos. Staff noted that the system would improve coordination among departments, support the City’s identity and branding, document copyright ownership, assist with ADA compliance, and help manage risk. City Administrator Jacobson noted that the election-related budget was reduced because 2027 is not a regularly scheduled election year, although a special election could occur. Councilor Maczko inquired about the 46 days of absentee voting and asked directing residents to vote at a Dakota County service center. City Administrator Jacobson noted that staff had decided to continue offering absentee voting at city hall for the full 46 days. Finance Director Schabacker noted that absentee voting at city hall had not been done for an election cycle in the past and residents wanted to be able to vote absentee at city hall. Community Development Manager Madden reviewed proposed changes to Community Development fees, including consideration of new fees for over-the-counter permits such as window replacements. She noted that the proposed fees would be brought forward for Council discussion at a future work session. Page 23 of 217 August 20, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 5 Mayor Levine asked about the contractual services for code enforcement. Finance Director Schabacker explained that the related contract costs are tied to building permit revenues, which were budgeted at a flat level for 2027. Community Development Manager Madden also reviewed a budget request to contract with a vendor to digitize the City’s permanent large-format building plans. City Administrator Jacobson stated that the next work session meeting is Wednesday, August 26 at 3:30 pm. Councilor Maczko inquired about the Engineering Capital Improvement Plan. Public Works Director Ruzek noted that the asset management program has not gone live yet and should be ready in mid-September. ADJOURNMENT A motion to adjourn was made by Councilor Mazzitello, seconded by Councilor Lorberbaum, and unanimously carried. The meeting ended at approximately 6:35 pm. _________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 24 of 217 This page is intentionally left blank 6.d REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: September 1, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledge the June and July Par 3 Financial Reports ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT: Trey Carlson, Recreation Facilities Coordinator Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Acknowledge the June and July Par 3 Financial Reports BACKGROUND: The Monthly Par 3 Dashboard is attached for Council review. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Monthly Expenditure report for June and July are attached. ATTACHMENTS: 1.June 2026 Par 3 Expenditures 2.July 2026 Par 3 Expenditures 3.July Financial Dashboard Par 3 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 25 of 217 Page 26 of 217 Page 27 of 217 Mendota Heights Par 3 Community Golf Course July 2026—Financial Summary July—Tee Time Reservation Breakdown: Online Tee Times= 1567 (57% of Total Tee Times) Phone/Walk in Tee Times= 1266 (43% of Total Tee Times) Year to Date Budget Overview—July: Current Operating Surplus as of July, 2026: $66,380 Operating Surplus as of July, 2025: $92,258 Monthly Revenues vs. Expenditures Month Revenues Expenditures Net March 2026 $10,283 $13,102 $2,819 April 2026 $36,936 $20,023 $16,913 May 2026 $60,259 $31,322 $28,937 June 2026 $66,066 $41,336 $24,730 July 2026 $53,148 $46,656 $6,492 Golf Round Totals: 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 March 748 0 0 261 308 225 April 1678 896 1181 1923 2078 2087 May 2285 2797 2923 2664 3043 3311 June 2305 2839 3365 3395 3451 3388 July 2673 3213 3753 3093 3565 2770 Total 9689 9745 11222 11336 12445 11781 Golf Rounds by Category: 2026 Regular Senior Junior Veteran Second Round Senior Pass Footgolf Punch Card March 77 12 8 0 4 2 2 120 April 924 145 87 1 41 25 24 840 May 1817 326 182 5 54 26 51 850 June 1897 409 273 8 47 22 22 710 July 1389 357 239 6 65 24 60 630 Total 6104 1249 789 20 211 99 159 3150 Category 2026 Budget 2026 YTD Actual % of Budget 2025 YTD Revenues $362,000 $254,201 70.22% $253,247 Expenditures $379,029 $187,821 49.55% $160,989 Net Position - $66,380 - $92,258 Page 28 of 217 Monthly Notes: o When accounting for total monthly rounds, staff track punch card sales as (10) rounds of golf. For note the following punch cards were sold: o March: 12 o April: 84 o May: 85 o June: 71 o July: 63 o The punch card rounds are then multiplied by 10 to get the total rounds tracked for that month: o March: 120 o April: 840 o May: 850 o June: 710 o July: 630 o When reporting the Tee Time Reservation Breakdown, the tee times booked reflect how the punch card rounds are used, thus, if someone buys a punch card in April, they may only use it four times. They also could use the punch card one time for a call-in tee time and three times for separate online tee times throughout the season o July 2026 is showing lower revenues relative to expenditures compared with the same period in 2025. The golf course operating surplus is approximately $66,000 year-to-date (YTD) in 2026, compared with an operating surplus of approximately $92,000 YTD during the same period in 2025. The primary factors contributing to the difference are: o Capital expense: The Par 3 purchased a standby generator for the maintenance building at a cost of $12,272. o Administrative salaries: Administrative salary expenses are approximately $15,000 higher in 2026. This is primarily due to a full-time staff position being filled for the entire year in 2026, compared with only part of the year in 2025. Together, these two items account for approximately $27,000 of the difference in the reported YTD operating surplus between the two years. o July 2026 also included three payrolls, whereas the three-payroll month in 2025 occurred in August. As a result, wage expenses in August 2026 are expected to be lower on a comparative basis, which will provide a more favorable comparison between the two years. Page 29 of 217 This page is intentionally left blank 6.e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: September 1, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Resolution 2026-54 Approving an Administrative MRCCA Minor Development Permit for 1143 Orchard Circle [Planning Case No. 2026-16] ITEM TYPE: Resolution DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2026-54 Approving an Administrative Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit for the property located at 1143 Orchard Circle. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval of a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to authorize the construction of a new front entry stoop and canopy, as well as new patio and entry pathway work. The subject property is located within the R-1 Residential Zoning district; and is situated within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area overlay district. According to the city’s MRCCA Mapping of this area, the subject property is located in the SR-Separated by River District. The MRCCA Map of the subject property shows a demarcated bluff line approximately 100-ft. (at its closest point) from the subject property, and approximately 207-ft from the front entrance of the existing home. No part of this proposal will impact or affect any adjacent bluff, steep slopes, or bluff impact zones (BIZ). The MRCCA Mapping system also identifies any Primary Conservation Areas (PCA), which include protected areas such as established Significant Existing Vegetative Stands or Native Plant Communities on properties inside the MRCCA district. Within the BIZ that is closest to this site, a PCA is identified as containing Native Ruderal Forest. The location of this front entrance does not impact any part(s) of the nearby PCA’s in this area. Pursuant to City Code Section 12-6A-3, a Critical Area Permit is required for the construction of any new structure, building, building addition, vegetation removal, or land alteration on a property within the MRCCA Districts. Additionally, 12-6A-12 requires a Site Plan Review as part of any building permit submittal or zoning approval within the MRCCA Districts, and Subpart D. of that section includes an allowance for “Minor Developments”, which include minor Page 30 of 217 improvements to a single-family property that can be approved directly by the City Council, without Planning Commission review or recommendation, and without a public hearing, but only if the minor project and plans conform to the general standards of this section. Eligible projects for an Administrative MRCCA Permit include small building additions, decks; fences; etc. All administratively approved projects must meet or comply with the following conditions (with Staff comments noted afterwards): 1.No part of the subject property shall have slopes of greater than eighteen percent (18%). Staff Comments: The proposed open porch improvement is located on the south side of the existing home and will be affixed to the home to enhance the front entrance. As shown on the submitted Site Plan and Site Location Map, the topography in this area is generally flat with a gentle slope downward towards Orchard Circle. There are no steep slopes present surrounding the home's front entrance area and the grade is less than 18%. As proposed, the project complies with this standard. 2.No part of the project shall impact, disturb or be situated in a bluff line setback area as defined by this chapter, whether on the same parcel or on an abutting parcel of land. Staff Comments: Although the subject property is situated in the MRCCA overlay district, there are no bluffs within the project area; the subject site is significantly setback from the BIZ and bluff setback for structures. The project, as proposed, will not adversely impact any abutting or neighboring property. As proposed, the project complies with this standard. 3.The proposed project shall not expand the enclosed area of the principal or accessory structures by more than two hundred (200) square feet. Staff Comments: The proposed front covered entry is approximately 40 square feet. The proposed project complies with this standard. 4.The proposed project shall not increase the height of any existing structure. Staff Comments: As shown on the submitted plan set, the proposed roofline of the covered entry will be affixed to the existing home exterior. The covered canopy is below the roofline of the existing two-story home. The proposed project complies with this standard. 5.The proposed project shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this Chapter, and any other applicable regulations. Staff Comments: The proposed project, including associated landscaping activities, is subject to the City’s rules and regulations including the Land Disturbance Guidelines. Staff has included a condition that all site work must comply with the standards and all appropriate permits must be obtained. Provided the conditions are met, the proposed project complies with this standard. Page 31 of 217 6.The proposed project shall not result in significant changes to the existing finished grade. Staff Comment: The orientation and location of the porch entry aligns with the existing front entrance to the home. The grades surrounding this entrance will not be impacted with this proposal. The applicant has indicated that the project as a whole, including landscaping and pathway replacement work, has been designed to minimize slope impacts and that erosion control best practices will be deployed prior to any work. As proposed, the project complies with this standard. 7.The proposed project areas shall include native vegetation. Staff Comments: This permit would allow the installation of a typical residential porch and stoop entry to the existing home on the property. There are no plans to remove or disturb any native vegetation. The applicant has indicated that all disturbed soils will be re-vegetated promptly upon project completion. As part of the full scope of this project, separate landscaping improvements will be installed on the property as a whole. Staff confirms this standard is being met. RECOMMENDATION: Based on staff’s interpretation of the intent of the Minor Development provisions of Title 12- 6A-12, the scope of the project does not require Planning Commission recommendation and a public hearing; and therefore, may be given full consideration and approval by the City Council. Since there are no impacts to the Mississippi River Corridor’s bluff areas, bluff impact zone, or PCA’s in this district, and no impacts to the surrounding properties, staff recommends the City Council approve this Administrative MRCCA Permit to The Transformed Tree, Inc., on behalf of Sherry Essen of 1143 Orchard Circle, with the findings-of fact and conditions as noted in the attached Resolution 2026-54. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not Applicable ATTACHMENTS: 1.Res 2026-54 Resolution Approving a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit for a New Covered Porch Entry at 1143 Orchard Circle 2.Site Location Map 3.MRCCA Primary Conservation Areas Map 4.Project Narrative 5.G1.0 - Cover Sheet 6.G2.0 - Existing Site Survey 7.G3.0 - Architectural Site Plan 8.A2.0 - Exterior Elevations CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Page 32 of 217 Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship Page 33 of 217 Resolution No. 2026-54 Page | 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-54 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) PERMIT FOR A NEW COVERED FRONT PORCH ENTRY AT 1143 ORCHARD CIRCLE PLANNING CASE 2026-16 WHEREAS, The Transformed Tree, Inc., (the “Applicant”) in coordination and on behalf of Sherry Essen (the “Owner”) made an Application for a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to allow for the construction of a new covered front porch entry and associated exterior improvements on the property located at 1143 Orchard Circle, and legally described in Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LDR-Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, zoned R-1 Low Density Residential, and is situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-6A-3: Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District, a permit is required to approve any new development activities involving a building permit, land disturbance, vegetation removal, or land use approval, and the proposed project qualifies as a Minor Development under Title 12-6A-12, Subpart D of the City Code provisions for those properties situated in the recognized MRCCA District; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is compliant with the required conditions for exemption from Planning Commission review and public hearing, and can be considered and acted on directly by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Administrative MRCCA Minor Development Permit for the property located at 1143 Orchard Circle, and proposed under Planning Case No. 2026-16, is hereby approved and supported by the following findings-of-fact: 1.The proposed covered porch project poses no threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the public, nor creates any negative impacts upon the MRCCA area, adjacent bluffs, bluff impact zones (BIZ’s), Primary Conservation Areas (PCA’s) or surrounding properties. 2.The proposed covered porch will not impact or change any grades or drainage ways on the subject property. 3.The proposed covered porch project will be done in accordance with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Guidelines. Page 34 of 217 Resolution No. 2026-54 Page | 2 4.The proposed porch project meets the general purpose and intent of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District, and is consistent with the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Administrative MRCCA Minor Development Permit as requested by The Transformed Tree, Inc. and for the property located at 1143 Orchard Circle is hereby approved, with the following conditions: 1.A building permit must be approved and issued by the City prior to the commencement of any site work. 2.All grading and construction activity must comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, including the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 3.All erosion control requirements must be put in place prior to the commencement of any grading and site work activities and must remain in place for the duration of the construction activities until proper site restoration plans are completed. 4.All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of September 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 35 of 217 Resolution No. 2026-54 Page | 3 EXHIBIT A Address: 1143 Orchard Circle PIN: 27-81275-02-090 Legal Description: Lot 9, Block 2, VALS ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota. Page 36 of 217 666666666666666666666666666666 666666666666!**! " "³ " ³ * ** ³ ( " * ³ ³( ³³³³³³³³! ³ ³ """"" " " * * * * * ³ * * ** * ** ** * ³³ ³ ³³ "* " "66666666 6 6 666 666666666666 6 6666666666!!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !. !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !. !. !. !!2 !!2 1171 1155 1175 1787 1147 1795 1154 1127 1160 1149 1833 1851 1850 1831 1200 1849 1176 1125 1122 181311171133 1140 11451151 11351139 1128 18301830 1836 1134 1143 1135 1120 1129 1124 1835 1150 1838 1819 1218 1222 1214 1210 1206 1854 1230 1775 1167 1165 1127 1120 1118 1117 1827 1128 1146 1126 112511271144115611541164 1157 1145 1136 1135 11381147 1137 1166 1155 1813 1853 11171133 1775 1775 1775 177517751775 17751775 113511391145 1775 1775 1775 1775 1775 1775 17751775 1775 1775 1775 1775 1775 17751775 1775 1775 1775 1775 ORCHARD PL ORCHARD CIRSIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYPRIVATE RD KINGSLEY CI R N KINGSLEY CIR S KINGSLEY CT HUNTER LNORCHARD HEIGHTS LNRCP CM P DIP RCPRCPRCP RCPCMPDakota County, MN Site Location Map1143 Orchard Circle Date: 8/26/2026 City ofMendotaHeights0200 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Legend 66 Storm Pipe, City of Mendota Heights Watermain, SPRWS Gravity, By Others Gravity, City of Mendota Heights FM Force Main, City of Mendota Heights Page 37 of 217 MRCCA Primary Conservation Areas (PCA's) MRCCA Data Resource Layers MRCCA Boundary City and Township Boundaries Parcels MRCCA Primary Conservation Areas Natural Drainage Routes Shore Impact Zones Native Plant Communities Significant Existing Vegetative Stands BIZ Wetlands 100 Year Floodplain River 100 ft Page 38 of 217 Page 39 of 217 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT COVER SHEET & NOTES G1.0 ISSUE DATE: Permit Set 7/08/2026ESSEN EXTERIOR REMODELING1143 ORCHARD CIRCLEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA,55118PRIMARY CONTACTS:OWNER:SHERRY ESSENsherry@sherryessen.com651-271-3335PROJECT NUMBER: 25018ARCHITECTURAL:KENDRA D. FJERSTADkendra@aharchitecture.com651-461-9840I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly LicensedArchitect under the laws of the state of Minnesota.Signature:Printed Name:Date: Lic. No.:2800 Lyndale Ave. S, Suite 220 Minneapolis, MN 55408 612 823 0233 www.aharchitecture.com FORMATTED ON 22X34 | PRINTED ON 8/4/2026 | © 2026 ALBERTSSON HANSEN ARCHITECTURE, LTD. | ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDINDEX OF DRAWINGS: COVER SHEET & NOTES CIVIL SITE PLAN ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN DEMOLITION DRAWINGS FLOOR PLANS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SECTIONS SCHEDULES STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS G1.0 G2.0 G3.0 D1.1 A1.2 A2.0 A2.1 A3.0 A5.0 S1.0 COVER SHEET & NOTES EXISTING SITE SURVEY ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN MAIN (ENTRY) & UPPER LEVEL DEMOLITION PLANS MAIN (ENTRY) & UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BUILDING SECTIONS AND DETAILS WINDOW & DOOR SCHEDULE STRUCTURAL PLANS & DETAILS SCHEDULES: 1.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SEE SCHEDULES FOR: ROOM FINISHES KEY & SCHEDULE, APPLIANCE, EQUIPMENT, PLUMBING FIXTURES, HARDWARE, ACCESSORIES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, WINDOWS, DOORS, CASEWORK SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES. 2.ALL SCHEDULE ITEMS SHALL HAVE SHOP DRAWINGS, PRODUCT DATA, SAMPLES, ETC. PROVIDED TO ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL 3.VERIFY AND COORDINATE ALL FINAL SCHEDULED ITEMS WITH ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDERING OR FABRICATION. PROJECT GENERAL NOTES: (APPLICABLE TO ALL DRAWINGS, U.N.O.) 1.THE CONTRACTOR & SUBCONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBSERVING & COMPLYING WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES, AUTHORITIES & SAFETY REGULATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR MUST SIGN ALL PERMITS & PAY THE PERMIT FEE BEFORE STARTING WORK. 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS & FIELD CONDITIONS PRIOR TO WORK & NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES THAT AFFECT CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT AS DESIGNED. 3.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY REGARDING ERRORS/OMISSIONS IN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, AND/OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK. 4.GC TO COORDINATE WORK WITH ALL PROJECT DOCUMENTS. ALL SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL WORK W/ COMPLETE SETS OF DRAWINGS. 5.ANY WORK OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF WORK AS SHOWN OR AS DESCRIBED BY THE ARCHITECT WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL WILL BE DONE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 6.CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE CONCERNS 7.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE WITH OWNER PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. (THIS INCLUDES TEMPORARY UTILITY SHUT DOWNS) 8.ALL MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, WORK SHALL BE DESIGN-BUILD, U.N.O. 9.CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP THE WORK SITE PREMISES INCLUDING ADJACENT PROPERTIES & RIGHT OF WAYS FREE FROM WASTE MATERIALS CAUSED BY THE WORK 10.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MATERIAL REMOVED FROM JOB SITE. THE OWNER SHALL HAVE FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL ON ALL ITEMS NOTED FOR DEMOLITION. ALL SALVAGE MATERIAL/ITEMS SHALL BE SAFELY RELOCATED PER OWNER'S DIRECTIONS. 11.UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN THE JOB SITE FOR MOVE-IN CONDITIONS. 12.DAMAGE CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROMPTLY REPAIRED OR REPLACED BY CONTRACTOR OR TRADES PEOPLE. PROJECT BRIEF: EXTERIOR REMODELING INCLUDING NEW WINDOW CASINGS, EXTERIOR PAINT, AND UPDATED EXTERIOR LIGHTING. SCOPE ALSO INCLUDES THE REPLACE MENT OF WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS, ALONG WITH A NEW FRONT ENTRY STOOP AND CANOPY. LANDSCAPING AND WALKWAYS WILL BE DESIGNED AND COMPLETED BY OTHERS. REGULATIONS: THIS PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO BE BUILT TO ALL APPLICABLE CURRENT ADOPTED CODES. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY ARCHITECT WHEN INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MIN. WIDTH OF 50' FRONT YARD SETBACK: MIN. 30' FROM RIGHT-OF- WAY REAR YARD SETBACK: MIN. 30' SIDE YARD SETBACK: MIN. 10' PUBLIC ROAD FRONTAGE: MIN. X' OF FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY BUILDING HEIGHT: NOT TO EXCEED 25' MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: NOT TO EXCEED 50% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE: NOT TO EXCEED 35% ABBREVATIONS: AFF ABOVE FINISH FLOOR NIC NOT IN CONTRACT VIF VERIFY IN FIELD CFCI CONTRACTOR FURNISHED, CONTRACTOR INSTALL OFCI OWNER FURNISHED, CONTRACTOR INSTALLED OFOI OWNER FURNISHED, OWNER INSTALLED 2 PROJECT LOCATION 3 PROJECT SITE 1 STREET VIEW RENDERED Page 40 of 217 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT EXISTING SITE SURVEY G2.0 ISSUE DATE: Permit Set 7/08/2026ESSEN EXTERIOR REMODELING1143 ORCHARD CIRCLEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA,55118PRIMARY CONTACTS:OWNER:SHERRY ESSENsherry@sherryessen.com651-271-3335PROJECT NUMBER: 25018ARCHITECTURAL:KENDRA D. FJERSTADkendra@aharchitecture.com651-461-9840I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly LicensedArchitect under the laws of the state of Minnesota.Signature:Printed Name:Date: Lic. No.:2800 Lyndale Ave. S, Suite 220 Minneapolis, MN 55408 612 823 0233 www.aharchitecture.com FORMATTED ON 22X34 | PRINTED ON 8/4/2026 | © 2026 ALBERTSSON HANSEN ARCHITECTURE, LTD. | ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSCALE: 1" = 20'1 SURVEY 0 10'20'40' 2 FRONT ENTRY VIEW FROM EAST 6 FRONT ENTRY 3 FRONT ENTRY VIEW FROM WEST 4 BACK SPA AREA 5 DECK VIEW Page 41 of 217 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN G3.0 ISSUE DATE: Permit Set 7/08/2026ESSEN EXTERIOR REMODELING1143 ORCHARD CIRCLEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA,55118PRIMARY CONTACTS:OWNER:SHERRY ESSENsherry@sherryessen.com651-271-3335PROJECT NUMBER: 25018ARCHITECTURAL:KENDRA D. FJERSTADkendra@aharchitecture.com651-461-9840I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly LicensedArchitect under the laws of the state of Minnesota.Signature:Printed Name:Date: Lic. No.:2800 Lyndale Ave. S, Suite 220 Minneapolis, MN 55408 612 823 0233 www.aharchitecture.com FORMATTED ON 22X34 | PRINTED ON 8/4/2026 | © 2026 ALBERTSSON HANSEN ARCHITECTURE, LTD. | ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDEXISTING FIRE PIT EXISTING DECK EXISTING DRIVEWAY LANDSCAPING ORCHARD CIRCLE A B C D A A A SYMBOL KEY FENCE PROTECTIVE FENCE DRAIN TILE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE OVERHEAD TELEPHONE LINE NEW STRUCTURE GRAVEL PLANTING BED SITE & LANDSCAPING KEY NOTES: AREA OF NEW LANDSCAPING - COMPLETED BY OTHERS. NEW WALKWAY - COMPLETED BY OTHERS. NEW PATIO- COMPLETED BY OTHERS NEW ENTRY CANOPY A B C D SITE & INFRASTRUCTURE GENERAL NOTES: 1.SEE STRUCTURAL FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE FOOTINGS, DEPTH & FOUNDATION EXCAVATION. SEE CIVIL DESIGN FOR GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND RETAINING WALL DESIGN. 2.ADDITIONAL SOIL TESTING & RECOMMENDATIONS BY A SOIL ENGINEER SHALL BE REQUIRED IF PERSONNEL SUSPECT PROBLEMS UPON EXCAVATION 3.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS & UTILITIES PRIOR TO ANY WORK. 4.EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE FROM A SURVEY PERFORMED BY OTHERS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS & FIELD CONDITIONS PRIOR TO WORK & NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES THAT EFFECT CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT AS DESIGNED. 5.CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN & PROTECT ALL BENCHMARKS, SURVEY MONUMENTS, PROPERTY IRONS, LAYOUT STAKES & OTHER REFERENCE POINTS. 6.IF APPLICABLE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ALL APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES TO VERIFY THE EXACT LOCATION, SIZE, & DEPTH OF TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC, GAS, CABLE, TELEVISION, FIBER OPTIC LINES, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, & OTHER PUBLIC & PRIVATE UTILITIES . 7.CONTRACTOR TO STAKE PROPOSED NEW SCOPE & REVIEW STAKING ON-SITE WITH OWNER & ARCHITECT PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. LANDSCAPING GENERAL NOTES: 1.FINAL GRADING, COMPLETED BY OTHERS -LANDSCAPE & HARDSCAPE PATHS TO BE DESIGNED & SPECIFIED BY LANDSCAPE DESIGNER, U.N.O. -ALL GRADE SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM STRUCTURE AT 1/8" PER FOOT MINIMUM. -DIRECT WATER TO NATURAL, PROPOSED DRAINAGE WAYS AND/OR CATCHMENT BASINS TO PREVENT POTENTIAL FUTURE EROSION. 2.PRESERVE & PROTECT EXISTING TREES, PLANTS & STRUCTURES THAT ARE TO REMAIN, WITH TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OR FENCING, WHICH SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. -TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO ANY WORK EXISTING PATIO 10'-0"4'-0"30'-0"20'-0"30.3'AREA OF NEW ADDITION SCALE: 1" = 10'1 SITE PLAN Page 42 of 217 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A2.0 ISSUE DATE: Permit Set 7/08/2026ESSEN EXTERIOR REMODELING1143 ORCHARD CIRCLEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA,55118PRIMARY CONTACTS:OWNER:SHERRY ESSENsherry@sherryessen.com651-271-3335PROJECT NUMBER: 25018ARCHITECTURAL:KENDRA D. FJERSTADkendra@aharchitecture.com651-461-9840I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervision and that I am duly LicensedArchitect under the laws of the state of Minnesota.Signature:Printed Name:Date: Lic. No.:2800 Lyndale Ave. S, Suite 220 Minneapolis, MN 55408 612 823 0233 www.aharchitecture.com FORMATTED ON 22X34 | PRINTED ON 8/4/2026 | © 2026 ALBERTSSON HANSEN ARCHITECTURE, LTD. | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED3 A3.0 9 A3.0 +100'-0" 1 ENTRY +104'-0 1/4" 2 KITCHEN +105'-2 3/4" 3 DINING +108'-8 3/4" 4 PRIMARY +118'-0 1/4" 5 ROOF 1'-0"1'-0" 11'-6 1/4"19'-2 3/8"7'-2 1/4"7'-2 1/4"S14 S15 S16 S17 S19 S20 S22 S23 S11S10S9S7 S4S2S1 S12 S13 S18 S5 S24 S3EXEX S21 A A B B D G J E D J H A C F B N I D H N I B E J B A D E H L M H M L JJ H M L M L M L L M L M M L JHJ M E D D B E A L M J H G U U DD V X X X Y X Z AA AA X Z AA BB CC L M J 3 A3.0 +100'-0" 1 ENTRY +104'-0 1/4" 2 KITCHEN +105'-2 3/4" 3 DINING +108'-8 3/4" 4 PRIMARY +118'-0 1/4" 5 ROOF 1'-0" 1'-0" EX EX EX EX EX W-1 EX R J A B J H P Q O D Q J K K J K H D D D J A D H B J E G E K S T XX Z X AA X AA Z EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS KEY NOTES: GUTTER: 6-INCH HALF ROUND W/ HALF ROUND HANGER & ADJUSTABLE PITCH FASCIA MOUNT SHANK. SPECIFICATION TO BE REVIEWED & APPROVED BY ARCHITECT. INSTALL LEAF GAURDS. [GUTTERS/DOWNSPOUTS: BRONZE FINISH.] DOWNSPOUT: 4-INCH ROUND. (NOT CORRUGATED -24 GAUGE). IF APPLICABLE, ROOFER IS TO PROVIDE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS TO ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW & APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALL. (PROVIDE WITH KICK-OUT EXTENSION, UNLESS NOTED TO RAIN INTO DRAIN TILE, RE: SITE PLAN.) SNOW GAURDS: INTALL AT CANOPY ROOF EDGE. FASCIA: PAINT EXISTING. SOFFIT: PAINT EXISTING. CANOPY CEILING: LP SMARTSIDE 38 SERIES SMOOTH FINISH PANEL, NO GROOVE . PAINT. FRIEZE: PAINT EXISTING. SIDING 1: PAINT EXISTING. SIDING 2: LP SMARTSIDE 38 SERIES SMOOTH FINISH PANEL - NO GROOVE W/ LP SMARTSIDE 190 SERIES SMOOTH TEXTURE TRIM (.578") APPLIED, 1" WIDE. 10.5" REVEAL BETWEEN BOARDS . PAINT. CORNER BOARDS: PAINT EXISTING. FENESTRATION TRIM: PAINT EXISTING. NEW FENESTRATION TRIM: 5/4 X 4 WINDSOR ONE. AT SOUTH ELEVATION INSTALL ADDITIONAL WINDOW TRIM OVER VERTICAL CORNER BOARDS. PAINT. FENESTRATION SILL: 1 1/2"X CEMENTITIOUS ARTISAN ACCENT TRIM SILL OR BORAL TYP, U.N.O.; TIP TO SLOPE PAINT BANDBOARD: 5/4 X 8 WINDSOR ONE. PAINT. DECKING: PAINT EXISTING. SKIRT & STAIR RISERS: PAINT EXISTING. RAILING: PAINT EXISTING. CHIMNEY: PAINT EXISTING. PERGOLA: PAINT EXISTING SHED: PAINT EXISTING INCLUDING DOORS 10X10 CEDAR COLUMNS WITH CHAMFERED EDGES, SEE STRUCTURAL AND DETAILS. PAINTED. 6X8 CEDAR BEAMS. SEE STRUCTURAL. PAINTED. LP SMARTSIDE 38 SERIES SMOOTH PANEL WITH LP SMARTSIDE 190 SERIES SMOOTH TEXTURE TRIM (.578") APPLIED, 7 1/4" WIDE, SCALOPPED CUT BOTTOM WITH 1" GAP BETWEEN TRIM BOARDS. PAINTED. INSTALL NEW SCONCE AT EXISTING LOCATION NEW ROOF STRUCTURE: 24 GA WESTERN STATES METAL ROOFING, STANDING SEAM. STANDARD 16 INCH FLAT PAN WITH 1 1/2" TIBS. VINTAGE FINISH. (2)1 1/2" X 7 1/4" CEDAR MEMBERS HORIZONTALLY - ONE AT THE FACE OF THE SIDING, SECOND PROJECTING 1'-0" OUT FROM WALL. PERPENDICULAR 3X3 CEDAR SHADING MEMBERS SPAN BETWEEN 1'-0" O.C. SUPPORTED BY CEDAR BRACKET. PAINT. CEDAR BRACKETS. SEE DETAILS PANEL BELOW WINDOW. LP SMARTSIDE 38 SERIES SMOOTH PANEL WITH LP SMARTSIDE 190 SERIES SMOOTH TEXTURE TRIM (.578") APPLIED, 3 1/2" WIDE - CENTER IS FLAT PANEL. INSTALL DARK BRONZE PREFINISHED FLASHING AT TOP OF PANEL. THERMALLY MODIFIED ASH DECKING APPLIED OVER STRUCTURAL SLAB ON GRADE. SEE STRUCTURAL. RAINCHAIN. KENCHIKU BRONZE HAMMERED 2 1/2" ROUND 4" HIGH WITH HALF ROUND RAIN CHAIN INSTALLATION KIT IN BRONZE AND 16 1/2" BLUE VERDE COPPER RAIN CHAIN BASIN. PROCURE FROM NUTSHELL STORE - RAINCHAINSINANUTSHELL.COM A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD XX EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES: 1.COORDINATE WORK WITH ALL PROJECT DOCUMENTS. SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS, SECTIONS & SCHEDULES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. -REFER TO DEMOLITION FLOOR PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF EXTERIOR WALLS & MATERIALS 2.NOT ALL LOCATIONS ARE TAGGED. TYPICAL LOCATIONS ARE MARKED FOR REFERENCE, ONLY. 3.ELEVATION REFERENCES ARE TO T.O. STRUCTURAL SUBFLOOR UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 4.PATCH WALLS /SURFACES AS REQUIRED TO MATCH ADJACENT WALL/SURFACES. AT RENO AREA WHERE EXISTING WALL SURFACE SHOWS SIGNS OF: -PEELING PAINT: SAND & REPAIR TO RECIEVE NEW PAINT. 5.GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE REQUIREMENTS & INSTALL ALL BLOCKING NECESSARY FOR SECURE ANCHORING OF EXTERIOR FINISHES. 6.PROVIDE BLOCKING FOR SIDING TERMINATION BEHIND ALL FIXTURES & ACCESSORIES FOR LEVEL MOUNTING 7.ALL SURFACES SHALL BE PROPERLY FLASHED & SEALED. PROVIDE ROOF FLASHING AT VALLEYS & WALL/ROOF TRANSITIONS 8.FINISH OF ALL EXPOSED FLASHINGS AROUND DOORS, WINDOWS & OTHER TO BE REVIEWED W/ ARCHITECT 9.ALL NATURAL WOOD PRODUCTS THAT ARE TO BE PAINTED/STAINED ARE TO BE FINISHED ON ALL SIDES PRIOR TO INSTALL 10.GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY & COORDINATE ALL FINAL EXTERIOR FINISH COLORS & SELECTIONS W/ ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDERING MATERIAL. ALL NEW WORK SHALL BE SITE PAINTED, U.N.O. GC TO REVIEW EXTENT OF WORK AT EXISTING AREAS W/ARCHITECT DRAWING LEGEND: NEW UNIT BY WINDOW MANUFACTURE, RE: WINDOW SCHEDULE FOR ADDITIONAL INFO SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION Page 43 of 217 6.f REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: September 1, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2026-55 Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $1,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2026A ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Finance CONTACT: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2026-55 Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $1,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, 2026A. BACKGROUND: The City ordered the Hampshire Estates Street Improvements at the December 16, 2025, City Council Meeting. Tonight we will begin the process of issuing general obligation bonds to finance this project. Ehlers & Associates will assist the City with the issuance of these bonds. The schedule is as follows: •Pre-Sale Review by Council September 1, 2026 •Conference with the Rating Agency Week of October 5, 2026 •Distribute Official Statement Week of October 5, 2026 •Award Sale of Bonds October 20, 2026 •Estimated Closing Date November 10, 2026 Ehlers has prepared a Pre-Sale report that is attached for council review. The City will be issuing $1,010,000 General Obligation Bonds for the street project with a term of 10 years. The assessment rate will be 2% over the true interest cost of the bonds issued. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The bonds will be paid with a combination of special assessments and an amount levied each year for the bond payments. ATTACHMENTS: 1.PreSaleReport.Mendota Heights.2026A 2.Res. 2026-55 Mendota Heights 2026A Presale Resolution CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 44 of 217 Page 45 of 217 This page is intentionally left blank September 1, 2026 PRE -SALE REPORT FOR City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota $1,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2026A Prepared by: Ehlers 3001 Broadway Street, Suite 320 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Advisors: Stacie Kvilvang, Senior Municipal Advisor Keith Dahl, Senior Municipal Advisor Jason Aarsvold, Senior Municipal Advisor BUILDING COMMUNITIES. IT’S WHAT WE DO. Page 46 of 217 Presale Report City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota September 1, 2026 Page 1 Proposed Issue: $1,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2026A Purposes: The proposed issue includes financing for Ha mpshire Estates street rehabilitation and water main replacement project, as well as a trail extension and intersection improvements along Mendota Heights Road. Debt service will be paid from special assessments and taxes. The City intends to levy a total of $543,772 in special assessments to benefitting property owners, of which $190,320 is anticipated to be collected in pre -paid assessments. The remaining assessments will be collected over a 10 -year period from 202 7 through 203 6 . They will be repaid at a rate equal to 2% over the True Interest Cost of the Bonds, using an equal principal repayment structure. Authority: The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters: • 429 – Improvement Bonding Authority •475 – General Bonding Authority Because the City is assessing at least 20% of the project costs, the Bonds can be a general obligation without a referendum and will not count against the City’s debt limit. The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged. Term/Call Feature: The Bonds are being issued for a term of 12 years . Principal on the Bonds will be due on February 1 in the years 2029 through 2038. Interest will be due every six months beginning August 1, 2027. The Bonds will be subject to prepayment at the discretion of the City on February 1, 2035 or any date thereafter. Bank Qualification: Because the City is expecting to issue no more than $10,000,000 in tax exempt debt during the calendar year, the City will be able to designate the Bonds as “bank qualified” obligations. Bank qualified status broadens the market for the Bonds, which can result in lower interest rates. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEBT Page 47 of 217 Presale Report City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota September 1, 2026 Page 2 Rating: The City’s most recent bond issues were rated by S&P Global Ratings. The current rating on those bonds is “AAA”/Stable outlook . The City will request a new rating for the Bonds. Basis for Recommendation: Based on your objectives, financial situation and need, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, experience with the issuance of Bond s and long -term financial capacity, as well as the tax status considerations related to the Bond s and the structure, timing and other similar matters related to the Bond s, we are recommending the issuance of Bond s as a suitable option . Method of Sale/Placement: We are recommending the Bonds be issued as municipal securities and offered through a competitive underwriting process. You will solicit competitive bids, which we will compile on your behalf, for the purchase of the Bonds from underwriters and banks. An allowance for discount bidding will be incorporated in the terms of the issue. The discount is treated as an interest item and provides the underwriter with all or a portion of their compensation in the transaction. If the Bonds are purchased at a price greater than the minimum bid amount (maximum discount), the unused allowance may be used to reduce your borrowing amount. Premium Pricing: In some cases, investors in municipal bonds prefer “premium” pricing structures. A premium is achieved when the coupon for any maturity (the interest rate paid by the issuer) exceeds the yield to the investor, resulting in a price paid that is greater than the face value of the bonds. The sum of the amounts paid in excess of face value is considered “reoffering premium.” The amount of the premium varies, but it is not uncommon to see premiums for new issues in the range of 2.00% to 10.00% of the face amount of the issue. This means that an issuer with a $2,000,000 offering ma y receive bids that result in proceeds of $2,040,000 to $2,200,000. For this issue of Bonds we have been directed to use the net premium to reduce the size of the issue . The resulting adjustments may slightly change the true interest cost of the issue, either up or down. The amount of premium can be restricted in the bid specifications. Restrictions on premium may result in fewer bids, but may also eliminate large adjustments on the day of sale and unintended impacts with respect to debt service payment. Ehlers will identify appropriate premium restrictions for the Bonds intended to achieve the City’s objectives for this financing. Page 48 of 217 Presale Report City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota September 1, 2026 Page 3 Review of Existing Debt: We have reviewed all outstanding indebtedness for the City and find that there are no refunding opportunities at this time. We will continue to monitor the market and the call dates for the City’s outstanding debt and will alert you to any future refunding opportunities. Continuing Disclosure: Because the City has more than $10,000,000 in outstanding debt subject to a continuing disclosure undertaking (including this issue) and this issue does not meet an available exemption from continuing disclosure, the City will be agreeing to provide certain updat ed Annual Financial Information and its Audited Financial Statement annually, as well as providing notices of the occurrence of certain reportable events to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB”), as required by rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The City is already obligated to provide such reports for its existing bonds, and has contracted with Ehlers to prepare and file the reports. Arbitrage Monitoring: The City must ensure compliance with certain sections of the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations (“Arbitrage Rules”) throughout the life of the issue to maintain the tax - exempt status of the Bonds. These Arbitrage Rules apply to amounts held in construction, escrow, reserve, debt service account(s), etc., along with related investment income on each fund/account. IRS audits will verify compliance with rebate, yield restriction and records retention requirements within the Arbitrage Rules. The City’s specific arbitrage responsibilities will be detailed in the Nonarbitrage Certificate (the “Tax Compliance Document”) prepared by your Bond Attorney and provided at closing. The Bonds may qualify for one or more exception(s) to the Arbitrage Rules by meeting 1) small issuer exception, 2) spend down requirements, 3) bona fide debt service fund limits, 4) reasonable reserve requirements, 5) expenditure within an available period limitations, 6) investments yield restrictions, 7) de minimis rules, or; 8) borrower limited requirements. An Ehlers arbitrage expert will contact the City within 30 days after the sale date to review the City’s specific responsibilities for the Bonds. The City is currently receiving arbitrage services from Ehlers in relation to the Bonds. Investment of Bond Proceeds: Ehlers can assist the City in developing a strategy to invest your Bond proceeds until the funds are needed to pay project costs . Page 49 of 217 Presale Report City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota September 1, 2026 Page 4 Risk Factors: Special Assessments: We have assumed a portion of the special assessment will be pre -paid and we have assumed that assessments will be levied as projected . If the City receives a significant higher amount of pre -paid assessments or does not levy the assessments , it may need to increase the levy portion of the debt service to make up for lower interest earnings than the expected assessment interest rate. Other Service Providers: This debt issuance will require the engagement of other public finance service providers. This section identifies those other service providers, so Ehlers can coordinate their engagement on your behalf. Where you have previously used a particular firm to p rovide a service, we have assumed that you will continue that relationship. For services you have not previously required, we have identified a service provider. Fees charged by these service providers will be paid from proceeds of the obligation, unless you notify us that you wish to pay them from other sources. Our pre -sale bond sizing includes a good faith estimate of these fees, but the final fees may vary. If you have any questions pertaining to the identified service provid ers or their role, or if you would like to use a different service provider for any of the listed services please contact us. Bond Counsel: Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP Paying Agent: Bond Trust Services Corporation Rating Agency: S&P Global Ratings (S&P) Summary: The decisions to be made by the City Council are as follows: • Accept or modify the finance assumptions described in this report • Adopt the resolution attached to this report. Page 50 of 217 Presale Report City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota September 1, 2026 Page 5 Pre -Sale Review by City Council:September 1, 2026 Due Diligence Call to Review Official Statement & Conference with Rating Agency:Week of Octo ber 5, 2026 Distribute Official Statement:Week of October 5 , 2026 City Council Meeting to Award Sale of the Bonds:October 20, 2026 Estimated Closing Date:November 10, 2026 Attachments Estimated Sources and Uses of Funds Estimated Proposed Debt Service Schedule Resolution Authorizing Ehlers to Proceed with Bond Sale EHLERS’ CONTACTS Stacie Kvilvang, Senior Municipal Advisor (651) 697 -8506 Keith Dahl, Senior Municipal Advisor (651) 697 -8595 Jason Aarsvold, Senior Municipal Advisor (651) 697 -8512 Emily Wilkie, Senior Public Finance Analyst (651) 697 -8588 Alicia Gage, Senior Financial Analyst (651) 697 -8551 PROPOSED DEBT ISSUANCE SCHEDULE EHLERS’ CONTACTS Page 51 of 217 City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota $1,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2026A Assumes Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 50bps Sources & Uses Dated 11/10/2026 | Delivered 11/10/2026 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $1,010,000.00 Prepaid Assessments 190,320.16 MSA Funds 257,355.60 St Paul Reg Water 137,114.50 Utility Revenue 208,409.00 Total Sources $1,803,199.26 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (1.500%)15,150.00 Costs of Issuance 55,000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 1,731,855.70 Rounding Amount 1,193.56 Total Uses $1,803,199.26 Series 2026A GO Imp Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 8/24/2026 | 1:26 PM Page 52 of 217 City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota $1,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2026A Assumes Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 50bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 11/10/2026 ----- 08/01/2027 --26,950.06 26,950.06 - 02/01/2028 --18,586.25 18,586.25 45,536.31 08/01/2028 --18,586.25 18,586.25 - 02/01/2029 95,000.00 3.250%18,586.25 113,586.25 132,172.50 08/01/2029 --17,042.50 17,042.50 - 02/01/2030 100,000.00 3.350%17,042.50 117,042.50 134,085.00 08/01/2030 --15,367.50 15,367.50 - 02/01/2031 100,000.00 3.400%15,367.50 115,367.50 130,735.00 08/01/2031 --13,667.50 13,667.50 - 02/01/2032 100,000.00 3.450%13,667.50 113,667.50 127,335.00 08/01/2032 --11,942.50 11,942.50 - 02/01/2033 105,000.00 3.600%11,942.50 116,942.50 128,885.00 08/01/2033 --10,052.50 10,052.50 - 02/01/2034 105,000.00 3.700%10,052.50 115,052.50 125,105.00 08/01/2034 --8,110.00 8,110.00 - 02/01/2035 105,000.00 3.800%8,110.00 113,110.00 121,220.00 08/01/2035 --6,115.00 6,115.00 - 02/01/2036 110,000.00 4.000%6,115.00 116,115.00 122,230.00 08/01/2036 --3,915.00 3,915.00 - 02/01/2037 110,000.00 4.100%3,915.00 113,915.00 117,830.00 08/01/2037 --1,660.00 1,660.00 - 02/01/2038 80,000.00 4.150%1,660.00 81,660.00 83,320.00 Total $1,010,000.00 -$258,453.81 $1,268,453.81 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $6,792.25 Average Life 6.725 Years Average Coupon 3.8051281% Net Interest Cost (NIC)4.0281764% True Interest Cost (TIC)4.0518265% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.7903827% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)5.0476016% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 3.8051281% Weighted Average Maturity 6.725 Years Series 2026A GO Imp Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 8/24/2026 | 1:26 PM Page 53 of 217 City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota $1,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2026A Assumes Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 50bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 105% of Total Assessments Levy/(Surplus) 02/01/2027 ------- 02/01/2028 --45,536.31 45,536.31 47,813.13 56,729.03 (8,915.90) 02/01/2029 95,000.00 3.250%37,172.50 132,172.50 138,781.13 54,590.65 84,190.48 02/01/2030 100,000.00 3.350%34,085.00 134,085.00 140,789.25 52,452.25 88,337.00 02/01/2031 100,000.00 3.400%30,735.00 130,735.00 137,271.75 50,313.87 86,957.88 02/01/2032 100,000.00 3.450%27,335.00 127,335.00 133,701.75 48,175.48 85,526.27 02/01/2033 105,000.00 3.600%23,885.00 128,885.00 135,329.25 46,037.10 89,292.15 02/01/2034 105,000.00 3.700%20,105.00 125,105.00 131,360.25 43,898.72 87,461.53 02/01/2035 105,000.00 3.800%16,220.00 121,220.00 127,281.00 41,760.34 85,520.66 02/01/2036 110,000.00 4.000%12,230.00 122,230.00 128,341.50 39,621.94 88,719.56 02/01/2037 110,000.00 4.100%7,830.00 117,830.00 123,721.50 37,483.56 86,237.94 02/01/2038 80,000.00 4.150%3,320.00 83,320.00 87,486.00 -87,486.00 Total $1,010,000.00 -$258,453.81 $1,268,453.81 $1,331,876.50 $471,062.94 $860,813.56 Significant Dates Dated 11/10/2026 First Coupon Date 8/01/2027 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $6,792.25 Average Life 6.725 Years Average Coupon 3.8051281% Net Interest Cost (NIC)4.0281764% True Interest Cost (TIC)4.0518265% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.7903827% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)5.0476016% Series 2026A GO Imp Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 8/24/2026 | 1:26 PM Page 54 of 217 City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota $353,452 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2026A Assessments TIC plus 2.0% - Equal Principal Assessments Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 12/31/2027 35,345.19 6.050%21,383.84 56,729.03 12/31/2028 35,345.19 6.050%19,245.46 54,590.65 12/31/2029 35,345.19 6.050%17,107.06 52,452.25 12/31/2030 35,345.19 6.050%14,968.68 50,313.87 12/31/2031 35,345.18 6.050%12,830.30 48,175.48 12/31/2032 35,345.18 6.050%10,691.92 46,037.10 12/31/2033 35,345.18 6.050%8,553.54 43,898.72 12/31/2034 35,345.18 6.050%6,415.16 41,760.34 12/31/2035 35,345.18 6.050%4,276.76 39,621.94 12/31/2036 35,345.18 6.050%2,138.38 37,483.56 Total $353,451.84 -$117,611.10 $471,062.94 Significant Dates Filing Date 1/01/2027 First Payment Date 12/31/2027 Series 2026A GO Imp Bds - | SINGLE PURPOSE | 8/24/2026 | 1:26 PM Page 55 of 217 City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota $1,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2026A Assumes Current Market BQ AAA Rates plus 50bps Detail Costs Of Issuance Dated 11/10/2026 | Delivered 11/10/2026 COSTS OF ISSUANCE DETAIL Municipal Advisor $24,000.00 Bond Counsel $15,000.00 Rating Agency Fee $15,000.00 Miscellaneous $1,000.00 TOTAL $55,000.00 Series 2026A GO Imp Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 8/24/2026 | 1:26 PM Page 56 of 217 303061535v1 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA HELD: SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular or special meeting of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, was duly held at City Hall on September 1, 2026, at 6:00 P.M., for the purpose, in part, of providing for the issuance and sale of $1,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2026A. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Member ________________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2026-55 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $1,010,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2026A A.WHEREAS, the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the "City") has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $1,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2026A (the "Bonds"), to finance projects as described in the Official Statement to be prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Minneapolis, Minnesota ("Ehlers"); and B.WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers, as its independent municipal advisor for the Bonds in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1.Authorization. The Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to assist the City for the sale of the Bonds. 2.Meeting; Proposal Opening. The Council shall meet at 6:00 P.M. on October 20, 2026, for the purpose of considering proposals for and awarding the sale of the Bonds. 3.Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member _______________________ and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following Council Members voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Page 57 of 217 303061535v1 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA DAKOTA COUNTY CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council, duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as the minutes relate to providing for the issuance and sale of $1,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2026A. WITNESS my hand on September 1, 2026. __________________________________________ City Clerk Page 58 of 217 This page is intentionally left blank Page 59 of 2176.g Page 60 of 217 6.h REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: September 1, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Purchase Order for Lift Station Security Improvements ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Authorize the issuance of a purchase order for SCADA Routers and Firewall at the City’s six Lift Stations. BACKGROUND: Mendota Heights contracts with LOGIS for cybersecurity and IT services. Two of the Mendota Heights lift stations were temporarily disabled in a cyberattack earlier this summer. The SCADA system in the lift stations was operating outside the city network. Staff met with LOGIS to review options for protecting the systems from future attacks. LOGIS provided a quote to install routers and firewalls that can provide adequate protection over a cellular connection. Extending fiber optics would be another option, but the costs would be astronomical and unnecessary. The city is also proposing to include a redundant alarm which would be on an analog (telephone) system. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Staff recommends authorizing a purchase order in the amount of $13,689.39 for the purchase and installation of six routers and supporting hardware. The expenditure will be funded through the Sanitary Sewer Fund, which has sufficient available fund balance to accommodate the purchase. LOGIS has estimated approximately $2,625 for installation and configuration. The total project costs will be just over $16,000. In addition, the staff are proposing to include the management of the new routers in the LOGIS services contract. This management will allow for security checks, firmware updates, and an additional monitoring service. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Page 61 of 217 Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 62 of 217 6.i REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: September 1, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Out of Metro Travel Request ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Fire CONTACT: Dan Johnson, Fire Chief ACTION REQUEST: Approve a request for out of metro travel for firefighters Chris Jones, Pete Madland, and Rachel Miller for the Minnesota State Fire Department Association (MSFDA) Annual Conference and Fire School. BACKGROUND: The MSFDA Annual Conference and Fire School is a multi-day event for firefighters and emergency responders focused on training, safety equipment, and networking. Event highlights include hours of classroom and hands-on training options, covering crucial skills and relief association classes, a vendor showcase to highlight the latest products, technology, and safety gear for fire and EMS professionals, and networking events such as a memorial service, general membership meetings, awards banquet, and social activities. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The registration fee for the conference is $325 per firefighter. Estimated lodging, meals, and incidental costs are $900. Training funds are available in the Fire Department's budget. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 63 of 217 This page is intentionally left blank 6.j REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: September 1, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledge 1Q & 2Q Financial and Building Activity Reports ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Finance CONTACT: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director ACTION REQUEST: Acknowledge 1Q & 2Q Financial and Building Activity Reports BACKGROUND: The 1Q and 2Q Budget to actual reports are attached for your review. Items of note for these reports are as follows: •2Q revenues YTD are at expected levels •Property tax revenues are not received until July 2026 •Licenses & Permits are at 86% of the budgeted amount •Expenditures are on track with budgeted amounts •There are some departments with expenditures that are front loaded for the year The 1Q and 2Q Building Activity reports are attached for your review. Items of note for these reports are as follows: •2 Single Family Dwelling permits have been issued •1 Assisted Living (shown as apartment) permit has been issued in the first half of 2026 •Commercial permits for Bricksworth, Happy Joe's and a tenant buildout for new warehouse building have been issued FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: These items are for your information. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Budget to Actual reports 2.Building Activity reports CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 64 of 217 Page 65 of 217 This page is intentionally left blank Page 66 of 217 Page 67 of 217 Page 68 of 217 Page 69 of 217 Page 70 of 217 Page 71 of 217 Page 72 of 2176.k Page 73 of 217 Page 74 of 217 Page 75 of 217 Page 76 of 217 Page 77 of 217 Page 78 of 217 Page 79 of 217 Page 80 of 217 Page 81 of 217 Page 82 of 217 Page 83 of 217 Page 84 of 217 This page is intentionally left blank 7.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: September 1, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Police Department Squad Program Update ITEM TYPE: Presentation DEPARTMENT: Police CONTACT: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain ACTION REQUEST: Informational. The department will provide an overview and update on the squad program. BACKGROUND: In 2005, the police department launched its assigned squad program. Through this program, officers are each assigned a squad car with the option to also utilize it as a take-home squad. This presentation will give an update on the success of the program’s start, how the program is progressing, and the program’s sustainability. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 85 of 217 This page is intentionally left blank 9.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: September 1, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Municipal Campus Building Project — Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Determine the need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. BACKGROUND: Receipt of EAW Petition On August 24, 2026, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (“EQB”) received a petition requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) be prepared for the proposed Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Building Project. The Petition invokes the environmental rules outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410.0200 to 4410.6500 (the “Rules”) which implement the environmental review procedures established by the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (“MEPA”). EAW Petition Timeline and Deadline for City Council Action On August 25, 2026, the EQB determined that the City of Mendota Heights is the appropriate responsible governmental unit (“RGU”) to decide the need for an EAW. On that same date, the EQB notified the City of this determination and transmitted the complete Petition as is required by the Rules. Because of this designation, the City Council is charged with meeting the requirements of the Environmental Review Program. The City has 15 days (exclusive of weekends and legal holidays) after receipt of the Petition to determine whether there is a need for an EAW. Based on the date that the Petition was received from the EQB, the City Council must make a determination no later than September 16, 2026. The City may request an additional 15 days if the City Council requires that additional time to make the determination. If extended, the City’s deadline for the determination would be October 7, 2026. The City is required to maintain a record of its decision on the need for an EAW. The record of decision must include specific findings of fact Page 86 of 217 by the City Council. Definition and Categories of EAWs Under State Law and Rules An EAW is “a brief document which is designed to set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether an environmental impact statement is required for a proposed action.” An EAW is “prepared in worksheet format” and “is designed to rapidly assess the environmental effects that may be associated with a proposed project.” The EAW (1) aids in the determination of whether an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) is needed; and (2) may serve as a basis to begin the scoping process for an EIS. There are two categories of EAWs: mandatory and discretionary. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1100, subp. 6, the City shall order the preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers, and other persons, demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have potential for significant environmental effects. The City analyzes the factors in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subp. 7, to determine if a proposed project meets the criteria for significant environmental effects. Under the Rules, the City shall deny the petition if the evidence presented fails to demonstrate the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Minnesota Rules require mandatory EAWs for certain projects that meet or exceed certain thresholds. Additional information about these thresholds is included in the memo from the City Attorney and in the memo from the Project Engineer that are included in this agenda packet. As is set forth in those memos, the proposed Project does not meet or exceed the thresholds required for a mandatory EAW. If an EAW is not mandatory, it is discretionary. A discretionary EAW is required if the following circumstances exist: 1.If the proposer[1] wishes to initiate an environmental review; or 2.If the EQB determines the need and the project is not exempt from EAW requirements; or 3.If the governmental unit with approval authority determines that a project may have the potential for significant environmental impacts and the project is not exempt under Minnesota Rules. Here, a discretionary EAW is not required under #2 above because the EQB has not made the determination described above. Likewise, a discretionary EAW is not required under #3 above because the City would have to determine that the proposed Project may have the potential for significant environmental impacts, and the proposed Project is not exempt under Minnesota Rules. Both of these components must exist for a discretionary EAW to be required under #3. As is described below, the proposed Project is exempt under Minnesota Rules. Therefore, a discretionary EAW is not required. Page 87 of 217 However, under #1 above, the City as the proposer may request the initiation of an environmental review. Exemptions Under State Law and Rules Under the Minnesota Rules, projects in a variety of categories and under a variety of thresholds are exempt from EAW requirements. As applicable here, in a third class city like Mendota Heights (as designated by statute based on population), construction of a new or expansion of an existing warehousing, light industrial, commercial, or institutional facility of less than 50,000 square feet, expressed as gross floor space. The proposed Project meets the definition of “institutional facility” set forth in Minnesota Rules. As such, based on the calculated square footage of the proposed Project, the proposed Project is exempt from EAW requirements. Applicable City Code Provisions Pursuant to City Code Section 12-5D-1, the City has adopted the state regulations and rules of the Environmental Review Program and the EQB. At the same time, City Code Section 12-5D- 1(D) provides for an “optional EAW” that may be required at the discretion of the City Council and upon the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator if a proposed action “may be a major action and appears to have the potential for significant environmental effects.” Under the City Code, the “following guidelines shall also be considered in determining whether an optional EAW shall be required: 1.Is the action to be in or near an area that is considered to be environmentally sensitive or aesthetically pleasing? 2.Is the action likely to have disruptive effects such as generating traffic and noise? 3.Are there public questions or controversy concerning the environmental effects of the proposed actions?” Upon review of these guidelines, the proposed Project is near an area that is considered aesthetically pleasing; is likely to have temporary disruptive effects; and has sparked public questions and controversy concerning environmental effects. Based on these facts, the City Council may exercise its discretion to order an optional EAW. Staff Recommendation Based on all of the information outlined above, on the information included in the legal and engineering memos, on the evidence presented in the Petition, and on other information that is otherwise known to the City Council, Staff recommends that the City Council take one of the following actions: 1.Adopt a Resolution denying a petition for the preparation of an EAW; 2.Adopt a Resolution ordering the preparation of an EAW as the proposer of the proposed project; or 3.Adopt a Resolution ordering the preparation of an EAW pursuant to City Code Section Page 88 of 217 12-5D-1(D). [1]For this Project, the City is considered to be the proposer. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: If the City Council chooses to move forward with a discretionary or optional EAW, additional resources (human and financial) would be needed. If the current project engineer completes the additional work, the cost may be lower due to their familiarity with the project and work already being completed under the B3 guidelines. If the City Council chooses to engage a different engineering consultant firm, preliminary estimates indicate that the cost to complete the EAW could range from approximately $23,000 to $40,000 depending on scope of work. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Complete Petition Transmittal Letter to Mendota Heights from Environmental Quality Board 2.EAW Petition Dated August 24, 2026 3.Legal Memo from the City Attorney 4.Engineering Memo from Design Tree Engineering , Inc. 5.DRAFT Resolution Denying EAW Petition 6.DRAFT Resolution Ordering Discretionary EAW Pursuant to Request of Proposer 7.DRAFT Resolution Ordering Optional EAW Pursuant to City Code Section 12-5D-1 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship Page 89 of 217 1 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board VIA E-MAIL (cover letter & petition) 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, MN 55155 August 25, 2026 Cheryl Jacobson City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 CJacobson@mendotaheightsmn.gov RE: Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project Dear Cheryl Jacobson, The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) received a petition on August 24, 2026 requesting that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared for the project described in the petition, and on August 25, 2026 the EQB determined that the City of Mendota Heights is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW. All requirements for Minnesota’s Environmental Review Program, including when review is required and when review is exempt can be found in Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410. Please note, a project may not be started, and a final governmental decision may not be made to grant a permit, approve a project, or begin a project, until a decision has been made for this petition. Project construction includes any activities which directly affect the environment, including preparation of land. The procedures to be followed in making the decision on the enclosed petition (EAW need decision) are found in part 4410.1100. Key points in the procedures include: 1.As the designated RGU, you are required to decide the need for preparation of an EAW, considering the evidence presented by the petitioners or otherwise known to you about the nature and location of the project. In making your decision, you should consider the evidence submitted and take into account the factors listed in part 4410.1700, subpart 7. Note that these procedures require that a record of decision, including specific findings of fact, be maintained. 2.You have 15 working days from the date of the receipt of this petition to decide on the need for an EAW. (See part 4410.1100.) -For RGU decisions made by a board, council, or other body which meets on a periodic basis, the time period may be extended by the RGU for an additional 15 days. -For RGU decisions not made by a board, council, or other body, the RGU may request an extension from the EQB of up to an additional 15 days. Page 90 of 217 Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project Page 2 August 25, 2026 3.You must provide written notification of your final decision to the proposer, the petitioners' representative, and the EQB, within 5 working days of that decision. a.To notify the EQB of your decision on the need for an EAW, please email env.review@state.mn.us. The EQB requests that you include a copy of your record of decision, including instances where environmental review is mandatory, voluntary, or exempt. 4.When notices of decision are sent to EQB, please ensure that: a.Decisions have undergone all foreseeable and applicable local administrative processes. b.The representative providing notices is authorized to do so on behalf of your responsible unit of government. 5.Should you have any concerns about the timelines for final decisions and the timing of any needed processes, please contact the EQB as soon as possible. 6.If for any reason you are unable to act on the petition at this time (e.g., no application has yet been filed or the application has been withdrawn or denied), the petition will remain in effect for a period of one year and must be acted upon prior to any final decision concerning the project identified in the petition. It is recommended that you notify in writing both the petitioners’ representative and the EQB if you are unable to act on the petition at the time it is received. Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in the EQB Monitor on September 1, 2026. If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at env.review@state.mn.us or 651-757-2873. Sincerely, Sophia Musiak Environmental Review Technical Assistance Administrator Environmental Quality Board cc: Petitioners’ Representative, Cathleen Helmstetter Page 91 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project 1101 Victoria Curve - Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota FILING PACKAGE Package contents Petition Sections A-E, material-evidence register, filing checklist, and signature sheets. Sources / Public Records Official record origins and attached-evidence references; raw web links are not relied upon as material evidence and are not included in this filing package. Exhibit A BKV Group preliminary schematic drawings, May 22, 2026 (Sheets I400 and I401). Exhibit B Mertensotto Field existing-condition photographs, taken August 12, 2026. Exhibit G July 7, 2026 geotechnical-services record concerning 13 soil borings and water levels. Exhibit L July 21, 2026 City Council work-session records regarding Civic Center Park / Mertensotto Field replacement. Exhibit P / P-1 / P-2 Wetland evidence; May 26 City site plan; DNR Wetland Finder / City Wetlands Map; current City wetland provisions. Exhibit Q Peer-reviewed scientific evidence on construction runoff/sediment, wetland hydrology, drainage, and water quality. Exhibit R Urban Forest Preservation memo retained as background only; not relied upon to establish canopy or habitat loss at Mertensotto Field. Exhibit S August 5, 2026 City Council Plan B agenda materials and current project-status record. Exhibit U August 18, 2026 City Council Municipal Campus Building Project Update - official-source extract. Final completion items before submission 1. Add filing date. 2. Obtain at least 100 eligible signatures; 110 signature lines are provided for a buffer. Petition Sections A-E, material-evidence register, filing checklist, and signature sheets. Sources / Public Records Official record origins and attached-evidence references; raw web links are not relied upon as material evidence and are not included in this filing package. Exhibit A BKV Group preliminary schematic drawings, May 22, 2026 (Sheets I400 and I401). Exhibit B Mertensotto Field existing-condition photographs, taken August 12, 2026. Exhibit G July 7, 2026 geotechnical-services record concerning 13 soil borings and water levels. Exhibit L July 21, 2026 City Council work-session records regarding Civic Center Park / Mertensotto Field replacement. Exhibit P / P-1 / P-2 Wetland evidence; May 26 City site plan; DNR Wetland Finder / City Wetlands Map; current City wetland provisions. Exhibit Q Peer-reviewed scientific evidence on construction runoff/sediment, wetland hydrology, drainage, and water quality. Exhibit R Urban Forest Preservation memo retained as background only; not relied upon to establish canopy or habitat loss at Mertensotto Field. Exhibit S August 5, 2026 City Council Plan B agenda materials and current project-status record. Exhibit T ICS Municipal Campus City Council Work Session presentation, November 5, 2025 - facility scenarios and alternatives. Exhibit U August 18, 2026 City Council Municipal Campus Building Project Update - official-source extract. Final completion items before submission Updated August 24, 2026 1. Filing date: August 24, 2026. 2. 190 numbered signatures are attached, providing a buffer above the 100-signature minimum. 3. Publicly posted official City records checked through August 24, 2026; no later project action or final governmental approval was identified that materially changed the project. 4. File only attached records or source extracts. Do not rely on website links as material evidence. Page 92 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) MENDOTA HEIGHTS MUNICIPAL CAMPUS PROJECT Dakota County, Minnesota Project location Current municipal campus site, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Project proposer City of Mendota Heights Petitioners' representative Cathleen Helmstetter Representative phone 312-286-6294 Representative email cathhelmstetter@gmail.com Date submitted Petition purpose This petition requests preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project and follows the current Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) citizen-petition structure. The petition narrative, sources/public-record sheet, material-evidence register, supporting exhibits, and signature sheets are assembled together for filing. IMPORTANT: Verify the final petition against the current EQB petition template and Minnesota law immediately before filing. Material evidence must accompany the petition. The petition must be submitted before final governmental approval of the proposed project. Legal basis and current official sources - Minn. Stat. section 116D.04, subd. 2a(e) - petition standard and geographic eligibility of signers. - Minn. R. 4410.1100 - petition content, filing, proposer notice, RGU determination, and decision process. - Minnesota EQB, Petition for an EAW template - current official petition assembly guidance. August 24, 2026 Page 93 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW Sources and Public Records Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) The sources below identify the official public records and authorities used to prepare this petition. Consistent with EQB feedback, web links are not offered as material evidence. The principal evidentiary records are physically included in the filing package and are identified below by exhibit. Exhibit / use Public record Filing treatment Project overview / Section A City of Mendota Heights - Municipal Campus Building Project Background description; attached City/BKV records control. Exhibit A BKV Group Preliminary Schematic Designs - Municipal Campus Project, May 22, 2026 ATTACHED Exhibit G City Council Geotechnical Services / Braun Intertec record, July 7, 2026 ATTACHED Exhibit L City Council Work Session - Civic Center Park / Mertensotto Field replacement, July 21, 2026 ATTACHED Exhibit P / P-1 Municipal Campus Work Session - Site Plan Studies, May 26, 2026 ATTACHED Exhibit P-2 DNR Wetland Finder, City Wetlands Map, and current Mendota Heights wetland provisions ATTACHED source images / official extracts Exhibit Q Peer-reviewed scientific evidence on construction, stormwater, drainage, and wetland impacts ATTACHED evidence summary with full citations Exhibit R Natural Resources Commission - Urban Forest Preservation, June 10, 2026 ATTACHED as background only Exhibit S City Council Plan A / Plan B agenda materials and August 5, 2026 meeting record ATTACHED Exhibit U City Council Regular Meeting - Municipal Campus Building Project Update, August 18, 2026 ATTACHED official-source extract Legal, procedural, and wetland-reference authorities - Minnesota Environmental Quality Board - Petition for an EAW, current official template. - Minn. Stat. section 116D.04, subd. 2a(e) - petition standard and signer eligibility. - Minn. R. 4410.1100 - petition process and material-evidence requirements. - Minnesota BWSR - Wetland Delineation / Wetland Conservation Act technical guidance. - Minnesota DNR - National Wetlands Inventory / Wetland Finder mapping guidance and limitations. - Mendota Heights Code sections 12-4A-4, 15-4-3, 15-4-4, and 15-4-5 - wetland/buffer, grading, and construction-protection provisions. Source-handling note: No raw URLs or hyperlinks are included in this filing package. Where an item supports the petition, the actual record, map, photograph, official extract, evidence summary, or source reproduction is included as an exhibit. Exhibit / use Public record Filing treatment Project overview / Section A City of Mendota Heights - Municipal Campus Building Project Background description; attached City/BKV records control. Exhibit A BKV Group Preliminary Schematic Designs - Municipal Campus Project, May 22, 2026 ATTACHED Exhibit G City Council Geotechnical Services / Braun Intertec record, July 7, 2026 ATTACHED Exhibit L City Council Work Session - Civic Center Park / Mertensotto Field replacement, July 21, 2026 ATTACHED Exhibit P / P-1 Municipal Campus Work Session - Site Plan Studies, May 26, 2026 ATTACHED Exhibit P-2 DNR Wetland Finder, City Wetlands Map, and current Mendota Heights wetland provisions ATTACHED source images / official extracts Exhibit Q Peer-reviewed scientific evidence on construction, stormwater, drainage, and wetland impacts ATTACHED evidence summary with full citations Exhibit R Natural Resources Commission - Urban Forest Preservation, June 10, 2026 ATTACHED as background only Exhibit S City Council Plan A / Plan B agenda materials and August 5, 2026 meeting record ATTACHED Exhibit T ICS Municipal Campus City Council Work Session presentation, November 5, 2025 ATTACHED - full presentation Exhibit U City Council Regular Meeting - Municipal Campus Building Project Update, August 18, 2026 ATTACHED official-source extract Legal, procedural, and wetland-reference authorities - Minnesota Environmental Quality Board - Petition for an EAW, current official template. - Minn. Stat. section 116D.04, subd. 2a(e) - petition standard and signer eligibility. - Minn. R. 4410.1100 - petition process and material-evidence requirements. - Minnesota BWSR - Wetland Delineation / Wetland Conservation Act technical guidance. - Minnesota DNR - National Wetlands Inventory / Wetland Finder mapping guidance and limitations. - Mendota Heights Code sections 12-4A-4, 15-4-3, 15-4-4, and 15-4-5 - wetland/buffer, grading, and construction-protection provisions. Source-handling note: No raw URLs or hyperlinks are included in this filing package. Where an item supports the petition, the actual record, map, photograph, official extract, evidence summary, or source reproduction is included as an exhibit. Page 94 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW Petition Introduction This petition is submitted to request preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project. The individuals signing this petition support the information and material evidence included with the petition and believe that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, there may be potential for significant environmental effects. A. Description of the Proposed Project Provide enough information to identify the project, its location, major components, current design status, and the physical changes that may occur. Keep statements factual and tie them to attached records. The proposed project is the City of Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Building Project, a new combined City Hall and Police Department facility to be constructed on the City's existing municipal campus at 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota. The new facility is intended to replace the existing combined City Hall/Police Department building and will require reconfiguration of the municipal campus and related site improvements. BKV Group preliminary schematic drawings dated May 22, 2026 (Commission No. 2780.01; Sheets I400 and I401) depict a two-level facility and are marked "Not for Construction." The City Council approved the schematic design and authorized design development on June 2, 2026 (Resolution 2026-37). On June 16, 2026, the Council directed the project team to revise the scope to meet current needs with options for future expansion. The City's August 5, 2026 agenda materials describe the approved schematic site placement, Plan A, as locating the proposed building west of the existing City Hall/Police Department building and requiring relocation of Civic Center Park/Mertensotto Field. On August 18, 2026, the City Council regular-meeting agenda included item 10.a, "Municipal Campus Building Project Update." The official agenda packet identifies the item as informational, with an update to be provided by City staff and/or ICS, and includes no attachments for that update. The same staff report describes the project as the proposed construction of a new Police Station and City Hall to replace the existing municipal facility at 1101 Victoria Curve, constructed in the late 1980s. The August 18 record therefore confirms that the project remained active after the August 16 petition draft, but the packet did not supply final construction plans, a wetland delineation, grading/limits-of-disturbance plans, impervious-surface calculations, stormwater/drainage calculations, or a final geotechnical report. The project may involve conversion of existing recreational/open-space land to building and campus uses, together with grading, parking and vehicle circulation, pedestrian access, utilities, stormwater/rain-garden features, landscaping, exterior lighting, solar facilities, and other site work. Project-specific facts and current design status: Project type New combined City Hall and Police Department municipal facility replacing the existing combined facility. Project location Existing municipal campus, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota. Current approval/design stage Schematic design approved June 2, 2026; design development authorized. Scope revision directed June 16, 2026. August 18, 2026 Council item was an informational project update, not a final plan approval in the agenda packet. Approved schematic site placement (Plan A) Building west of the existing City Hall/Police Department building; relocation of Civic Center Park / Mertensotto Field required under Plan A. Major site components Building construction; parking/circulation; pedestrian access; utilities; grading; stormwater/rain-garden features; landscaping; exterior lighting; solar facilities; and related site work. Page 95 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW Current approval/design stage The City Council approved the schematic design and authorized design development on June 2, 2026 (Resolution 2026-37). On June 16, 2026, the Council directed the project team to revise the scope to meet current needs with options for future expansion. The August 18, 2026 City Council packet added an informational Municipal Campus Building Project Update but did not attach final technical plans or final environmental/site plans. Approved schematic site placement (Plan A) The City's August 5, 2026 agenda materials describe the current Plan A as locating the proposed Municipal Campus building west of the existing City Hall/Police Department building, requiring relocation of Civic Center Park / Mertensotto Field. Major site components New building construction and related campus work may include parking and vehicle circulation, pedestrian access, utilities, grading, stormwater/rain-garden features, landscaping, exterior lighting, and solar facilities. The City has also stated that it is exploring deconstruction and reuse of materials from the existing facility. Mertensotto Field / recreation component The City has directed staff to develop options to maintain the quantity and quality of baseball fields if the new building removes Mertensotto Field, including a potential tee-ball field within the municipal campus plans and improvements to other fields in the City park system. Schedule City materials anticipate construction beginning in 2027 and opening of the new facility in fall 2028. The August 18 informational update should be reviewed with any later minutes or staff record before filing to confirm whether schedule details have changed. Plan B status - August 5, 2026 Section A supporting records included in this filing assembly: Exhibit A (BKV Group preliminary schematic designs, May 22, 2026); Exhibit B (Mertensotto Field existing-condition photographs, August 12, 2026); Exhibit L (July 21, 2026 City Council Work Session records regarding Civic Center Park / Mertensotto Field replacement); Exhibits P/P-1/P-2 (wetland site-plan and corroborating wetland mapping/standards); Exhibit S (August 5, 2026 City Council Plan B agenda item/current project-status record); and Exhibit U (August 18, 2026 City Council Municipal Campus Building Project Update official-source extract). B. Proposer of the Project Identify the entity proposing the project and, if available, the principal contact for the project. Organization City of Mendota Heights Address 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 General phone 651-452-1850 Primary project contact Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator Project contact email / phone Direct: 651-255-1153; Email: CJacobson@mendotaheightsmn.gov C. Petitioners' Representative Provide the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person who will receive EQB/RGU correspondence. Include email for convenience. Name Cathleen Helmstetter Mailing address 1248 Culligan Lane Section A supporting records included in this filing assembly: Exhibit A (BKV Group preliminary schematic designs, May 22, 2026); Exhibit B (Mertensotto Field existing-condition photographs, August 12, 2026); Exhibit L (July 21, 2026 City Council Work Session records regarding Civic Center Park / Mertensotto Field replacement); Exhibits P/P-1/P-2 (wetland site-plan and corroborating wetland mapping/standards); Exhibit S (August 5, 2026 City Council Plan B agenda item/current project-status record); Exhibit T (ICS Municipal Campus City Council Work Session presentation, November 5, 2025); and Exhibit U (August 18, 2026 City Council Municipal Campus Building Project Update official-source extract). The City Council considered Resolution 2026-46, which would have directed preparation of an alternative schematic design on the east side of the municipal campus to preserve Civic Center Park / Mertensotto Field. The motion failed 1-3, with one Council member absent. Plan A therefore remained the approved schematic design as of the August 5 record. Exhibit U adds the later August 18 informational update for current project-status purposes. Page 96 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW City / State / ZIP Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Phone 312-286-6294 Email cathhelmstetter@gmail.com Page 97 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW D. Potential Environmental Effects Briefly describe only potential physical environmental effects that may result from the project. For each checked issue, explain the project action, the existing condition, and the potential physical effect. Refer to attached exhibits by number or letter. Project-specific description of potential environmental effects (reference exhibits) The proposed Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project may result in several interrelated physical environmental effects because of the nature and location of the proposed development. The following potential effects are identified for environmental review: [X] Land conversion / park and recreational open space Conversion or disturbance of Mertensotto Field, Civic Center Park/open space, or other developed/vegetated land for buildings, parking, access, utilities, grading, or replacement facilities. [ ] Tree removal / mature canopy loss Not identified as an independent potential effect based on the August 12, 2026 field observation and site photographs. The field footprint is open recreational space, with mature trees generally at the perimeter (Exhibit B). [X] Stormwater / impervious surface Increase or relocation of impervious surface; changes to runoff volume, rate, direction, infiltration, treatment, or receiving waters. [X] Grading / soils / groundwater Excavation, cut-and-fill, erosion risk, soil disturbance, groundwater encounter, dewatering, or altered infiltration. [ ] Habitat / vegetation / ecological function Not identified as an independent potential effect for Mertensotto Field based on the August 12, 2026 field observation and photographs. The playing-field footprint is maintained recreational turf/infield, not a distinct natural habitat area (Exhibit B). [X] Construction noise / dust / traffic Temporary but potentially substantial physical effects from demolition, excavation, truck traffic, equipment, dust, vibration, or noise. [ ] Permanent traffic / lighting / noise Changes in vehicle circulation, nighttime lighting, spillover, operational noise, or effects on adjacent residential/open-space areas. [ ] Demolition / hazardous materials / waste Demolition of the current facility and management of asbestos, lead, regulated materials, debris, or contaminated soils if present. [X] Cumulative potential effects Combined effects of the municipal campus plus associated replacement or relocation of recreational facilities, roads, parking, utilities, stormwater systems, and other connected actions. Project Scope and Reasonable Alternatives Relevant to Environmental Effects The City has considered multiple facility configurations and selected new construction. Petitioners do not assert that renovation was never considered. The environmental question is whether the physical effects of the presently selected footprint should be treated as unavoidable without evaluating whether other reasonable configurations could materially reduce those effects. The project record also shows that scope and site placement remained under consideration during summer 2026: the Council directed a scope revision to current needs with options for future expansion; on August 5 considered an alternative Plan B site placement; and on August 18 received an informational project update (Exhibits S and U). This is environmentally relevant because project size, location and configuration directly affect land conversion, grading and excavation, impervious surface, parking and circulation, drainage and stormwater, and proximity to mapped wetlands. A smaller footprint, different footprint, phased approach, or renovation/addition alternative could potentially avoid or reduce some of these physical effects. An EAW would allow reasonable project configurations to be evaluated for their environmental consequences rather than treating the impacts of the current schematic as fixed. Project Scope and Reasonable Alternatives Relevant to Environmental Effects The City has considered multiple facility configurations and selected new construction. Petitioners do not assert that renovation was never considered. The environmental question is whether the physical effects of the presently selected footprint should be treated as unavoidable without evaluating whether other reasonable configurations could materially reduce those effects. The November 5, 2025 ICS work-session presentation evaluated several facility scenarios, including a renovation/addition concept on the current municipal campus, separate-site options, and new-build concepts (Exhibit T). The project record also shows that scope and site placement remained under consideration during summer 2026: the Council directed a scope revision to current needs with options for future expansion; on August 5 considered an alternative Plan B site placement; and on August 18 received an informational project update (Exhibits S, T and U). This is environmentally relevant because project size, location and configuration directly affect land conversion, grading and excavation, impervious surface, parking and circulation, drainage and stormwater, and proximity to mapped wetlands. In the ICS presentation, the renovation/addition diagram places additions around the existing City Hall while the existing ballfield remains visible, whereas several new-build concepts expressly identify loss of the baseball field (Exhibit T). A smaller footprint, different footprint, phased approach, or renovation/addition alternative could therefore potentially avoid or reduce some physical effects. An EAW would allow reasonable project configurations to be evaluated for their environmental consequences rather than treating the impacts of the current schematic as fixed. Page 98 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Environmental Preservation Alternative Mertensotto Field and Adjacent Wetland / Open Space As part of the review of reasonable project configurations, an EAW could evaluate an environmental preservation alternative that retains Mertensotto Field together with the adjoining mapped wetland / marsh and surrounding open space as a connected protected area rather than incorporating the field into the Municipal Campus development footprint. The alternative could include continued recreational use of Mertensotto Field and, if legally and practically feasible, formal inclusion of the field and adjacent wetland / open-space area within the City's park system or another protective park, open-space, wetland, or conservation designation. Environmental relevance The existing record identifies Mertensotto Field as maintained recreational open space (Exhibit B) and identifies a mapped wetland immediately adjacent to the proposed Municipal Campus development (Exhibits P, P-1 and P-2). Treating the field, wetland / marsh, and surrounding buffer area as a connected preservation alternative could be evaluated for its ability to avoid or reduce land conversion, grading and excavation, impervious surface, stormwater runoff, erosion and sediment transport, soil disturbance, and construction activity near the wetland. Preserving the existing field in place could also avoid or reduce secondary environmental effects associated with constructing a replacement recreational facility at another location. A protected open-space configuration could additionally provide a longer-term buffer between future developed uses and the mapped wetland, subject to the wetland delineation, applicable regulatory boundaries, and other technical review. Relationship to documented project alternatives This preservation concept is not presented as a separate unsupported project proposal. The November 5, 2025 ICS work-session presentation includes a renovation / addition concept in which the existing ballfield remains visible, while several new-build concepts identify loss of the baseball field (Exhibit T). The record therefore demonstrates that different facility configurations may produce materially different effects on the field, open space, grading, circulation, impervious surface, and wetland-adjacent portions of the site. Accordingly, the EAW should evaluate whether a reasonable configuration that preserves Mertensotto Field and the adjoining wetland / marsh and open-space area could avoid or reduce environmental effects compared with the currently selected schematic footprint. This evaluation could include the feasibility of protecting the preserved area from future development through an appropriate park, open-space, wetland, or conservation designation. Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW Page 99 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW 1. Wetlands and Surface-Water Resources The City's May 26, 2026 Municipal Campus site-plan studies identify an area labeled "WET LANDS" immediately adjacent to the proposed Municipal Campus development, with building, staff/police parking, garage access, internal drives and other site improvements shown along the wetland-side portion of the site (Exhibits P and P-1). Additional official mapping corroborates that this is not merely a schematic label. The City-published Surface Water Management Plan Wetlands Map (October 2006) depicts wetland 19-105 W immediately north of Trunk Highway 110 (now Highway 62) beside City-owned property and shows that feature with the map's DNR Public Waters hatching. The Minnesota DNR Wetland Finder independently maps a wetland in the same Municipal Campus vicinity; the selected NWI polygon is identified as PEM1F, Freshwater Emergent Wetland, 8.21 acres, Shallow Marsh, Circular 39 Type 3, and the Wetland Finder results display PWI Basin ID 19010500 (Exhibit P-2). The DNR states that NWI mapping is a planning and assessment tool, not a jurisdictional wetland delineation, and that PWI boundaries shown in Wetland Finder are approximate. Current Mendota Heights wetland standards reference the City's wetland inventory and the NWI and, when applicable, require a certified wetland delineation, grading information, a site plan showing wetland and buffer boundaries, and construction-protection measures. The publicly available schematic plans and August 18 informational update do not establish those project-specific limits. 2. Stormwater, Drainage, and Impervious Surface The project would replace portions of the existing site with a new municipal building, parking areas, vehicular circulation, access drives, and other developed surfaces. These changes may increase or redistribute impervious surface and may alter the volume, rate, direction, and quality of stormwater runoff. Potential effects include increased runoff, reduced infiltration, erosion, sediment transport, and changes in the quantity or quality of water reaching adjacent wetlands, ponds, or downstream stormwater resources. The City has identified rain gardens as part of the Municipal Campus design, but existing-versus-proposed impervious-surface calculations, drainage-area maps, stormwater modeling, final treatment designs, and their relationship to the delineated wetland/buffer are not established in the publicly available schematic materials or the August 18 update (Exhibits P, P-2 and U). 3. Existing Field Condition: Tree Canopy, Vegetation, and Habitat - Updated August 12, 2026 Field observation and two ground-level panoramic photographs taken August 12, 2026 document Mertensotto Field as a developed recreational ballfield consisting primarily of maintained turf, infield, fencing, bleachers and related field improvements, with mature trees generally along the perimeter rather than forming canopy over the playing-field footprint (Exhibit B). Based on this current evidence, the petition does not identify mature tree-canopy loss or wildlife-habitat loss as independent potential environmental effects of converting Mertensotto Field itself. 4. Soils, Excavation, and Groundwater The Municipal Campus Project will require construction and excavation associated with the new building and related site improvements. The City authorized a geotechnical investigation involving 13 soil borings, including nine borings to approximately 30 feet and four borings to approximately 15 feet, with evaluation of subsurface soil conditions and water levels (Exhibit G). Potential environmental effects may include soil disturbance, erosion, changes to infiltration, groundwater interaction, construction dewatering if required, and interaction between subsurface water conditions and the adjacent wetland and stormwater system. The August 18 update record did not attach the final boring logs, measured water levels, or final geotechnical report (Exhibit U). Page 100 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW 5. Conversion of Mertensotto Field and Existing Open Space Current Municipal Campus concepts contemplate development on the portion of the existing civic property occupied by Mertensotto Field. Construction would permanently convert existing recreational/open-space land to municipal building, parking, access and related developed uses. Potential physical effects supported by the current record include soil disturbance, grading, increased or relocated impervious surface, changes to drainage, and alteration of the existing open-space/recreational character. If replacement or expanded recreational facilities are built elsewhere, that separate site may have site-specific grading, vegetation, impervious-surface, traffic, lighting, or stormwater effects that should be evaluated when a location is selected. 6. Construction-Period Environmental Effects Construction of the Municipal Campus and eventual removal or alteration of existing facilities may result in temporary physical effects including excavation, construction truck traffic, noise, dust, erosion and sedimentation, construction lighting, demolition waste, and disturbance of soils and maintained turf/landscaped areas. The extent of these effects will depend on the final construction limits, duration, phasing, excavation quantities, demolition methods, and erosion- and sediment-control measures. 7. Combined and Cumulative Potential Effects The potential environmental effects of the project should be considered together rather than independently. The combined project may involve a new municipal building; new or modified parking and access drives; grading and excavation; additional or relocated impervious surface; stormwater facilities; utility construction; development immediately adjacent to an identified wetland; removal of Mertensotto Field; demolition or alteration of existing facilities; and potentially additional work to replace recreational facilities elsewhere. Based on the August 12, 2026 field observation and photographs, this petition does not rely on mature tree-canopy loss or wildlife-habitat loss at Mertensotto Field as independent effects. The cumulative issues supported by the current record are wetlands and surface-water resources, stormwater/runoff, soils/groundwater, construction-period effects, conversion of recreational/open space, and any site-specific secondary effects associated with a selected replacement-field location. The precise extent, type, and reversibility of these effects cannot presently be determined from the publicly available schematic-design information or the August 18 informational update. Because the City has considered different project configurations, an EAW should also evaluate whether reasonable changes in footprint, size or phasing could avoid or reduce these combined effects. Page 101 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW E. Material Evidence List each attached piece of material evidence and explain how it supports one or more potential environmental effects identified in Section D. The actual evidence must accompany the filed petition; a website citation alone is not sufficient. Only exhibits marked YES below are attached and relied upon as material evidence. Unmarked items are records requested or not yet publicly available and are not represented as attached evidence. Evidence / Exhibit Register Exhibit Document / evidence title and date Specific page / map / figure Environmental issue supported Attache d A BKV Group Preliminary Schematic Designs - Municipal Campus Project (May 22, 2026) Sheets I400 and I401 Project nature and scale; combined City Hall/Police facility; building program; footprint relevant to environmental alternatives YES B Aug. 12, 2026 Mertensotto Field existing-condition photographs Exhibit B-1 / B-2 Existing field condition; canopy/habitat assessment YES C Tree inventory / tree preservation or removal plan [ ] D Existing vs. proposed impervious-surface calculations [ ] E Grading / erosion-control plan [ ] F Stormwater report, calculations, drainage maps [ ] G July 7, 2026 City Council record - Geotechnical Services / Braun Intertec Agenda packet p. 62: 13 borings; soil conditions and water levels Soils; groundwater; excavation; infiltration/dewatering potential YES H Utility plan and limits of disturbance [ ] I Lighting / photometric plan [ ] J Demolition / hazardous-material survey or report [ ] K Construction phasing / logistics / truck information [ ] L July 21, 2026 City Council Work Session - Civic Center Park / Mertensotto Field Replacement memo and attached TRAA concepts City memo packet p. 2; TRAA attachment packet pp. 4, 8-12 Land conversion; replacement-field secondary/cumulative effects; wooded/wetland constraints in concepts under discussion YES M City urban forest / forest alteration records [ ] N DNR shade-tree grant planting/removal maps or reimbursement records [ ] O Watershed / stormwater agency correspondence or technical records [ ] P May 26, 2026 Municipal Campus Work Session - Site Plan Study Exhibit P-1: site-plan page showing proposed building/parking/access beside area labeled "WET LANDS" Project location; wetland proximity; land conversion; grading; stormwater YES P-2 DNR Wetland Finder + City Wetlands Map + current Mendota Heights wetland standards DNR: PEM1F, 8.21 ac., Shallow Marsh, Circular 39 Type 3; PWI Basin ID 19010500. City map: wetland 19-105 W / DNR Public Waters. Wetland presence/classification; Public Waters screening; delineation; buffers/setbacks; grading; impervious surface; stormwater; regulatory review YES Q Peer-Reviewed Scientific Evidence - Construction, Stormwater, Drainage, and Wetland Impacts (assembled Aug. 14, 2026) Exhibit Q: four peer-reviewed studies with study findings, full citations, and project-specific relevance Construction runoff/sediment; wetland hydroperiod; adjacent land-use/water quality; Twin Cities watershed context YES R June 10, 2026 Natural Resources Commission memo - Urban Forest Preservation Ordinance Implementation Packet p. 2: Forest Alteration Permit / Forest Management Plan triggers when trees may be affected Background on urban-forest requirements only; not evidence of tree-canopy or habitat loss at Mertensotto Field YES Page 102 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW Exhibit Document / evidence title and date Specific page / map / figure Environmental issue supported Attache d S August 5, 2026 City Council - Resolution 2026-46 Plan B Schematic Design agenda item and meeting record Agenda packet pp. 929-930; meeting record at agenda item 9.g Current project status; alternative Plan B site placement; Plan A/Mertensotto Field relocation; evidence that environmental effects vary with project configuration YES U August 18, 2026 City Council - Municipal Campus Building Project Update Agenda packet item 10.a; official-source extract Current project status; confirmation that project remained active after Aug. 16 draft; absence of final technical attachments in the update record YES Exhibit Document / evidence title and date Specific page / map / figure Environmental issue supported Attached S August 5, 2026 City Council - Resolution 2026-46 Plan B Schematic Design agenda item and meeting record Agenda packet pp. 929-930; meeting record at agenda item 9.g Current project status; alternative Plan B site placement; Plan A/Mertensotto Field relocation; evidence that environmental effects vary with project configuration YES T ICS Municipal Campus City Council Work Session presentation (Nov. 5, 2025) Presentation pp. 14-19; especially p. 15 renovation/addition diagram and pp. 16-19 new-build concepts Project alternatives; evidence that footprint/configuration changes land conversion, ballfield effects, grading, circulation and related site impacts YES U August 18, 2026 City Council - Municipal Campus Building Project Update Agenda packet item 10.a; official-source extract Current project status; confirmation that project remained active after Aug. 16 draft; absence of final technical attachments in the update record YES Page 103 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW Material Evidence Analysis Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 2(E), requires material evidence indicating that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, there may be potential for significant environmental effects. The petition does not assert that every identified effect has already occurred or that wetland fill, groundwater impact, or tree removal has been proven. Rather, the evidence documents project-specific physical conditions and proposed actions that create a reasonable potential for environmental effects requiring evaluation. Exhibit P / P-1 - May 26, 2026 Site Plan: Wetland Immediately Adjacent to Development The City's Municipal Campus site-plan study labels an area immediately north/northwest of the proposed development as "WET LANDS" and places building, staff/police parking, garage access and circulation along the wetland-side portion of the property. The schematic does not show a formal delineation, protective buffer, grading limits, drainage areas or stormwater discharge points. Exhibit P is not offered as proof that wetland fill will occur; it is project-specific evidence that the location warrants wetland, runoff, infiltration, erosion/sedimentation, water-quality and hydrology review. Exhibit P-2 - Corroborating Wetland Mapping and Mendota Heights Wetland Standards Exhibit P-2 adds two independent/currently published governmental mapping sources and the City's own wetland-review framework. It demonstrates a concrete need for the EAW/RGU to establish the delineated boundary, applicable buffer/setback, PWI/OHWL relationship, grading limits and stormwater design before final approval. Exhibit G - July 7, 2026 Geotechnical Services Record: Soils and Water Levels Are Material Design Conditions The City's geotechnical-services record states that the Municipal Campus investigation includes 13 soil borings: nine to approximately 30 feet and four to approximately 15 feet. The scope requires identification of water levels and subsurface conditions. This is objective City evidence that subsurface soil and water conditions are pertinent to excavation, erosion, infiltration, foundation design, potential dewatering and the relationship between subsurface water, stormwater systems and the adjacent wetland. Exhibit B - August 12, 2026 Site Photographs: Existing Mertensotto Field Conditions Two ground-level panoramic photographs taken August 12, 2026 show Mertensotto Field as an established, maintained recreational ballfield with turf, infield, fencing, bleachers and related improvements. The photographs do not show a distinct natural habitat area within the field footprint. Based on this current field evidence, the petition does not rely on tree-canopy or habitat loss as independent potential effects at the field footprint. Page 104 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW Exhibit Q - Peer-Reviewed Scientific Evidence: Documented Pathways of Wetland Impact Four peer-reviewed studies document the mechanisms relevant to the petition: active construction can sharply increase runoff and sediment export; urban imperviousness and drainage changes can alter wetland hydroperiod; surrounding land use can affect wetland water and sediment quality beyond a narrow buffer; and Twin Cities research confirms measurable wetland/watershed relationships with downstream water quality. Exhibit Q does not prove site-specific harm. It establishes that the missing delineation, grading, drainage-area, discharge-point, and stormwater-design information is material to evaluating the potential effects identified in Section D. Exhibit L - Mertensotto Field Conversion and Replacement-Field Cumulative Effects The City Administrator's July 21, 2026 work-session memo states that the City and Two Rivers Athletic Association would discuss replacement of Civic Center Park / Mertensotto Field if the new Municipal Campus building is constructed on the existing field site. The attached material evaluates replacement locations, including one Wentworth Park concept extending into wooded and potentially wetland areas and expressly identifying placement, boundaries, grading, drainage, utilities and environmental conditions as requiring professional review. No replacement site has been selected; the alternatives are material evidence that removal of Mertensotto Field creates reasonably foreseeable secondary actions with potential environmental effects that should be considered cumulatively with the Municipal Campus project. Exhibit A - BKV Preliminary Schematic Plans: Nature and Intensity of the Proposed Facility BKV Group's May 22, 2026 preliminary drawings document the nature and scale of the proposed combined City Hall and Police Department facility and related site development. Read with Exhibits P/P-1 and P-2, the plans place a large building program and associated parking/circulation at a location containing or immediately adjoining mapped wetland and public-water features and existing open/recreational space. Exhibit S - Alternative Site Placement: Environmental Effects Depend on Project Configuration Exhibit T - ICS 2025 Facility Scenarios: Physical Effects Vary with Footprint and Configuration ICS's November 5, 2025 City Council Work Session presentation documents multiple project-specific facility scenarios. Page 15 shows a "Renovate City Hall & Police w/ Building Additions" concept on the current municipal campus; the site diagram places additions around the existing City Hall while the existing ballfield remains visible. By contrast, the new police/new City Hall concepts on pages 16-19 expressly identify "Loss of baseball field" as a challenge. The presentation does not establish that the renovation/addition concept is currently feasible or environmentally preferable. It is material because the City's own project consultant documented that different facility configurations can materially change land conversion and the location of building/site work - factors directly related to grading, impervious surface, stormwater, circulation, wetland proximity, and secondary replacement-field effects. Exhibit S documents the Council's August 5, 2026 consideration of Resolution 2026-46, which would have directed preparation of an alternative Plan B schematic design on the east side of the municipal campus to preserve Civic Center Park / Mertensotto Field. The motion failed 1-3, with one Council member absent, and Plan A remained the approved schematic design. The importance of Exhibit S for this petition is not that Plan B is necessarily the preferred design. Rather, the record demonstrates that different project configurations were still capable of changing the location and extent of land conversion and associated grading, parking/circulation, stormwater and site-resource relationships during schematic design. Page 105 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW Exhibit U - August 18, 2026 City Council Project Update: Current Status and Missing Technical Attachments Exhibit U documents the August 18, 2026 City Council regular-meeting agenda item 10.a, "Municipal Campus Building Project Update." The staff report identified the update as informational, to be provided by City staff and/or ICS, with no fiscal/resource impact for the update and no attachments. The background text continued to describe the project as proposed construction of a new Police Station and City Hall replacing the existing municipal facility at 1101 Victoria Curve, constructed in the late 1980s. The August 18 record is material because it shows the project was still active after the August 16 petition draft, while the official packet for the update did not include final construction plans, wetland delineation, buffer map, grading or limits-of-disturbance plans, existing-versus-proposed impervious-surface calculations, stormwater/drainage calculations, final geotechnical report, or a final replacement-field decision. Exhibit U therefore supports the petition's request that environmental review occur before the project proceeds to final governmental approval and before site effects are treated as settled. Combined Evidentiary Showing Under Minn. R. 4410.1100 Taken together, Exhibits A, B, G, L, P/P-1, P-2, Q, S and U provide more than generalized concern. They document: (1) a substantial new municipal facility and associated site development; (2) a City-identified wetland immediately adjacent to the development area, corroborated by DNR/City mapping and current wetland-review standards; (3) grading, excavation, impervious-surface and stormwater questions that remain unresolved at schematic-design level; (4) a geotechnical investigation directed at subsurface soil and water levels; (5) peer-reviewed scientific evidence showing recognized pathways by which construction, altered drainage and urban land use can increase runoff and sediment, alter wetland hydroperiod, and affect water quality; (6) permanent conversion of Mertensotto Field and the possibility of secondary effects at a future replacement-field site; (7) an alternative schematic site placement demonstrating that land conversion and other physical effects can vary with project configuration; (8) the August 18 informational project-update record, which confirms the project remained active but did not attach final technical plans; and (9) the actual August 12, 2026 condition of Mertensotto Field, which does not support treating mature tree-canopy loss or wildlife-habitat loss at the field footprint as independent effects. These project-specific records and scientific evidence support focused EAW review of wetlands/surface water, stormwater, soils/groundwater, open-space conversion, construction effects, connected replacement-facility effects, and whether reasonable changes in footprint or phasing could avoid or reduce those effects without overstating impacts not shown by the current record. Combined Evidentiary Showing Under Minn. R. 4410.1100 Taken together, Exhibits A, B, G, L, P/P-1, P-2, Q, S, T and U provide more than generalized concern. They document: (1) a substantial new municipal facility and associated site development; (2) a City-identified wetland immediately adjacent to the development area, corroborated by DNR/City mapping and current wetland-review standards; (3) grading, excavation, impervious-surface and stormwater questions that remain unresolved at schematic-design level; (4) a geotechnical investigation directed at subsurface soil and water levels; (5) peer-reviewed scientific evidence showing recognized pathways by which construction, altered drainage and urban land use can increase runoff and sediment, alter wetland hydroperiod, and affect water quality; (6) permanent conversion of Mertensotto Field and the possibility of secondary effects at a future replacement-field site; (7) alternative site-placement evidence showing that physical effects vary with project configuration; (8) the November 5, 2025 ICS scenario analysis showing a renovation/addition configuration with the existing ballfield remaining visible, contrasted with new-build concepts that expressly identify loss of the baseball field; (9) the August 18 informational project-update record, which confirms the project remained active but did not attach final technical plans; and (10) the actual August 12, 2026 condition of Mertensotto Field, which does not support treating mature tree-canopy loss or wildlife-habitat loss at the field footprint as independent effects. These project-specific records and scientific evidence support focused EAW review of wetlands/surface water, stormwater, soils/groundwater, open-space conversion, construction effects, connected replacement-facility effects, and whether reasonable changes in footprint or phasing could avoid or reduce those effects without overstating impacts not shown by the current record. Page 106 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW Additional Project-Specific Records Requested or Not Yet Publicly Available Project-specific records requested from the City should be added if received before filing, including: a certified wetland delineation and buffer map; any DNR Public Waters/OHWL determination or correspondence; final grading/limits-of-disturbance plans; existing-versus-proposed impervious-surface calculations; stormwater/drainage calculations; final geotechnical report and boring logs; and, only if final construction limits affect perimeter trees, a site-specific tree inventory or tree-protection/removal plan. Exhibit U updates the record after the August 16 petition draft and relies only on records included in this filing package. Source note (updated August 20, 2026): Minnesota EQB Petition for an EAW template; Minn. Stat. section 116D.04, subd. 2a(e); Minn. R. 4410.1100. Petitioners should confirm on the filing date that no material project revision or final governmental approval has occurred before submission. Filing Checklist - Add filing date on the petition cover form. - Confirm petitioner representative contact information. - Attach the revised petition, sources/public-record sheet, material-evidence register, exhibits, and signature sheets. - Confirm at least 100 eligible signatures; this package includes 110 signature lines for a buffer. - Confirm that every exhibit relied upon is physically included in the package or included as an official-source extract. - Do not submit website links alone as material evidence. Page 107 of 217 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Page 108 of 217 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Page 109 of 217 21 22 Page 110 of 217 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Page 111 of 217 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Page 112 of 217 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Page 113 of 217 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Page 114 of 217 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Page 115 of 217 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Page 116 of 217 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Page 117 of 217 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Page 118 of 217 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 Page 119 of 217 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 Page 120 of 217 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 Page 121 of 217 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 Page 122 of 217 138 139 140 141 142 143 Page 123 of 217 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 Page 124 of 217 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 Page 125 of 217 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 Page 126 of 217 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 Page 127 of 217 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 Page 128 of 217 EXHIBIT A BKV Group Preliminary Schematic Designs May 22, 2026 Why this exhibit is included Documents the nature and scale of the proposed combined City Hall and Police Department facility and the building program that would be placed on the municipal campus. Source Assembly note The original BKV sheets are large-format drawings and remain zoomable in the combined PDF. Page 129 of 217 FLEET 001 EVIDENCE GARAGE 003 LG PROPERTY STG 004 TACTICAL TRAINING 023 STAIR 'A' XXX MAINTENANCE 006 BIKE PATROL 005 CORRIDOR 010 STAIR 'B' XXX STORAGE 028 DECON RR / SHOWER 022 LAUNDRY / JAN. 027 CORRIDOR 026 DRONE STORAGE 035 FIELD EQUIPMENT STORAGE 034 MOBILE FIELD FORCE STORAGE 033 QUARTERMASTER STORAGE 030 WEAPONS CLEANING 031 ARMORY 032 EVIDENCE PROCESSING 037 EVIDENCE LOGGING / INTAKE 038 EVIDENCE STORAGE 039 EVIDENCE LONGTERM STORAGE 040 DRUG VAULT 041 WASH BAY 002 ELEV XXX ELEV SUMP 214 VEHICLE SALLYPORT 014 SALLYPORT 015INTERVIEW 017 HOLDING 018 PROCESSING 220 HOLDING 019 DETAINEE RR / SHOWER 020 SALLYPORT 021 JAN 016 FAC STG 011 P&R STG 009 MECHANICAL 012 MUDROOM 008 TRAINING STG 024 DATA CLOSET 029 ELEC 013 HALL 025 DUTY BAGS 036 Department Legend CIRCULATION CITY HALL POLICE SHARED Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 © 2026 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH Autodesk Docs://2780.01 Mendota Heights CH & PS/2780.01 Mendota Heights CH & PS_AI_2025.rvt5/22/2026 12:16:40 PMAuthor Checker 2780.01 I400 LOWER LEVEL - FURNITURE PLAN MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY HALL & POLICE DEPARTMENT FURNITURE PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1.Type Notes Starting Here I400 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 LOWER LEVEL -FURITURE PLAN KEYNOTES - FURNITURE PLAN ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION Page 130 of 217 STAIR 'A' XXX STAIR 'B' XXX ELEV XXX LOBBY 101 VESTIBULE 100 FITNESS 196 CITY COUNCIL 197 CONFERENCE 198 CONFERENCE 199 COMMUNITY ROOM 200 POLICE LOBBY 201 INTERVIEW 202 CONFERENCE 203 INTERVIEW 204 RR 205 INTERVIEW WAITING 206 CHIEF OF POLICE 208 POLICE CAPTAIN 209 SHARED SARGENT OFFICE 211 SHARED SARGENT OFFICE 212 SOCIAL WORKER 213 OUTREACH STORAGE 235 WORK ROOM / MAIL 236 SUPPLIES STORAGE 237 RECORDS 238 ROOF DECK 239 ROLL CALL ROOM 240 CHANGING 241 OFFICE 242 OFFICE 243 OFFICE 244 OFFICE 245CONFERENCE 246 WORK ROOM 247 VESTIBULE 248 OPEN OFFICE AREA 249 KITCHENETTE 251 STORAGE / DATA 252 PATROL OPEN OFFICE AREA 253 RR 254 RR 255 JAN 256 WELLNESS 257 WRITING 258 INVESTIGATION CONFERENCE 259 CRIME ANALYST 260 INVESTIGATOR 261 INVESTIGATOR 262 INVESTIGATOR 263 BREAKROOM 264 DATA 266 IT WORKROOM 268 DATA 269 LOCKERS 270 CHANGING 273 CHANGING 275 CHANGING 276 INVESTIGATOR STORAGE / FORENSIC LAB 277 RECEPTION 281 STORAGE 288 CORRIDOR 291 DATA 292 HUB 294 ASSIST. PW DIRECTOR 295 PW - DIRECTOR 296 PW - CD MANAGER 297 FINANCE DIRECTOR 298 PW - NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER 299 PW - ASSIST. CITY ENG. 300 CONFERENCE 301 ADMIN - CITY ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE 302 ADMIN - ASSIST. CITY ADMIN. OFFICE 303 ADMIN - CITY CLERK 304 BREAK ROOM 305 WELLNESS 306 ARCHIVE STORAGE 309 WORK ROOM 311 ROOF DECK 318 STG 319 ELEC 320 WORK ROOM 153 OPEN OFFICE AREA 174 PHONE 175 PHONE 177 RR 179 RR 180 JAN 183 ROOF DECK 184 OPEN OFFICE AREA 185 HALLWAY 186 STG 188 JAN 190 STG 192 FAMILY RR 194 RR 195 RR 215 STORAGE 216 STORAGE 218 ELECTION STG / WORK ROOM 219 STG 221 COLLABORATION 222 CHANGING 230 CHANGING 231 CHANGING 283 VISITING INVESTIGATOR 279 STG 285 STG 284 STORAGE 286 HALL 223 STORAGE 321 Department Legend CIRCULATION CITY HALL CJIN POLICE PUBLIC SHARED Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 © 2026 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T FO R C O N S TR U C TIO N CERTIFICATION PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH Autodesk Docs://2780.01 Mendota Heights CH & PS/2780.01 Mendota Heights CH & PS_AI_2025.rvt5/22/2026 12:17:24 PMAuthor Checker 2780.01 I401 LEVEL 1 - FURNITURE PLAN MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY HALL & POLICE DEPARTMENT FURNITURE PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1.Type Notes Starting Here I401 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 1 -FURITURE PLAN KEYNOTES - FURNITURE PLAN ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION Page 131 of 217 EXHIBIT B Mertensotto Field - Existing-Condition Photographs Photographs taken August 12, 2026 Purpose: Document the existing condition of Mertensotto Field for the updated Section D assessment. The photographs show a developed recreational ballfield with maintained turf/infield and perimeter trees. They support unchecking mature tree-canopy loss and habitat loss as independent effects at the Mertensotto Field footprint. Exhibit B-1 - Panoramic view of Mertensotto Field, August 12, 2026. Exhibit B-2 - Infield, fencing, bleachers, and perimeter trees, August 12, 2026. Field-observation note: These photographs document existing conditions only. The updated petition does not assert mature tree-canopy loss or wildlife-habitat loss at Mertensotto Field as independent potential effects. If later final construction limits affect perimeter trees or a distinct natural habitat area, that later site-specific evidence should be evaluated separately. Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW Page 132 of 217 EXHIBIT L Civic Center Park / Mertensotto Field Replacement July 21, 2026 City Council Work Session Why this exhibit is included Provides City documentation that replacement planning is tied to construction of the Municipal Campus on the existing field site, and includes replacement concepts with potential grading, wooded-area, drainage, utility, and wetland constraints. Source Assembly note Selected pages are included: City Administrator memo packet p. 2 and the publicly posted TRAA attachment packet pp. 4 and 8-12. The TRAA pages retain their original "Draft for Discussion" / "Confidential" markings as posted in the City packet. Page 133 of 217 City Council Work Session Memo MEETING DATE: July 21, 2026 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator SUBJECT: Muncipal Campus Building Project --Civic Center Park/Mertensotto Field Replacement ACTION REQUEST: Two River Athletic Association and the City Council will discuss the replacement of Civic Center Park/Mertensotto Field, should the new municipal campus building, which includes city hall and the police station, be built on the existing field site. BACKGROUND: The City's 1985 City Hall Citizen's Committee selected the existing city hall/police station site, located at 1101 Victoria Curve, based on several key factors, including its strong community presence, convenient public and police access, flexibility for future expansion, and the City’s ownership of the property at the time. In its analysis, the committee recommended reserving space on the site for potential future civic facilities, noting that the location of the new City Hall should allow for additional development if needed. In March 1986, the Citizen's Committee unanimously approved placing the City Hall on the east side of the site, and added that "any future civic facility would be located in the area of the existing ballfield." As planning for the new Municipal Campus building has progressed, questions have been raised regarding the replacement of Civic Center Park/Mertensotto field. While no replacement site has been selected and no final decisions have been made regarding Civic Center Park/Mertensotto Field, the City and the Athletic Association agreed that planning for any future replacement should occur collaboratively. The Athletic Association has suggested field replacement options (attached) which will be discussed at the work session. Should the project move forward in a manner that affects the existing field, the City's objective would be to work with the Athletic Association to identify a suitable replacement location and develop a field that continues to serve the community's youth baseball program. ATTACHMENTS: 1.TRAA_Civic_Field_Replacement Page 2 of 15Page 134 of 217 CIVIC CENTER PARK REPLACEMENT DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION Two Rivers Athletic Association | Mendota Heights, Minnesota PAGE 2 Confidential 01 | SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE Municipal Progress Without Recreational Loss Two Rivers Athletic Association (TRAA) is not taking a position on the need for a new , larger City Hall or Police Station. Our responsibility is to protect the recreational capacity used by residents for youth athletics. If the City constructs an equivalent field, prevents displacement and completes the replacement before Civic is removed, TRAA has no reason to participate in the broader municipal debate as an organization. Why TRAA is currently involved: The City of Mendota Heights is considering a new City Hall and Police Station on the existing municipal campus. Concepts presented to date would eliminate Civic Center Park and Mertensotto Field. Two Rivers Athletic Association does not need to support or oppose the municipal facilities. Individual residents can evaluate that project independently. TRAA must become involved because Civic Center Park is an established recreational asset for youth across Mendota Heights and the broader school-district community and serves as the nicest field in Mendota Heights. Without a binding and funded replacement plan, TRAA would be obligated to oppose any project sequence that removes Civic before an equivalent replacement exists. Why the loss reaches beyond one team • Twelve and thirteen year old baseball would lose its only irrigated field with grass infield. • Younger teams would be displaced when their fields are used to absorb older players. Each season there are 2-3 teams of players utilizing Civic field for games and practices and 2-3 more that utilize its batting cages throughout the season • Softball would face additional pressure on already-limited shared facilities due to the domino effect of displaced players • 12-13 yr old teams would lose access to two of the community's four outdoor batting cages • Practice and game scheduling would become more constrained at every age level, reducing the amount of nights teams can practice and reducing the quality of programming TRAA can provide Civic Center Park is not open land awaiting development. It is a functioning public asset built through public investment and years of volunteer support. Page 4 of 15Page 135 of 217 CIVIC CENTER PARK REPLACEMENT DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION Two Rivers Athletic Association | Mendota Heights, Minnesota PAGE 6 Confidential 05 | PREFERRED NEW-FIELD CONCEPTS Sites That Could Avoid Displacing Another Ball Field These concepts offer ideas to the City on options available for immediate replacement of Civic Field Conceptual Civic-sized field placement at the city-owned Bourne Lane property Bourne Lane property The city-owned property contains approximately 507,000 square feet. A Civic-like field, including foul territory, spectator space and two batting cages, could require roughly 75,000-85,000 square feet plus parking and access. • Does not require removal of another active ball field. • Provides room for appropriate dimensions and amenities. • Preserves flexibility for additional recreation or later sale of remaining land. • Could become a permanent community recreation asset. LOW PLANNING RANGE $1.1M Aggressive assumptions and limited site complications. WORKING ESTIMATE $1.8M Useful for early planning - not an engineered estimate. HIGH PLANNING RANGE $2.9M Conservative allowance for site, utility and construction risk. Page 8 of 15Page 136 of 217 CIVIC CENTER PARK REPLACEMENT DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION Two Rivers Athletic Association | Mendota Heights, Minnesota PAGE 7 Confidential Utilize Existing Dog Park Site without loss of a Dog Park Potential Civic field site at Existing Dog Park Site Use the existing cleared dog-park area and adjacent open land for the replacement diamond. A field to support a 12-13yr old dimension like Civic field would require extending portions of the field into the adjacent uncleared property which appears to be owned by the city but would need to be confirmed. Alternatively, if a different existing ball field is chosen as the 12-13 yr old site, this site could accommodate 2 smaller fields for those displaced. Potential relocated dog park Relocate the dog park to the former archery area near the trail leading up to Mendota Plaza area just east of Dodd Rd and south of 62. The size of this dog park would be roughly 2 acres, which is considered a reasonable sized dog park still capable of supporting separate large and small dog areas, double gated entrance, walking loops, water and waste stations, and within walking distance on existing walking trails to connect more of the community to the dog park. Conceptual illustration only. Estimated Costs of Baseball Field at Existing Dog Park: LOW PLANNING RANGE $1M Aggressive assumptions and limited site complications. WORKING ESTIMATE $1.6M Useful for early planning - not an engineered estimate. HIGH PLANNING RANGE $2.7M Conservative allowance for site, utility and construction risk. Estimated Costs of Moving Dog Park to old Archery Site along trail: LOW PLANNING RANGE $400k Aggressive assumptions and limited site complications. WORKING ESTIMATE $750k Useful for early planning - not an engineered estimate. HIGH PLANNING RANGE $1M Conservative allowance for site, utility and construction risk. Page 9 of 15Page 137 of 217 CIVIC CENTER PARK REPLACEMENT DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION Two Rivers Athletic Association | Mendota Heights, Minnesota PAGE 8 Confidential Church of St. Peter Property in Mendota St. Peter property Located in Mendota, there is an open piece of land owned by St. Peter that has an old backstop that hasn’t been used in many years. If that land was leased and a long-term agreement made to use that land for a Civic-like replacement field, it would likely come with similar significant costs as there is a road and embankment on the east side that would need to be dealt with. Irrigation, fencing, dugout covers, batting cages, electrical, infield material, grass infield, new sod would have significant costs. LOW PLANNING RANGE $850K Aggressive assumptions and limited site complications. WORKING ESTIMATE $1.3M Useful for early planning - not an engineered estimate. HIGH PLANNING RANGE $2.1M Conservative allowance for site, utility and construction risk. + Cost of Lease Agreement with Church of St. Peter Page 10 of 15Page 138 of 217 CIVIC CENTER PARK REPLACEMENT DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION Two Rivers Athletic Association | Mendota Heights, Minnesota PAGE 9 Confidential 06 | OTHER CONCEPTS AND SUPPORTING CAPACITY Options Requiring Renovation of Existing Field These options require extensive renovations to existing field sites that may have the room renovate to a larger ball field with grass infield and 250-260ft fences but displaced players from existing smaller fields would need to find new fields. Friendly Hills Park Existing site has the space to renovate the existing field into a larger equivalent field and amenities provided at Civic, but would be a tight squeeze Costs would potentially be lower than a new site like the Bourne property but still significant to update fencing, irrigation, grass infield conversion, pitching mound, 2 new batting cages and likely new sod in outfield to match quality of Civic. Would displace current baseball and softball use as well as soccer use in the fall with additional costs to consider to replace those users. LOW PLANNING RANGE $750K Aggressive assumptions and limited site complications. WORKING ESTIMATE $1.25M Useful for early planning - not an engineered estimate. HIGH PLANNING RANGE $1.75M Conservative allowance for site, utility and construction risk. +Replacement Costs for Existing 10-11yr old baseball players and softball players displaced Page 11 of 15Page 139 of 217 CIVIC CENTER PARK REPLACEMENT DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION Two Rivers Athletic Association | Mendota Heights, Minnesota PAGE 10 Confidential Wentworth Park Existing site requires rotating the field for proper drainage. Without impacting existing parking lot and other structures already at the park, the dimensions of a 12-13yr old field would extend into existing wooded areas. Uncertain if City owns all land necessary to extend, and may potentially be expanding into wetland areas. Would require much more investigating but less obtrusive to nearby residents than Friendly Hills Park site. Would displace current 5-10 yr old baseball players utilizing this smaller field at full capacity. Conceptual illustration only. Placement, boundaries, grading, drainage, utilities and environmental conditions require professional review. OW PLANNING RANGE $1.25M Aggressive assumptions and limited site complications. WORKING ESTIMATE $1.5M Useful for early planning - not an engineered estimate. HIGH PLANNING RANGE $3.0M Conservative allowance for site, utility and construction risk and risk of wetland scenarios +Replacement Costs for 6-10 yr old baseball players displaced Page 12 of 15Page 140 of 217 EXHIBIT P / P-1 Wetland Adjacent to Proposed Municipal Campus Development May 26, 2026 Site Plan Study Why this exhibit is included The City project drawing expressly labels an area immediately adjacent to the proposed Plan A building/parking/access area as "WET LANDS." This exhibit supports the need to evaluate wetland boundary, buffers, grading, runoff, infiltration, stormwater, and related site effects. Source Assembly note The exhibit includes the written evidence narrative, the labeled P-1 site-plan page, and the original City PDF page 17 of 29 for source fidelity. Page 141 of 217 EAW PETITION - MATERIAL EVIDENCE Exhibit P - Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project EXHIBIT P WETLAND ADJACENT TO PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT City of Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota PRIMARY EVIDENCE: City of Mendota Heights, Municipal Campus Project - Council Work Session, Schematic Design Review, May 26, 2026, “Site Plan Studies,” PDF page 17 of 29. The City plan expressly labels the area northwest of the proposed development “WET LANDS.” 1. What the City's Own Site Plan Establishes The City of Mendota Heights’ May 26, 2026 Municipal Campus schematic site plan identifies a substantial area immediately north and northwest of the proposed Municipal Campus development with the label “WET LANDS.” The same drawing depicts the proposed Municipal Campus building, staff and police parking, garage access, public parking, internal vehicular circulation, and other developed areas immediately alongside the wetland-side portion of the site. The drawing also identifies an existing pond southeast of the proposed development. This is project-specific evidence generated by the City’s own project team. It demonstrates that the location under consideration for a major municipal building and associated paved improvements directly adjoins an environmental feature that the City’s own plan identifies as wetlands. 2. Important Environmental Information Not Shown on the Schematic Plan The May 26 schematic plan does not establish the following site-specific information needed to determine the project’s relationship to the identified wetland: a surveyed or formally delineated wetland boundary and wetland classification; the wetland’s acreage, functions, and applicable protective buffer or setback; existing and proposed contours, limits of grading, and depth of excavation near the wetland; existing and proposed impervious-surface totals and drainage boundaries; stormwater collection, treatment, infiltration, and discharge locations in relation to the wetland; wetland, groundwater, or high-water elevations; and whether any proposed building, parking, access, utility, grading, erosion-control, or stormwater work would occur within the delineated wetland or its protective area. 3. Potential Physical Environmental Effects Supported by Exhibit P The location and nature of the proposed development create project-specific questions concerning potential physical environmental effects, including: grading, excavation, erosion, and sediment movement immediately adjacent to a wetland; tree and vegetation removal and disturbance of the existing vegetated wetland edge; increased or relocated impervious surface and resulting changes in runoff volume, rate, direction, and infiltration; stormwater treatment and discharge in relation to the wetland and the existing pond; potential changes in surface-water or groundwater conditions; and temporary construction effects from soil disturbance, equipment, access, and erosion-control measures. Page 142 of 217 EAW PETITION - MATERIAL EVIDENCE Exhibit P - Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project 4. Why Exhibit P Is Material Evidence for the EAW Petition Exhibit P does not assert that the City has already demonstrated a wetland fill or violation. Rather, it establishes a concrete existing environmental condition and its proximity to the proposed physical development using the City’s own project drawing. The evidence is material because the plan shows an identified wetland immediately adjacent to a substantial new municipal building, parking, garage access, and circulation system, while the schematic materials do not establish the delineated wetland boundary, grading limits, drainage changes, or stormwater relationship needed to determine the extent of potential effects. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet would provide a structured process to identify these basic environmental facts and evaluate whether the project may significantly affect the wetland, stormwater resources, vegetation, soils, groundwater, or related natural resources. Source City of Mendota Heights, Municipal Campus Project - Council Work Session, Schematic Design Review, May 26, 2026. Source PDF: Page 143 of 217 EXHIBIT P-1 - CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MAY 26, 2026 SITE PLAN STUDY Original City work-session page - PDF page 17 of 29 Exhibit P-1 - May 26, 2026 Site Plan Studies City project drawing expressly labels the adjacent area “WET LANDS.” Source: City of Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project, Council Work Session, May 26, 2026, Site Plan Studies, PDF p. 17 of 29. Page 144 of 217 Site Plan Studies Page 145 of 217 EAW PETITION - MATERIAL EVIDENCE EXHIBIT P-2 Corroborating Wetland Mapping and Mendota Heights Wetland Standards Municipal Campus - 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota Why this exhibit is included This exhibit adds government wetland mapping that corroborates the City's May 26 site-plan label “WET LANDS,” and it identifies the City's current wetland-review provisions that make the missing project-specific delineation, buffer/setback, grading and stormwater information material to environmental review. Key evidence •City Surface Water Management Plan Wetlands Map (Oct. 2006): wetland 19-105 W is shown immediately north of Trunk Highway 110 (now Highway 62) beside City-owned property, with DNR Public Waters hatching. •Minnesota DNR Wetland Finder: selected NWI polygon is PEM1F / Freshwater Emergent Wetland, 8.21 acres, Shallow Marsh, Circular 39 Type 3; results display PWI Basin ID 19010500. •DNR cautions that NWI/PWI mapping is for planning/reference and does not replace onsite delineation; PWI boundaries in the viewer are approximate. •Mendota Heights Code §§12-4A-4, 15-4-3, 15-4-4 and 15-4-5 establish wetland identification, buffers/setbacks, delineation and protection standards when applicable. Material-evidence significance The maps do not prove a final jurisdictional boundary or a wetland violation. They do show that both the City and DNR have mapped a wetland/public-water feature at the Municipal Campus vicinity and that the City has adopted a regulatory framework requiring site-specific wetland information for qualifying development. Because the current campus schematics do not show a certified wetland boundary, buffer/setback, PWI/OHWL boundary, grading limits or final stormwater relationship, Exhibit P-2 supports the petition's request for an EAW to establish those facts before final approval. Reviewed/assembled August 10, 2026. Electronic City Code should be verified against the official City Clerk copy before filing. Exhibit P-2 - Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project Page 146 of 217 EXHIBIT P-2A - MINNESOTA DNR WETLAND FINDER DNR Wetland Finder - Municipal Campus Vicinity The green hatched NWI wetland polygon is immediately northwest of the Municipal Campus. The blue hatched PWI overlay appears only over part of the larger NWI polygon; this exhibit does not treat the entire NWI polygon as Public Waters. Exhibit P-2A - Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project Page 147 of 217 EXHIBIT P-2B - DNR WETLAND FINDER ATTRIBUTES DNR Wetland Finder Results Selected Wetland Finder attributes shown in the supplied screenshots NWI code PEM1F • Freshwater Emergent Wetland • 8.21 acres • Shallow Marsh • Circular 39 Type 3 • PWI Basin ID 19010500 • No identified Rare Natural Community feature at the selected location. DNR states NWI is not a jurisdictional delineation and PWI boundaries in the viewer are approximate. Exhibit P-2B - Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project Page 148 of 217 EXHIBIT P-2C - CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS WETLANDS MAP City Surface Water Management Plan - Wetlands Map 1 October 2006 - Municipal Campus vicinity The City map labels wetland 19-105 W immediately north of Trunk Highway 110 (now Highway 62). The feature is blue-outlined as a wetland and carries the map legend's turquoise DNR Public Waters hatching. Yellow areas in the legend are City-owned property. The matching 19-105 W / 19010500 numbering corroborates the PWI Basin ID displayed by the current DNR Wetland Finder. Source: City of Mendota Heights, Surface Water Management Plan, Wetlands Map 1, Oct. 2006; currently published at City Community Development maps page. Exhibit P-2C - Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project Page 149 of 217 EXHIBIT P-2D - MENDOTA HEIGHTS WETLAND CODE Current Mendota Heights Wetland Provisions Electronic code reviewed August 10, 2026 - current through Ordinance 605 (Dec. 16, 2025) Code provision Relevant wetland requirement (paraphrased) §12-4A-4(A)(1)City will reference its wetland inventory and the National Wetland Inventory to determine whether a wetland may be present on property subject to a Land Use Development Application. §12-4A-4(C) and Table 12-4A-4.1 Standards apply to lands containing or abutting wetlands. Wetland buffer: minimum 10 ft, maximum 50 ft, average 25 ft. Structure/building setback: 10 ft from buffer. Drive aisles and parking lots must be at least 5 ft from a required buffer unless otherwise permitted. Wetland/buffer areas generally must remain free of impervious surfaces and structures unless approved mitigation/replacement applies. §15-4-3(B)A structure erected after the chapter effective date must meet the greater of the Table 12-4A-4.1 setback or at least 25 ft from the City-approved delineated wetland edge. §15-4-3(C)Buffer-setback requirements apply in specified new-development and land-disturbance circumstances, including listed grading/disturbance and impervious-surface thresholds. The project-specific applicability should be identified by the City/RGU rather than assumed in the petition. §15-4-4 For activities meeting §15-4-3 criteria, required submittals include grading information (if grading is proposed), a certified wetland delineation report, a survey/to-scale site plan showing wetland and buffer-setback boundaries, and measures to protect wetlands during construction. §15-4-5 Wetlands and buffer setbacks are to be preserved predominantly in natural condition. Structures, impervious surfaces, construction machinery, vegetation removal, excavation and fill are generally prohibited within them except for specified or approved activities. Why these provisions matter to the EAW petition The code does not by itself prove an environmental impact or violation. It identifies the site-specific facts the City's own wetland framework uses: delineated wetland edge, buffer/setback, grading/disturbance, impervious surface, construction protection and any approved alteration/mitigation. Those facts are not established by the current schematic site plan and are appropriate subjects for EAW review. The petition should ask the RGU to identify which provisions apply and document compliance or any exemption. Sources: Mendota Heights Code §§12-4A-4, 15-4-3, 15-4-4, 15-4-5. City website states the printed City Clerk copy is the official edition. Exhibit P-2D - Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project Page 150 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Exhibit Q - Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project EXHIBIT Q Peer-Reviewed Scientific Evidence: Construction, Stormwater, Drainage, and Wetland Impacts Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project - assembled August 14, 2026 Purpose of this exhibit. The City's May 26, 2026 schematic site plan identifies an area labeled "WET LANDS" immediately adjacent to the proposed Municipal Campus development. The publicly available schematic does not establish a formal wetland delineation, protective buffer, final grading limits, contributing drainage areas, stormwater discharge points, or the final stormwater treatment design. This exhibit supplies peer-reviewed scientific evidence describing recognized pathways by which construction and urban development can affect runoff, sediment transport, wetland hydrology, and water quality. Important limitation: These studies do not prove that a specific impact will occur at the Mendota Heights site. They establish that the identified pathways are scientifically documented and therefore make the missing project-specific drainage, grading, wetland-boundary, and stormwater information material to environmental review. Scientific pathway Why it matters here Construction disturbance can sharply increase runoff and sediment export. The project involves building construction, grading, excavation, parking/access work, and other disturbed soil near an identified wetland. Urbanization and impervious surfaces can alter wetland hydroperiod and water-level fluctuation. The schematic includes a new building, parking, drives, and stormwater/rain-garden features, but does not show final drainage areas or post-development hydrographs. Adjacent land use can affect wetland water and sediment quality beyond the immediate wetland edge. A delineated edge or narrow setback alone does not answer how runoff from the contributing drainage area may affect the wetland. Wetland and watershed land-use relationships have measurable water-quality significance in the Twin Cities region. This provides Minnesota metropolitan-area context for evaluating wetland and drainage relationships at the Municipal Campus. Study 1 - Construction-related runoff and sediment Santikari, Vijay P., and Lawrence C. Murdoch (2019). “Effects of construction-related land use change on streamflow and sediment yield.” Journal of Environmental Management, 252, 109605. DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109605. Study design and findings. The researchers monitored four small watersheds and used paired-watershed methods to evaluate changes associated with residential development and active construction. Area-normalized stormflows and peak flows in developed watersheds were approximately 2 to 9 times those of the undeveloped reference watershed. In actively developing watersheds, sediment yield and event-mean sediment concentration were approximately 60 to 90 times the reference. The study reported significant increases in flow and sediment even where Best Management Practices were being used. Relevance to this petition. This study provides direct empirical evidence that active construction, land disturbance, and development can substantially increase runoff and sediment transport. For the Municipal Campus, that makes final grading limits, erosion/sediment controls, drainage-area mapping, stormwater routing, and receiving-water relationships important before concluding that the adjacent wetland will not be significantly affected. Page 151 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Exhibit Q - Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project Study 2 - Urbanization, imperviousness, and wetland hydroperiod Reinelt, Lorin, Richard Horner, and Amanda Azous (1998). “Impacts of urbanization on palustrine (depressional freshwater) wetlands - research and management in the Puget Sound region.” Urban Ecosystems, 2, 219-236. DOI 10.1023/A:1009532605918. Study design and findings. This paper summarized data collected from 19 wetlands between 1988 and 1995. The authors found that watershed imperviousness, forested area, and outlet constriction were significant factors affecting wetland hydroperiods. As hydroperiods changed, plant communities shifted. Wetlands experiencing water-level fluctuation greater than 20 centimeters had lower plant richness in emergent and scrub-shrub zones and were significantly more likely to have low amphibian richness. Relevance to this petition. The study demonstrates that a wetland can be affected by changes in watershed hydrology even when development is not physically placed in the wetland. The relevant EAW question is therefore not limited to whether the proposed building footprint crosses a wetland boundary. It also includes whether roofs, pavement, grading, storm sewer routing, detention/infiltration practices, and outlet conditions could change the amount, timing, rate, or direction of water reaching the wetland. Study 3 - Adjacent land use and wetland water/sediment quality Houlahan, Jeff E., and C. Scott Findlay (2004). “Estimating the ‘critical’ distance at which adjacent land-use degrades wetland water and sediment quality.” Landscape Ecology, 19, 677-690. DOI 10.1023/B:LAND.0000042912.87067.35. Study design and findings. The researchers examined water and sediment nutrient concentrations in 73 wetlands and compared those measurements with surrounding land-use variables at increasing distances from the wetland edge. They found statistically meaningful relationships between wetland water/sediment quality and surrounding land cover over comparatively large distances. The authors concluded that protection of wetland water quality cannot necessarily be accomplished merely through narrow buffers at the wetland edge. Relevance to this petition. This finding supports evaluation of the contributing drainage area and surrounding land disturbance, not simply the distance from the building to a mapped wetland polygon. A wetland delineation and setback are important, but they do not replace analysis of grading, impervious surface, runoff routing, erosion/sedimentation, and stormwater treatment. Page 152 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Exhibit Q - Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project Study 4 - Twin Cities wetland/watershed relationships and water quality Detenbeck, Naomi E., Carol A. Johnston, and Gerald J. Niemi (1993). “Wetland effects on lake water quality in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area.” Landscape Ecology, 8(1), 39-61. DOI 10.1007/BF00129866. Study design and findings. The study evaluated 33 lake watersheds in the seven-county Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan region. Using geographic information system measurements and statistical analysis, the researchers found that combinations of wetland, agricultural, forest, soil, and watershed variables were associated with substantial differences in downstream lake water-quality measures. The study demonstrates that wetlands and surrounding watershed land use are functionally connected components of metropolitan water-resource systems. Relevance to this petition. This Minnesota metropolitan-area research supports treating the wetland and its drainage area as an integrated environmental system. The Municipal Campus review should therefore identify how the proposed grading and stormwater design relate to the wetland and downstream receiving waters. Application to the Mendota Heights Municipal Campus 1.The City site plan identifies a wetland immediately adjacent to the development area, while the schematic does not establish the final delineated wetland edge or applicable buffer/setback. 2.The project will involve construction disturbance, grading, excavation, and new or relocated impervious surfaces - the same classes of activity associated in the literature with increased runoff, sediment transport, and altered hydrology. 3.The currently available materials do not establish final drainage-area boundaries, pre- and post-development runoff calculations, stormwater discharge points, treatment performance, erosion/sediment-control design, or how those systems interact with the adjacent wetland. 4.Because the scientific literature documents plausible mechanisms of impact, the absence of those project-specific facts is an information gap to be evaluated, not evidence that the effects will be insignificant. EAW questions supported by this evidence 1.What are the certified wetland boundary, wetland classification, applicable buffer/setback, and any Public Waters/OHWL limits? 2.What area will be disturbed by grading, excavation, utilities, roads, parking, and building construction? 3.How will pre- and post-development drainage areas, runoff volume, peak rate, flow direction, infiltration, and discharge points change? 4.What erosion and sediment-control measures will be used during construction, and where can construction runoff reach the wetland or connected waters? 5.What stormwater treatment is proposed for the completed campus, and what performance is expected for sediment and other pollutants? 6.Could excavation, dewatering, infiltration systems, or subsurface conditions change groundwater or surface-water contributions to the wetland? Conclusion. The attached project-specific exhibits establish the presence and location of the wetland relative to the proposed Municipal Campus. The peer-reviewed studies in Exhibit Q supply the missing scientific link: they document recognized mechanisms by which construction, impervious surface, altered drainage, and surrounding land use can affect runoff, sediment transport, wetland hydroperiod, and water quality. Exhibit Q is not offered as proof that a significant impact has already occurred; it supports the need to evaluate those pathways with project-specific data before final approval. Full citations Santikari, V. P., & Murdoch, L. C. (2019). Effects of construction-related land use change on streamflow and sediment yield. Journal of Environmental Management, 252, 109605. DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109605. Reinelt, L., Horner, R., & Azous, A. (1998). Impacts of urbanization on palustrine (depressional freshwater) wetlands - research and management in the Puget Sound region. Urban Ecosystems, 2, 219-236. DOI 10.1023/A:1009532605918. Houlahan, J. E., & Findlay, C. S. (2004). Estimating the “critical” distance at which adjacent land-use degrades wetland water and sediment quality. Landscape Ecology, 19, 677-690. DOI 10.1023/B:LAND.0000042912.87067.35. Detenbeck, N. E., Johnston, C. A., & Niemi, G. J. (1993). Wetland effects on lake water quality in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Landscape Ecology, 8(1), 39-61. DOI 10.1007/BF00129866. Page 153 of 217 Geotechnical Services - Soil Borings and Water Levels July 7, 2026 City Council Why this exhibit is included Provides project-specific evidence that subsurface soil and water-level conditions are material to project design. The City record identifies 13 soil borings, including nine to 30 feet and four to 15 feet, and states that water levels will be recorded. Source Assembly note Selected source pages 61-62 are included to preserve project-status context and the full geotechnical-services description. EXHIBIT G Page 154 of 217 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 7, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Municipal Campus Building Project - Police Station and City Hall Update and Awarding Geotechnical Services Contract and Project Update ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Staff and/or ICS will provide a project status update and the City Council is asked to award a contract for geotechnical services for the Municipal Campus Building Project. BACKGROUND: The 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. Project Status On June 2, the City Council approved moving the project to the Design Development phase. The purpose of this stage is to advance the concepts and ideas from schematic design to a more precise and buildable design. This phase includes a higher level of detail than what is developed in schematic design such as dimensions and materials. The goal of this stage is to ensure that the design is technically feasible and meets code, budget and city requirements. The City Council's original direction was to evaluate a "dig-once, future-ready" municipal campus building capable of supporting the City's long-term operational needs. The initial schematic design was developed using a 20-year planning horizon, with assumptions of modest organizational growth over the next two decades. The design focused on operational needs, workplace functionality, public accessibility and service delivery requirements. After receiving feedback from some residents that the building felt too big, and the estimated cost was too high, the City Council directed staff during their June 16 work session to scale back the building design. The updated direction is to reduce square footage and building features to develop a building that meets current/immediate (2026) space needs, while allowing for some flexibility for the future. Project architects are now working to incorporate the Council's feedback into the next iteration of building design plans. Page 61 of 72Page 155 of 217 Geotechnical Services - Contract Award On June 11, 2026, ICS issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for geotechnical services to support design and engineering for the Municipal Campus project. RFPs are commonly used for contracts that are not required to be competitively bid, such as contracts for professional services. Minnesota Statutes recognize services requiring specialized, technical, scientific or professional training as professional services. The RFP project scope included a total of 13 soil borings, nine of which will be drilled to a depth of 30 feet and four drilled to a depth of 15 feet depending on the identified location on the site. In addition to soil analysis and below-grade compositions, the borings shall indicate water levels and other pertinent geotechnical information to aid project architects and engineers in the project's design. A geotechnical report will be provided. ICS solicited cost proposals from three firms, and received proposals from: 1.American Engineering Testing, Inc. 2.Braun Intertec ICS and city Engineering staff have evaluated both proposals, including compliance with the specifications of the RFP, technical approach, cost, and prior work performance and recommend the selection of Braun Intertec. Braun Intertec is part of the city's professional services consultant pool for geotechnical/soils analysis and material testing. Minnesota Data Practices (MN Statutes §13.591, subd. 3(b)): Because this project involves responses to a formal Request for Proposals (RFP), some information is not yet public under the Minnesota Data Practices Act. Data submitted by a business in response to an RFP remain private or nonpublic until the evaluation process is complete. Completion of the evaluation process means that the city has completed negotiating the contract with the selected vendor, part of which is approval by the city council. After the city has completed the evaluation process, all remaining data submitted by all responders are public, except for trade secret data. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Geotechnical services were included as part of the preliminary design phase budget for the Municipal Campus project. The final fiscal impact will be known after contract negotiations are complete at which time the contract amount and other proposal data will become public. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Geo Tech Services RFP - Mendota Heights CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 62 of 72Page 156 of 217 EXHIBIT R Urban Forest Preservation Ordinance Implementation June 10, 2026 Natural Resources Commission Why this exhibit is included Provides the City's own description of tree-protection requirements during construction, site work, and land development, including Forest Alteration Permit and Forest Management Plan triggers when grading or building may affect trees. Source Assembly note The relevant original City memo page is included. Page 157 of 217 Natural Resources Work Session Memo MEETING DATE: June 10, 2026 TO: The Natural Resources Commission FROM: Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Manager SUBJECT: Urban Forest Preservation Ordinance Implementation ACTION REQUEST: Discussion only. BACKGROUND: The Urban Forest Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance 595) was adopted in January of 2025 with the intent to protect, preserve, and enhance trees and woodlands within the City, by reasonably limiting the removal of trees during construction, site work, and land development activities, as well as to mitigate for the loss of trees due to these activities, thereby promoting and protecting public health, safety, welfare and assuring a healthy urban forest into the future. The ordinance requires a Forest Alteration Permit when the following occurs: •Removal of any Heritage Tree. •Removal of 33% of significant and/or heritage trees on any lot, vacant or otherwiseoccupied, when the property contains seven (7) or more significant or heritage trees. •A project that requires a planning application when trees on the property may beaffected. •A grading or building permit is required and trees on the property may be affected. The ordinance requires a Forest Management Plan in the following circumstances: •When removing 33% or more of significant and/or heritage trees on any lot, vacant or otherwise occupied, when the •property contains seven (7) or more significant or heritage trees. •A project that requires a planning case where trees on the property may be affected. •A grading or building permit is required and trees on the property may be affected. Page 2 of 15Page 158 of 217 EXHIBIT S Current Project Status - Plan A / Plan B Consideration August 5, 2026 City Council Why this exhibit is included Source Assembly note Updates Section A with the City's then-current description of Plan A and the proposed Plan B alternative. The agenda materials state that Plan A places the building west of the existing facility and requires relocation of Civic Center Park/Mertensotto Field. The public meeting recording/transcript reflects that the Plan B motion failed 1-3, with one Council member absent. Selected agenda packet pages 929-930 are included. They identify the existing approved schematic as Plan A and describe the Plan B proposal. The unadopted draft Resolution 2026-46 pages are intentionally omitted because the meeting recording reflects that the motion failed 1-3, with one Council member absent. Official minutes may be appended when posted. Page 159 of 217 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 5, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: 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 ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Consider approving Resolution 2026-46 Directing the Development of a Plan B Schematic Design for the Police Station and City Hall Municipal Campus Building Project. BACKGROUND: The Municipal Campus Building Project consists of the proposed construction of a new Police Station and City Hall to replace the City's existing municipal facility at 1101 Victoria Curve, which was constructed in the late 1980s. Throughout the planning process, the City Council has taken a number of formal actions, including selecting professional consultants, approving project planning and design agreements, reviewing facility needs assessments, and authorizing the project to advance to the design development phase. These actions have enabled the City to identify facility requirements, evaluate project alternatives, and develop preliminary design and cost information to support future decision-making. As part of that process, the Council evaluated several approaches to addressing the City's aging municipal facilities. Alternatives included renovating and expanding the existing City Hall and Police Department, acquiring and renovating existing commercial property within the City, and constructing a new municipal building on the current municipal campus. Each alternative was evaluated based on operational needs, long-term functionality, financial considerations, construction feasibility, and the City's ability to continue providing high-quality public services. Following that evaluation, the City Council, in December 2025, unanimously approved advancing a new combined Police Station and City Hall on the existing municipal campus site and authorized the project to proceed. The resulting schematic design ("Plan A") reflects the policy direction and design assumptions previously approved by the City Council. Page 929 of 935Page 160 of 217 As the project has progressed, Council members and residents have continued to discuss topics including building placement, project scope, park impacts, construction sequencing, project costs, financing, and long-term affordability. As a result, the Council requested that staff prepare information regarding the development of an additional schematic design alternative ("Plan B") for Council consideration. A Plan B schematic design would provide an additional concept for comparison and could evaluate alternative building placement, site layout, project scope, construction sequencing, and other design considerations while continuing to address the City's long-term municipal facility needs. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Preparation of a Plan B schematic design will require additional professional architectural and engineering services in the amount of $397,250. Because the Plan A schematic design has already been completed, these services would be in addition to the professional services previously authorized by the City Council. In addition to the direct design cost, preparation of an alternative concept is anticipated to extend the overall project schedule and could increase future project costs due to inflation, construction cost escalation, market conditions, and the additional time required before bidding and construction. At the same time, an alternative schematic design may identify opportunities to reduce project costs, lessen site impacts, or better address Council priorities. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Res. 2026-46 Plan B Schematic Design Approval 2.Res. 2025-93 Ordering the Improvement and Authorizing Plans and Specifications 3.Res. 2026-37 Approving the Schematic Design and Authorizing Design Dev. CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 930 of 935Page 161 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW EXHIBIT T ICS Municipal Campus City Council Work Session Presentation November 5, 2025 Why this exhibit is included This full ICS presentation is included as project-specific evidence of the facility scenarios evaluated before the City selected new construction. Of particular environmental relevance, page 15 depicts a renovation/addition concept on the current municipal campus with the existing ballfield still visible, while pages 16-19 show new-build configurations and expressly identify loss of the baseball field in several scenarios. The presentation therefore supports the narrower point that project footprint and configuration can change land conversion and related grading, parking/circulation, stormwater, wetland-proximity, and replacement-field effects. Source ICS, City of Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - City Council Work Session, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, November 5, 2025. The complete 25-page presentation follows this cover sheet. Filing note This exhibit is not offered to prove that any alternative is currently feasible, cheaper, or environmentally superior. It is offered to show that multiple project-specific configurations were evaluated and that the physical site effects vary among those configurations. Page 162 of 217 City of Mendota Heights Municipal Campus City Council Work Session1 101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 November 5, 2025 Page 163 of 217 Where We are at in the Process•Approach•TimelineRecap of Open House / Comments•Takeaways / Data Review Potential Scenarios•Space Needs SummaryFinancial Review•Cost of Delay•Levy & Tax ImpactQ&AAgenda Page 164 of 217 Strategic Approach and Support throughout all Phases of the ProcessPO EDUCATIONALFINANCIAL POLITICALThe “three-legged stool” approach to city council decision-making requires every decision to be made based on a balance of need, financial, and political merit. Our team will work with you to create a plan that considers and balances all of these elements:oNeed:o Create facility solutions that directly align spaces to efficiently provide essential services to the community o Design flexible, equitable, and safe working environments. o Incorporate input from city hall and police staff. oPolitical:oFoster community trust through transparent, ongoing communication.oEngage stakeholders early and often – and listen to public sentiment.o Build a strong, urgent case for facility needs. oAddress opposition with empathy and facts.oFinancial:o Provide fiscally responsible, data-driven solutions with clear ROI. oDevelop financial solutions that are sensitive to city tax-payers.NEEDPage 165 of 217 LCSupport Throughout the ProcessDecision on ScopeCOMMUNICATEDECISION(Design & Construction)Council Approval ?Page 166 of 217 Open House Page 167 of 217 Open House - Takeaways Facility Needs & Conditions:Police Departmento Overwhelming feedback that the current police facilities are inadequate – lacking space, privacy, security (e.g. current windows), and proper interview rooms for victims.*City Hall:o Mixed feedback – some comments stating the facility is sufficient, others cite outdated bathrooms, accessibility, lack ofstorage, and need for community meeting space.General Building Issues:o Mixed feedback – some comments stating the facility is sufficient, others cite outdated bathrooms, accessibility, lack ofstorage, and need for community meeting space.Common Phrases & Keywords: o “Outdated,” “cramped,” “inadequate” – frequently used to describe current facilities. o “Privacy,” “security,” “bulletproof,” “locker rooms” – common in police-related feedback. o “Tax,” “cost,” “affordability” – often mentioned in cost-related concerns. o “Community center,” “meeting space,” “kid-friendly” – appeared in requests for public use areas.*Note: The public was not toured through City Hall so most comments are limited to public spaces only Page 168 of 217 Open House - Takeaways1. Suggestions for Alternative ApproachoIdeas included:•Separating the police department to another site (e.g. near the water tower)•Leasing space to private businesses (e.g., Starbucks or a bank) to offset cost•Using vacant commercial buildings or adding on to the existing structures2. Appreciation for the EventoMany attendees praised the open house format, building tours, and staff presentations o Some asked for follow-up engagement and more detailed plansPage 169 of 217 Open House - Takeaways % of Total CardsMentionsTheme~70%42Support for Improvements~58%35Police Department Needs~30%18Concerns About Cost~20%12 Community Space Requests~17%10Alternative Approaches~25%15Appreciation for EventOverall Statistics:Total feedback cards received: 60+•Cards with written feedback: ~ 55•Cards with email addresses provided: ~ 40•Cards requesting follow-up communications: ~ 10 (explicitly) Page 170 of 217 Staffing DiscussionPage 171 of 217 Review of Potential ScenariosPage 172 of 217 Fire Station SiteCZPros:•Fire & Police could share resources as part of a bigger Public Safety Center Challenges/Cons:•No available adjacent property to accommodate additional building and parking needs•In order to accommodate a larger building site, the Mendakota Driver oad would need to be re-routed and two (2) ballfields would be lost in the park.•Pulls Police Station further off of Hwy. 62 Page 173 of 217 Public Works / Water Tower SiteCZPros:•City already owns property Challenges/Cons:•Limited areas on site that can be built on, doesn’t provide enough space for a building with the additional parking needed. Page 174 of 217 Bourn SiteCZPros:•City already owns property Challenges/Cons:•Pushes City Hall and Police Station further south close to the southern boundary of Mendota Heights on a site that has some potential access challenges. Page 175 of 217 Summit Fire Building for City Hall & New Police StationCZ Main Level Upper LevelPros:•Existing structure is flexible – “box”Challenges/Cons:•Site is much smaller than the current municipal campus•Summit Bldg. = 1.55 Acres•Municipal Campus = 4.74 Acres•Sightly undersized to house City Hall•Summit Bldg. = 13,975 SF•City Hall (Today’s Need) = 15,341 SF•City Hall (Growth) = 17,139 SF•Not large enough to house both City Hall and Police – Separate Sites•Not an ideal location for Police responsetimes•Current configuration posing challenges and would require modifications to current layout •Facility is not accessible (requires an elevator)•Takes commercial property off the tax roles•Site and facility wasn’t originally designed andbuilt for the uses being consideredBudget Estimate Renovation for City Hall (Placeholder) $ 1,187,900 Accessibility Upgrades (Elevator) $ 300,000 New Police Station Construction $ 10,581,000 Facility Hardening Features (Bldg./Site) $ 250,000 Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FFE) $ 765,000 Technology (Screens/Wake-Up Syst.) $ 225,000 Security (Card Reader/Camera/Other) $ 150,000Site Costs (Placeholder)$ 2,250,000 Demolition of Existing Facility $ 298,500 Subtotal Estimated Const. Cost: $ 16,007,400 Professional Services (Design/Mgmnt.) $ 3,417,300 Fees, Permits, Testing, etc.$ 639,000 Land Costs $ 2,300,000 Contingency (8% - Design & Constr.) $ 1,288,600 Total Estimated Soft Costs: $ 7,644,900 Total Estimated Project Costs: $ 23,652,300 90.2% Cost of Immediate Needs Option 70.6% Cost of “Dig Once” - Future Proof Option Page 176 of 217 Pros:•City already owns the property•The public already identifies this site as a civic campus•Good location for police responsetimes Challenges/Cons:•Relocating staff to a temporary alternate location when the facility is under construction; additional costs (and security concerns for PD) associated with that•Still have (2) separate parking lots and (2) separate entry/exits•Certain areas/components of the City Hall portion would remain residential-grade•No drive-through road for PD and squad cars, a security risk Renovate City Hall & Police w/ Building Additions Budget EstimateR enovation of Existing City Hall $ 3,980,000Addition to City Hall$ 1,050,000 Addition to City Hall for Police $ 6,930,000 Facility Hardening Features (Bldg./Site) $ 250,000 Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FFE) $ 765,000 Technology (Screens/Wake-Up Syst.) $ 225,000 Security (Card Reader/Camera/Other) $ 150,000 Modifications to Solar Array (If Needed)$ 100,000Site Costs (Placeholder)$ 1,425,000 Subtotal Estimated Const. Cost: $ 14,875,000 Professional Services (Design/Mgmnt.) $ 3,401,300 Fees, Permits, Testing, etc.$ 486,600 Land Costs$0Contingency (8% - Design & Constr.) $ 1,599,100 Total Estimated Soft Costs: $ 5,487,000 Total Estimated Project Costs: $ 20,361,900 77.7% Cost of Immediate Needs Option 60.8% Cost of “Dig Once” - Future Proof OptionCITY HALLCITYHALLADDITIONPOLICEADDITIONPage 177 of 217 POLICEPros:•City already owns the property•The public already identifies this site as a civic campus•Good location for police responsetimes Challenges/Cons:•Loss of baseball field•Relocating staff to a temporary, alternate location when City Hallconstruction isunderway; additional financial costs associated with temporarily relocating•2 separate buildings New Police Facility & Renovate City Hall Budget Estimate Renovation of Existing City Hall $ 3,980,000 New Police Station Construction $ 10,580,600 Facility Hardening Features (Bldg./Site) $ 250,000 Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FFE) $ 765,000 Technology (Screens/Wake-Up Syst.) $ 225,000 Security (Card Reader/Camera/Other) $ 150,000 Modifications to Solar Array (If Needed)$ 100,000Site Costs (Placeholder)$ 1,775,000 Subtotal Estimated Const. Cost: $ 17,825,600 Professional Services (Design/Mgmnt.) $ 3,949,500 Fees, Permits, Testing, etc.$ 674,000 Land Costs$0Contingency (8% - Design & Constr.) $ 1,599,100 Total Estimated Soft Costs: $ 6,222,600 Total Estimated Project Costs: $ 24,048,200 91.7% Cost of Immediate Needs Option 71.8% Cost of “Dig Once” - Future Proof OptionCITY HALLPage 178 of 217 POLICEPros:•City already owns the property•The public already identifies this site as a civic campus•Good location for police responsetimes Challenges/Cons:•Link to connect the two facilities•Loss of baseball field•City Hall and PD not in the samebuilding•Relocating staff to a temporary, alternate location when the City Hall facility is under construction; additional costs associated with that•Certain areas/aspects of City Hall remain residential grade New Police Facility & Renovate City Hall w/ Link Budget Estimate Renovation of Existing City Hall $ 3,980,000 New Police Station Construction $ 10,580,600 Building Link $ 1,650,000 Facility Hardening Features (Bldg./Site) $ 250,000 Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FFE) $ 765,000 Technology (Screens/Wake-Up Syst.) $ 225,000 Security (Card Reader/Camera/Other) $ 150,000 Modifications to Solar Array (If Needed)$ 100,000Site Costs (Placeholder)$ 1,750,000 Subtotal Estimated Const. Cost: $ 19,450,600 Professional Services (Design/Mgmnt.) $ 3,927,400 Fees, Permits, Testing, etc.$ 673,921 Relocation & Rental Fees$?Land Costs$0Contingency (8% - Design & Constr.) $ 1,599,085 Total Estimated Soft Costs: $ 6,222,438 Total Estimated Project Costs: $ 26,210,998 91.7% Cost of Immediate Needs Option 71.8% Cost of “Dig Once” - Future Proof OptionCITY HALLBUILDING LINKPage 179 of 217 POLICEPros:•City already owns the property•The public already identifies this site as a civic campus•Good location for police responsetimes•Immediate space needs included Challenges/Cons:•Loss of baseball field•Some space needs still lacking New City Hall & Police Facility – Built for Immediate Need Budget Estimate New City Hall Construction $ 5,545,800 New Police Station Construction $ 10,580,700 Facility Hardening Features (Bldg./Site) $ 250,000 Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FFE) $ 765,000 Technology (Screens) $ 225,000 Security (Card Reader/Camera/Other) $ 150,000 Modifications to Solar Array (If Needed)$ 100,000Site Costs (Placeholder)$ 2,250,000 Demolition of Existing Facility $ 298,500 Subtotal Estimated Const. Cost: $ 19,988,500 Professional Services (Design/Mgmnt.) $ 3,949,400 Fees, Permits, Testing, etc.$ 673,900 Land Costs$0Contingency (8% - Design & Constr.) $ 1,599,100 Total Estimated Soft Costs: $ 6,222,400 Total Estimated Project Costs: $ 26,210,900CITY HALLDEMOCITY HALLPage 180 of 217 New City Hall & Police Facility – “Dig Once” Future Ready Budget EstimateN ew City Hall Construction $ 6,817,500 New Police Station Construction $ 14589100 Facility Hardening Features (Bldg./Site) $ 350,000 Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FFE) $ 1,075,000 Technology (Screens) $ 225,000 Security (Card Reader/Camera/Other) $ 150,000 Modifications to Solar Array (If Needed)$ 100,000Site Costs (Placeholder)$ 2,550,000 Demolition of Existing Facility $ 298,500 Subtotal Estimated Const. Cost: $ 26,155,100 Professional Services (Design/Mgmnt.) $ 4,801,400 Fees, Permits, Testing, etc.$ 840,800 Land Costs$0Contingency (8% - Design & Constr.) $ 2,096,300 Total Estimated Soft Costs: $ 7,738,500 Total Estimated Project Costs: $ 33,893,600POLICECITY HALLPros:•City already owns the property•The public already identifies this site as a civic campus•Good location for police responsetimes•Meets all needs Challenges/Cons:•Loss of baseball fieldDEMOCITY HALLPage 181 of 217 Financial ReviewPage 182 of 217 20252033$312,5002026 2027$300,500$325,000$289,000$338,500$351,500$365,000$380,500$395,000$411,500202820292030 2031 2032 203420352036 20372038 2039 20402041 2042$463,500$481,500$500,500$520,500$541,000BUILD FOR IMMEDIATE NEEDS$26,275,000COST OF “DIGGING ONCE” vs. BUILDING FOR IMMEDIATE NEED15 YEARSBUILDING ADDITION TO ACCOUNT FOR PROJECTED SCOPE NOT CONSTRUCTED IN 2027+ $6,848,500 - $12,230,500“DIG ONCE”FUTURE READY$33,500,000BUILDING ADDITIONS ARE NOT ANTICIPATED OR NEEDED BASED ON STAFFING PROJECTION FOR 10 – 15 YEARS2043$541,000$433,500$459,0006% ANNUAL INFLATION$487,500$516,500$547,000$580,500$614,500$652,000$691,000$732,500$776,000$823,000$872,500$924,500$980,000$1,039,00020444% ANNUAL INFLATION10 YEARSBUILDING ADDITION TO ACCOUNT FOR PROJECTED SCOPE NOT CONSTRUCTED IN 2027+ 3,897,500 - $6,848,500Page 183 of 217 Estimated Tax ImpactInformation below was presented by Stacie Kvilvang, Senior Municipal Advisor, Ehlers on 10/22/25•Bonding Options/Amounts 20 & 25 Year Financing•Term: Not a large difference between options•No impacts on AAA rating & No use of reservesPage 184 of 217 2025202720262028DNJFMA M JJA SONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND2029SCHEMATIC DESIGNDESIGNDEVELOPMENTCONSTRUCTIONDOCUMENTSBIDPROCUREMENTAWARDCONSTRUCTIONPreliminary Project ScheduleJFMSUBSTANTIAL COMPLETIONPage 185 of 217 November 2025•Review information gained from Open House and provide updates and summaries to council on progress.•Continue to work with the city staff in refining the proposed solutions•Continue to work with the city’s financial advisor to develop funding strategies and tax impact informationDecember 2025•Council approval to proceed with design and bidding project.•DesignNext Steps -Proposed Timeline Page 186 of 217 QUESTIONS? Page 187 of 217 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - Petition for EAW EXHIBIT U August 18, 2026 City Council Project Update Mendota Heights Municipal Campus - EAW Petition | Official-source extract Source record City of Mendota Heights City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Packet, August 18, 2026, agenda item 10.a, "Municipal Campus Building Project Update." The record is included here as a text extract; no raw web links are included or relied upon as material evidence. Official-source extract Meeting date: August 18, 2026 Agenda item: 10.a, Municipal Campus Building Project Update Item type: New and Unfinished Business / informational update Department/contact: Administration / Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator Action request: Staff and/or ICS to provide a project update; informational item. Fiscal and resource impact: None for the update item. Attachments listed: None. Background summarized from the official packet The staff report describes the Municipal Campus Building Project as the proposed construction of a new Police Station and City Hall to replace the City's existing municipal facility at 1101 Victoria Curve, which was constructed in the late 1980s. Material significance for EAW petition This August 18 record is included to update the petition after the August 16 draft. It confirms that the project remained active after the earlier petition date. It is also significant because the official packet for the update did not include a final wetland delineation, buffer map, grading or limits-of-disturbance plan, existing-versus-proposed impervious-surface calculations, stormwater/drainage calculations, final geotechnical report or boring logs, or final replacement-field decision. The August 18 record therefore supports the petition's request that environmental review occur before final governmental approval and before the physical site effects of the current schematic are treated as settled. Filing note If official minutes or a formal action record from the August 18 meeting becomes available before filing, attach that record or update this exhibit to reflect any material project revision or final governmental approval. Page 188 of 217 1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL FROM: AMY SCHMIDT, CITY ATTORNEY DATE: AUGUST 28, 2026 RE: MUNICIPAL CAMPUS BUILDING PROJECT: EAW PETITION On August 24, 2026, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (“EQB”) received a petition requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) be prepared for the proposed Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Building Project (“Project”). The Petition invokes the environmental rules outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410.0200 to 4410.6500 (the “Rules”) which implement the environmental review procedures established by the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (“MEPA”)1. On August 25, 2026, The EQB determined that the City of Mendota Heights is the appropriate responsible governmental unit (“RGU”) to decide the need for an EAW. On that same date, the EQB notified the City of this determination and transmitted the complete Petition as is required by the Rules. Because of this designation, the City Council is charged with meeting the requirements of the Environmental Review Program. What is an Environmental Assessment Worksheet? An EAW is “a brief document which is designed to set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether an environmental impact statement is required for a proposed action.”2 An EAW is “prepared in worksheet format” and “is designed to rapidly assess the environmental effects that may be associated with a proposed project.”3 The EAW (1) aids in the determination of whether an EIS is needed; and (2) may serve as a basis to begin the scoping process for an EIS.4 There are two categories of EAWs: mandatory and discretionary.5 A mandatory EAW is required if a project meets or exceeds the thresholds of any of the EAW categories listed in the Rules.6 See below for additional information about these thresholds. A discretionary EAW is required if any of the following circumstances are present: A.When a project is not exempt under the Rules and when the City determines that, because of the nature or location of a proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects; 1 Minn. Stat., Ch. 116D (2025). 2 Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 1a(c). 3 Minn. R. 4410.1000, subp. 1. 4 Id. 5 Minn. R. 4410.1000, subps. 2, 3. 6 Minn. R. 4410.1000, subp. 2. See also, Minn. R. 4410.4300 (EAW thresholds and categories). Page 189 of 217 2 B.When a project is not exempt under the Rules and when the City determines pursuant to the petition process set forth in the Rules that, because of the nature or location of a proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects; C.Whenever the EQB determines that, because of the nature or location of a proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects; or D.When the proposer wishes to initiate environmental review to determine if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects.7 What is the City Council’s Role as the RGU? An RGU is defined as “the governmental unit that is responsible for preparation and review of environmental documents”8 and is “responsible for verifying the accuracy of environmental documents and complying with environmental review processes in a timely manner.”9 If an RGU determines that an EAW is needed, then the RGU (or its agents) is responsible for preparing the EAW “as early as is practicable in the development of the proposed project.”10 As noted by the EQB, it is the RGU’s role to determine whether an EAW is needed because the proposed project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. When making the determination of need, the RGU analyzes the evidence presented by the Petitioners and the following factors to decide whether a project may have the potential for significant environmental effects: A.The type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B.Cumulative potential effects, based on consideration of the following factors: 1.whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; 2.whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; 3.the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and 4.the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project; C.The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; and 7 Minn. R. 4410.1000, subp. 3. See also, Minn. R. 4410.4600 (exemptions); Minn. R. 4410.1100 (petition process). 8 Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 75. 9 Minn. R. 4410.0400, subp. 2. 10 Minn. R. 4410.1400(A). Page 190 of 217 3 D.The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other [environmental impact statements].11 Under the Rules, the RGU is required to order preparation of an EAW “if the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers, and other persons, or [is] otherwise known by the RGU demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have potential for significant environmental effects.”12 Likewise, if the RGU determines that the “evidence presented fails to demonstrate the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects”, it must deny the petition.13 The RGU is required to “maintain, either as a separate document or contained within the records of the RGU, a record, including specific findings of fact, of its decision on the need for an EAW.”14 What is the threshold for a mandatory EAW for the proposed Municipal Campus Building Project? The Rules include a wide range of project types and applicable thresholds. As applied to a project like the proposed Municipal Campus Building Project, an EAW is mandatory if any of the following thresholds are met or exceeded: 1.In a third class city15 like Mendota Heights, for construction of a new or expansion of an existing industrial, commercial, or institutional facility16, equal to or in excess 200,000 square feet, expressed as gross floor space17; 2.For projects that will change or diminish the course, current, or cross-section of one acre or more of any public water or public waters wetland18; or 3.For projects that will cause an impact19 to a total of one acre or more of wetlands, regardless of type, excluding public waters wetlands, if any part of the wetland is within a shoreland area, a delineated floodplain, a state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district, the Minnesota River Project Riverbend area, or the Mississippi headwaters area . . .20 11 Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. 12 Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 6. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 See, Minn. Stat. 410.01 (defining third class cities as those having more than 10,000 and not more than 20,000 inhabitants) 16 See, Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 40b (emphasis added) (defining “institutional facility” as “a land-based facility owned or operated by an organization having a governmental, educational, civic, or religious purpose such as a school, hospital, prison, military installation, church, or other similar establishment or facility”). 17 Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 14.B(2). 18 Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 27(A). 19 See, Minn. R. 8420.0111, subp. 32 (defining “impact”). 20 Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 27(B). Page 191 of 217 4 As is described more fully in the civil engineering memo from the project engineer Design Tree, Inc. (the “Engineering Memo”), none of these thresholds are met for the proposed Municipal Campus Building Project. Are there exemptions to a mandatory EAW? Certain projects are exempt from EAW requirements unless they meet or exceed the thresholds described above. The exemptions include, in a third class city, construction of a new or expansion of an existing warehousing, light industrial, commercial, or institutional facility of less than 50,000 square feet, expressed as gross floor space.21 As is described more fully in the Engineering Memo, the current estimated square footage of the proposed Municipal Campus Building does not meet this threshold, and the proposed project would be exempt from the requirement of a mandatory EAW. Does the Mendota Heights City Code address EAWs? City Code Section 12-5D-1 adopts the state regulations and rules of the Environmental Review Program and the EQB.22 The City Code provides for an “optional EAW” that may be required at the discretion of the City Council and upon the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator if a proposed action “may be a major action and appears to have the potential for significant environmental effects.”23 Under the City Code, the “following guidelines shall also be considered in determining whether an optional EAW shall be required: 1.Is the action to be in or near an area that is considered to be environmentally sensitive or aesthetically pleasing? 2.Is the action likely to have disruptive effects such as generating traffic and noise? 3.Are there public questions or controversy concerning the environmental effects of the proposed actions?”24 Based on these guidelines, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed Project is near an area that is considered aesthetically pleasing; is likely to have some disruptive effects, at least temporarily; and has sparked public questions and controversy concerning environmental effects. Is the decision of the City Council final, or may it be appealed? When the City Council makes its determination about the need for an EAW, the decision is final insofar as there would be no further City Council action required on that specific issue. However, a “person [who is] aggrieved by a final decision on the need for an environmental assessment worksheet, the need for an environmental impact statement, or the adequacy of an environmental 21 Minn. R. 4410.4600, subp. 10.A(1) (emphasis added). 22 Mendota Heights City Code Sec. 12-5D-1. 23 Mendota Heights City Code Sec. 12-5D-1(D). 24 Id. Page 192 of 217 5 impact statement is entitled to judicial review of the decision . . .”25 Under the statute, the appeal must be filed as a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and served on the RGU not more than 30 days from the date that the RGU provides notice of its final decision to the EQB and the Petitioners.26 The statute sets forth the filing and service requirements. If the petition for a writ of certiorari is timely filed and properly served, the Court of Appeals will direct the timing and conduct of the case according to the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.27 Note that the Rules appear to contradict the statute, and provide that the RGU’s determination of need for an EAW may be reviewed by a declaratory judgment action initiated in the State District Court for the county in which the proposed project is located within 30 days of the RGU’s decision.28 Based on a review of the procedural posture of other EAW cases, it appears that the appeals process set forth in the statute is the correct process to follow. However, it would be up to a person or persons choosing to appeal to obtain their own legal advice about how to reconcile this apparent discrepancy between the statute and the Rules. What other legal information should the City Council be aware of? On August 3, 2026, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a non-precedential decision in the case of an appeal of determination by the Town Board of Supervisors for Vermillion Township that an EAW was not needed.29 Although the facts of that case are different than exist here with the proposed Municipal Campus Building Project, the case is still worth noting because of the Court’s decision to reverse the EAW determination of the Town Board because the Court found that the Town Board applied “the wrong legal standard when it assessed the potential for significant environmental effects” in the early stage of the proposed project.30 The Court sent the case back to the Town Board for them to re-do the analysis and make a determination based on the correct legal standard. Although the final outcome of the petition for an EAW in this Vermillion Township case is not known, and although the Court of Appeals decision technically is not a binding legal precedent, the case is still an indication of how courts view these matters. The case also provides a reminder of the importance of the record that is made at the City Council level, including findings of fact, resolutions, and City Council proceedings. What is the timeline for City Council action? Upon receipt of the Petition to the City from the EQB, the City has 15 days (exclusive of weekends and legal holidays) to determine whether there is a need for an EAW.31 On this timeline, the City Council must make a determination no later than September 16, 2026.32 If needed, the City 25 Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 10 (emphasis added). 26 Id. 27 Id. 28 Minn. R. 4410.0400, subp. 4. 29 See, Resolution Denying Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Fischer Pit Expansion Project (A26-0043). 30 Id. at 11. 31 Minn. R. 4410.1000, subp. 7. 32 As calculated pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 12. Page 193 of 217 6 Council may request approval from the EQB to extend the deadline for taking final action for an additional 15 days, which “the EQB’s chair shall extend. . .”33 If extended, the City’s deadline would be October 7, 2026. Within five days of the City Council’s determination, the City’s authorized representative must notify the EQB staff and the Petitioners’ Representative, in writing, of that determination.34 As directed by the EQB Staff in its transmission letter, this written notice is submitted to the EQB via email. What legal options are available to the City Council in making this determination? Based on all of the information outlined above, on the information included in the Engineering Memo, on the evidence presented in the Petition, and on other information that is otherwise known to the City Council, the City Council may choose to do any of the following: 1.Adopt a Resolution denying a petition for the preparation of an EAW; 2.Adopt a Resolution ordering the preparation of an EAW as the proposer of the proposed project; or 3.Adopt a Resolution ordering the preparation of an EAW pursuant to City Code Section 12- 5D-1(D). 33 Id. 34 Minn. R. 4410.1000, subp. 8. (Note: this subpart also requires that the City notify the project’s proposer of the determination. Here, the City is the proposer. Accordingly, only the Petitioners’ Representative and the EQB staff must be notified.) Page 194 of 217 dte-ls.com Toll Free: 888-216-1916 CIVIL MECHANICAL STRUCTURAL ELECTRICAL LAND SURVEYING SUSTAINABILITY Memorandum To: ICS From: Jeremy Anderson, PE Date: August 26, 2026 Subject: Environmental Review Determination – Consideration of Factors under Minnesota Rules 4410.1100 and 4410.1700 for the Mendota Heights Municipal Complex Purpose This memorandum documents the consideration of the environmental review criteria required under Minnesota Rules 4410.1100, Subp. 6 and 4410.1700, Subp. 7 in determining whether the proposed Mendota Heights Municipal Complex project has the potential for significant environmental effects that would require preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Minnesota Rules require that, when determining whether environmental review is necessary, the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) evaluates the potential for significant environmental effects using the criteria listed in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subp. 7. These criteria include the type and extent of environmental effects, cumulative impacts, the extent to which impacts can be mitigated by regulatory authority, and the degree to which environmental effects are understood and controllable through existing studies and regulatory processes. This memorandum summarizes those considerations as they apply to the proposed projects. Project Overview The City of Mendota Heights proposes construction of the following facility: Mendota Heights Municipal Complex •Building Footprint area: approximately 29,000 square feet •Total Building area: approximately 40,000 square feet •Site area: approximately 13.39 acres •Disturbed area: approximately 5.31 acres •New roadway access: approximately 650 feet The projects involve typical municipal development including building construction, parking areas, site grading, stormwater management, and utility connections to existing municipal infrastructure. The site does not contain public waters, floodplain, or shoreland resources. No historic structures listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places are affected. The site does contain approximately 4.92 acres of wetland. Evaluation of Environmental Review Factors (Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subp. 7) Page 195 of 217 Page 2 A. Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects The potential environmental effects associated with the projects are typical of small-scale urban institutional development and include temporary construction disturbance, limited vegetation clearing, and minor increases in impervious surface area. These impacts are localized and limited in extent, confined to the area the disturbed during construction totaling approximately 5.31 acres combined. Construction-related impacts such as noise, dust, and traffic are temporary and will cease upon completion of construction. Operational impacts are expected to be minimal. Public safety facilities typically generate modest traffic volumes compared to commercial or industrial development. Emergency vehicle operations occur intermittently and are not expected to result in sustained environmental impacts. Any site disturbance associated with grading, utilities, and building construction is reversible through standard site restoration practices. Following construction, disturbed areas will be stabilized through landscaping, pavement, and stormwater management infrastructure. Additionally, a portion of the project is funded by the State of Minnesota and as such Minnesota B3 Guidelines are required for the project. Overall, the projects do not involve activities that would create long-term, irreversible environmental effects. B. Cumulative Potential Effects Cumulative potential effects consider whether a project contributes to environmental impacts when viewed in combination with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. The proposed project represents a stand-alone public facility and is not components of a broader development plan that would significantly alter land use patterns or induce substantial additional growth. Potential cumulative considerations include: •Incremental increases in impervious surface area •Minor traffic generation •Typical municipal utility demand Vegetation removal associated with the projects is limited to the individual site footprint and does not represent a large-scale loss of forested land or natural habitat. The sites are located within an urbanized environment where vegetation is fragmented and interspersed with developed land uses. Landscaping requirements associated with the projects will restore portions of the urban tree canopy over time, further limiting the potential for cumulative ecological effects. These effects are relatively small and occur within already developed or planned urban areas served by existing municipal infrastructure. The projects are also subject to local stormwater management regulations, which require the implementation of stormwater best management practices designed to manage runoff volume and water Page 196 of 217 Page 3 quality. Compliance with these requirements ensures that potential cumulative impacts related to stormwater are minimized. Since Minnesota’s B3 Guidelines are applicable to this project, at every stage of design the effects of the site on the following items (which are from the State’s B3 Tracking Tool) are required to evaluated to identify the pre-design condition, the impacts of the project to these items and to work with regulatory authorities to mitigate the environmental effects of the project. •Site and Water Strategies Used o Site and Water Strategies Used o Property/Site Data •Site and Water Connections o Plant Network Connections o Animal Network Connections o Human Network Connections •Site Water Quality and Efficiency o Stormwater Quantity and Watershed Connections o Stormwater Quality o No potable water use for irrigation o Building Water Efficiency o Improved irrigation consumption reduction o Improved indoor water consumption reduction •Soils o Soil Description o Greenfield sites o Minimizing Soil Disturbance o Soil Management and Erosion Control Plans o Bulk Density Limits o Wetland Buffer o No Topsoil Exported from Site o Organic Content in Planting and Seeding Areas o Urban Soils Management o Atypical Soils •Vegetation o Avoidance of Critical Sites o Adequate Tree Conditions o Vegetation Selection o Pollinator Friendly Vegetation o Site Albedo Minimum •Animal Habitat Support o S5A. Whole Building Threat Factor o S5B. Non-Enclosure Threat Factor o S5C. High Risk Surfaces o S5D. Traps Threat Factor o S5E. Follow "Lights-Out" management program o S5F. First year building monitoring o S5G. Protection of rare, threatened and endangered species o S5H. Provisions for animal habitat Landscape Leader Page 197 of 217 Page 4 o S5I. Aggregate illumination level There are wetlands on the project property, but the wetlands are not intended to be disturbed, filled or mitigated as part of the site development. Given the modest scale of the development, the requirement to follow Minnesota’s B3 Guidelines and the absence of sensitive environmental resources, the projects’ contributions to cumulative environmental effects are not significant. C. Extent to Which Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Regulatory Authority Potential environmental effects associated with the projects are subject to multiple existing regulatory frameworks that provide effective mitigation and environmental protection. Key regulatory mechanisms include: •Local stormwater management ordinances governing runoff quantity and water quality including MS4 Permitting. •Construction stormwater permitting requirements administered through state and federal NPDES programs •Local erosion and sediment control regulations •Municipal zoning and site plan review processes •Building code and fire code requirements •Minnesota B3 Guidelines o This could result in working with different State and Federal agencies to establish ways to mitigate the effects of the site development on the environment. These regulatory programs provide established mitigation measures that address potential environmental impacts associated with grading, drainage, erosion control, and site development. Because these projects occur within a developed municipal environment and are fully subject to these regulatory controls, potential environmental effects can be effectively mitigated through standard permitting and compliance processes. D. Extent to Which Environmental Effects Can Be Anticipated and Controlled Through Existing Studies and Planning Environmental effects associated with typical municipal facility development are well understood and predictable. The City’s comprehensive planning, zoning regulations, and infrastructure planning along with Minnesota’s B3 Guidelines provide an established framework for managing development impacts. The project sites are located within areas already designated for urban development and served by existing public infrastructure including roads, water supply, and sanitary sewer systems. As a result, the environmental effects associated with the projects can be readily anticipated and controlled. Additionally, engineering analyses performed during project design — including grading plans, stormwater management design, and utility planning — provide detailed evaluation of site conditions and ensure that environmental effects are addressed through design measures. Because the projects involve standard urban development practices within a regulated municipal environment, environmental impacts are well characterized and manageable through established Page 198 of 217 Page 5 planning and engineering controls. Conclusion Based on the evaluation of the factors outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subp. 7, the proposed Municipal Complex project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. Environmental impacts associated with the projects are limited in scope, largely temporary during construction, and subject to effective mitigation through existing regulatory programs. The projects occur within areas planned and served for urban development and do not involve environmentally sensitive resources or large-scale land disturbance. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the project does not warrant preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and does not require further environmental review under Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410. Sincerely, DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING, INC Jeremy E. Anderson, PE Civil Engineer jea@dte-ls.com 320-762-1290 Page 199 of 217 1 DRAFT Resolution Denying Petition CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026 - RESOLUTION DENYING PETITION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CAMPUS PROJECT WHEREAS, following many years of study and discussion, the City of Mendota Heights has proposed the construction of a new municipal building to house City Hall and the Mendota Heights Police Department, replacing the existing building with a new building (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 2025-93 ordering the improvement and authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the Project; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2026, by a 4-1 vote, the City Council adopted Resolution 2026- 37 approving the schematic design for the Police Station and City Hall Municipal Campus building project and authorizing proceeding with design development; and WHEREAS, on August 24, 2026, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (“EQB”) received a petition (“Petition”) requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) be prepared for the Project, and the EQB determined that the City of Mendota Heights is the responsible governmental unit (“RGU”) to make that determination; and WHEREAS, the Petition “identifies potential environmental effects involving the conversion of recreational/open space; proximity to mapped wetland and surface-water resources; grading, excavation, stormwater, drainage, impervious surface and groundwater; construction activity; and replacement or relocation of recreational facilities”; and WHEREAS, on August 25, 2026, the EQB transmitted the Petition to the City, and notified the City of the determination that the City is the RGU; and WHEREAS, the City has obtained a memorandum dated August 26, 2026, from Design Tree Engineering and Land Surveying regarding environmental review requirements related to the Project (the “Engineering Memo”), which is incorporated into this Resolution by reference; and WHEREAS, the matter came before the City Council at its regular meeting on September 1, 2026, where the City Council, acting as the RGU, considered the applicable statutes and rules included in the Minnesota Environmental Review Program pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 116D; the evidence presented by the Petitioners; the information and analysis included in the Engineering Memo; the information and analysis presented by City Staff; and other information otherwise known to the City Council. Page 200 of 217 2 DRAFT Resolution Denying Petition NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, based upon the record before it, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1.The recitals set forth above are incorporated as if set forth herein. 2.Petitioners have filed a request for environmental review pursuant to the Administrative Rules promulgated under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 116D. Petitioners assert that an EAW is necessary because the Project demonstrates the potential for significant environmental effects. 3.Minnesota Rules Part 4410.50 provides that a “governmental unit with jurisdiction may order the preparation of an EAW for any project that does not exceed the mandatory thresholds designated in part 4410.4300 or 4410.4400 if the governmental unit determines that because of the nature or location of the proposed project the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, and the project is not exempted pursuant to part 4410.4600.” 4.Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, subp. 40b, the proposed Project meets the statutory definition of an “institutional facility,” which is “a land-based facility owned or operated by an organization having a governmental, educational, civic, or religious purpose such as a school, hospital, prison, military installation, church, or other similar establishment or facility.” 5.Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 410.01, the City of Mendota Heights is a third class city because it has more than 10,000 and not more than 20,000 inhabitants. 6.Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1000, subp. 2, an EAW is mandatory if the proposed project meets or exceeds certain thresholds, including the following applicable thresholds: A.In a third class city like Mendota Heights, for construction of a new or expansion of an existing industrial, commercial, or institutional facility, equal to or in excess 200,000 square feet, expressed as gross floor space; B.For projects that will change or diminish the course, current, or cross-section of one acre or more of any public water or public waters wetland; or C.For projects that will cause an impact (as defined by Minnesota Rules 8420.0111, subp. 32) to a total of one acre or more of wetlands, regardless of type, excluding public waters wetlands, if any part of the wetland is within a shoreland area, a delineated floodplain, a state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district, the Minnesota River Project Riverbend area, or the Mississippi headwaters area. 7.The proposed Project does not meet or exceed any of these thresholds. Specifically, the proposed Project Page 201 of 217 3 DRAFT Resolution Denying Petition A.is for an institutional facility consisting of 49,963 square feet; B.will not change or diminish the course, current, or cross-section of one acre or more of any public water or public waters wetland; and C.will not cause an impact to a total of one acre or more of wetlands. Accordingly, a mandatory EAW is not required. 8.Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.4600, subp. 10.A(1), for projects in a third class city, construction of a new or expansion of an existing warehousing, light industrial, commercial, or institutional facility of less than 50,000 square feet, expressed as gross floor space, are exempt from EAW requirements. 9.The proposed Project is for an institutional facility consisting of 49,963 square feet. Accordingly, this threshold is not met or exceeded, and the proposed Project is exempt from mandatory EAW requirements. 10.Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subp. 7, the City acting as the RGU must analyze the evidence presented by the Petitioners and the following factors to decide whether a project may have the potential for significant environmental effects: A.The type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B.Cumulative potential effects, based on consideration of the following factors: 1.whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; 2.whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; 3.the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and 4.the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project; C.The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; and D.The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other [environmental impact statements]. 11.As is set forth in the Engineering Memo, none of the foregoing factors indicate that the proposed Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Page 202 of 217 4 DRAFT Resolution Denying Petition AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, the Petition for the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet is hereby DENIED 1.Because the evidence presented fails to demonstrate that the proposed Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects beyond those which are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authority or can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental measures undertaken by the City as Project proposer; and 2.Because there is no need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet because the proposed Project is exempt pursuant to Minnesota Rules. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, 1.The City Administrator is specifically authorized and directed to submit a copy of this Resolution via email to the EQB and to the Representative for the Petitioners within five days of the date it was adopted; and 2.The City Administrator is specifically authorized to complete the online submission form for the EQB Monitor found on the EQB’s website and to upload a copy of this Resolution; and 3.The City Administrator, other City Staff, legal counsel, and consultants are otherwise hereby authorized and directed to act in accordance with this Resolution and denial of the Petition. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights on this 1st day of September 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 203 of 217 1 DRAFT Resolution Ordering Discretionary EAW (Request of Proposer) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026 - RESOLUTION ORDERING DISCRETIONARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET PURSUANT TO REQUEST OF PROPOSER FOR PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CAMPUS PROJECT WHEREAS, following many years of study and discussion, the City of Mendota Heights has proposed the construction of a new municipal building to house City Hall and the Mendota Heights Police Department, replacing the existing building with a new building (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 2025-93 ordering the improvement and authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the Project; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2026, by a 4-1 vote, the City Council adopted Resolution 2026- 37 approving the schematic design for the Police Station and City Hall Municipal Campus building project and authorizing proceeding with design development; and WHEREAS, on August 24, 2026, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (“EQB”) received a petition (“Petition”) requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) be prepared for the Project, and the EQB determined that the City of Mendota Heights is the responsible governmental unit (“RGU”) to make that determination; and WHEREAS, the Petition “identifies potential environmental effects involving the conversion of recreational/open space; proximity to mapped wetland and surface-water resources; grading, excavation, stormwater, drainage, impervious surface and groundwater; construction activity; and replacement or relocation of recreational facilities”; and WHEREAS, on August 25, 2026, the EQB transmitted the Petition to the City, and notified the City of the determination that the City is the RGU; and WHEREAS, the City has obtained a memorandum dated August 26, 2026, from project engineer Design Tree, Inc., regarding environmental review requirements related to the Project (the “Engineering Memo”), which is incorporated into this Resolution by reference; and WHEREAS, the matter came before the City Council at its regular meeting on September 1, 2026, where the City Council, acting as the RGU, considered the applicable statutes and rules included in the Minnesota Environmental Review Program pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 116D; the evidence presented by the Petitioners; the information and analysis included in the Engineering Memo; the information and analysis presented by City Staff; and other information otherwise known to the City Council. Page 204 of 217 2 DRAFT Resolution Ordering Discretionary EAW (Request of Proposer) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, based upon the record before it, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1.The recitals set forth above are incorporated as if set forth herein. 2.Petitioners have filed a request for environmental review pursuant to the Administrative Rules promulgated under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 116D. Petitioners assert that an EAW is necessary because the Project demonstrates the potential for significant environmental effects. 3.Minnesota Rules Part 4410.50 provides that a “governmental unit with jurisdiction may order the preparation of an EAW for any project that does not exceed the mandatory thresholds designated in part 4410.4300 or 4410.4400 if the governmental unit determines that because of the nature or location of the proposed project the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, and the project is not exempted pursuant to part 4410.4600.” 4.Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, subp. 40b, the proposed Project meets the statutory definition of an “institutional facility,” which is “a land-based facility owned or operated by an organization having a governmental, educational, civic, or religious purpose such as a school, hospital, prison, military installation, church, or other similar establishment or facility.” 5.Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 410.01, the City of Mendota Heights is a third class city because it has more than 10,000 and not more than 20,000 inhabitants. 6.Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1000, subp. 2, an EAW is mandatory if the proposed project meets or exceeds certain thresholds, including the following applicable thresholds: A.In a third class city like Mendota Heights, for construction of a new or expansion of an existing industrial, commercial, or institutional facility, equal to or in excess 200,000 square feet, expressed as gross floor space; B.For projects that will change or diminish the course, current, or cross-section of one acre or more of any public water or public waters wetland; or C.For projects that will cause an impact (as defined by Minnesota Rules 8420.0111, subp. 32) to a total of one acre or more of wetlands, regardless of type, excluding public waters wetlands, if any part of the wetland is within a shoreland area, a delineated floodplain, a state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district, the Minnesota River Project Riverbend area, or the Mississippi headwaters area. 7.The proposed Project does not meet or exceed any of these thresholds. Specifically, the proposed Project Page 205 of 217 3 DRAFT Resolution Ordering Discretionary EAW (Request of Proposer) A.is for an institutional facility consisting of 49,963 square feet; B.will not change or diminish the course, current, or cross-section of one acre or more of any public water or public waters wetland; and C.will not cause an impact to a total of one acre or more of wetlands. Accordingly, a mandatory EAW is not required. 8.Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.4600, subp. 10.A(1), for projects in a third class city, construction of a new or expansion of an existing warehousing, light industrial, commercial, or institutional facility of less than 50,000 square feet, expressed as gross floor space, are exempt from EAW requirements. 9.The proposed Project is for an institutional facility consisting of 49,963 square feet. Accordingly, this threshold is not met or exceeded, and the proposed Project is exempt from mandatory EAW requirements. 10.Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subp. 7, the City acting as the RGU must analyze the evidence presented by the Petitioners and the following factors to decide whether a project may have the potential for significant environmental effects: A.The type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B.Cumulative potential effects, based on consideration of the following factors: 1.whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; 2.whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; 3.the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and 4.the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project; C.The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; and D.The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other [environmental impact statements]. 11.As is set forth in the Engineering Memo, none of the foregoing factors indicate that the proposed Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Page 206 of 217 4 DRAFT Resolution Ordering Discretionary EAW (Request of Proposer) 12.Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, subp. 68, the “proposer” of a project is “the person or governmental unit that proposes to undertake or to direct others to undertake a project.” For this proposed Project, the City of Mendota Heights is the proposer. 13.Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1000, subp. 3, a discretionary EAW is required when the proposer of a project wishes to initiate environmental review to determine if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects. 14.Regardless of the proposed Project being exempt from EAW requirements, and regardless of the fact that the proposed Project does not meet the requirements for a mandatory EAW, and regardless of the fact that the analysis of the Engineering Memo does not show that the factors set forth in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subp.7, indicate that the proposed Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, the City as the proposer wishes to initiate environmental review to better understand the potential for significant environmental effects related to the Project. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet is hereby ORDERED. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, 1.The City Administrator is specifically authorized and directed to submit a copy of this Resolution via email to the EQB and to the Representative for the Petitioners within five days of the date it was adopted; and 2.The City Administrator is specifically authorized to complete the online submission form for the EQB Monitor found on the EQB’s website and to upload a copy of this Resolution; and 3.The City Administrator, other City Staff, legal counsel, and consultants are hereby authorized and directed to act in accordance with this Resolution and commence the work necessary to complete the EAW. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights on this 1st day of September 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 207 of 217 1 DRAFT Resolution Ordering Optional EAW Pursuant to City Code CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026 - RESOLUTION ORDERING OPTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 12-5D-1 FOR PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CAMPUS PROJECT WHEREAS, following many years of study and discussion, the City of Mendota Heights has proposed the construction of a new municipal building to house City Hall and the Mendota Heights Police Department, replacing the existing building with a new building (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 2025-93 ordering the improvement and authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the Project; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2026, by a 4-1 vote, the City Council adopted Resolution 2026- 37 approving the schematic design for the Police Station and City Hall Municipal Campus building project and authorizing proceeding with design development; and WHEREAS, on August 24, 2026, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (“EQB”) received a petition (“Petition”) requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) be prepared for the Project, and the EQB determined that the City of Mendota Heights is the responsible governmental unit (“RGU”) to make that determination; and WHEREAS, the Petition “identifies potential environmental effects involving the conversion of recreational/open space; proximity to mapped wetland and surface-water resources; grading, excavation, stormwater, drainage, impervious surface and groundwater; construction activity; and replacement or relocation of recreational facilities”; and WHEREAS, on August 25, 2026, the EQB transmitted the Petition to the City, and notified the City of the determination that the City is the RGU; and WHEREAS, the City has obtained a memorandum dated August 26, 2026, from Design Tree Engineering and Land Surveying regarding environmental review requirements related to the Project (the “Engineering Memo”), which is incorporated into this Resolution by reference; and WHEREAS, the matter came before the City Council at its regular meeting on September 1, 2026, where the City Council, acting as the RGU, considered the applicable statutes and rules included in the Minnesota Environmental Review Program pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 116D; the evidence presented by the Petitioners; the information and analysis included in the Engineering Memo; the information and analysis presented by City Staff; and other information otherwise known to the City Council. Page 208 of 217 2 DRAFT Resolution Ordering Optional EAW Pursuant to City Code NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, based upon the record before it, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1.The recitals set forth above are incorporated as if set forth herein. 2.Petitioners have filed a request for environmental review pursuant to the Administrative Rules promulgated under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 116D. Petitioners assert that an EAW is necessary because the Project demonstrates the potential for significant environmental effects. 3.Minnesota Rules Part 4410.50 provides that a “governmental unit with jurisdiction may order the preparation of an EAW for any project that does not exceed the mandatory thresholds designated in part 4410.4300 or 4410.4400 if the governmental unit determines that because of the nature or location of the proposed project the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, and the project is not exempted pursuant to part 4410.4600.” 4.Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, subp. 40b, the proposed Project meets the statutory definition of an “institutional facility,” which is “a land-based facility owned or operated by an organization having a governmental, educational, civic, or religious purpose such as a school, hospital, prison, military installation, church, or other similar establishment or facility.” 5.Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 410.01, the City of Mendota Heights is a third class city because it has more than 10,000 and not more than 20,000 inhabitants. 6.Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1000, subp. 2, an EAW is mandatory if the proposed project meets or exceeds certain thresholds, including the following applicable thresholds: A.In a third class city like Mendota Heights, for construction of a new or expansion of an existing industrial, commercial, or institutional facility, equal to or in excess 200,000 square feet, expressed as gross floor space; B.For projects that will change or diminish the course, current, or cross-section of one acre or more of any public water or public waters wetland; or C.For projects that will cause an impact (as defined by Minnesota Rules 8420.0111, subp. 32) to a total of one acre or more of wetlands, regardless of type, excluding public waters wetlands, if any part of the wetland is within a shoreland area, a delineated floodplain, a state or federally designated wild and scenic rivers district, the Minnesota River Project Riverbend area, or the Mississippi headwaters area. 7.The proposed Project does not meet or exceed any of these thresholds. Specifically, the proposed Project Page 209 of 217 3 DRAFT Resolution Ordering Optional EAW Pursuant to City Code A.is for an institutional facility consisting of 49,963 square feet; B.will not change or diminish the course, current, or cross-section of one acre or more of any public water or public waters wetland; and C.will not cause an impact to a total of one acre or more of wetlands. Accordingly, a mandatory EAW is not required. 8.Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.4600, subp. 10.A(1), for projects in a third class city, construction of a new or expansion of an existing warehousing, light industrial, commercial, or institutional facility of less than 50,000 square feet, expressed as gross floor space, are exempt from EAW requirements. 9.The proposed Project is for an institutional facility consisting of 49,963 square feet. Accordingly, this threshold is not met or exceeded, and the proposed Project is exempt from mandatory EAW requirements. 10.Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subp. 7, the City acting as the RGU must analyze the evidence presented by the Petitioners and the following factors to decide whether a project may have the potential for significant environmental effects: A.The type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B.Cumulative potential effects, based on consideration of the following factors: 1.whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; 2.whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; 3.the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and 4.the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project; C.The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; and D.The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other [environmental impact statements]. 11.As is set forth in the Engineering Memo, none of the foregoing factors indicate that the proposed Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Page 210 of 217 4 DRAFT Resolution Ordering Optional EAW Pursuant to City Code 12. Pursuant to City Code Section 12-5D-1, the City has adopted the state regulations and rules of the Environmental Review Program and the EQB. City Code Section 12-5D-1(D) provides for an “optional EAW” that may be required at the discretion of the City Council and upon the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator if a proposed action “may be a major action and appears to have the potential for significant environmental effects.” Under the City Code, the “following guidelines shall also be considered in determining whether an optional EAW shall be required: 1. Is the action to be in or near an area that is considered to be environmentally sensitive or aesthetically pleasing? 2. Is the action likely to have disruptive effects such as generating traffic and noise? 3. Are there public questions or controversy concerning the environmental effects of the proposed actions?” 13. Upon review of the guidelines set forth in City Code Section 12-5D-1(D), the proposed Project is near an area that is considered aesthetically pleasing; is likely to have temporary disruptive effects; and has sparked public questions and controversy concerning environmental effects. 14. Regardless of the proposed Project being exempt from EAW requirements, and regardless of the fact that the proposed Project does not meet the requirements for a mandatory EAW, and regardless of the fact that the analysis of the Engineering Memo does not show that the factors set forth in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, subp.7, indicate that the proposed Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, based on the provisions of City Code Section 12-5D-1, the City wishes to exercise its discretion to initiate environmental review to better understand the potential for significant environmental effects related to the Project. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet is hereby ORDERED. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, 1. The City Administrator is specifically authorized and directed to submit a copy of this Resolution via email to the EQB and to the Representative for the Petitioners within five days of the date it was adopted; and 2. The City Administrator is specifically authorized to complete the online submission form for the EQB Monitor found on the EQB’s website and to upload a copy of this Resolution; and 3. The City Administrator, other City Staff, legal counsel, and consultants are hereby authorized and directed to act in accordance with this Resolution and commence the work necessary to complete the EAW. Page 211 of 217 5 DRAFT Resolution Ordering Optional EAW Pursuant to City Code Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights on this 1st day of September 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 212 of 217 This page is intentionally left blank 9.b REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: September 1, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Municipal Campus Building Project Update ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Informational. Staff will present a project update. BACKGROUND: The Municipal Campus Building Project is the City's effort to address the long-term facility needs of the Police Department and City Hall. The existing municipal facility at 1101 Victoria Curve was constructed in the late 1980s and is experiencing increasing limitations related to building condition, space, functionality, security, accessibility, and the ability to support modern municipal and public safety operations. The City has been discussing the long-term needs of its municipal facilities for many years. When the existing City Hall and Police Station site was originally selected in the 1980s, planning documents identified the municipal campus as a location with the ability to accommodate future civic facilities. In March 1986, the City's Citizen's Committee unanimously approved locating the City Hall on the east side of the property and noted that any future civic facility would be located in the area of the existing ballfield. As the current building has continued to age, the City Council began a more formal evaluation of long-term facility needs. The Council authorized facility planning and needs assessment work and retained professional consultants to evaluate the condition and functionality of the existing facility and identify potential alternatives. The Council's evaluation has included several approaches to addressing the City's facility needs. These alternatives include renovating and expanding the existing City Hall and Police Station, relocating municipal operations to an existing commercial property within the City, separating Police Department and City Hall operations into different facilities, and constructing a new combined Police Station and City Hall on the existing municipal campus. During the summer and fall of 2025, the City and its project team worked to better understand Page 213 of 217 the city's facility needs and evaluate potential options. As the work progressed, additional information was developed and refined regarding the condition and functionality of the existing building, space and operational requirements and needs, and the feasibility of renovation, expansion, relocation, and new construction. The analysis and options were refined over several months, with preliminary scenarios and cost estimates presented in August, September, October and November 2025. The alternatives included renovating and expanding the existing facility, relocating municipal operations to another property, separating City Hall and Police Department operations into different facilities, and constructing a new combined Police Station and City Hall. The November presentation also included new construction options based on different space assumptions, including options designed around current needs and anticipated future needs. In December 2025, the City Council unanimously directed the Municipal Campus Project to move forward with the development of a new combined Police Station and City Hall on the existing municipal campus (i.e. the Dig-Once, Future Ready with space for the Criminal Justice Network) with an estimated project cost of $33.1 million. This direction followed the Council's review of the alternatives and reflected the Council's determination that a new facility provided the most responsible long-term approach to addressing the City's identified operational and facility needs. The Council also authorized the project team to continue work on the project's design and related planning. In June 2026, the City Council approved the schematic design plans and authorized proceeding with design development. The Council reviewed its long-term vision, service assumptions, project priorities, overall scope, project costs, facility needs, potential impacts on taxpayers and their principles that guide the project forward. As part of that discussion, the Council revisited the "dig-once" and "future ready" concepts and provided direction to scale the size and scope of the proposed building back to focus on the City's immediate 2026 operational (space) needs, while maintaining reasonable flexibility for the future. As the project has transitioned from schematic design, additional questions have been raised and revisited by the City Council. Questions include those related to the location of the building, the impact on the Mertensotto Field, the overall cost of the project, financing, the building design, whether alternatives visited early on should receive additional, renewed consideration and if the project should be paused. The Municipal Campus Building Project is still in the planning and design process. While the Council has taken several actions and provided direction to move the project forward, additional decisions remain. The project has not been bid for construction, and final construction costs have not been established. The Council continues to discuss the project's design cost, financing, outside funding, site impacts and overall affordability. Public input has been an important part of the process and continues to be considered as the project moves forward. Page 214 of 217 For additional information about the Municipal Campus Project, including project history, City Council actions, meeting materials, presentations, frequently asked questions, and project updates, residents are encouraged to visit the City's Municipal Campus Project webpage, attend project open office hours held the first Tuesday of the month from 4-5:00 PM, to subscribe to the project e-news letter, attend community engagement events being held throughout the project phases, and contact the City Council in person, by phone or by email at MunicipalCampusProject@mendotaheightsmn.gov website address: https://mendotaheightsmn.gov/550/Municipal-Campus-Building-Project Project Update: • The Municipal Campus Project is still in the planning and design phase. While the Council has taken several actions and provided direction to move the project forward, additional decisions remain. The project has not been bid for construction, and final construction costs have not been established. • Design work, including ICS, BKV and related engineering professionals, has been on hold given the EAW petition filing. • Braun Intertec completed soil borings on August 21. The findings report is expected to take 1–2 weeks from the date of completion. • See below for baseball field realignment plan update Baseball Field Realignment Plan--Mertensotto Field Relocation The City continues to evaluate options for the potential relocation of the Mertensotto ballfield in conjunction with the proposed Municipal Campus project. Based on the initial review, the council provided direction regarding a preferred approach that would maintain the overall capacity and quality of the City's ballfield system. Under the proposed field realignment, the existing Victoria Highlands ballfield would be renovated and improved to serve as the new Mertensotto Field. The existing Ivy Hills Park field would then become the new Victoria Highlands field. A new field is proposed to be constructed at the proposed city hall/police station site to replace the Ivy Hills field. Staff has been working with the Two Rivers Athletic Association (TRAA) to review their needs for each field site, including field dimensions, amenities and other improvements necessary or desired by TRAA to support current programming needs and best practices. Staff is finalizing quotes for the proposed renovations and improvements to better define the overall scope and cost of the field realignment. As this work continues, the city is also engaging residents who live near the affected parks. Notice letters have been mailed to residents near the affected parks to inform them of the proposed improvements and provide an opportunity for engagement at the September 8 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Staff plans to bring the final quotes and proposed scope of work to the September 15 City Council meeting for consideration and approval. Page 215 of 217 FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None for this update. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Phases of Construction We Are Here CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 216 of 217 PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION – WHERE ARE WE? WE ARE HERE Page 217 of 217 Mayor Levine and Council Members, My name is Cathleen Helmstetter, 1248 Culligan Lane. I am the representative for 190 petitioners for the Municipal Campus EAW. This petition asks the City to prepare an EAW so the project’s environmental effects are understood before the plans are finalized and construction begins. In response to our petition, Design Tree Engineering provided a memo to ICS, the City’s owner’s representative. Because the memo came through the team managing the project, it is not an independent environmental review. That creates a clear conflict in roles. The project team should not be the sole judge of whether its own project requires environmental review. On pages 195 - 199 of the packet, Design Tree states that approximately 5 acres of this 13.-acre site are wetlands, yet concludes that the project does not involve environmentally sensitive resources. We have difficulty reconciling those statements. There is also a basic discrepancy in the project description. Design Tree calls the building approximately 40,000 square feet. ICS’s August 5 presentation totals 46,298 square feet. The City’s draft resolution states 49,963 square feet —just 37 square feet below the 50,000-square-foot exemption threshold. Which number is accurate, what is excluded, and which building and site plan did Design Tree evaluate? Before the Council relies on square footage to make a legal finding, these figures should be reconciled. Design Tree says drainage, erosion and other impacts can be handled through grading plans, stormwater design, permits and engineering controls. But mitigating a problem later is not the same as understanding it before construction. The existing City Hall has a documented history of water intrusion. We are not claiming the wetlands caused those problems. We are saying that this history demonstrates why water, drainage and soil conditions deserve careful study before constructing a larger building next to nearly five acres of wetlands. Under Minnesota Rule 4410.1100, the Council does not need proof that environmental harm will occur. The question is whether, because of the project’s nature or location, it may have the potential for significant environmental effects. One hundred ninety residents are asking for another level of due diligence. An EAW would not stop the project. It would provide a transparent process for answering these questions before decisions are made that may be difficult to reverse. We understand the desire to keep this project on schedule. But the schedule should not become more important than understanding the land we are building on. If the environmental questions are manageable, an EAW will document that. If concerns are identified, it is far better to understand them before construction than to rely on mitigation afterward. I respectfully ask you to vote yes and order an EAW, whether through this petition or through the City’s own authority. Thank you.