Res 2026-56 Ordering Optional Environmental Assessment WorksheetCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2026-56
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.
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 ftled 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 8420.01 1 1, 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
2
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 4410.460Q 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 signifcant 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.
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:
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 12-51)-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.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights on this 1 sc day of September 2026,
CITY COUNCIL
1 IIB 1 /
/V
111M I" UT M
ATTEST:
q/�
N ney B per, City Clerk