Want more stories like this focused on Mendota Heights? Become a member and support local news.
The saga continues for the municipal campus project in Mendota Heights as the city has received a resident petition to require an environmental review. Based on project size, the review is not mandatory, but City Council may request a review. They’ll consider it at the September 1 meeting.
Context: Mendota Heights is considering a potential $33 million municipal campus project to replace the current city hall and police station. The price tag would require a property tax increase and has seen significant resident pushback.
Environmental Review
Local resident Cathleen Helmstetter organized a petition to require an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW).
- Signatures: The petition includes 190 signatures, surpassing the 100 required.
- Purpose: An EAW determines if a project will have significant environmental effects and therefore need an environmental impact statement (EIS), which is a further round of environmental review that still doesn’t approve or deny a project but gives more context and data.
- Why: Potential impacts on the adjacent wetlands and conversion of the existing baseball field. The petition doesn’t propose stopping the project entirely, but seeks to evaluate alternate designs that could have a smaller environmental impact.
- Current review: Since the project is receiving state money, it must follow state environmental guidelines that require mitigating impacts across a number of areas including soil, water, vegetation, and habitat. An engineering firm also reviewed the project and concluded it won’t have significant environmental impacts as they are limited in scope, temporary, and can be effectively mitigated.
- Next steps: Based on the project and city size, an EAW is not mandatory, but the City Council could choose to pursue an EAW voluntarily.
- Cost: There would be additional cost for the city to conduct the environmental review. The project engineer could potentially do the work at a lower cost, or the city could hire an outside firm for an estimated $23,000-$40,000.
- Timeline: City Council will consider the petition at their September 1 meeting.
Sept. 2, 2026 Update: Environmental Review Approved
Mendota Heights City Council voted unanimously to approve an EAW (Council Member John Mazzitello was absent). This will extend the timeline for the municipal campus project as the EAW requires, among other things, a 30-day public comment period.
Want to know what’s happening in your neighborhood? Support local news.
6 Responses
My name is Bernard Friel. My wife and I have resided in Mendota Heights for 70 years. Our children all attended public schools in Mendota Heights. I served on the school board of ISD 197. on the Mendota Heights Planning Commission for twelve years and as the city’s representative on the Metropolitan Airports Sound Abatement Council for five years. The city council has never before proposed a bond issue of this magnitude, with such a significant real estate tax burden for its residents without permitting them an opportunity to vote on the bond issue, and in this case for an unwise and unnecessary$33,000,000 Municipal Campus Project. This council under the leadership of Mayor Levine has done so knowing that its residents will force it to hold a referendum if it proceeds. The resident opposition hold the view based on engineering data in the hands of the city that the existing city hall can be repaired, renovated, maintained and improved or added to to provide all the city, with its population at near maximum (Met Council Est.) will need for many more decades. It is recognized the renovations must add space and facilities for our Police department. It is estimated that proceeding with renovations will reduce the cost by approximately $15,000,000, and preserve Mertensotto Field a ball field dedicated by a former city council.
Bernard this is a great post! I agree and just wanted to say vote for Maczko!
Thank you Mr Friel for your insight, past leadership and experience. The council would be wise to listen to what you have to say and what many many others are thinking.
Loren Taple
Mendota Hts resident
In reference to the comments above from Bernard Friel.
Bernard Friel States:
The city council has never before proposed a bond issue of this magnitude, with such a significant real estate tax burden for its residents without permitting them an opportunity to vote on the bond issue
RH comment:
Actually, there is no bond issue to vote on. The issue at hand is merely in the planning stages. There have been 2 bond referendums in the past in Mendota Heights – Par 3 Vote and a bond voted on in the 1980’s to establish parks in Mendota Heights. The public votes once City Council has made decisions and proposed a project and that project requires funding AND one of the sources of project funding is a bond and City Council decides that public should vote.
Bernard Friel States:
It is estimated that proceeding with renovations will reduce the cost by approximately $15,000,000, and preserve Mertensotto Field a ball field dedicated by a former city council.
RH comment:
This is actually just not true. The process to remodel and keep the field was investigated and was rejected by the City Council. It is more expensive.
Comment from Ben:
Vote for Maczko
RH comment:
Presumably this is a comment intended to stop the City Hall/Police Department Campus. I am confused by this because Maczko has never said publicly that he is against the project. IN FACT, THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED 5/0, UNANUMOUSLY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CITY HALL/POLICE STATION CAMPUS. Maczko was one of the councilors voting to move forward. Do we want a mayor that secretly is against things that he is voting for?
To both Ben and Bernard Friel – please make sure you are posting correct information.
The City Hall/Police Station will only cost more if we continue to push the decision out in time. The City Staff and Police – who work for all MH residents – are currently working in a crowded, vermin infested, leaky, stinky building. They deserve better from us. Again, delay on an inevitable decision will only cost us more.
I have spent a lot of time going back through the City’s own documents and meeting minutes, and I think a few statements in RH’s response need clarification. We should be careful to separate opinions from what the public record actually shows.
For example, the City’s own November 2025 ICS analysis estimated the renovation/addition option at about $20.36 million, compared with about $33.89 million for the “Dig Once – Future Ready” option. The alternatives were not identical, and the City ultimately concluded that new construction was the better long-term approach. But the statement that renovation was simply “more expensive” is not what those cost estimates show. Likewise, whether residents can vote on future bonds is not solely a Council decision. If the City uses capital-improvement bonds under Minn. Stat. §475.521, state law provides a petition process that can require a referendum.
I also think the complete record on John Maczko matters. Yes, he voted for the December 16, 2025 resolution, which authorized the new-building project to continue through the planning and design process. But during that same discussion, Maczko openly questioned how broad that authorization was and asked for additional Council decision points. The minutes show Council members discussing those future checkpoints and the ability to change or stop the project. Then, on June 2, 2026, when the Council was asked to approve the completed schematic design and authorize moving into design development, Maczko voted no. The City itself identifies June 2 as the point when the project advanced from schematic design to design development.
So I think there is more to the story than saying Maczko voted for the project and was somehow “secretly” against it. His concerns were expressed publicly, he asked for another decision point, and when that next major approval came before the Council, he voted no. People can draw their own conclusions about the project and the votes. Those conclusions should be based on the complete record.
I agree that opinions and facts should be distinguished when commenting.
CH Comment:
the City’s own November 2025 ICS analysis estimated the renovation/addition option at about $20.36 million, compared with about $33.89 million for the “Dig Once – Future Ready” option. The alternatives were not identical, and the City ultimately concluded that new construction was the better long-term approach. But the statement that renovation was simply “more expensive” is not what those cost estimates show.
CH Comment:
I also think the complete record on John Maczko matters.
RH reply:
The two proposals were put forward at the NOVEMBER City Council Meeting. The FULL council was aware of the cost of BUILDING NEW with the pros and cons to that proposal, and the cost of RENOVATION with that plan’s pros and cons.
Then in DECEMBER the council took a vote and UNANOMOUSLY decided that a new building was the more prudent approach to the deteriorating current City Hall/Police building. This is the vote at which the council decided to move ahead with the NEW BUILDING planning and implementation process.
In JUNE, Maczko determined that he was now not for a new building. He was also willing to slow the process down, COSTING MORE MONEY, have a new proposal drawn up for a lower price tag, COSTING MORE MONEY , and the proposal would require relocation which would COST MORE MONEY.
Quote from coverage in the WSP Reader:
Plan B:
COST: A second schematic design would cost an additional $397,000. That proposal would also require relocation during construction, which adds $1.1-1.4 million. The delay to develop a new design could add another $250,000-750,000. In total, it’s at least $1.7 million in additional costs, potentially more.
COUNCIL POSITION: In favor: Council Member John Maczko supported the plan B, looking to save costs. He was looking for a price tag in the low-to-mid $20 million range and questioned the design consultant about renovation options. “I feel railroaded. Some in the community feel railroaded,” he said. (3 of the 5 council members vote against this proposal to create a plan B – Joel Paper absent)
My question would be – what changed between December and June for Maczko?
My comment (opinion) is do we want a mayor that can’t be confident in the decisions he makes. How can the folks now supporting Macko trust that this kind of decision making process, of Yes then No, would not come about in future projects/issues/governance? And how about his willingness to stop or slow the process, at more cost to the city, with no assurance that there would be a cost savings?
We elect our officials to hire experts and then trust the experts that are hired to guide the city decision making in a coherent and thoughtful process. Currently, we have 8 citizens overseeing this process – 5 city council members and 3 citizens appointed to the Municipal Campus Oversite Committee.
My last opinionated question would be – is John Maczko for or against a new building? Those who indicate that he is the best choice for your mayoral vote may want him to explain exactly what his stance is on the Municipal Campus. I have seen no indication that his votes show he is more fiscally responsible.