The choice ahead.

More context

Why the distinction matters

The question is how thoroughly the alternatives were developed, and which choices remained open when residents joined the committee. John proposes a resident committee that compares alternatives before recommending a building solution to the Council.

Public involvement before and after the decision

• 2023: The City reports that a resident focus group favored new construction.
• October 28, 2025: A public open house preceded the Council’s vote.
• December 16, 2025: The Council unanimously authorized plans and specifications for a new Police Department and City Hall building. John participated in that vote.
• February 17, 2026: Resident members were appointed to the Oversight Committee.

The committee’s published role is advisory oversight of the new campus within adopted goals and budget parameters. That leaves meaningful design and budget work, but it is different from beginning with an open choice of building solutions.

How developed were the alternatives?

The November 2025 ICS presentation goes beyond listing ideas: it includes site pros and cons, concept diagrams and itemized estimates for several alternatives. Some estimates include placeholder allowances; the linked-building alternative leaves relocation and rental costs unresolved.

The December ICS report says renovation, new construction and different sites were considered. Its three final scope options all involve new construction: immediate needs, future-ready, and an enhanced option tied to state bonding.

These records support saying alternatives were examined. They do not, by themselves, establish that every reasonable option received an equally complete comparison. Residents should be able to see consistent assumptions about space, construction, temporary relocation and long-term operating costs. That is a standard for evaluating the comparison—not proof that renovation would be cheaper overall.

Sources

1. Stephanie’s Q&A — City Hall & police facilities.
2. City project history and Oversight Committee description — participation, vote and appointment dates.
3. November 2025 ICS presentation — PDF pages 11–19, alternatives and estimates.
4. December 2025 ICS report — printed page 30 (PDF page 31), final scope options.

More context

Why it matters

John was part of that unanimous vote. Residents should also understand which decision the Council made: advancing the new-building plan, with later decisions still needed on construction and financing.

What the City’s timeline records

The December 16, 2025 authorization extended through preparation of construction plans, with Council checkpoints. John’s expectation that different locations and layouts would be developed is his understanding of the process, rather than an express requirement in the motion. The vote was not a final construction contract or a settled final cost.

Sources

1. Stephanie Levine’s campaign homepage and Q&A — statement about the December 2025 5–0 vote.
2. City Municipal Campus project page — December 16, 2025 timeline entry.
3. December 16, 2025 Council minutes in the January 6, 2026 packet — authorization and discussion of Council checkpoints.
4. June 2, 2026 Council minutes — schematic-design decision and John’s concerns.
5. John’s direct review comments, September 2026 — his expectations when supporting the December vote.

Budget comparison sources

2021 City budget and 2026 City budget, budget and revenue summary, PDF page 1. The total budget increased by $5,928,588, or 36.05%, from 2021 to 2026.

More context

Stephanie’s Property Taxes Q&A compares increases in the City’s levy. That tells residents how much more the City collects across taxable properties. Your tax bill also includes county, school and other property taxes, and your share depends on your property’s value and how it changes relative to other properties.

The charts answer two different questions. Their percentages and dollar amounts should not be compared directly.

See levy totals and the campaign-chart discrepancy

Calculated from the total-levy rows in the City’s 2025 and 2026 adopted budgets.

Stephanie’s Q&A chart lists 6.03% for 2025; the adopted total-levy figures produce 5.46%. That discrepancy needs reconciliation. Her preliminary 2027 figure is not included as an adopted result.

See home values and how these examples changed

The published examples differ by approximately $458 (9.3%) from 2024 to 2025. These figures use each year’s median home value; the reports do not establish the tax change for one specific house or the average increase across residents. The County reports a further proposed difference of approximately $159 (2.94%) for 2026.

The final 2024 and 2025 figures come from successive County reports. The 2026 figure comes from the County’s proposed-tax report.

Sources

1. Stephanie Levine’s Property Taxes Q&A — campaign levy figures and tax comparisons reviewed here.
2. City’s 2025 final budget — total levy summary, PDF page 2.
3. City’s 2026 adopted budget — total levy summary, PDF page 2.
4. Dakota County 2024–2025 comparison preserved in an Empire Council packet — PDF page 110, 2024 final-tax column. The earlier proposed 2025 number is not used here.
5. Dakota County 2025–2026 comparison — page 1, Mendota Heights row; 2025 final and 2026 proposed amounts.

More context

An apples-to-apples comparison

Same year. Same $600,000 home value. Same school district (197). Each example is an owner-occupied residential homestead and includes City, county, school and other property taxes.

The ranges reflect different taxing areas within each city. These are calculated examples before refunds and special assessments, not individual tax bills.

What about 2027 and school taxes?

The records above establish a 2026 comparison. A 2027 claim needs comparable 2027 rates, property values and school-district assumptions. A proposed levy percentage alone cannot establish the change in a particular household’s bill.

ISD 197 also has a capital-project levy on the November 3, 2026 ballot. If approved, collections would begin in 2027 and continue for ten years. That proposed school levy is a separate household cost; it should not be presented as already approved or added to the campus estimate as though it were a City project cost. Residents can check the district’s tax-impact calculator using their property value.

How do the City tax rates compare?

What the 2026 city rates show

Mendota Heights does have a relatively low City tax rate among many nearby cities. In the City’s September 9 budget packet, its rate is fourth-lowest among the eleven cities shown, behind Lakeville, Rosemount and Eagan. That is not a ranking of every municipality in Dakota County, and a City rate is only one part of a resident’s bill.

These percentages apply to tax capacity, not directly to a home’s market value. Mendota Heights has more than one taxing area; the City’s comparison chart uses 39.118%.

How we calculated these examples

Campaign calculations use Dakota County’s final 2026 rates: $6,250 tax capacity multiplied by the combined county, city, school and special-district rate, plus $600,000 multiplied by the 0.001683 referendum rate. Tax capacity is 1% of the first $500,000 plus 1.25% of the remaining $100,000. No general homestead market-value exclusion applies at this value. Ranges reflect listed taxing areas: Eagan 1004–1005, Mendota Heights 2701–2703, and West St. Paul 4201. Figures are rounded to whole dollars, before refunds and special assessments, and assume no individual exemptions or special valuation treatment. They are illustrations, not parcel-specific bills or 2027 projections.

Sources

1. Stephanie Levine’s Property Taxes Q&A — current and future comparison claims.
2. September 9, 2026 City budget packet — PDF page 7, comparison of eleven cities.
3. Dakota County final 2026 tax rates — taxing-area rates, PDF pages 1–4.
4. Minnesota Revenue: 2026 classification rates — residential homestead tax-capacity calculation.
5. ISD 197 / Ehlers referendum information — proposed school levy and tax-impact calculator.