2024-11-12 Joint City Council and Parks and Rec PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING AGENDA
November 12, 2024 at 6:15 PM
Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights
1.Call to Order
2.Discussion
a.Park System Master Plan Update
3.Adjourn
Alternative formats or auxiliary aids are available to individuals with disabilities upon request.
Please contact City Hall at 651-452-1850 or by emailing cityhall@mendotaheightsmn.gov
Page 1 of 130
This page is intentionally left blank
2.a
City Council Work Session Memo
MEETING DATE: November 12, 2024
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Park System Master Plan Update
ACTION REQUEST:
The City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission are asked to discuss the phase two
findings of the Park System Master Plan in preparation for the final draft plan to be completed
and provided to the public for review and comment in January, 2025.
BACKGROUND:
On January 9, 2024, the City Council approved a professional services contract for the Park
System Master Plan with Confluence/PROS Consulting. A Park System Master Plan is a
common document found in cities and is a roadmap for the next 15 years in regards to the
planning and development of park spaces, facilities, and recreation programs and services.
Over the past few months, city staff and the consultants have worked to foster unique
opportunities for residents and stakeholders to provide input on the future of the City's
recreational spaces and opportunities. Two phases of engagement have been completed and
the consultants have utilized the resident feedback in conjunction with their studies of the
City's parks and recreation department to compile their findings to present to the City Council
and Commission.
The consultants are in the process of completing their final draft Master Plan document that
will be provided to the public for comment in January, 2025 before final adoption by the City
Council in February, 2025. This final document will include the Framework and Implementation
Plan, in addition to a Funding and Revenue Alternatives/Financial Sustainability Plan.
Included in the packet are the following documents that have been developed since the last
meeting on the topic:
•Phase 2 Engagement Summary
3DJH RI
•Program Analysis
•Benchmark Analysis
Included in the packet are the following documents that were provided at the last meeting,
but are provided again as reference:
•Phase 1 Engagement Summary
•Phase 1 Level of Service Assessment
•Demographic and Trends Analysis
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Phase 2 Engagement Summary
2.Program Assessment
3.Benchmark Analysis
4.Phase 1 Engagement Summary
5.Phase 1 Level of Service Assessment
6.Demographic and Trends Analysis
3DJH••RI•
FALL 2024
PHASE 2
ENGAGEMENT
Page 4 of 130
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN : PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
Phase 1 of community engagement was completed in the spring of 2024, with the primary goal of capturing
community-identified strengths and weaknesses of the existing Mendota Heights park system, along with
initial ideas for improvements, preservation, and long-term visions. A robust set of tools—including digital,
in-person, and targeted methods—were used to gather diverse opinions and voices within the community.
Results from Phase 1 indicated that while the community generally appreciates the size, location, and
maintenance of their parks, there is a recognized need for overall accessibility improvements, general
amenity updates, diversification of park features, and increased indoor space. Notably, over 90% of
Phase 1 survey participants supported expanding recreational opportunities within the park system.
In parallel, an audit was conducted to assess the park system’s level of service, park conditions,
programming, and financial sustainability. This audit echoed the community’s feedback, highlighting
the need and opportunity for improved accessibility, greater program and amenity diversity, additional
staffing, and indoor facilities to better serve the larger Mendota Heights community now and in the future.
A review of the department’s current budget and operations confirmed that the existing
budget can only support current staffing, programming, and ongoing park maintenance.
It does not provide for additional staffing, expanded programming, larger-scale
updates, new park features, or significant investment projects, such as indoor facilities.
To create actionable recommendations for the Master Plan and prioritize community-identified
improvements, it became essential to gauge community interest in alternative funding methods
for the park system. The primary goal of Phase 2 engagement, therefore, was to assess community
support for increased funding through tax referendums, partnerships, and other avenues.
Phase 2 engagement took place from July through October 2024, utilizing a short survey (available both
digitally and in hard copy) and a second round of focus groups. Staff attended park and community events
to inform residents about the survey and encourage participation. The survey received 594 responses,
with over 40 individuals participating in targeted focus groups. Staff estimate approximately 500 direct
in-person contacts.
Page 5 of 130
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN : PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
THEMES
At the end of Phase 2 Engagement, results were aggregated and reviewed, revealing five primary themes
shared across all groups, summarized below:
1- Strong Support for Funding Expansion: Residents overwhelmingly supported some level of expanded
funding for park system improvements and/or staffing. A significant majority of survey respondents
favored a tax referendum. This is particularly notable given that residents were not presented with
specific designs but were instead asked if they generally supported the types of projects proposed.
2- Top Priorities Consistent with Phase 1: Echoing Phase 1 findings, the top priorities for expanded funding
support included accessibility improvements, expanded programming and staffing, and increased indoor
community space.
3- Preference for Enhancements Over New Development: There was limited support for new park
development, with the community favoring projects that enhance the existing park system. The primary
exception was the strong support for additional indoor community space.
4- Recognition of Park System’s Value: Engagement participants expressed that the park system is a
valuable asset to the Mendota Heights community and an important contributor to quality of life. Some
participants shared examples of amenities and programs from other communities that could serve as
models for Mendota Heights.
5- Interest in Detailed Concepts: Participants expressed a desire to see more specific concepts and
designs for potential improvements to better understand proposed enhancements.
ONLINE SURVEY
Approximately 594 individuals completed an online survey via Social Pinpoint to share their opinions on
potentially supporting expanded funding for the park system. This was not a statistically valid survey.
Overall, residents responded favorably to expanded funding, with priorities aligning with the Phase 1 results.
About a quarter of respondents did not support any expanded funding. Those who opposed shared
various reasons in their comments. Some were categorically opposed to any tax increases, regardless of
the project type, while others requested additional information—such as specific plans or costs—to make
a more informed decision.
01
Page 6 of 130
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN : PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
QUESTION 1
Would you be willing to pay an additional $4.00 per month in additional taxes (for a taxpayer
with a median value home of $537,000) to support expanded staffing and associated
programming?
YES
NO
40%0%20%60%
33.33%66.67%
Will the money be spent on administration?
Ceramics, family friendly exercise classes
WHAT DO THE PEOPLE WANT?
Parks, sidewalks, trails as opposed to activites
Public gathering space to rent
Supervised gym games year round
Programming for retired and elderly
Paying too much in taxes.
Satisified with the current options in our city and
surrounding nearby cities
No use for expanded programming or associated staff.
All of these recreational opportunities are already
offered through the local tridristrict community
education
WHAT ARE THE CONCERNS?
Taxes, fees, and costs are going up on everything
Request is one of many that add up to large dollars
Doubtful of participation
The city can’t even take care of current parks
MORE INFORMATION NEEDED
20 OUT OF 65
It depends on what additional programs were being
offered
Is a user fee-based approach more sustainable?
Not understanding the questionThis question feels too broad.
Is this saying homes with median value and higher
would be assessed?
“Associated programming" requires definition.
Not enough information to say yes. Do we have solid
info about the success of such programs? Would taxes
go back down if they failed?
Understanding of the $4 per month concept. Yet, what
is the wholistic impact of this funding (i.e. Specific
program and/or staff)?
Would the programs be offered free of charge?
Is there programming that people can pay to sign up
for, or does it differ by being tax funded?
What is the current attendance for similar events?
65 PEOPLE PROVIDED COMMENTS
585 RESPONSES9 SKIPPED
RESPONSE - 67% of respondents favor increased taxes to support expanded programming.
Page 7 of 130
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN : PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
QUESTION 2
This indoor space would not be a stand-alone facility but rather a component of the planned
new municipal building. Would you be willing to pay an additional $3.00 per month for
20-years in additional taxes (for a taxpayer with a median value home of $537,000) to fund
indoor community and recreation space as part of a larger project?
YES
NO
40%0%20%60%
31.90%68.10%
A new municipal building is not needed until it’s
revenue is sufficient
Batting cages
Indoor rec center
Lacrosse and other sports could use indoor options in
the spring like surrounding communities
A community center with walking track and work out
area like the city of Eagan.
Already paying too much in taxes
Is there a location for the Community Center?
The private sector already provides most of these
services
Not large enough of a community to require dedicated
indoor park or community activity space.
There are three High Schools and Two Rivers has
expanded indoor space. Is this necessary?
I don't think it is necessary
What programming and recreation are we
talking about?
Indoor playground
How big is this need, and how much does it turn into
additional revenue for our city?
How many square feet? What is the specific use?
Tennis courts, Yoga, Arts
I would need more information on the indoor
space to actually decide.
Basketball courts
An indoor community gathering space, e.g. for
concerts or other programming or rental.
The current outdoor facilities serve needs and
there are plenty of rental spaces in the surrounding
community; would rather see more open green space
than more development of structures
What size (i.e. capacity), amenities and availability
would this have?
Eagan already has all the programming needed.
Teens don’t want recreation and seniors can go to
Thompson park.
More programs are needed for middle age
homeowners, it's not all about kids & seniors.
What % of the municipal building would be
allocated to community and recreation space?
WHAT DO THE PEOPLE WANT?WHAT ARE THE CONCERNS?
MORE INFORMATION NEEDED
77 PEOPLE PROVIDED COMMENTS:
583
RESPONSES
11 SKIPPED
RESPONSE : 68% in favor of increased taxes to fund indoor community and recreation space
Page 8 of 130
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN : PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
QUESTION 3
Would you be willing to pay an additional $4.00 per month in taxes (for a taxpayer with a
median value home of $537,000) for the next 20-years to improve park accessibility?
YES
NO
40%0%20%60%
36.21%63.79%
The trails are fine
Taxes are already too high
Repair the uneven pavement on trail system
In favor of improving our trail system and having a
more rigorous maintenance program for it.
Sidewalks and paths, especially along Dodd,
Delaware, Wentworth.
Individually these all sound good, collectively, they
start to add up. While I’d like all of these, I think
accessibility needs to be prioritized.
Prioritize safe access to existing trails first.
It feels like this is okay right now. New fully accessible
playground just opened at Somerset Elementary.
This should be a priority, not waiting 20 years to
complete a project.
A big need in Mendota Heights is more trails.
We are an affluent, top-tier community in Twin Cities;
this is reason by itself, to stay up-to-date on things
such as accessibility of our parks & facilities.
Taxes are high enough as home values seem very
inflated in the area for older homes especially
Mendota Heights still has lots of potential space for
new or expanded parks and trails.
I feel like some of this money should already be in the
city's budget - like maintaining the trails
Fund these projects a little at a time with current
budget
Would like to see 50% of our parks meet universal
accessibility. We do need improved crossings and safe
routes.
Yes, but with a caveat. Did “current standards or
best practices” change over time, leaving the city in
a deficit? Or was this a result of poor planning and
budgeting?
This seems to be similar to question #5. Accessibility
would be part of upgrades.This proposal at least has a plan to back it up
Mendota Hts. parks have sufficient amenities. What's
needed is significant upgrades for the asphalt trails.
Resurfacing? How about installing retaining walls and
drainage systems to help keep the trails dry?
Are all of these extra taxes compounded? So with the
first questions $4 and the second $3 and now this, it’s
up to $12? Or are we choosing between all of these?
Would taxes go back down if they failed?
WHAT DO THE PEOPLE WANT?WHAT ARE THE CONCERNS?
MORE INFORMATION NEEDED
I would like to see more specific plans before
committing to paying additional taxes for accessibility
580 RESPONSES
14 SKIPPED
54 PEOPLE PROVIDED COMMENTS
RESPONSE - 64% of respondents favor increased taxes to improve park accessibility.
Page 9 of 130
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN : PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
QUESTION 4
Would you support funding the development of a new park in the western area of the city?
This new park is estimated to add a monthly tax input of $6 (for a taxpayer with a median
value home of $537,000) for the next 20-years?
69 PEOPLE PROVIDED COMMENTS:
YES
NO
40%0%20%60%
39%61%
582 RESPONSES12 SKIPPED
RESPONSE - 61% opposed increased taxes to fund a new park on the western side
WHAT DO THE PEOPLE WANT?WHAT ARE THE CONCERNS?
MORE INFORMATION NEEDED
All can enjoy
A new park in this area would be great.
I live in the NE part of the city. I was a member of
the parks & trails committee in the 80s that advised
the city council. We did what was possible then, but
it wasn’t enough. The western part of the city should
have a park nearby.
Yes! I strongly believe in this and would pay even more
to make this a reality! Thanks for putting this plan
together.
Equity is a priority
New park? No. But redoing Mendakota, yes
That is too high of a priace tag when there are other
available parks in the city.
We need to maintain and repair existing things first
No tax increases. It might seem like just a few dollars.
But just a few dollars are coming from all over. No
more!!!
We have nice trails but personal safety is troublesome
making a simple walk a risk
The western side of our community is mainly industrial
and the cemeteries. Almost no housing. Not sure why
a park
The western area should be better defined to more
clearly answer this question.
I don’t understand where this would go, so it’s hard to
support it.
What kind of park amenities and access are
provided?
Is there space available for a park? Where is
the western area in question?
Would want existing parks updated before
developing a new park.
It depends. It would have to be a major draw in
terms of special park features
I’d be open to it, but I’d want to know more about
the location and proposal to support this.
32 OUT OF 69
NEED MORE INFORMATION
3DiHRI
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN : PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
QUESTION 5
Would you support a general parks referendum (increase in taxes for a period) to update/
upgrade selected parks, add the requested amenities to the park systems, and complete
larger park infrastructure projects? Additional master planning work would be completed
to identify specific improvements. Please select the range you would be willing to support.
NONE
10%
0%
20%
30%
$8 PER MONTH $15 PER MONTH $22 PER MONTH OTHER
583 RESPONSES
11 SKIPPED
28%
23%
16%
28%
5%
in favor of at least one of the tax increase ranges
67% +
WHAT ARE THE OTHER COMMENTS?
I support targeted projects to improve existing fields
as well as an indoor facility that would support
programming during the winter months.
I would like to better understand the current budget
and why existing funds are not adequate.
Would need to see a plan before making a decision
Has the city also looked into a Community Center
concept with a multifunctional facility that could be
rented out by the public for a variety of events.
Would be more willing to pay for a very specific project
versus "general" funds
I think we need a calisthenics park. Most fitness is
being centered around children and tennis/pickleball
players with little diversity around adult fitness I would support $30/month, at least. If you ask for
more I'll probably still say yes. I'd probably max at
$150/month.
I have a different priority order than the listed levels
above. I support comprehensive trail resurfacing, but
not a destination playground
Would pay higher than Tier 3 for a plan that includes
more places, paths, and sidewalks to connect to
various areas across the city and help encourage
reduced pedestrian usage on shoulders of streets
majority of these responses include those in favor of more or less than the ranges provided
Page 11 of 130
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN : PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
QUESTION 6
Please select all park system improvements and funding you would support and rank them
from highest priority at the top to lowest priority at the bottom.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PROGRAMMING AND STAFF
ACCESSIBILITY, TRAIL, AND SAFE ROUTE IMPROVEMENTS
NEW PARK DEVELOPMENT
INDOOR GATHERING AND RECREATION
GENERAL PARK UPGRADES AND IMPROVEMENTS TIER 1
GENERAL PARK UPGRADES AND IMPROVEMENTS TIER 2
GENERAL PARK UPGRADES AND IMPROVEMENTS TIER 3
NONE
$4.00 MONTHLY TAX INPUT FOR 20 YEARS
$3.00 MONTHLY TAX INPUT FOR 20 YEARS
$4.00 MONTHLY, INDEFINITELY
$8.00 PER MONTH FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS
$15.00 PER MONTH FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS
$22.00 PER MONTH FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS
$6.00 MONTHLY TAX INPUT FOR 20 YEARS
528 RESPONSES
66 SKIPPED
Page 12 of 130
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN : PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
QUESTION 7
Increased tax inputs are the most reliable tool to ensure large funding needs are met.
However, there are other methods to meet smaller needs. Would you be in favor of any or
all of the following in increased park system funding?
557 RESPONSES37 SKIPPED
INCREASING USER FEES, PROGRAMS, AND/OR RENTAL FEES
PARTNERSHIPS WITH PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
SPONSORSHIPS AND
DONATIONS (WILL INCLUDE
NAMING RIGHTS
OR DONOR MARKETING)
CHARITABLE GAMBLING
OTHER
WHAT ARE THE OTHER COMMENTS?
State and Federal funds
The State of MN, DNR and others.
Increased sales or property taxes on business and
rental properties located in MH.
Your parks work within your existing budget parks
shouldn’t have to be paid for with extra money
Raffles
Cut staff especially costly police. Fire department
already has a nice $15M building where people can
gather. Need to support youth hockey (goat hill like
in Eagan structure) and ball fields for the youth.
Honestly how many people cross country ski? Get rid
of golf course and build a sports complex our wealthy
community of families deserves.
Collaborating with other communities
Because I don’t know where this fits. Increasing
rental and user fees is simply passing the cost off to
organizations thus individuals. Ie increased ball field
rental fees means higher registration costs which can
make organized sports inaccessible to lower income
families.
Charity runs/walks. Added benefit of getting people to
know more of our trail system!
Art exhibits, exhibitors pay fee
Zoning and development plans could include renting
out facilities for larger private events
40%0%20%60%80%
278
394
466
291
13
Page 13 of 130
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN : PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
QUESTION 8
Some smaller ticket items that were requested in Phase 1 engagement could fit within this
existing budget. Of these what would you like to prioritize? (Select your top 3)
WINTER ACTIVITIES (EG. GROOMING CROSS COUNTRY SKI TRAILS)
MINOR GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS
PLAYGROUND UPGRADES (ADDITIONAL SEATING, MINOR UPDATES TO SOME EQUIPMENT)ADDITIONAL SEATING AND SMALL GATHERING AREAS (EG. SMALL SHADE STRUCTURE WITH TABLES) IN PARKS
BASIC ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS (EG. PATHWAYS TO EXISTING PICNIC SHELTERS)
407 PEOPLE
392 PEOPLE
341 PEOPLE
278 PEOPLE
151 PEOPLE
523 RESPONSES71 SKIPPED
Page 14 of 130
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN : PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
FOCUS GROUPS
02
Athletic Associations +
Sports Clubs Active Adults Partners
(schools, cities, non-profits, county)
A series of conversations were held with selected small groups of individuals with similar interests, background,
and relationships with the City staff and consultants. Consultants lead discussions to gain knowledge about
the existing system’s strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement as seen by their communities.
This is the second and last time the focus groups convened.
PRIORITIZATION EXERCISE
In teams of five or fewer, focus group participants collaborated to prioritize the top improvements, expansions,
or additions to the park system identified in Phase 1 of the Master Planning Process. Each item was assigned
a high-level cost estimate (e.g., a park restroom at $400,000). The exercise involved three rounds: in the first
round, teams selected items totaling up to $20 million; in the second, up to $10 million; and in the third, up to
$2 million. This exercise aimed not only to give teams a sense of the cost of individual items within full budgets
but also to illustrate how the numerous community requests must be balanced within the planning process.
Across all focus groups, the top 10 selected items were:
FOCUS GROUPS INCLUDED:
Accessibility +
Inclusion
1.PARK TRAIL + ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS *PER PARK*
2.GENERAL PLAYGROUND UPDATES
3.SPLASH PAD
4.EXPANDED PROGRAMMING *INCLUDING STAFF*
5.PICNIC SHELTER
6.PARK RESTROOM
7.GENERAL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS
8.FULLY ACCESSIBLE PLAYGROUND
9.INDOOR COMMUNITY ROOM
10.WINTER TRAILS
3DJH ne
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN : PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
CI
T
Y
PA
R
T
N
E
R
S
GR
O
U
P
1
CI
T
Y
PA
R
T
N
E
R
S
GR
O
U
P
2
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
S
OV
E
R
5
5
+
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
SP
O
R
T
U
S
E
R
GR
O
U
P
S
$2,000,000 $10,000,000 $20,000,000
Splash pad
Fully accessible playground
General park renovation
Fully accessible playground
Splash pad
General playground updates
Winter trails
Park trail and accessibility improvements
(per park)
Picnic shelter
Expanded programming (including staff)
Pickleball upgrades (per park)
Improved park communication and
marketing
Indoor community room
New west side park or dog park
investment
General playground updates
Splash pad
General park renovation
Fully accessible playground
Park trail and accessibility improvements
(per park)
Expanded programming (including staff)
Pickleball upgrades (per park)
Concession building with restrooms
General playground updates
Expanded programming (including staff)
Improved park communication and
marketing
Existing trail system resurfacing
Indoor community room
Splash pad
General playground updates
Expanded programming (including staff)
Improved park communication and
marketing
General playground updates Splash pad Field or diamond lighting Indoor community room Concession building with restrooms Park restrooms General field improvements Refrigerated ice pad Pickleball upgrades (per park) Existing trail system resurfacing Expanded programming (including staff) Improved park communication and marketing
Park trail and accessibility improvements
(per park)
Picnic shelter
Park restroom enhancement
General playground updates
General field improvements
Indoor community room
Refrigerated ice pad
Expanded programming (including staff)
Winter trails
Park trail and accessibility improvements
(per park)
Park restroom enhancement
Field or diamond lighting
Picnic shelter
Concession building with restrooms
Premier ball diamond
Existing trail system resurfacing
General playground updates
Park restrooms
Park trail and accessibility improvements
(per park)
Indoor community room
Winter trails
Splash pad
Park trail and accessibility improvements
(per park)
Winter trails
Splash pad
Park restrooms
Expanded programming (including staff)
Hippo campus chair
Sensory chair
Park trail and accessibility improvements
(per park)
Winter trails
Expanded programming (including staff)
Indoor community room
Fully accessible playground
Splash pad
Park restrooms
Hippo campus chair
Security staff
Park trail and accessibility improvements (per park) Park restrooms Expanded programming (including staff) Splash pad Winter trails Concession building with restrooms Indoor community room Fully accessible playground General park renovation Improved trailhead Hippo campus chair Security staff Accessible sleigh
General ball diamond improvements
General field improvements
General playground updates
Picnic shelter
General field improvements
Concession building with restrooms
Field or diamond lighting
General ball diamond improvements
Premier field
General playground updates
Picnic shelter
Refrigerated ice pad
General field improvements
General ball diamond improvements
Premier field
Picnic shelter
Field or diamond lighting
General playground updates
Concession building with restrooms
Refrigerated ice pad
Existing trail system resurfacing
New west side park or dog park
investment
SUMMARY:
City Partners Group 1: Prioritized playgrounds, including a fully accessible playground, a splash pad, and general park renovations across all budgets. They also highlighted the need for trail and accessibility improvements, and in higher budgets, included expanded programming and a new park or improved dog park on the west side.
City Partners Group 2: Focused heavily on trail resurfacing, with an emphasis on playground updates and adding an indoor community room. A refrigerated ice pad and additional park restrooms also emerged in the larger budgets.
Residents 55+: Emphasized trail and accessibility improvements alongside expanded programming and community gathering spaces such as an indoor community room and picnic shelters. They also valued winter trails and enhanced park restrooms.
Accessibility Group: Their key focus was on accessibility improvements for trails and facilities, such as accessible playgrounds, restrooms, and expanded programming. They also requested adaptive seating (e.g., Hippocampus chairs) and a security staff presence.
Sport User Groups: Their primary needs centered around field and ball diamond improvements and lighting. They also sought concession buildings and refrigerated ice pads at higher budgets, as well as investment in a new park or improved dog park in the $20M scenario.
ROUND 3 ROUND 2 ROUND 1
PRIORITIZATION EXERCISE RESULTS
Page 16 of 130
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN : PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
1. School district continues to show an interest in partnering for staffing in order to provide more after school
activities for students (especially low income)
2. Developer of the At Home Apartments (near McDonalds) would like to discuss some potential grants with
staff they would like to potentially partner on
3. A few of the attendees talked with staff about the need for additional MH staff
4. Indoor community space continues to be a necessary piece missing to our Park System
5. The addition of a refrigerated ice rink continues to be a high priority of some residents as they are lacking
indoor ice time
6. The funding question continues to be a concern of partners—from a staff perspective this makes us
hesitant that our partners would consider us for a large-scale project partnership
1. Funding continues to be a concern for seniors on a fixed income
2. They would like to see higher user fees, as they think it's important for the users of facilities to pay for a
large portion of the costs to maintain it
3. They think $25 per player for user fees would be more on par than $7
4. Programming/things to keep Seniors busy is especially important to them after the closing of the YMCA
5. They want more Coffee, Cribbage and Cards type activities in the community—more staff to make this
possible would be helpful
6. Indoor space would give them the opportunity to see people in the Winter (a lot of isolation)
7. Picnic shelters are important gathering spaces for seniors to engage with their family
8. Ice Skating is a pastime, would be nice to have a refrigerated rink
9. Money is going to get tight, let’s prioritize maintaining the amenities we already have
1. Track wheelchairs for Winter trails would be a game changer (allow them for free rental)
2. Then it isn’t as important to have perfectly groomed trails, because they can still be used!
3. Winters are a difficult time for people in wheelchairs to get out, enjoy nature and interact with others
4. An indoor recreation space to gather would be a huge advantage for the disability community
5. Splash Pads provide a lot of opportunities for people in wheelchairs to recreate. They don’t have to
change, the water feature is level, and it’s a fun opportunity!
6. Having a free rentable wheelchair to use would be nice, as they are concerned about getting their power
wheelchairs wet, but wouldn’t have the ability to invest in a waterproof wheelchair just to use at the splash
pad
7. Splash pads can be used by children/others, so it would benefit everyone!
8. Look into a partnership with Courage Kenny in order to provide opportunities for wheelchair/other supply
use at a reasonable rate
9. Would love to see the Par 3 invest in the wheelchair carts that help people stand and golf
10. This could be a great way to utilize the short course and show yet another way the golf course can be
used
11. Family Bathrooms are essential for so many reasons! It allows a spouse/child/friend to come in and help
someone use the bathroom (with no issues on gender)
12. Also provides a safe space for people transitioning genders to use the bathrooms
13. Great for people with young kids not having to go into the opposite gender bathroom
14. Sensory free spaces are so important
15. Could we put something like this by our parks by the playgrounds?
16. #1 Request: Indoor/Accessible Gathering Space
1. For baseball, the top priority is modernizing the concessions and bathroom facilities at Mendakota
2. Two toilets for tournaments aren’t enough, they have to bring in portable restrooms
3. Having lights at Mendakota would be a huge help, would allow for a longer/better season
4. An accessible playground only helps a few kids, but it is a great destination opportunity and could bring in
revenue at tournaments for concessions
5. We should think about what provides the highest impact to all residents (not just kids who play sports)
6. Indoor space should consist of a community center with an indoor turf field and gym space
7. Charitable Gambling to TRAA would provide a lot of revenue to improve parks
8. Discussion of what Charitable Gambling consists of
9. TRAA will send out the survey to all users to try to boost participation
10. TRAA will stay invested in the process
11. SALVO in addition will send out the survey link to their families (encourage MH residents to fill it out)
12. A referendum would be a huge help to make improvements, they think their young families would benefit
and support additional funding for parks
CITY PARTNER GROUPS
RESIDENTS OVER 55+
ACCESSIBILITY
SPORT USER GROUPS
Page 17 of 130
1
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
1.1 OVERVIEW
1.1.1 INTRODUCTION
Recreation programs and services form the essential foundation of park and recreation systems. The goal
of the program assessment is to understand current recreation program and activity offerings, as well as
recommendations for additional programming to meet community needs and priorities identified in the
community needs assessment.
The recommendations within this report align with Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation’s (“MHPR”)
overall mission and vision within the strategic plan. These practices have been proven to lead to improved
planning, better service delivery, and enhanced community satisfaction. Streamlining processes can make
for smoother daily operations. Additionally, improved data analysis and strategic planning for recreation
programming lead to more informed decision making and better program execution.
The program findings and comments are based on a review of information provided by MHPR staff and
partners including program descriptions, financial data, and website content. This report addresses the
program offerings from a systems perspective for the entire portfolio of programs.
FRAMEWORK
The program assessment helps identify strengths, challenges, and opportunities regarding programming.
The assessment also assists in identifying core programs, program gaps within the community, key system-
wide issues, strategic areas to enhance current offerings and build on to plan for future programs and
services for residents and visitors. The recommendations within this assessment related to best
practices, standards, and strategies rely heavily on a commitment from city leadership to invest the
necessary resources including funding, staffing, and adequate facilities to set MHPR up for the
highest level of future program success.
MHPR boasts strengths in its program offerings, particularly evident in the high public participation rates.
This enthusiasm demonstrates a strong community engagement and a clear demand for MHPR services.
Sports programming for baseball, softball, golf, and soccer are a particular strength of MHPR by providing
quality, specialized sports instruction to varied interests and skill levels within the community. However,
programs and leagues operated by third-party associations currently utilize a disproportionate amount of
MHPR resources. Strategic partnerships, such as the collaboration with School District 197, Dakota County,
and West Saint Paul for programming space, could by leveraged to expand the range of activities offered
despite space, staffing, and funding constraints. These partnerships would be highly dependent on the
partners’ available resources, interest, and MHPR base offerings. Furthermore, lease agreements and
contracts with sports associations and instructors should be revisited regularly to clarify roles and
responsibilities for areas like field maintenance and program administration, and fees. The fees within
agreements for third parties using public park and sports field spaces should also be increased to offset the
cost of increased resources that MHPR has recently put toward providing this service.
MHPR faces notable challenges that require direct attention to sustain and enhance program offerings in
both the short term and long term. A primary issue is the existing staff limitations, which can hinder the
department's ability to manage and diversify its offerings effectively. Additionally, space limitations constrain
the number and variety of programs that can be provided as well as participants, potentially leaving some
community needs unmet. Also, the absence of a pricing strategy for services complicates financial planning
and can lead to inconsistencies in earned income opportunities that can offset operational costs, program
Page 18 of 130
Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment
2
accessibility and affordability. Addressing these challenges will be crucial in ensuring that MHPR can
continue to meet the recreational needs of residents while maintaining high standards of program delivery.
1.1.2 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS
The following observations have been identified through discussions with MHPR staff and an analysis of
recreation programming data.
•MHPR serves most age segments with its core programming but would benefit from additional
programming for the preschool ages (ages 5 and under) and older adults (ages 55 and over).
•MHPR has a higher percentage of programming that falls within the “Saturated” and “Decline”
stages meaning there is a need for diversification and integration of activities of rising interest.
•MHPR classifies more than half of its programming as “Value-Added” which typically comes with
the expectation that most direct and indirect expenses are covered through earned income sources,
such as user fees.
•MHPR prices most of its programming by residency status and the customer’s ability to pay.
•Current core program areas do not have established cost recovery goals or a cost of service
analysis that details the full cost of providing the service.
•MHPR lacks the staffing and facility capacity to take on additional programs in core areas such as
special events, sports, and active adult or senior programs. Strengthening current partnerships and
defining a future staffing plan for the department are essential if MHPR looks to keep pace with
community demand.
•Special events are a high priority for the community and MHPR resources should be expanded to
focus on this area.
•The core program area of “Seniors” should be rebranded and further defined to include both
passive and active opportunities for the various age segments, interests, and abilities within ages
55 and over.
•Program and quality assurance standards should be further developed to ensure consistency with
service delivery for programs offered in-house and through third-party contractors or partners.
•MHPR’s website adheres to several Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, as outlined by
digital.gov, to accommodate users of all abilities.
1.2 RECREATION PROGRAMMING
1.2.1 CORE PROGRAM AREAS
It is important to identify Core Program Areas based on current and future needs to create a sense of focus
around specific program areas of greatest importance to the community. Public recreation is challenged by
the premise of being all things to all people. The philosophy of the Core Program Areas is to assist staff,
policy makers, and the public to focus on what is most important to the community to prioritize funding,
staffing, and programming accordingly. Program areas are considered as Core if they meet most of the
following criteria:
•The program area has been provided for an extended period (over 4-5 years) and/or is expected
by the community.
•The program area consumes a relatively sizable portion (5% or more) of the agency’s overall
budget.
•The program area is offered 3-4 seasons per year.
•The program area has wide demographic appeal.
Page 19 of 130
3
•There is a tiered level of skill development available within the program area’s offerings.
•There are full-time staff responsible for the program area.
•There are facilities designed specifically to support the program area.
•The agency controls a significant percentage (20% or more) of the local market.
1.2.2 EXISTING CORE PROGRAM AREAS
The following core program areas, descriptions, and outcomes for MHPR were identified during the data
collection phase.
•Special Events & Programs are one-time events that benefit multiple age and interest groups.
This includes legacy events. Events typically include other departments and city businesses.
MHPR aims to promote a connected and healthy community through partnerships with other
community organizations. These programs are provided at a low or no cost to participants.
•Golf programs are hosted at the Par 3 Community Golf Course and focus on teaching skills
through lessons and open play programs. Most programs achieve cost recovery through user
fees.
•Net Sports programs include Pickleball and Tennis lessons, tournaments, and free play for
multiple age groups. MHPR provides lessons for beginner and intermediate levels at a low cost.
•Senior programming is intended for ages 55+ and supports the mental, physical, and emotional
health and wellbeing of seniors in the community. The goal is to provide low to no cost social
opportunities for seniors in the community to stay connected with each other.
•Art & Tech consists of contracted programming that offers art and technology camps and
lessons for youth and young adults. MHPR partners with adjacent cities to provide low cost
access to learn new technology and enrichment opportunities.
•Youth Camps & Field Trips provide engaging activities through childcare for youth and teens
during out-of-school time. These programs are provided at a low cost and in partnership with
adjacent cities.
1.2.3 CORE PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
MHPR should further define core program areas and measurable outcomes within each area based on
community priorities for recreation programming. Developing goals and key outcomes for core recreation
program areas is crucial for a parks and recreation agency for several reasons:
Special Events
& Programs Golf Net Sports
Seniors Art & Tech Youth Camps
& Field Trips
Page 20 of 130
Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment
4
•Clear goals provide a roadmap for program development and decision-making, ensuring that efforts
are aligned with the MHPR mission and community needs.
•Key outcomes offer measurable indicators of success, enabling MHPR to track progress, evaluate
effectiveness, and make data-driven decisions. These could include program participation rates,
customer retention and feedback on service quality.
•Establishing goals and outcomes holds MHPR accountable to stakeholders, including residents,
funders, and staff, demonstrating commitment to improving community services and achieving
results.
•Goals and outcomes help prioritize resources and allocate the budget effectively, ensuring that
investments are directed toward programs that provide the most significant impact.
•Regularly assessing progress towards goals allows the MHPR to identify strengths and areas for
improvement, leading to enhanced program quality and community satisfaction.
•Well-defined goals and outcomes communicate the MHPR’s objectives to the community, fostering
transparency and encouraging public support and participation.
•Goals and outcomes inform strategic planning and long-term development, guiding MHPR in
adapting to evolving community needs and trends in recreation and wellness.
Adaptive Recreation
MHPR should look to develop more adaptive recreation programs throughout all their core programming
areas and facilities. The goal of adaptive recreation is to ensure that everyone, regardless of ability, can
participate in recreational activities and enjoy the physical, mental, and social benefits of an active lifestyle.
To be intentional with these efforts, staff should continue to assess community needs as well as strategic
partnerships with local organizations that could enhance offerings. Collaborating with experts and engaging
volunteers can enhance program design and support.
Training staff in disability awareness and specialized adaptive techniques is crucial, along with improving
facility accessibility by conducting regular audits and implementing universal design principles with new
design or renovation projects.
Successful adaptive recreation programs start with specifically designed programs that can be adapted to
various abilities, ensuring everyone can participate together. MHPR should create specific programs for
individuals with a variety of disabilities, using specialized adaptive equipment and techniques.
Finally, raising community awareness about the importance of adaptive recreation and highlighting success
stories fosters a more inclusive and supportive environment. Promoting programs through accessible
communication and diverse outreach channels ensures broad community awareness and participation.
Sports Programming
MHPR can support the development of youth sports through programs that offer skill development
opportunities specifically for golf and tennis. With limited staffing and facility capacity, MHPR should
continue to focus on more entry level, instructional youth sports programming through partnerships with
community organizations, adjacent communities, and third-party contracts. Sports leagues and
tournaments require significant resources to manage the administrative and logistical responsibilities that
will take away from other priorities of the department unless there are dedicated staff overseeing league or
tournament operations. Leagues operated by third-party associations or organizations should be
responsible for independently financially supporting their activities. This should include but is not limited to
field rentals, equipment, and field improvements beyond those needed for basic use and maintenance, as
Page 21 of 130
5
well as staffing for tournaments and events. Currently, the leagues operated by associations are utilizing a
disproportionate amount of the MHPR resources and staffing to the detriment of other programming.
Special Events
Community special events are clearly valued by the Mendota Heights community as measured by the high
attendance of these events and feedback throughout the master plan community engagement process. As
a high priority for residents, MHPR should continue to invest resources into this core program area.
However, event management, particularly for larger community scale events, requires many resources not
only from MHPR but other city departments and partners to ensure the safety and satisfaction of
participants. As such, MHPR will need additional staffing in the future to support continued longevity and
potential of this core program area. The MHPR would benefit from a full time Event Coordinator position
who could oversee event planning and execution. The Event Coordinator would also assist with community
engagement including outreach, strategic partnerships, and sponsorships to allow current staff to focus on
other critical core job responsibilities.
Senior Programs
The senior core program area should be rebranded and more clearly defined to identify both passive and
active programming for the older adults. The 55 and over, or older adult population, have a wide variety of
interests and abilities that should be accounted for in future recreation program planning. Programs should
focus on education on digital use and resources, social engagement, creative expression, and health and
wellness.
1.2.4 PROGRAM STANDARD BEST PRACTICES
Program standards should be established as a part of the development process to ensure consistency of
services. A focused approach should be applied to quality assurance for all services and how they are
planned, implemented, and evaluated.
Quality standards should include expectations for staff training standards, staff performance evaluations,
the condition of the program space, condition of supplies and equipment used for activities, and adhering
to risk management policies and practices.
Customer service standards ensure that staff are maintaining a safe, quality, and positive experience for
participants. Important standards are applied to the customer’s journey from the point of deciding to register
for a program or activity, through the registration process, participation, and, finally, evaluation of the
customer’s experience after the program or activity has been completed. Staff should always be mindful of
consistent communication with the customer through the completion of the program or activity as well as
ways that the customer experience can be enhanced.
Page 22 of 130
Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment
6
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Performance measures are vital gauges for parks and
recreation programs. They cut through guesswork, revealing
what truly resonates with the community. For example,
participation numbers paint a clear picture of program
popularity, while satisfaction surveys illuminate areas for
improvement with service delivery. By tracking outcomes linked
to core programming as outlined in section 1.2.3, MHPR can
pinpoint their programs' impact and justify their value to
stakeholders. Ultimately, performance measures guide data-
driven decisions, ensuring resources are directed towards
programs that bring the most benefit to the community.
Tracking program cancellation rates have been identified as an
area for enhancement for MHPR. Consistently monitoring this
metric will provide staff with valuable insights on program
design including accessibility issues, communication gaps,
resource allocation, or other external factors that could be
impacting participation.
For recreation staff and agency leadership, key performance indicators (“KPIs”) foster accountability and
transparency, facilitating a clear understanding of individual and team contributions towards MHPR goals.
Regular monitoring and reporting on KPIs create a culture of continuous improvement and performance
excellence. Staff can align their efforts with strategic priorities, focusing on initiatives that yield the highest
community benefits. Additionally, KPIs enable leadership to recognize and reward outstanding
performance, promote professional development, and cultivate a motivated workforce dedicated to
enhancing the quality of life of the community through exceptional recreation programming.
HUMAN RESOURCE STANDARDS
Human resource standards are crucial for park and recreation programs because they ensure qualified,
trained staff. This means recreation programs are led by competent instructors who can deliver safe and
effective activities. Standards also promote fair treatment of staff, fostering a positive work environment that
attracts and retains skilled employees. Ultimately, strong HR practices underpin successful recreation
programs, benefiting both staff and the community they serve.
Specific standards that were analyzed, such as training and performance reviews, contribute to this goal.
For example, a variety of training courses ensures staff have the wide range of skills and knowledge
necessary to lead programs effectively, while performance reviews help identify areas for improvement and
promote accountability toward continuous improvement and MHPR goals.
For instance, by understanding staff strengths and areas for improvement, MHPR can tailor training and
professional development to address specific needs within recreation programming. Continued learning is
one of the main drivers for staff motivation and a positive work culture. Also, encouraging open
communication between staff and management will help ensure constructive feedback on employee
performance is directly applied to program planning, execution, and customer services.
Additionally, performing regular quality assurance observations of contracted programs ensures that these
instructors align with MHPR expectations and standards for community recreation.
Recommendations for Program
Standards
• Establish standards for service
delivery, staff training, program
conditions, and risk management
to ensure consistent quality.
• Apply customer service
standards and maintain
consistent communication to
enhance the customer
experience from registration to
post-program evaluation.
• Use performance measures and
HR standards, including training
and reviews, to ensure effective
program delivery and staff skill
development.
Page 23 of 130
7
Performance evaluations and quality assurance observations are in and of themselves time and resource
intensive requirements. Further, they must be completed by senior staff or director level leadership. This
requirement should be planned and accounted for accordingly in workload assessments and staffing. As
the current MHPR leadership staff is at capacity, additional staffing should be explored to free up leadership
to fulfill expert level tasks such as this.
1.3 PROGRAM STRATEGY ANALYSIS
1.3.1 AGE SEGMENT ANALYSIS
Figure 1 below depicts each core program area and the most prominent age segments they serve.
Recognizing that many core program areas serve multiple age segments, Primary (noted with a ‘P’) and
Secondary (noted with an ‘S’) markets are identified.
For this report, an Age Segment Analysis was completed by core program area, exhibiting an over-arching
view of the age segments served by different program areas, and displaying any gaps in segments served.
It is also useful to perform an Age Segment Analysis by individual programs, to gain a more nuanced view
of the data.
Staff should continue to monitor demographic shifts and program offerings to ensure that the needs of each
age group are being met. It is best practice to establish a program plan for each program or activity that
identifies what age segment to target, establishes the right type of message and desired program outcome,
which marketing method(s) to use, and determines what to measure for success before allocating resources
towards a particular effort.
The future of recreation programming in Mendota Heights will be significantly influenced by demographic
and recreation demand trends. By 2038, the 55+ age segment will comprise 50 percent of the community,
necessitating a shift towards more senior or active adult -friendly programming, including low-impact
activities, wellness programs, and social engagement opportunities. The high per capita and median
household incomes, which surpass state and county averages, suggest that residents may be willing to
invest in premium recreational experiences with disposable income to spare. Consequently, MHPR can
consider introducing higher-end or specialized programs, such as advanced tennis and golf lessons,
upscale outdoor adventure activities, and introduce more art and cultural programming opportunities to the
community. With a market potential index for these activities already higher than the national average, there
is a clear demand that can be capitalized upon to design future programs that cater to the evolving needs
and interests of Mendota Heights residents.
Figure 1: Age Segment Analysis showing the Primary (“P”) and Secondary (“S”) age segments served
by each core program area. MHPR serves most age segments with its core programming, however
more programming could be offered for the preschool ages (ages 5 and under).
Core Program Area Preschool
(5 and Under)
Elementary
(6-12)
Teens
(13-17)
Adult
(18+)
Senior
(55+)
All Ages
Programs
Special Events & Programs P
Golf Programs P
Net Sports Programs P P P S
Senior Programming P
Art and Tech Programming P P S S
Youth Camps & Field Trips P P S
Age Segment Analysis
Page 24 of 130
Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment
8
1.3.2 PROGRAM LIFECYCLE
A program lifecycle analysis involves reviewing each program offered by MHPR to determine the stage of
growth or decline for each. This provides a way of informing strategic decisions about the overall mix of
programs managed by the agency to ensure that an appropriate number of programs are “fresh” and that
few programs, if any, need to be discontinued. This analysis is not based on strict quantitative data, but
rather, it is based on staff members’ knowledge of their programs. Figure 2 shows the percentage
distribution of the various lifecycle categories of the MHPR’s programs. These percentages were obtained
by comparing the number of programs in each individual stage with the total number of programs listed by
staff members.
It is recommended to have fifty to sixty percent of all programs
within the beginning stages because it provides the agency
with an avenue to energize its programmatic offerings. These
stages ensure the pipeline for new programs is there prior to
programs transitioning into the Mature stage.
The Mature stage anchors a program portfolio, and it is
recommended to have forty percent of programs within the
Mature category to achieve a stable foundation.
It is a natural progression for programs to eventually evolve
into saturation and decline stages. However, if programs reach
these stages rapidly, it could be an indication that the quality
of the programs does not meet expectations, or there is not as
much of a demand for the programs. As programs enter the
Decline Stage, they must be closely reviewed and evaluated
for repositioning or elimination. When this occurs, MHPR
should modify these programs to begin a new lifecycle within
the Introductory Stage or replace the existing programs with
innovative programs based upon community needs and
trends.
Staff should complete a Program Lifecycle Analysis, using the
process in Figure 3, on an annual basis and ensure that the percentage distribution closely aligns with the
desired performance. Furthermore, MHPR could include annual performance measures for each core
program area to track participation growth, customer retention, and percentage of new programs as an
incentive for innovation and alignment with community trends. A table showing each program and its current
lifecycle stage can be found in Appendix B.
Program Lifecycle
Recommendations
• Conduct an annual review of all
programs to determine their
stages of growth or decline and
adjust the portfolio as needed to
maintain balance and innovation.
• Aim for 50-60% of programs in
the beginning stages to energize
offerings and ensure a pipeline
for future mature programs.
• Implement annual performance
metrics for each core program
area to track participation growth,
customer retention, and the
introduction of new programs,
fostering innovation and
alignment with community needs
and trends.
Page 25 of 130
9
1.3.3 PROGRAM
CLASSIFICATION
Figure 3: Program Lifecycle Evaluation Process
O
R
All Stages
Mature/Saturated Stages Decline Stage
Introductory Stage
BEGINNING
Establish program goals
Design program
scenarios &
components
Develop program
operating / business
plan
Conduct / operate
program
Update program goals /
business plan and
implement
Conduct regular
evaluation based on
established criteria
Sustained / growing
participation
Declining participation
Slow to no participation
growth
Look at market potential, emerging trends, anticipated
participation, priority rankings, facility space issues, and
evaluations to Modify Program
Terminate and replace with a
new program based on public
priority ranking, emerging
trends, and anticipated local
participation
See if re-
programming
existing
offering is
viable
Program Evaluation and Lifecycle Stages
Figure 2: Program Lifecyle Analysis: MHPR has a higher percentage of programming that falls within
the “Saturated” and “Decline” stages. Staff should regularly review these programs and the need to
reposition them or eliminate them from agency offerings. For instance, golf programming has
experienced a decline in participation mostly because MHPR lacks a dedicated FTE to allocate to this
service. However, MHPR has budgeted for one in 2025 which could result in increased programming
and participation for golf programs.
Stages Description Recommended
Distribution
Introduction New Programs; modest participation 8%
Take-Off Rapid participation growth 8%
Growth Moderate, but consistent participation growth 33%
Mature Slow participation growth 29%29.2%40%
Saturated Minimal to no participation growth; extreme competition 10%
Decline Declining participation 10%20.8%0%-10%
Total
Lifecycle Analysis
Actual Programs
Distribution
50.0%50%-60%
Total
Page 26 of 130
Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment
10
Conducting a classification of services analysis informs how each program serves the overall organization
mission, the goals and objectives of each core program area, and how the program should be funded with
tax dollars and/or user fees and charges. Where a program or service is classified depends upon alignment
with the organizational mission, how the public perceives a program, legal mandates, financial
sustainability, personal benefit, competition in the marketplace, and access by participants. Program
classifications can also help to determine the most appropriate management, funding, and marketing
strategies.
With assistance from staff, a classification of programs and services was conducted for all the recreation
programs offered by MHPR. The results presented in Figure 4 represent the current classification
distribution of recreation program services. Appendix C has more details on current programs and their
classifications. All MHPR programs should be assigned cost recovery goal ranges, through an MHPR
pricing policy, for the different classifications or core program areas.
More than half of MHPR programming is classified as “Value-Added” which primarily includes instructional
sports programming for pickleball, tennis, and golf as well as softball and golf leagues. Value-added
programs primarily serve individual users and there is likely more market competition for these types of
activities. Also, “Value-Added” programs typically receive less public funding because of their limited user
base. Thus, the direct and indirect expenses for these types of programs should be covered by other
sources such as user fees.
1.3.4 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS
In general, MHPR program staff should continue the cycle of evaluating programs on both individual merit
as well as the overall program mix. This can be completed at one time on an annual basis, or in batches
at key seasonal points of the year, if each program is checked once per year. The following tools and
strategies can help facilitate this evaluation process:
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCE GUIDE
Factors Essential Important Value-Added
Public interest; Legal Mandate;
Mission Alignment High public expectation High public expectation High individual and interest
group expectation
Financial Sustainability
Free, nominal or fee tailored to
public needs, Requires public
funding
Fees cover some direct costs,
Requires a balance of public
funding and a cost recovery
target
Fees cover most direct and
indirect costs, Some public
funding as appropriate
Benefits (health, safety,
protection of assets, etc.)
Substantial public benefit
(negative consequence if not
provided)
Public and individual benefit Primarily individual benefit
Competition in the Market Limited or no alternative
providers
Alternative providers unable to
meet demand or need
Alternative providers readily
available
Access Open access by all Open access Limited access to
specific users Limited access to specific users
Best Practice Cost Recovery
Goal*0 - 50%50% - 75%75% - 100%+
Program Distribution 19%30%51%
Program Classification
Figure 4: Program Classification: MHPR classifies more than half of its programming as “Value-Added”
which typically comes with the expectation that most direct and indirect expenses are covered through
earned income sources, such as user fees.
Page 27 of 130
11
MHPR should create a Program Development and Resource Guide that outlines a consistent program
development process that can assist programming staff with service delivery standards for both in-house
and contracted programs. This includes a worksheet that staff would fill out when proposing a new program
or update to a current program. The worksheet outlines critical program details including projected
expenses that are used to establish the program fee. The worksheet also asks for information related to
program outcomes, marketing tactics, and whether a similar program is offered elsewhere within the
community.
Also, as a part of the program development process, MHPR should consider comparing planned programs
and prioritizing resources using additional data points, such as potential partnership or sponsorship
opportunities, market competition, and the program’s priority investment ranking from the community needs
assessment survey. This additional analysis will help staff make an informed, objective case for the public
when a program is in decline, but beloved by a few, is retired. A strong case is made for resources to be
allocated to the program/service if it has a high priority ranking, appropriate cost recovery, good age
segment appeal, good partnership potential, and strong market conditions.
MACMILLAN MATRIX
Mendota Heights has many leisure and recreation opportunities available to residents offered by MHPR
and other providers in the local government, non-profit, and private sectors. With limited resources, MHPR
cannot realistically provide all recreation opportunities at a high level. Leadership should continuously
assess its services to ensure they are not duplicating a program or activity that is already addressing a
need in the community. The MacMillan Matrix (Figure 5) is a tool that can help staff determine if specific
program areas are the right strategic investment for MHPR.
Based on the analysis of current program data, available facilities, recreation trends, similar recreation
providers, and community input, the following chart provides an example of how the MacMillan Matrix can
be used to determine the best investment for future recreation program resources.
Other
organizations
cover this.
Few other
organizations
cover this.
Other
organizations
cover this.
Few other
organizations
cover this.
Strong
Competitive
Position
Affirm this
program and
negotiate
functions with
other
organizations.
Grow in order to
provide this
service to the
community.
Collaborate to
share the load or
help to find
resources.
"Soul of the
Organization" -
find support for
this or limit its
scope.
Weak
Competitive
Position
Give this away
quickly.
Decide with other
organizations
who should do
this.
Give this to other
organizations,
supportively.
Collaborate to
share the load or
give it away.
Poor Fit With Mission
and Abilities
MacMillan Matrix
High Program Attractiveness Low Program Attractiveness
Good Fit With Mission
and Abilities
Give this away quickly.Give this away systematically.
Figure 5: MacMillan Matrix: A strategic method to determine the best programming investments
for an agency.
Page 28 of 130
Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment
12
1.3.5 ALTERNATIVE PROVIDER ANALYSIS
Performing an alternative service provider and market definition analysis for recreational programming can
offer several benefits to MHPR to help the organization operate more efficiently, offer higher-quality
programs, and best serve the needs of the community.
•Understanding the alternative service providers in the market allows MHPR to identify gaps in
existing services and potentially offer new or improved programs to meet the needs of the
community more effectively.
•Identifying gaps in the market can also present opportunities for MHPR to develop new revenue
streams through innovative programs or partnering with private providers for mutually beneficial
outcomes.
•By analyzing the market, MHPR can identify potential cost-saving opportunities by either
collaborating with existing providers or outsourcing certain services, thus optimizing resource
allocation.
•Analyzing alternative providers helps the department benchmark its own programs against those
offered by competitors, leading to the enhancement of program quality and diversity.
•Through consistent market analysis, MHPR can prioritize its resources based on identified needs
and demands, ensuring that investments are directed towards areas where they are most needed
and likely to have the greatest impact.
•By offering programs that align with community interests and preferences, MHPR can create
greater engagement and satisfaction among residents, leading to increased utilization of
recreational facilities and services.
•Insights gained from the analysis can inform the department's strategic planning process, helping
to set clear objectives and priorities for future programming initiatives.
Figure 6: The best investments for future programs include instructional sports
programming, special events, and older/active adult passive and active activities.
Other
organizations
cover this.
Few other
organizations
cover this.
Strong
Competitive
Position
Instructional
programs for golf,
tennis, and
pickleball
Special events,
Older/Active Adult
passive and active
programming,
Adaptive recreation
programming
Weak
Competitive
Position
Private, non-profit
association youth sport
leagues and
tournaments, indoor
recreation, youth camps
and out of school
programs
Adult Sport
leagues and
tournaments
Poor Fit With Mission
and Abilities
MacMillan Matrix
High Program Attractiveness
Good Fit With Mission
and Abilities
Give this away quickly.
Page 29 of 130
13
Many alternative providers in and around Mendota Heights are private organizations. This further highlights
the need for strong parks and recreation facilities that can offer alternative programming opportunities
focused on inclusivity, affordability, and wide demographic appeal. For instance, MHPR can support the
need for youth sports programs by providing non-competitive, instructional programs that build skills for
children in a variety of sports. This will continue to build interest in youth sports that eventually feeds into
the more advanced programs that other organizations oversee within the community.
1.3.6 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS
CREATING MORE CAPACITY FOR PROGRAMMING
MHPR and its programming will benefit from a sustained effort toward building capacity to address the
limitations of space and staffing. There are five key operational areas crucial to a park and recreation
department’s success.
•Policy/Procedure: This involves establishing clear guidelines and protocols to achieve desired
outcomes for park and recreation services, ensuring adherence to approved plans, policies, and
standards.
Figure 7: The analysis of alternative providers for MHPR core programming within a five mile radius of
Mendota Heights revealed several public, private, and non-profit organizations that offer similar services.
Facility Address Public, Non-profit, or Private
Provider Art & Tech Golf Net Sports Seniors
Special
Events &
Programs
Youth
Camps &
Field Trips
Other
ARTS-Us/Dunning Recreation
Center Rental Facility
221 Marshall Ave, St
Paul, MN 55104
Non-profit •••
Chip's Pickleball Club 980 Discovery Rd, Eagan,
MN 55121 Private •
Eagan Parks and Recreation 3830 Pilot Knob Rd,
Eagan, MN 55122 Public ••••••
Eagan YMCA 550 Opperman Dr,
Eagan, MN 55123 Non-profit •••••
Fred Wells Tennis & Education
Center
100 Federal Dr, St Paul,
MN 55111 Non-profit •
GOLFTEC Eagan 845 Vikings Pkwy Suite C,
Eagan, MN 55121 Private •
Highland National Golf Course 1403 Montreal Ave, St
Paul, MN 55116 Public •
Highland Park Community Center 1978 Ford Pkwy, St Paul,
MN 55116 Public ••••••
Mendakota Country Club
2075 Mendakota Dr,
Mendota Heights, MN
55120
Private •
Somerset Country Club
1416 Dodd Rd, Mendota
Heights, MN 55118
Private •
The Heights Racquet & Social Club
1415 Mendota Heights
Rd Suite 100, Mendota
Heights, MN 55120
Private •
Thompson Park Activity Center 1200 Stassen Ln, West St
Paul, MN 55118 Public •••••
Core Programs Areas
ALTERNATIVE PROVIDER ANALYSIS
Five mile radius
Page 30 of 130
Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment
14
•Management: This focuses on effectively organizing, coordinating, and supervising all
departmental activities to fulfill defined goals. It encompasses staff roles, responsibilities, and
overall workflow.
•Resources: This entails managing the department's resources, including finances, equipment,
inventory, staff expertise, and information, to ensure their efficient utilization for optimal functioning.
•Technology: This emphasizes
leveraging technology like software,
tools, and equipment to enhance
efficiency in park operations. This
can involve utilizing digital platforms
for communication, work order
tracking, or resource management.
•Communications: This covers both
internal and external
communication strategies. It
involves effectively disseminating
information regarding park
operations, promoting services and
programs, and keeping the
community informed about capital
projects.
MHPR can adopt several strategic approaches that help strengthen the preceding key operational areas.
•Ensure a staffing plan is established before planning additional programs. Falling short
on staff will have a direct effect on program capacity and may leave some activities
unsupervised or cancelled altogether.
• Consider partnering with additional community organizations to host programs. Leveraging
partnerships with local schools, community and private organizations can provide access to
additional volunteers and spaces for programming, which can extend the range and reach of
recreational activities. Utilizing these external venues during off-peak hours or through
collaborative agreements can help mitigate space constraints without significant capital
investment. Also, volunteers with specific skills and interests can help fill a need for program
instructors.
• The use of enhanced technology can help with staff efficiency through automated tasks and
allow staff to be used in different, potentially more effective ways. For example, MHPR is adding
an online service for golf customers to book their tee times. This enhances the customer
experience by making the reservation process more convenient and helps to automate the
scheduling process, allowing staff to focus on other operational priorities.
o Streamline operations such as recruitment, training, and employee management through
cloud software that brings together all necessary human resources functions.
o Systems that tie together program registration and facility usage data with financial
performance data, can make analysis more efficient for budgeting, and reporting with
accuracy.
o Automate marketing campaigns, content creation, and audience engagement. Software
that brings all marketing functions under one umbrella and that also provides real time
engagement metrics can save staff a lot of time on this important recreational programming
function.
3DJH••RI•
15
o Design and manage recreational programs and events. For example, new technology can
help with research and data analysis to determine participation trends to recognize
adjustments or enhancements that need to be made to offerings. Fitness centers are also
using this technology for wellness analytics for members to help with the development of
wellness plans.
o Lastly, new technology can help in counting visitors, monitoring building systems,
surveilling facilities, providing security, planning building improvements, and saving
energy. This can save valuable time while providing more data for informed operational
decisions.
1.4 COST RECOVERY
1.4.1 PRICING STRATEGIES
Pricing strategies are one mechanism agencies can use to influence cost recovery. Pricing tactics used
most consistently by staff include determining the customer’s residency status and ability to pay. Figure 7
below details various pricing methods currently in place as well as additional strategies that could be
implemented over time.
Median household income for the MHPR service area is well above state and national averages. MHPR
should be mindful of this when pricing services. While income levels may allow MHPR to be more
competitive with the private sector, there still may be a need for equitable pricing strategies for certain core
program areas.
Moving forward, the agency should consider researching any untapped pricing strategies and the impact
they could have on cost recovery goals. For instance, MHPR could build their marketing budget by adding
a marketing fee that is built into the overall fee for those programs that require more extensive promotions.
This fee can eventually help to offset the costs for supplies, services, and personnel required for marketing
and promotions.
Figure 8: MHPR prices most of its programming by residency status and the customer’s ability to pay.
As the agency looks to establish cost recovery goals, other recommended strategies can enhance
earned income capabilities.
Core Program Area
Age Segment
Family/
Household Status
Residency
Weekday/
Weekend
Prime / Non-
Prime Time
Group
Discounts
By Location
By Competition
(Market Rate)
By Cost Recovery
Goals
By Customer's
Ability to Pay
Special Events & Programs X X
Golf Programs X X X
Net Sports Programs X X X
Senior Programming X X
Art and Tech Programming X X X
Youth Camps & Field Trips X X X
Pricing Strategies
Page 32 of 130
Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment
16
Also, differential pricing such as weekday/weekend and prime time/non-prime time pricing could incentivize
usage during off-peak times with lower prices and maximize revenue generation during periods of high
demand.
These other pricing strategies can help balance revenue generation with accessible pricing, allowing MHPR
to expand programming without overwhelming existing staff resources.
•Offering different prices based on age (e.g., youth, adults, seniors) can encourage participation
across demographics. Seniors may receive lower fees, which can boost overall participation, while
certain youth and adult programs that are in higher demand typically have higher rates and can
generate more revenue to subsidize other services.
•Providing discounts for group registrations (e.g., sports teams, classes) can encourage larger
participation with minimal marketing or outreach, reducing per-user administrative efforts while
increasing total revenue.
•Setting fees in line with local competition ensures that MHPR remains competitive. This can
maximize participation while aligning fees with what people are willing to pay, ensuring you are not
undervaluing services, thus increasing revenue to reinvest in staff and other resources.
EQUITABLE PROGRAM ACCESS
MHPR seeks to ensure that all members of the community can participate in recreation programs and
activities, regardless of their financial circumstances.
Fundamental to equitable access is providing and supporting programs and amenities that serve all ages,
abilities, and interests in the community. Following the previously outlined program strategy objectives will
help to better ensure programs are more equitably distributed. Further,
MHPR should consider including the following measures in the policy to address inequities:
•Identify specific populations in the city through demographic data to understand their needs
and financial barriers. Where appropriate, tailor scholarship programming to specific
populations such as youth, seniors, as well as low-income families.
•Provide income-based discounted rates for residents facing financial limitations. U.S. Federal
Poverty Guidelines can be used to determine the appropriate percentage of fee discounts.
•Provide fee waivers or exemptions (full or partial) for services for low-income residents.
•Offer alternative payment options and alternative payment methods to accommodate different
financial circumstances.
•Implement community outreach and education with residents to raise awareness of available
programs and services and help with accessing services.
•Ensure that measures are implemented to guarantee the confidentiality of all applicant
information.
•Ensure that partnerships with private or non-profit organizations that use facilities and do not
have customers that qualify for need based assistance – such as private, non-profit sports
associations- cover the full costs of park use accordingly.
Growing the MHPR scholarship fund for discounted recreational programming and facility access can
significantly enhance equity in recreation offerings for the Mendota Heights community.
Leveraging the resources of a non-profit such as a potential partnership with the Mendota Heights
Community Foundation or establishing a Park Foundation can create a conduit for community support and
Page 33 of 130
17
philanthropic endeavors. MHPR can tap into resources beyond its operational budget. A foundation can
spearhead fundraising efforts, seeking donations from local businesses, individuals, and organizations
committed to promoting wellness and community inclusivity. These contributions can be restricted funds
specifically for a scholarship fund, ensuring that financial barriers do not hinder access to MHPR offerings.
Additionally, the foundation can manage the allocation and distribution of scholarships, ensuring
transparency and fairness in the selection process.
A revenue policy should be created as a part of the overall master planning process. The policy should
outline eligibility criteria, application procedures, and selection criteria as well as how pricing differentials
are established for various programs and services. The policy should align with MHPR’s mission as well as
current financial policies. Transparency and accountability in the administration of the scholarship program
can be achieved through clear guidelines for fund allocation, selection processes, and regular reporting to
the community on the impact of the scholarship and how funds are being utilized. The policy should also
be regularly reviewed and updated to be concurrent with changing demographics.
1.4.2 COST OF SERVICE
Cost recovery targets should at least be identified for each core program area at a minimum, and for specific
programs or events when realistic. The previously identified core program areas would serve as an effective
breakdown for tracking cost recovery metrics including administrative costs. Theoretically, staff should
review how programs are grouped for similar cost recovery and subsidy goals to determine if current
practices still meet management outcomes.
The following section provides more details on steps 2 & 3.
Determining cost recovery performance and using it to make informed pricing decisions involves a three-step
process:
1. Classify all programs and services based on the public or private benefit they provide (as completed in the
previous section).
2. Conduct a Cost-of-Service Analysis to calculate the full cost of each program.
3. Establish a cost recovery percentage, through MHPR policy, for each program or program type based on the
outcomes of the previous two steps and adjust program prices accordingly.
Page 34 of 130
Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment
18
UNDERSTANDING THE FULL COST OF SERVICE
To develop specific cost recovery targets, full cost of accounting needs to be created for each class or
program that accurately calculates direct and indirect costs. Cost recovery goals are
established once these numbers are in place, and MHPR’s program staff
should be trained on this process. A Cost-of-Service Analysis should be
conducted on each program, or program type, that accurately
calculates direct (i.e., program-specific) and indirect (i.e.,
comprehensive, including administrative overhead) costs.
Completing a Cost-of-Service Analysis not only helps determine
the true and full cost of offering a program, but it also provides
information that can be used to price programs based upon
accurate delivery costs.
The methodology for determining the total Cost-of-Service involves
calculating the total cost for the activity, program, or service, then
calculating the total revenue earned for that activity. Costs (and
revenue) can also be derived on a per unit basis. Program or activity
units may include:
• Number of participants
• Number of tasks performed
• Number of consumable units
• Number of service calls
• Number of events
• Required time for offering program/service
Agencies use Cost-of-Service Analysis to determine what financial resources are required to provide
specific programs at specific levels of service. Results are used to determine and track cost recovery as
well as to benchmark different programs provided by the agency between one another. Cost recovery goals
are established once Cost-of-Service totals have been calculated. Program staff should be trained in the
process of conducting a Cost-of-Service Analysis and the process should be undertaken on a regular basis.
1.5 MARKETING, VOLUNTEERS, AND PARTNERSHIPS
1.5.1 RECREATION MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Effective communication strategies require striking an appropriate balance between the content with the
volume of messaging, while utilizing the “right” methods of delivery. MHPR utilizes many of the traditional
delivery methods for promoting programs. However, it is imperative to continue updating the marketing
strategy annually to provide information for community needs, demographics, and recreation trends.
Successful strategies will help MHPR effectively share the impact it has on the community, enhance
programming and partnerships, and ultimately build a stronger connection with current and future
customers.
WEBSITE
As MHPR looks to make future enhancements to the website and overall user experience, staff should
consider implementing accessibility guidelines and new technology to improve usability. Overall user
Total
Costs for
Program
Personnel Costs
Indirect Costs
Administrative Cost Allocation
Debt Service Costs
Supply & Material CostsEquipment Cost
Contracted Services
Vehicle Costs
Building Costs
Full Cost of Service
Page 35 of 130
19
experience looks at several factors including accessibility, customer experience, and usability. MHPR
should also regularly analyze website metrics that track user behavior and can identify areas for overall
improvement.
In addition, as a part of overall updates to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the
Department of Justice released updated regulations for all state and local government web and mobile
content to meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) Version 2.1, Levels A and AA. MHPR
should work with City communications and legal representatives to understand full digital compliance
requirements for content, design, programming, and procedural updates that are necessary.
•MHPR’s website adheres to several Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, as outlined by
digital.gov, to accommodate users of all abilities.
o The website offers multiple language options.
o The website adapts to different screen sizes.
o The website includes a personalization feature to customize accessibility needs for each
user.
o Essential details about parks, facilities, programs, and events are presented in a clear and
easy to understand format.
o A top navigational menu highlights key information that a user will likely be searching for
when visiting the website.
o The website includes a search function at the top of the page.
o The homepage uses attractive and engaging visuals to engage users and their clear calls
to action for online registration/reservations, job listings, and for upcoming events.
o There is an event calendar that is prominently displayed on the homepage.
o The park system map page has an interactive map of parks and facilities, including
amenities and points of interest.
MHPR should continue to utilize website analytics to track user behavior and regularly identify other areas
for improvement.
Page 36 of 130
Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment
20
Additionally, to enhance the customer experience and streamline recreation program administration, MHPR
should invest in improved software with automation features for repetitive tasks like program setup, pricing
updates, and roster and waitlist management. Automation could also simplify communication with
participants through customizable online forms, reminders, and confirmation emails. Using a single,
integrated software platform is essential to avoid customer confusion and encourage program registration.
However, while automation reduces administrative time, staff oversight remains necessary. Designating
one staff member to manage and optimize MHPR’s software will help maximize the technology's potential,
though additional staffing may be required to support these improvements.
SOCIAL MEDIA
Social media strategies play a critical role in telling the story of a recreation agency. The right content can
increase program participation and overall community awareness of MHPR services. MHPR currently uses
several platforms to promote programs and events, update the community on park planning efforts, and
highlight staff and volunteer initiatives.
While this will be a challenge due to current staffing levels,
MHPR should work with city staff and partners to continue
a focus on high-quality photos and videos that highlight
parks, facilities, programs, and their users. The agency
should consider online events and challenges, live video,
and partnerships with local influencers to drive more traffic
to its social media channels. Additionally, maintaining a
consistent posting schedule can ensure that fresh content
is always being pushed out to the community. A periodic
social media audit is recommended to provide MHPR with
a sound understanding on how social media impacts its
programming. The audit can also show insights on how
MHPR is engaging with their audiences and how effective
the platforms are at raising awareness of recreation
services.
There are several components and benefits to a social
media audit that are highlighted below.
• Take inventory of the platforms that are in use
and whether you need them by developing Key
Performance Indicators.
• Define goals for each platform to ensure
multiple platforms are not pushing out the same
type of content.
• Ensure branding and messaging are consistent
across all platforms.
• Understand how to use social media analytics to determine where your social media traffic is
coming from. Google analytics is another tool to inform MHPR about website and social media
users.
Marketing and Communications
Recommendations
• Create a marketing plan aligned
with MHPR goals and annually
update marketing strategies to
reflect community needs. Focus
on high-quality word-of-mouth,
social media, and website
enhancements, using inclusive
and accessible communication
methods.
• Enhance the online user
experience by streamlining
navigation and automate tasks to
enhance customer satisfaction
and operational efficiency.
• Ensure consistent branding and
messaging across all platforms,
regularly assess unmet
community needs, and educate
staff on marketing principles to
boost program participation and
community engagement.
Page 37 of 130
21
• Understand the demographics and preferences on content type of MHPR social media followers
and tailor the messaging to the right audience.
• Identify the top performing social media posts and build on this success with future social media
campaigns.
MARKETING PLAN
The best practice is to have a specific recreation marketing plan that is in line with MHPR goals and
objectives in communications. A marketing plan must be built upon and integrated with supporting plans
and directly coordinate with organization vision and priorities. The plan should also provide specific
guidance as to how MHPR’s identity and brand is to be consistently portrayed across the multiple methods
and deliverables used for communication. Below are the essential pieces to an effective marketing plan:
• Know the audience: Understand the community demographics and who MHPR is trying to reach
along with their needs and interests and how they will best receive messaging. MHPR should
also regularly assess the unmet needs or gaps in recreation services throughout the community.
• Define the goals that will drive specific marketing strategies: Some goals can include increasing
program participation, boosting MHPR brand awareness, or improving community engagement
for more informed decision making.
• Create the right message: Focus on the benefits and positive outcomes of the program.
Emphasize the factors that make the program or service stand out from others in the community.
• Use the right tools and channels: Depending on the demographic and area, some channels may
not resonate with community members. For instance, traditional media can reach a wider
audience, but it may not be the main source for MHPR’s target market. Additionally, partnerships
with other community organizations can help MHPR get messaging to the right audience by
sharing resources. By ensuring the right method is used, MHPR will maximize resources for
marketing and communications and see positive results with engagement.
• Monitor goals and strategies regularly: MHPR should build in methods to measure the impact of
the marketing plan and specific strategies to ensure necessary adjustments can be made with
communications.
Currently, the City of Mendota Heights has a part time marketing position that oversees city wide
communications and most of the marketing for recreation programming falls on the limited parks and
recreation staffing. Enhancing marketing efforts will be a challenge with minimal staff time to allocate to the
responsibilities. Ideally, if recreation programs continue to grow, a full time Communications or Community
Engagement Manager should be considered for MHPR that could also oversee strategic partnerships and
sponsorship opportunities in addition to marketing and promotions. However, there are some approaches
that will help maximize staff time.
•Identify the programs that bring the most value or have the highest participation and prioritize
marketing efforts for these.
•Automate social media posts with low cost content management platforms, such as Hootsuite.
•Use email marketing tools to automate regular program update emails to MHPR’s customer
database.
•Collaborate with local civic organizations to share marketing resources such as print materials or
distribution lists.
•Use online design tools that can create professional-looking marketing materials with minimal
design experience and in a fraction of the time it would take a printing or design vendor.
Page 38 of 130
Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment
22
•Use larger programs and events or popular public spaces as an opportunity to cross-promote
programs and events.
MARKETING TRAINING
Educating program staff on marketing principles can lead to increased awareness of services and overall
participation, a stronger connection with the community, and enhanced program partnerships. Simply put,
marketing training empowers program staff to take more ownership over their programs. This is a time and
resource intensive activity and should be planned accordingly in staffing projections.
1.5.2 RECREATION PROGRAM PARTNERSHIPS AND VOLUNTEERS
MHPR currently works with several partnering agencies, organizations, and corporations throughout the
community. Current partnerships with School District 197, West Saint Paul, and Dakota County support
facilitation of programs and sponsorships of community events. However, growing population and
programming within West Saint Paul will likely negatively impact MHPR’s future partnership for indoor
recreation space.
Tracking partnerships can demonstrate MHPR’s ability to leverage resources within the community. In
many instances, partnerships can be inequitable to a public agency and do not produce reasonable shared
benefits between parties. It is not suggested that MHPR’s existing partnerships are inequitable; rather, in
general many parks and recreation agencies’ partnerships tend to be one-sided.
The following recommended policies will promote fairness and equity within existing and future partnerships
while helping staff to manage potential internal and external conflicts. Partnership principles for existing and
future partnerships will maximize their effectiveness. These partnership principles are as follows:
• All partnerships require a working agreement with measurable outcomes and will be evaluated
on a regular basis. This should include reports to MHPR on the performance and outcomes of
the partnership including an annual review to determine renewal potential.
• All partnerships should track costs associated with the partnership investment to demonstrate
the shared level of equity.
• All partnerships should maintain a culture that focuses on collaborative planning on a regular
basis, regular communications, and annual reporting on performance and outcomes to
determine renewal potential and opportunities to strengthen the partnership.
Additional partnerships can be pursued and developed with other public entities such as neighboring
towns/cities, colleges, state or federal agencies, non-for-profit organizations, as well as with private or for-
profit organizations. There are recommended standard policies and practices that will apply to any
partnership, and those that are unique to relationships with private, for-profit entities.
RECREATION VOLUNTEERS
Today’s realities require most public parks and recreation departments to seek productive and meaningful
partnerships with both community organizations and individuals to deliver quality and seamless services to
their residents. These relationships should be mutually beneficial to each party to better meet the overall
community needs and expand the positive impact of the agency’s mission. Effective partnerships and
meaningful volunteerism are key strategy areas for MHPR to meet the needs of the community in the years
to come.
The City of Mendota Heights' Volunteer Policy provides a comprehensive framework for managing
volunteers. It includes guidelines on the purpose, scope, and definition of volunteers, categorizing them
3DJH• •RI•
23
into adult and junior volunteers. The policy also outlines volunteer management procedures, including
recruitment, conflict of interest, record-keeping, and criminal background checks. Additionally, the policy
emphasizes volunteer support, recognition, and maintaining a respectful work environment.
The City’s Administrative Support Assistant serves as a part-time volunteer coordinator and oversees
several types of volunteers related to parks and recreation responsibilities including for event management,
invasive species removal, general park clean-up, and tree planting efforts. Each volunteer position comes
with a service description that outlines skills desired, responsibilities, and outcome or learning opportunities.
Appendix A outlines some other best practices with volunteer management that MHPR can consider for
enhancing its engagement with future volunteers.
ESTABLISH FORMAL VOLUNTEER AND PARTNERSHIP POLICIES AND AGREEMENTS
Following the best practice listed in the previous section as well as in Appendix A, continue to monitor and
update established volunteer and partner policies and agreements which are tailored to the different types
of volunteers and partnerships the MHPR encounters. Additionally, begin tracking volunteer metrics more
consistently, including individual volunteers used annually and volunteer hours donated annually. Lastly,
begin identifying measurable outcomes for each partnership and track these metrics annually.
1.6 CONCLUSION
1.6.1 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
The program assessment for MHPR identifies strengths such as high public participation and current
diversity of programming. However, there is a ceiling for program expansion with the current staffing
structure and indoor space allocated to MHPR. Also, the absence of a pricing strategy will also impact
program management, expansion, and financial planning. Key action points include strengthening
partnerships, optimizing staffing and space usage, developing a comprehensive pricing strategy to
generate more earned income that can offset expenses for enhancing program offerings, and
improving financial planning to sustain and enhance the department's services for residents and
visitors.
To enhance MHPR's recreation programs and services for in-house and third-party operated programs,
staff should establish and adhere to comprehensive program standards to ensure consistent service
delivery. This includes quality assurance measures for planning, implementation, and evaluation, with a
focus on staff training, program space conditions, and risk management.
•Customer service standards must address the entire participant experience, from registration to
post-program evaluation, emphasizing consistent communication and experience enhancement.
•Performance measures, such as participation numbers and satisfaction surveys, should be tracked
to inform data-driven decisions and improve program impact. Monitoring program cancellation rates
can reveal areas for improvement in design and execution.
•Regular quality assurance observations of contracted programs will ensure alignment with MHPR's
standards and expectations. To ensure consistent and high-quality service delivery, MHPR should
establish and monitor program standards, focusing on staff training, program space conditions, and
risk management.
•A consistent analysis of community demographics should guide program and marketing strategies,
with attention to demographic shifts such as the increasing 55+ age group.
Page 40 of 130
Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment
24
•Introducing premium programs to leverage high household incomes and tracking program
lifecycles annually will ensure a balanced and innovative program mix.
•Conducting a classification of services analysis will align programs with organizational goals and
funding strategies.
•MHPR should also adopt a Program Development and Resource Guide for systematic program
planning, leveraging tools like the MacMillan Matrix to avoid duplicating services.
•Lastly, enhancing Department capacity through clear policies, efficient management, optimal
resource use, advanced technology, and strong communication strategies is crucial. Staff planning,
efficient space use, community partnerships, and technology adoption will further bolster program
delivery and community engagement.
Additionally, to optimize pricing strategies and achieve cost recovery goals, MHPR should consider various
strategies to balance competitive pricing with equitable access for core programs. Implementing a Cost-of-
Service Analysis for accurate pricing decisions and setting cost recovery targets is crucial. Fostering
equitable partnerships and enhancing volunteer policies will strengthen community relationships and
resource utilization.
By implementing these action points, MHPR can foster a culture of continuous improvement, align staff
efforts with strategic priorities, and ultimately enhance the quality of program offerings for the community.
Page 41 of 130
25
APPENDIX A: VOLUNTEER/PARTNERSHIP BEST PRACTICES &
RECOMMENDATIONS
BEST PRACTICES IN VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT
In developing a volunteer policy, some best practices that the MHPR should be aware of include:
•Involve volunteers in cross-training to expose them to various organizational functions and increase
their skill. This can also increase their utility, allowing for more flexibility in making work
assignments, and can increase their appreciation and understanding of the MHPR.
•Ensure the Volunteer Coordinator (a designated program staff member with volunteer management
responsibility) and associated staff stay fully informed about the strategic direction of the agency
overall, including strategic initiatives for all divisions. Periodically identify, evaluate, or revise
specific tactics the volunteer services program should undertake to support the larger
organizational mission.
•A key part of maintaining the desirability of volunteerism in the agency is developing a good reward
and recognition system. The consultant team recommends using tactics like those found in frequent
flier programs, wherein volunteers can use their volunteer hours to obtain early registration at
programs, or discounted pricing at certain programs, rentals or events, or any other department
function. Identify and summarize volunteer recognition policies in a Volunteer Policy document.
•Regularly update volunteer position descriptions. Include an overview of the volunteer position
lifecycle in the Volunteer Manual, including the procedure for creating a new position.
•Add end-of-lifecycle process steps to the Volunteer Manual to ensure that there is formal
documentation of resignation or termination of volunteers. Also include ways to monitor and track
reasons for resignation/termination and perform exit interviews with outgoing volunteers when able.
•In addition to the number of volunteers and volunteer hours, categorization and tracking
volunteerism by type and extent of work, is important:
o Regular volunteers: Those volunteers whose work is continuous, provided their work
performance is satisfactory and there is a continuing need for their services.
o Special event volunteers: Volunteers who help with a particular event with no expectation
that they will return after the event is complete.
o Episodic volunteers: Volunteers who help with a particular project type on a recurring or
irregular basis with no expectation that they will return for other duties.
o Volunteer interns: Volunteers who have committed to work for the agency to fulfill a specific
higher-level educational learning requirement.
o Community service volunteers: Volunteers who are volunteering over a specified period to
fulfill a community service requirement.
The MHPR should encourage employees to volunteer in the community. Exposure of staff to the community
in different roles (including those not related to parks and recreation) will raise awareness of the agency
and its volunteer program. It also helps staff understand the role and expectations of a volunteer if they can
experience it for themselves.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
The recommended policies and practices for public/private partnerships that may include businesses,
private groups, private associations, or individuals who desire to make a profit from use of the MHPR’s
facilities or programs are detailed below. These can also apply to partnerships where a private party wishes
to develop a facility on park property, to provide a service on publicly owned property, or who has a contract
with the agency to provide a task or service on the agency’s behalf at public facilities. These unique
partnership principles are as follows:
Page 42 of 130
Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment
26
•Upon entering into an agreement with a private business, group, association or individual, the
MHPR staff and political leadership must recognize that they must allow the private entity to meet
their financial objectives within reasonable parameters that protect the mission, goals and integrity
of the MHPR.
•As an outcome of the partnership, the MHPR must receive a designated fee that may include a
percentage of gross revenue dollars less sales tax on a regular basis, as outlined in the contract
agreement.
•The working agreement of the partnership must establish a set of measurable outcomes to be
achieved, as well as the tracking method of how those outcomes will be monitored by the agency.
The outcomes will include standards of quality, financial reports, customer satisfaction, payments
to the agency, and overall coordination with the MHPR for the services rendered.
•Depending on the level of investment made by the private contractor, the partnership agreement
can be limited to months, a year or multiple years.
•If applicable, the private contractor will provide a working management plan annually that they will
follow to ensure the outcomes desired by the MHPR. The management plan can and will be
negotiated, if necessary. Monitoring the management plan will be the responsibility of both partners.
The agency must allow the contractor to operate freely in their best interest, if the outcomes are
achieved, and the terms of the partnership agreement are adhered to.
•The private contractor cannot lobby agency advisory or governing boards for renewal of a contract.
Any such action will be cause for termination. All negotiations must be with the MHPR Director or
their designee.
•The agency has the right to advertise for private contracted partnership services or negotiate on
an individual basis with a bid process based on the professional level of the service to be provided.
•If conflicts arise between both partners, the highest-ranking officers from both sides will try to
resolve the issue before going to each partner’s legal counsels. If none can be achieved, the
partnership shall be dissolved.
PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
The MHPR currently has a strong network of recreation program partners. Therefore, the following
recommendations are both an overview of existing partnership opportunities available to the MHPR, as well
as a suggested approach to organizing partnership pursuits. This is not an exhaustive list of all potential
partnerships that can be developed, but this list can be used as a reference tool for the agency to develop
its own priorities in partnership development. The following five areas of focus are recommended:
1.Operational Partners: Other entities and organizations that can support the efforts of the MHPR to
maintain facilities and assets, promote amenities and park usage, support site needs, provide
programs and events, and/or maintain the integrity of natural/cultural resources through in-kind
labor, equipment, or materials.
2.Vendor Partners: Service providers and/or contractors that can gain brand association and
notoriety as a preferred vendor or supporter of the MHPR in exchange for reduced rates, services,
or some other agreed upon benefit.
3.Service Partners: Nonprofit organizations and/or friends’ groups that support the efforts of the
agency to provide programs and events, and/or serve specific constituents in the community
collaboratively.
4.Co-Branding Partners: Private, for-profit organizations that can gain brand association and
notoriety as a supporter of the MHPR in exchange for sponsorship or co-branded programs, events,
marketing and promotional campaigns, and/or advertising opportunities.
5.Resource Development Partners: A private, nonprofit organization with the primary purpose to
leverage private sector resources, grants, other public funding opportunities, and resources from
Page 43 of 130
27
individuals and groups within the community to support the goals and objectives of the agency on
mutually agreed strategic initiatives.
BEST PRACTICE FOR ALL PARTNERSHIPS
All partnerships developed and maintained by the MHPR should adhere to common policy requirements.
These include:
•Each partner will meet with or report to the MHPR staff on a regular basis to plan and share activity-
based costs and equity invested.
•Partners will establish measurable outcomes and work through key issues to focus on for the
coming year to meet the desired outcomes.
•Each partner will focus on meeting a balance of equity agreed to and track investment costs
accordingly.
•Measurable outcomes will be reviewed quarterly and shared with each partner, with adjustments
made as needed.
•A working partnership agreement will be developed and monitored together on a quarterly or as-
needed basis.
•Each partner will assign a liaison to serve each partnership agency for communication and planning
purposes.
Page 44 of 130
Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment
28
APPENDIX B: LIFECYCLE STAGES OF CURRENT PROGRAMS
Introduction Take-Off Growth Mature Saturated Decline
Core Program Area Program
New
program;
modest
participation
Rapid
participation
growth
Moderate, but
consistent
participation
growth
Slow participation
growth
Minimal to no
participation growth;
extreme competition
Declining participation
Special Events & Programs Frozen Fun Fest: Block Party X
Frozen Fun Fest: Ice Fishing X
Frozen Fun Fest: Valentine's in the Village X
Frozen Fun Fest: Puzzle Competiton X
Pickleball with Public Safety X
Blade with the Blue X
Kid's Garage Sale X
Spring Pickleball Tournament X
Fishing Derby X
Parks Celebration: Food Truck Fest X
Parks Celebration: Saturday Festival X
Parks Celebration: Pickleball Tournament X
Bogey with the Red and Blue X
Touch-A-Truck X
Glow Golf X
Makers Market X
Men's Softball League X
Barktober X
Adult Bags League X
Trick-Or-Teeing X
Golf Programs Women's Golf League X
Adult Golf Lessons X
Tiger Tots Golf X
Senior Golf League X X
Junior's Wednesday Golf League X
Junior's Friday Golf League X
Junior's Beginner Golf Lessons X
Junior's Intermediate Gof Lessons X
Net Programs Beginner's Pickleball Lessons X
Adult Tennis Lessons X
Tennis Matchplay X
Little's Tennis Lessons X
Youth Tennis Lessons X
Senior Programs Adult Walking Group X
Coffee, Cribbage and Cards X
Adult Painting Group X
Cribbage Tournament X
Art & Tech Programs Tech Academy Camp X
ARTrageous Adventure Camps X
Mayer Arts Theater Classes X
Youth Camps and Field Trips Winter Break Field Trips X
Fall Break Field Trips X
Monthly Summer Field Trips X
Safe Kids Safety Camp X
Little Tykes Safety Camp X
Weekly Sports Skills Camps X
Weekly Fascinating Fridays X
LIFECYCLE STAGE OF PROGRAM
Page 45 of 130
29
APPENDIX C: CLASSIFICATIONS FOR CURRENT PROGRAMS
Essential Important Value-Added
Core Program Area Program
Mostly PUBLIC good /
Part of the Mission /
Serves majority of the
Community /
Highest Level of Subsidy
offered /
"This program MUST be
Mix of PUBLIC and PRIVATE
good /
Important to the community /
Serves the broad community /
Some level of subsidy offered /
"This program SHOULD USUALLY
be offered"
Mostly PRIVATE good /
Enhanced Community Offering /
Serves niche groups /
Limited to no subsidy /
"This program is NICE to offer"
Special Events & Programs Frozen Fun Fest: Block Party X
Frozen Fun Fest: Ice Fishing X
Frozen Fun Fest: Valentine's in
the Village
X
Frozen Fun Fest: Puzzle
Competiton
X
Pickleball with Public Safety X
Blade with the Blue X
Kid's Garage Sale X
Spring Pickleball Tournament X
Fishing Derby X
Parks Celebration: Food Truck
Fest
X
Parks Celebration: Saturday
Festival
X
Parks Celebration: Pickleball
Tournament
X
Bogey with the Red and Blue X
Touch-A-Truck X
Glow Golf X
Makers Market X
Barktober X
Men's Softball League X
Adult Bags League X
Trick-Or-Teeing X
Golf Programs Women's Golf League X
Adult Golf Lessons X
Tiger Tots Golf X
Senior Golf League X
Junior's Wednesday Golf League X
Junior's Friday Golf League X
Junior's Beginner Golf Lessons X
Junior's Intermediate Gof
Lessons
X
Net Programs Beginner's Pickleball Lessons X
Adult Tennis Lessons X
Tennis Matchplay X
Little's Tennis Lessons X
Youth Tennis Lessons X
Senior Programs Adult Walking Group X
Coffee, Cribbage and Cards X
Adult Painting Group X
Cribbage Tournament X
Art & Tech Programs Tech Academy Camp X
ARTrageous Adventure Camps X
Mayer Arts Theater Classes X
Youth Camps and Field Trips Winter Break Field Trips X
Fall Break Field Trips X
Monthly Summer Field Trips X
Safe Kids Safety Camp X
Little Tykes Safety Camp X
Weekly Sports Skills Camps X
Weekly Fascinating Fridays X
CLASSIFICATION OF PROGRAM
Page 46 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
1
CHAPTER ONE REPORT INFORMATION
1.1.1 INTRODUCTION
Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation (MHPR) identified operating metrics to benchmark against comparable parks
and recreation agencies. This report is intended to provide reference points from the benchmark agencies and how
MHPR relates congruently. The goal of the analysis is to evaluate how MHPR is positioned among peer best-practice
agencies with a combination of operating metrics that factor budgets, staffing levels, and inventories, as well as data
about golf courses on park property.
Due to differences in how each park system collects, maintains, and reports data, the benchmark agencies’ answers
may have details that are not able to be verified through research. The data they provided will be considered
accurate as related to the questions. Any unknown variations may impact program descriptions, financial data,
staffing, and park visitors. Therefore, the overall comparison must be viewed with this in mind. The benchmark data
collection for all systems was complete as of June 2024, and it is possible that information in this report may have
changed since the original collection date. In some instances, the information was not tracked or not available from
the participating agencies, which is indicated as “not provided” in the data tables.
1.1.2 METHODOLOGY
After MHPR determined the information they wanted to obtain from the benchmark agencies, a data request form
listing the metrics in the form of questions was sent to these agencies:
1. Golden Valley, MN Parks and Recreation
2. Green River, WY Parks and Recreation
3. New Brighton, MN Parks and Recreation
4. New Hope, MN Parks and Recreation
5. West St. Paul, MN Parks and Recreation
Four of the five benchmark cities were chosen not only because of their proximity to MHPR but also to learn about
their approach to programming, activity fees, and management practices. Green River Parks and Recreation is in
Wyoming, but the community size and park system are the closest to any of the other benchmark agencies and will
provide the closest comparison to Mendota Heights. Although the benchmark agencies are not an exact parallel to
Mendota Heights, the data about their park systems will provide information that is pertinent as a reference with
Mendota Heights regarding their operations. They were chosen as agencies that offer programs, activities, and
events along with the facilities and amenities in their system to assist in the internal evaluation of what MHPR offers
and what areas are considered gaps in their programs and events.
The data request forms were completed and returned by the benchmark agencies and the data was organized into
charts and graphs that portray the metrics for reference of MHPR and the city of Mendota Heights to assist them as
they look internally at their park system. The consultants will also use the data researched to aid in the development
of the Master Plan.
Page 47 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
2
CHAPTER TWO BENCHMARK ANALYSIS METRICS
2.1.1 CITIES
The chart below presents statistical data regarding various cities where the benchmark park systems are located.
(Figure 1.) Data for the population of the benchmark cities and the city size in square miles depicts the similarity to
Mendota Heights. For benchmarking, the metrics used in this analysis are important to selecting cities with park
systems and basic similarities to the community of Mendota Heights.
The Population column details the number of residents and can assist in understanding the number of visitors to the
parks and what programs they use.
The size (square miles) of the cities will provide additional information about the community and how parks can
allocate resources for larger or smaller cities.
Overall, the chart serves as a valuable tool for comparing the demographic and spatial characteristics of the
benchmark cities to the metrics that Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation will use to evaluate their own park
operations and make improvements where necessary to serve residents of the Mendota Heights community.
Mendota Heights’ population of 11,744 is the smallest of all Benchmark cities and is fourth in size per square mile
with Golden Valley that is slightly larger in square miles. Mendota Heights’ population is less dense than Golden
Valley which is nearly twice the population of Mendota Heights.
2.1.2 NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION BENCHMARKING
To provide additional contrast data to Mendota Heights, information will also be shown about park systems
throughout the United States that was
obtained by the National Recreation
and Parks Association (NRPA), 2024
NRPA Agency Performance Review.
NRPA categorizes their data using
several metrics, and for the purpose of
this report, the information from NRPA
data of cities with a population of less
than 20,000 residents will be used.
(Figure 2.) The benchmark cities data
Figure 1. Benchmark Cities Information
Figure 2. NRPA Data Reference
Figure 2. NRPA Population Data Reference: FTEs as Example
West St. Paul, MN 21,722 5.01 Square Miles
Agencies Population City Size (sqare miles)
Benchmark Data: CITY INFORMATION
11,744
22,522
11,401
22,413
21,986
Mendota Heights, MN
Golden Valley, MN
Green River, WY
New Brighton, MN
New Hope, MN
10.05 Square Miles
10.55 Square Miles
14 Sqare Miles
7.06 Square Miles
6 Square Miles
Page 48 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
3
should be used as an additional reference for MHPR, but because NRPA segments their city population, their data
should be an extended view of agencies nationwide. NRPA does not gather NRPA data for the metrics MHPR chose
to evaluate, so some charts will not show NRPA data. The NPRA data is collected from 1,000 park and recreation
agencies and where NRPA data is available for comparison to the benchmark metrics in this report, it will be listed
below the corresponding chart or graph.
Mendota Heights has 1,046 residents per square mile of the city
•NRPA ranks Mendota Heights in the upper quartile with cities “less than 20,000 people” for population
density when compared to the other cities, towns and census designated places (CDP) in Minnesota.
PARKS
The Parks information chart (Figure 3.) provides an overview of metrics and answers from the benchmark agencies.
The metrics indicate the number of parks, total acres of parkland maintained, and miles of trails. Acres maintained
in a park system relate to the number of maintenance staff, and often to the maintenance level standards. Acres per
maintenance staff is not definitive; only a recommendation based on routine park maintenance practices. The FTE
maintenance staff calculation derived from parkland and trails information is to be interpreted as a guide and does
not include information about the type of parkland maintained, the presence or number of sports fields, or each
agency’s maintenance schedules. Trails are a desired amenity by residents and will require specific maintenance to
keep them presentable, safe, and useable. This chart does not have specific information about the level of
maintenance, but when compared with employees required to care for park acres, number of parks, and number of
trails later in this report, more information will be presented to show the correlation. The chart shows the number
of parks each agency is responsible for, giving a view of the breadth of park coverage in total acres. Parks contain
various amenities and require distinct types of maintenance as well as specific maintenance levels to adhere to
individual agency standards. Therefore, the number of parks as well as total acres maintained are factors that will
assist MHPR for the care of their parks and required staff numbers with those of the benchmark agencies. The Acres
Maintained column also provides information on the total area of land each agency maintains within their parks,
highlighting the scale of their operations. Additionally, the Miles Paved Trails and Miles Unpaved Trails columns
Utilizing NRPA Cities, agencies have an
average 20.9 acres of parkland per 1,000
residents and 9.2 miles of trails in their
park system.
Mendota Heights has 146 acres of parkland,
equaling 12.4 acres / 1,000- residents and 28
miles of trails
Figure 3. Park Property Information
145 14 0.5West St. Paul Parks and Recreation 17
0.03
Benchmark Data: PARKS INFORMATION
data not provided
Miles Unpaved Trails
1
0
Apx. 2
New Hope Parks and Recreation 18 200
Miles Paved Trails
27
57.3
12
6
Green River Parks and Recreation 28 800
New Brighton Parks and Recreation 17 243
Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation 17 146
Golden Valley Parks and Recreation 35 506
Agencies Total Number of Parks Acres Maintained
Page 49 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
4
quantify the extent of trail infrastructure available in each park system, another factor influencing the number of
maintenance staff.
Paved and unpaved miles of trails in the chart also shows that all benchmark agencies have at least six times the
number of paved trails as unpaved trails. Overall, this chart is useful for understanding the scope for parkland care
for acres and miles of trails.
The bar graph above clearly shows that Green River P&R has 5.48 times more acres maintained than Mendota
Heights P&R. (654 more acres) A greater number of acres in a park system is usually related to a larger city, but in
this case both Green River and Mendota Heights are nearly the same population. (Mendota Heights has 343 more
residents than Green River)
For instance, an agency overseeing a sizable number of parks typically manages a substantial amount of parkland.
This extensive coverage requires considerable resources and coordination to ensure that all areas are adequately
maintained. The larger the number of parks, the more diverse and widespread the maintained areas are,
encompassing several types of recreational spaces, natural habitats, and facilities.
Moreover, having more parks often indicates a broader commitment to providing accessible green spaces for the
community, contributing to environmental conservation, recreational opportunities, and public well-being. Each
park, regardless of size, adds to the total acreage the agency is responsible for, and cumulatively, this can result in a
large, varied portfolio of parkland requiring maintenance.
In summary, agencies with more parks tend to have more acres to maintain, reflecting a larger scope of operations
and a greater responsibility in managing public recreational spaces and natural areas. This relationship underscores
the need for effective resource allocation and strategic planning to maintain high standards of park care across all
properties.
17 35 28 17 18 17
146
506
800
243 200 145
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Mendota
Heights P&R
Golden Valley
P&R
Green River
P&R
New Brighton
P&R
New Hope P&R West St. Paul
P&R
Number of Parks Acres Maintained
Parks & Parkland
Figure 4. Parks and Parkland
Page 50 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
5
2.1.3 STAFF
The contents of the chart below shows the number of staff for each benchmark agency separated into the various
employee positions as well as their job classification. (Figure 5.)
As an indication of not only park size in acres, the benchmark agencies also have a variety of facilities, amenities,
program offerings, and other tasks that require the size of staff they have. This reflects the total staff that each of
the benchmark agencies may utilize to operate their park systems.
Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation has:
•the lowest number of full-time staff in parks and recreation among the benchmark agencies.
Seasonal staff are vital during peak visitation times, such as spring and summer, when the number of park visitors
significantly increases. They support the full-time staff by assisting with the increased level of responsibilities and
ensure the parks can accommodate the surge in visitors.
Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation has:
•the second lowest number of seasonal staff in parks and recreation benchmark communities.
The maintenance staff play a crucial role in keeping parks in optimal condition throughout the year, but their efforts
are especially important during busy seasons. The range of seasonal weather conditions demand more intensive
plant care and turf care, foliage and leaf maintenance, snow plowing and removal.
Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation has:
•the lowest number of full-time maintenance staff
•no part time maintenance staff similar to other benchmark agencies
•the lowest number of seasonal maintenance staff
Figure 5. Staff Information
10West St. Paul Parks and Recreation 12.25 45 5 0
5
New Brighton Parks and Recreation 21 250 6 data not provided
New Hope Parks and Recreation 11.63 248 4.5 0
22
Golden Valley Parks and Recreation 21 155 7 0 4
Green River Parks and Recreation 21 85 9 1
2
Benchmark Data: STAFF INFORMATION
Agencies Full Time Employees
for Parks and REC
Seasonal Employees
for Parks and Rec
Fulltime Parks
Maintenance Staff
Partime
Maintenance Staff
Seasonal
Maintenance Staff
Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation 6.25 49 4.25 0
Page 51 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
6
Referring to the NRPA percentage calculations above (Figure 6.), percentages were used to determine what the
MHPR full time operations/ maintenance staff ratio is to the overall full time staff. MHPR is above the NRPA
percentage of 43% for maintenance/operations employees by referencing park systems nationally from NRPA.
Full time and seasonal staff are integral to the continuous management and operation of parks, whereas full-time,
part time, and seasonal maintenance staff are responsible for the ongoing upkeep of park facilities and grounds.
43%
Operations/
Maintenance
27%
Programmers
22%
Administration
5% Capital Development 3% Other
Operations and Maintenance Programmers Administration Capital Development Other
Percentage of Staff Positions
with NRPA Agencies
Figure 6. Staff Information
Benchmark Data: STAFF INFORMATION
Agencies Total Staff Fulltime Parks
Maintenance Staff
NRPA Percentage
Data ComparisonCurrent
Percentage
More
Golden Valley Parks and Recreation 21 7 Less
68.0%
33%
Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation 6.25 4.25
43%Less
Less
West St. Paul Parks and Recreation 12.25 5
with NRPA
New Brighton Parks and Recreation 21 6
Less
39%
41%
New Hope Parks and Recreation 11.63 4.5
43%
28%
Green River Parks and Recreation 21 9
Page 52 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
7
2.1.4 CORE PROGRAMS
The comprehensive list of core programs was developed by combining the core programs of all benchmark agencies.
(Figure 7.) The data for core programs across the benchmark agencies reveal interesting comparisons between
MHPR and other agencies.
Mendota Heights P&R provides a focused selection of programs, singularly offering Arts and Technology
Programming as a unique program provided only by them.
Core Programs that MHPR offers are:
•Adult Softball
•Arts and Technology Programming
•Field Trips
•Golf Programs
•Gymnastics (with partner)
•Movies in the Park
•Net Programs (Tennis and Racquetball)
•Senior Programs
•Special Events
•Theater (with partner)
•Youth Camps & Field Trips
•Youth Programs
•Youth Tennis
Figure 7. Core Programs
●
Kids Programming (games and activities)●
Movies in the Park ●
Theater ● with partner ●
Recreation Games Day
Playgrounds
●
●
●
●
●
Pee Wee Sports
West St. Paul Parks
and Recreation
●
Gymnastics ● with partner
●
●
●
●
●
Adult Softball ●
Specialty Programs
Field Trips
Fitness Programs
Golf Programs
Gym Programs
Indoor Ice
Net Programs (Tennis & Pickleball)
Outdoor Aquatics
Senior Programming
Special Events
Summer Playground Programs
Youth Camps and Field Trips
Youth Sports
Youth Tennis
Youth Programs
●
Arts and Technology Programming ●
●Family Programs
●
Benchmark Data: CORE PROGRAMS
CORE PROGRAMS Mendota Heights
Parks and Recreation
Golden Valley Parks and
Recreation
Green River Parks and
Recreation
New Brighton Parks and
Recreation
New Hope Parks
and Recreation
Adult Programs
Curling, Lawn Bowling ●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●Adult Sports ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Community Center Activities
●
●
●
●
●
●
3DJH••RI•
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
8
Mendota Heights P&R offers programs that two or more benchmark agencies also offer indicating programs that
are popular with residents in their respective communities:
•Senior Programs
•Golf Programs
•Gymnastics
•Net Programs (Tennis and Racquetball)
•Special Events
•Theater
•Youth Camps and Field Trips
•Youth Programs
•Youth Tennis
Areas that could be considered as gaps in core programs at MHPR that the benchmark agencies offer but MHPR
does not offer are:
•Adult Programs
•Adult Sports (Curling, Lawn Bowling)
•Community Center Activities
•Family Programs
•Fitness Programs
•Gym Programs
•Indoor Ice
•Kids Programming (games and activities)
•Outdoor Aquatics
•Pee Wee Sports
•Playgrounds
•Recreation Games Day
•Specialty Programs
•Summer Playground Programs
•Youth Sports
In summary, while MHPR focuses on niche areas of Arts and Technology Programming as well as Adult Softball and
Field Trips, the other agencies collectively offer a wide-ranging set of programs that cover physical fitness, active
engagement, sports, and physical activities. This distinction highlights a more targeted approach with MHPR versus
the broad, inclusive strategy employed by the benchmark agencies.
The total number of programs for all agencies:
❖Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation: 13 programs
❖Golden Valley Parks and Recreation 6 programs
❖Green River Parks and Recreation 6 programs
❖New Brighton Parks and Recreation 9 programs
❖New Hope Parks and Recreation 11 programs
❖West St. Paul Parks and Recreation 11 programs
The more programs an agency offers often indicates the need for a larger number of staff, a wider variety of size and
type of facilities, park size and type, and number of amenities. In house programs can be a financially viable solution
when more programs are offered, while facilities and amenities can accommodate additional programs. Agencies
that use contractors will receive a portion of the program fees and still provide facilities while the contractor receives
a portion of the fees also. Revenue can be less if the agency chooses contractors to provide programming. The ratio
of contractor vs. in house programmers will need to be fully evaluated for individual agencies. In house programmers
can lead multiple programs to extend the value of a full time employee. Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation has
the median number of programs among the benchmark agencies.
Percentage of NRPA agencies that have programs in common with Mendota Heights Parks Recreation
Special Events: 89% Racquet Sports: 73% Golf: 49%
Page 54 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
9
2.1.5 PARK VISITORS
Park systems utilize visitor numbers in various ways to evaluate operations, administration, and maintenance, to
improve their parks. In this benchmark analysis visitors have been sorted in two classifications. (Figure 8.)
•Participant: One person counted individually per program or class.
•Participations: The number of times one person uses a facility or program. (i.e., one person accumulates 8
participations of a class)
Participants are normally users that purchase a day pass or attend a specific class. These users may progress in
participations as they become more familiar with programs and services the agency offers. Memberships drive
participations since users feel they will receive more value from their membership by participating in additional
programs or activities.
Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation recorded an annual number of 2,529 participants and 4,168 participations.
This serves as a baseline to evaluate the scale and engagement levels against the benchmark agencies.
Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation has a slightly smaller number of participants than Golden Valley Parks and
Recreation at 2,601 but a higher number of participations; 2,750. This suggests that while Golden Valley attracts a
comparable number of participants, MHPR has users involved more often in multiple programs and activities.
New Brighton Parks and Recreation stands out with a significantly higher number of participants at 13,224, yet no
information was provided regarding how many times users were active in a program, class, or activity. The number
reflects program users, and this large number far surpasses Mendota Heights’ participant numbers.
New Hope Parks and Recreation also shows strong engagement with 6,867 participants and 7,565 participations.
This data highlights a robust level of users, yet with a slightly higher number of participations which shows that users
are not involved multiple times in programs or activities.
Looking solely at MHPR participants and participations, the larger number of participants indicates that users are
participating frequently in programs and activities.
Figure 8. Park Visitors
Green River, WY
Golden Valley, MN
Park Visitors
West St. Paul, MN 4,9952,583
New Brighton, MN no data provided13,224 programs only
New Hope, MN 7,565 programs only6,867
2,529
2,7502,601
no data providedno data provided
Agencies Annual Number of
PARTICIPATIONS
Annual Number of
PARTICIPANTS
Mendota Heights, MN 4,168
Page 55 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
10
2.1.6 OPERATIONAL REVENUE & EXPENSES
The chart below shows financial information of MHPR and all benchmark agencies for revenue, expenses and the
average capital. The current year budget as well as the previous year are shown for comparison.
West St. Paul Parks and Recreation 2024 budget $94,543
2023 actual $104,536
2024 budget $1,687,810
2023 actual $1,360,295
2024 $298,500
2023 $206,320
Mendota Heights, MN Parks and Recreation 2024 budget $58,975
2023 actual $50,467
2024 budget $1,314,946
2023 actual $1,416,664
2024 budget $202,000
2023 actual $572,537
Green River, WY Parks and Recreation Data not provided
Golden Valley, MN Parks and Recreation 2024 budget $375,000
2023 actual $376,438
2024 budget $3,272,985
2023 actual $2,930,858 data not provided
New Hope, MN Parks and Recreation 2024 budget $3,255,779
2023 actual $3,350,167
Agencies Operational Revenue Operational Expense Average Capital
Benchmark Data: REVENUE & EXPENSES (Budget / Actual)
2024 budget $4,401,710
2023 actual $$4,738,900
2034 budget $363,000
2023 actual $4,898,054
New Brighton, MN Parks and Recreation 2024 budget $ 1,932,500
2023 actual $2,051,027
2024 budget $5,440,900
2023 actual $4,725,202
2024 budget $8,059,900
2023 actual $4,722,600
Figure 9. Revenue and Expenses
Page 56 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
11
2.1.7 REVENUE SOURCES
Two similar provider agencies did not provide data about their earned and unearned revenue sources. (Figure 10.)
MHPR generates 62% of their earned revenue from program fees. This percentage is highest of all benchmark
agencies, indicating the fees are important to the financial sustainability of MHPR, and offering more programming
will have a positive effect on earned revenue.
As a reference for all sources of unearned / non-tax revenue (sponsorships, grants, partnership) revenue listed
(permits, reservations, rentals and land leases) MHPR could investigate other sources that can generate unearned
revenue in these areas. MHPR is significantly lower in the amount they generate from permits, reservations, rentals
and land leases. In most other metrics in this chart by dollar comparison Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation
relies more on unearned income and should consider other sources of revenue from permits, reservations, rentals
and land leases that can be more stable annually and in the future.
Figure 10. Revenue
NRPA shows nationally the Program Revenue average is 56% of Earned Revenue
Mendota Heights’ Program Revenue is 62% of Earned Revenue
$40,437West St. Paul Parks and Recreation $104,536 $61,986 $54,784 $0
Green River Parks and Recreation
$0 $25,000
Data not provided
Data not providedGolden Valley Parks and Recreation
Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation $50,466 $31,510 $18,957
$161,035
New Brighton,Parks and Recreation $2,051,027 $669,518 $397,681 $0 data not provided
New Hope Parks and Recreation $2,220,058 $1,226,496 $987,615 $5,945
Benchmark Data: REVENUE
Agencies Earned Revenue Program Revenue
Total from: Permiits,
Reservations, Rentals,
Land Leases
Total for Advertising
and Marketing
Non-Tax Revenue:
Sponsorships,
Grants,
Partnerships, other
Page 57 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
12
2.1.8 GOLF COURSES
Benchmark agencies provided a financial set of data (Figure 11.) Golden Valley is the only park agency that has a 27-
hole course, and their total revenue, expenses and program revenue will not be an accurate reference with MHPR
or the other similar providers that all have 9-hole courses. Green River and West St. Paul will not be included in this
section because they do not have a golf course.
TOTAL GOLF COURSE REVENUE FOR 2023
In 2023, the total revenue data for golf courses in Mendota Heights, New Brighton, and New Hope reveal significant
differences. Mendota Heights Golf Course reported a total revenue of $296,818. In comparison, New Brighton’s Golf
Course generated a total revenue of $372,741, which is $75,923 more than the Mendota Heights Golf Course. This
means that New Brighton’s Golf Course has total revenue approximately 25.6% higher than the Mendota Heights
Golf Course.
Green fees and cart rentals are not the only source of revenue to a golf course. Including golf technology with Online
Tee Time Software and Virtual Golf Simulators, a driving range, offering a well-stocked concession stand, and golf
merchandise can provide additional revenue, and a value-added service to golfers. With a dedicated staff at the
course, additional golf programs and lessons, hosting tournaments and business outings can add to revenue and
should be marketed well to promote these activities/opportunities.
The disparity is even more pronounced when referencing the total revenue with that of New Hope’s Golf Course.
New Hope's Golf Course total revenue for 2023 was $529,939, which is $233,121 higher than Mendota Heights Golf
Course total revenue. This indicates that New Hope’s Golf Course is 78.5% higher in earnings .
TOTAL GOLF COURSE REVENUE FOR 2022
Considering 2022, the full year prior, Mendota Heights Golf Course reported total revenue of $264,361. As a
reference, New Brighton’s Golf Course generated a total revenue of $291,137, which is $26,776 more than Mendota
Heights Golf Course. This represents approximately 10.1% higher earnings for New Brighton compared to Mendota
Heights.
Figure 11. Golf Statistics
Benchmark Data: GOLF
No Golf Course
West St. Paul P&R
Total Golf Course Program Revenue 2023: $59,932
2022: $53,928
2023: $500,000
2022: $400,000
2023: $10,527
2022: $11,081
Combined with
operational revenue
1
0
6
7
0
80
2023: $489,866
2022: $400,741
Total Golf Course Revenue
1.1
0
18
Total Full Time Employees for Golf Course
Total Part Time Employees for Golf Course
Total Seasonal Staff for Golf Course
0.2
0
10
2023: $296,818
2022: $264,361
2023: $ 2,516,874
2022: $ 2,231,437
2023: $372,741
2022: $291,137
2023: $529,939
2022: $438.982
Total Golf Course Operational Expenditures 2023: $245,178
2022: $220,309
2023: $2,360,222
2022: $2,194,216
2023: $330,442
2022: $206,718
Yes Yes No
Number of rounds of Golf in 2023 19,760 45,561 26,248
9 holes
Golf Programs Mendota Heights P&R Golden Valley P&R Green River WY P&R New Brighton P&R New Hope P&R
No Golf Course
Golf Course / Number of Holes 9 holes 27 holes 9 holes
26,344
Driving Range (Y/N)No
Page 58 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
13
The difference is more significant when comparing Mendota Heights Golf Course revenue with that of New Hope’s
Golf Course which had revenue for 2022 of $438,982, which is $174,621 higher than Mendota Heights Golf Course’s
revenue. This marks an approximate higher revenue of 66.1% for New Hope over the Mendota Heights Golf Course.
The graph below provides a visual of total revenue for 2022 and 2023 for Mendota Heights P&R Golf Course, New
Brighton Golf Course, and New Hope Golf Course. (Figure 12.)
TOTAL GOLF COURSE OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES 2022 & 2023
In 2022, the expenditure data for golf courses at MHPR, New Brighton, and New Hope is shown with the
chart, (Figure 13. next page) expenditures of 2023 & 2022. Mendota Heights Golf Course reported total operational
expenditures of $220,309. In comparison, New Brighton’s Golf Course incurred expenditures totaling $206,718,
which is $13,591 less than Mendota Heights Golf Course, indicating approximately 6.2% lower spending by the New
Brighton Golf Course.
The difference in expenditures is even more pronounced when comparing the Mendota Heights Golf Course with
New Hope’s Golf Course, where operational expenditures for 2022 were $400,741, which is $180,432 more than
MHPR expenditures. This is approximately 81.9% more in spending for New Hope over the Mendota Heights Golf
Course.
The three agencies previously reviewed all had 2022 revenue that exceeded expenditures in the range of 9.5% (New
Hope Golf Course) to 41% (New Brighton Golf Course). For 2023, the range of revenue exceeding operational
expenditures is 8.7% (New Hope Golf Course) to 21.1% (Mendota Heights Golf Course).
This data of how the similar provider agencies reference with MHPR for expenditures of 2022 and 2023, refers to
the graph below.
Figure 12. Annual Golf Course Revenue
$296,818
$2,516,874
$372,741
$529,938
$264,361
$2,231,437
$291,137 $438,982
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
Mendota Heights
P&R
Golden Valley
P&R
New Brighton
P&R
New Hope P&R
Revenue 2023 Revenue 2022
Golf Course Revenue (2023 & 2022)
Green River P&R and West St. Paul P&R
do not have a Golf Course
Page 59 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
14
GOLF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES
Revenue and expenditures for the years 2022 and 2023 are shown below. (Figure 14.)
Figure 13. Golf Course Expenses
Figure 14. Golf Course Revenue / Expenses
$245,178
$2,360,222
$330,741
$529,938
$220,309
$2,194,216
$206,718
$438,892
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
Mendota Heights P&R Golden Valley P&R New Brighton P&R New Hope P&R
Expenditures 2023 Expenditures 2022
Golf Course Expenses (2023 & 2022)
Green River P&R and West St. Paul P&R
do not have a Golf Course
2022
Revenue
2022
Expenses
2023
Revenue
2023
Expenses
Mendota Heights P&R Golf Course $264,361 $220,309 $296,818 $245,178
Golden Valley P&R Golf Course $2,516,361 $2,231,437 $2,194,216 $2,360,222
New Brighton's P&R Golf Course $291,137 $206,718 $374,741 $330,442
New Hope's P&R Golf Course $438,982 $400,741 $529,939 $489,866
Benchmark Golf Course Revenue / Expenses
Page 60 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
15
GOLF PROGRAMS REVENUE
Including the Mendota Heights Golf Course, two other benchmark agencies produce
revenue with the golf programs they offer. (Figure 15.) The programs could be lessons
(various ages) or clinics (specific skills). Golden Valley is a much larger course, and it would
be expected for them to have a larger amount of revenue from more programs.
Mendota Heights has a larger amount of program revenue than New Brighton for nearly
the same golf course revenue.
Golf Program
Revenue
GOLF PROGRAM REVENUE
2022 2022 2022 2022
$53,928 $400,000 $11,081 included with
operational revenue
$59,932 $500,000 $10,527 included with
operational revenue
Mendota Heights P&R Golden Valley P&R New Brighton P&R New Hope P&R
2023 2023 2023 2023
Figure 15. Golf Program Revenue
Page 61 of 130
SPRING 2024
PHASE 1
ENGAGEMENT
SUMMARY
Page 62 of 130
INFORM CONSULT INVOLVE EMPOWERCOLLABORATE
OVERVIEW
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of phase 1 engagement is to capture the community identified strengths and weaknesses of Mendota
Heights existing park system. Additionally, it is an opportunity for community members to share initial ideas for
improvement, preservation, and other long-term visions for the park system. To capture the varying voices within the
community, a range of engagement tools were used and the timeline for engagement was maximized.
METHODS
PARTICIPATION
Online Tools
Focus Groups
Pop-Up
Direct Connect
To provide the public with
balanced and objective
information to assist them in
understanding the
problems, alternatives,
opportunities and/or
solutions.
A Social Pinpoint engagement site was a digital home-base for this project. The major components utilized in the digital
engagement platform included a landing page with project information, on-line mapping application, survey, and idea wall.
A series of small groups including individuals with similar interests, passions, or relationships with the City. Discussions with
these groups are led by consultants to gain knowledge about the existing systems strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities
for improvement.
In-person conversations, maps, and other activities that inform community members about the project and provide them the
opportunity to give direct feedback on phase specific topics. Staff participated in 2 primary events for pop-up engagement
Frozen Fun fest and Touch-a-Truck.
Representatives from the City meet with high priority community members or those who historically have been underrepresented
in planning efforts where they are. Engagement included conversations with students at elementary, junior high, high school
students, Rotary Club, and active adult communities,
• 513 unique visitors participated in the online survey tools for a total of 680 contributions,
• 46 individuals participated in the focus group listening sessions.
• 120 teens and children were visited in their respective classes as part of the direct connect.
• 505 individuals engaged in coversation with staff during pop-up events
To obtain public
feedback on analysis,
alternatives and/or
decisions.
To work directly with
the public throughout
the process to ensure
that public concerns
and aspirations are
consistently
understood and considered.
To partner with the public in each aspect
of the decision
including the
development of
alternatives and the
identification of the
preferred solution.
To place final decision
making in the hands of
the public.
REFERENCE: International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). (2018). IAP2’s public participation spectrum. (On-line): https://iap2.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2018_IAP2_Spectrum.pdf (PDF 160KB).
01
02
03
04
TIMELINE
Phase 1 engagement began in late January 2024 and ended in May 2024.
Page 63 of 130
OVERVIEW
THEMES
At the end of Phase 1 Engagement, results were aggregated and reviewed. There were 5 primary themes shared
across all groups as seen in the following summaries.
1- Residents like the scale, condition, character and locations of the existing parks and want this preserved in the
future park system.
2- Connections between parks and neighborhood connections leading into parks should be improved for overall
safety and accessibility.
3- Park amenities should be diversified to better meet the needs and interests of all residents. Specifically, residents
are interested in passive recreation, community gathering, and connection to natural resources. There was also a
strong interest in aquatics programming.
4- Acessibility is a concern throughout the parks. Residents would like to see improvements that both meet
accessibility standards as well as offer unique, inclusive opportunities within the park system.
5- Residents want flexible community gathering spaces - both indoor and outdoor.
Page 64 of 130
ONLINE TOOLS
Approximately 600 individuals completed an online
survey via social pinpoint to share their opinions
about the current Mendota Heights Park System and
potential areas for improvement or diversification.
Overall residents appear to enjoy the park system
and express a great fondness of memories created
at the parks. However, residents also identified
needed improvements and desired additions that
could improve the overall system now and in the
future.
The trail system was identified as a primary
strength of the existing park system. The number
of trails and the length of the trail system was a
particular strength. Participants also named the
neighborhood parks including the number of, the
maintenance, cleanliness, and the proximity of
the parks to neighborhoods as a great community
resource that create a system that community
members like to use. Some residents reflected on
their usage of the parks, mentioning activities such
as watching sports events, enjoying nature, and
spending time with family and friends. Residents
in Mendota Heights seem to enjoy their abundance
of sports fields and have enjoyed the addition of
pickleball courts to the parks.
Residents did express frustrations with some
aspects of the parks and park system. The main
frustrations were limited diversity of amenities
connections between the park trails, unsafe
crosswalks/lack of sidewalks, baseball/softball
diamonds in need of updates, the youth sports
program not being adequate, and the lack of water
activities. Users expressed a particular need for a
wider variety of activities and more accessible play
environments. They praise the city for providing
many program facilities but mention that there is a
lack of variety in these programs. For example, there
is an abundance of baseball/softball diamonds
within the park system, but many residents would
like to enjoy other programs such as mountain
biking and cross-country skiing. Overall, residents
of Mendota Heights seem fond of their park system
but would like to see expansions to the programs
provided and more safety precautions.
01
ONLINE SURVEY
Page 65 of 130
MAINTENANCE
NUMBER OF PARKS
NUMBER
OF TRAILS
PARK PROXIMITY
CLEANLINESS
PARK CONNECTIVITY
SAFETY
WATER
ACTIVITIES
DIAMOND UPDATES
YOUTH SPORTS
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
600RESIDENTS
POSITIVES NEGATIVES
115 residents wrote that the
level of maintenance of the
parks is sufficient.
60 residents wrote the
parks’ trail system is not well
connected.
55 residents wrote that
safer road crossings to the
parks should be added.
34 residents wrote that the
parks are lacking water
activities.
26 residents wrote that the
baseball/softball diamonds
need updated.
23 residents wrote that the
youth sports program held at
the parks need improvement.
89 residents wrote that
there are a lot of parks.
84 residents wrote that
there are a lot of trails.
73 residents wrote that
the parks are conveniently
located.
68 residents wrote that the
parks are kept clean.
Page 66 of 130
HOW DO YOU USE THE PARKS
ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
How frequently did you or others
in your household visit Mendota
Heights parks in the past year?
What new, updated, or additional amenities would you like for Mendota Heights Parks?
Which improvements could be made to EXISTING Mendota Heights Parks?
Would you favor or oppose
expanding recreational
opportunities?
Within the last year have you
traveled out of Mendota Heights
to use a recreation facility or
program?
Walking Trails
Add/Improve Trails
Add More Restrooms
Diversify AmenitiesImprove Maintenance
Improve Accessibility
Diversify ProgramsImprove Parking
OtherNo Improvements Needed
Add Signage to Facilities
Add Picnic & Sitting AreasIncrease Beautification
Expand Parks & Open SpaceIncrease/Improve Amenities
Outdoor Pool
Splash Pad
Hiking Trails
Native Plant Gardens
Pickleball Courts
Baseball Fields
Bike Course
Updated PlaygroundsOpen Space
Community Garden
Inclusive Playground
Fishing Pier
Dog Park
Multi-Sports Fields
Picnic Areas
Performance Area
Basketball Courts
Other
Sand Volleyball Courts
Soccer Field
Art GardenDisc Golf
Bocce Courts
Teen Center
Outdoor Track
Football Fields
Tennis Courts
Cricket Fields
0%
0%
10%
10%
20%
20%
30%
30%
40%
40%
50%
50%
regional trails and parks. pools, sports facilities, accessibile playgrounds, recreation centers, and adjacent community parks were common destinations
Daily
Other
No
Yes
Favor
Oppose
Several Times a WeekWeekly-Biweekly
Monthly
Several Times a Year
Every Few Years
Never
12.04%
81.7%90.92%
9.08%17.47%
41.97%24.58%
8.7%
9.2%
1.84%1.67%0.83%
47.52%37.26%35.21%
30.77%29.40%29.06%
21.37%20.17%
16.07%11.28%10.43%
9.74%
9.40%
8.89%
46.79%
39.69%
39.69%33.80%
29.81%
26%20.28%
19.76%
18.89%
17.68%
17.68%17.16%15.25%
15.08%14.90%
14.56%
12.82%
12.65%
12.13%
11.79%
11.44%
10.75%
9.71%
9.53%
9.36%
8.67%6.41%
5.20%0.17%
Page 67 of 130
How do you get to the parks?
How do you and/or your family use Mendota Heights parks?
What keeps you from using the parks?
WalkingCarBiking
Other
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Free Play
No Barriers
Athletics
Not Enough Time
Nature Experiences
Trails not Safe
Health & Wellness
Facility not Offered
Specialty Parks (golfing)
Not Familiar with Parks
Events
Other
Organized Programs
Can’t Find Information on Parks
Group Gatherings
Parks are too Far Away
Other
Programs are ExpensivePhysical Health Limitations
Lack of Transportation
0%
0%
10%
5%
20%
10%
30%
15%
40%
20%
50%
25%
60%
30%
70%
35%
80%
40%
73.70%70.85%47.40%
1.84%
72.18%
63.48%59.90%
52.90%29.18%
27.30%26.62%19.80%6.66%
35.58%28.28%23.78%18.16%8.61%7.87%5.81%
5.43%
2.81%
2.25%1.69%
Page 68 of 130
MAPPING ACTIVITY
County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles
CIVIC CENTER
DOG PARK
ROGER’S LAKE
FRIENDLY HILLS
MENDAKOTA
FRIENDLY MARSH
VALLEY PARK
WENTWORTH
IVY HILLS
MARIE PARK
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
KENSINGTON
HAGSTROM-KING
MARKET SQUARE
GOLF COURSE
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
4
8 1 2 2
3
4
3 2
1
1
5 1
5 1
2 3 1
1
1
1
1
5 1 1
2 1 1
1 1 1
1 1
1 3 3
1
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM
Approximately 95 residents of Mendota Heights completed the online mapping activity through the engagement
website. Residents were able to leave pinpoint comments on the parks under four classifications; idea, favorite
park, more of this, and less of this. The majority of pinpoints left on the parks were under the idea classification.
The park with the most pinpoints was Hagstrom-King Park with 13 pinpoint comments.
Two topics that came up the most within this activity is the idea of adding irrigation systems and the idea of
adding more pedestrian crossings/pathways. Residents often brought up that the fields and diamonds are
very dry and bumpy and could benefit from an irrigation system to help maintain their condition. Additional
pedestrian pathways and crossings are heavily requested to make the commute to the parks safer and more
convenient.
IDEA!FAVORITE PARK MORE OF THIS LESS OF THIS
Page 69 of 130
FRIENDLY HILLS
HAGSTROM-KING
PARK
FRIENDLY MARSH
ROGER’S LAKE
GOLF COURSE
VALLEY PARK
KENSINGTON
PARK
MENDAKOTA
PARK
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Re-pave the bike path.
Add steps to access slide.
Needs a connecting pedestrian path.
Tennis courts could use better surfacing.
Add an accessible walkway.
Connect to access Viking Lakes.
Add path connecting Mendakota and Decorah.
New playground equipment would be great.
Add path connecting to Hampshire Dr.
Needs a connecting pedestrian path.
Replace tennis courts with pickleball courts.
Improve accessibility.
Solar light stop sign to control traffic.
Update baseball/softball fields to turf.
Install a new basketball hoop.
Barrier to prevent basketballs from getting lost.
Needs a connecting pedestrian path.
Rebuild playground to be accessible for all.
Please don’t create a boardwalk.
Expand parking.
Install field lighting for evening games.
Add irrigation to the fields.
Add path connecting to Hampshire Dr.
Groom ski trails on par 3.
Love the trails that parallel 35E.
Trail needs resurfacing.
Add rentable lockers.
Add a splash pad.
Install scoreboards.
The tennis courts are in great condition.
Add a scoreboard.
Add an accessible playground.
Basketball courts and hoops are great.
Fields are dead and dry.
Asphalt bike path is deteriorating.
Unsafe to cross the street to access the park.
Love the trails here.
Really enjoy walking through these trails.
Great, fun park.
Control weeds and mulch areas along path.
Renovate to accomodate youth baseball.
Field is not safe enough. Could use irrigation.
Beautiful natural trails.
Adding facilities like skate parks for teens.
Great connection.
Only focuses on baseball/softball.
Good pickleball courts.
Add educational components to bog.
This is an awesome park.
Great playground and zipline!
Love the pickleball courts.
Add bocce ball courts.
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Favorite Park
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Favorite Park
Favorite Park
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Favorite Park
Idea!
Idea!
More of this
Less of this
Less of this
Less of this
Favorite Park
Favorite Park
Favorite Park
Idea!
Idea!
Less of this
More of this
More of this
More of this
Less of this
Favorite Park
Idea!
Favorite Park
More of this
Favorite Park
Idea!
Page 70 of 130
IVY HILLS PARK
MARIE PARK
WENTWORTH
Idea!
Idea!
Idea!
Bring back the ice rink.
Put a fence by the playground near water.
Expand basketball court and update hoops.
Skating area in the winter.
Close to neighborhood.
Add a splash pad.
Basketball court needs updated.
Great playground.
Family uses park for birthdays and picnics.
Softball field needs updated.
Great playground and tennis court.
Softball field is in rough shape.
Basketball court needs updated.
Expanded basketball court.
Family walks to the park often.
Great playground with lots of options.
Really small park.
Love the pickleball courts.
Idea!
Favorite Park
Idea!
Idea!
Favorite Park
Favorite Park
Idea!
Favorite Park
Less of this
Idea!
More of this
Favorite Park
More of this
Less of this
More of this
VALLEY VIEW
HEIGHTS
CIVIC CENTER
DOG PARK
MARKET SQUARE
VICTORIA
HIGHLANDS
New playground is great.
Install lights for evening games.
This park is great for all.
More spaces like this to sit and gather.
Install irrigation system for fields.
Refurbished field looks great.
Baseball outfield is very bumpy and unsafe.
More of this
More of this
Less of this
Idea!
Favorite Park
More of this
Idea!
Page 71 of 130
FOCUS GROUPS
02
Athletic Associations +
Sports Clubs Active Adults Partners
(schools, cities, non-profits, county)
A series of conversations were held with selected small groups of individuals with similar interests, background,
and relationships with the City staff and consultants. Consultants lead discussions to gain knowledge about
the existing system’s strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement as seen by their communities.
To assess the quality of the parks, a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis was
used to structure the conversations with the focus groups and get a robust assessment of the park system.
Overall, the conversations were very positive of the park system. Conversation really focused on the strengths
and opportunities of the park system. Common themes shared across the diverse groups included:
S.W.O.T.
FOCUS GROUPS INCLUDED:
Accessibility +
Inclusion
The Mendota Heights Park System contains many parks, trails,
and amenities that are valued resources to the community. The
number of facilities and the location in neighborhoods are of
particular value.
Park facilities are not diverse or accomodating for all groups
within the community. There is a particular lack in the diversity
of programming options outside of athletics, a need for flexible
indoor space, and infrastructure that supports all physical
needs and abilities.
The park system has an opportunity to expand and upgrade the
facilities and amenities to make them more inclusive and diverse-
this includes flexible indoor space. Strong relationships with
adjacent communities and other governmental agencies can
be leveraged to develop partnership programs or collaborative
programming.
The biggest threat to the Mendota Heights Park System is the
funding. There are concerns that the current funding will not
be enough to accomodate current needs and adequately plan
for the future,
S
W
O
T
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS
Page 72 of 130
There are many strengths of the Mendota Heights Park System. The parks are well placed, easily accessible,
safe, clean, and unique. The park facilities are well taken care of, especially the sports facilities. City partners
mention that they appreciate staff and their great communication and willingness to partner with other
organizations. Participants expressed their fondness for the natural aspects of the park system. They enjoy the
trail system and that the parks feel like they are in the countryside. Dakota County’s inclusive playground is a
strength and city partners would like to see more playgrounds like this added into the park system.
Three primary themes for opportunities were identified during the focus group meeting: inclusivity, connectivity,
and natural resources. Existing parks have primarily the exact same design and amenties throughout the
system and should be diversified to better serve the older adult population, those with more diverse interests,
and those with disabilities. The city partners also would like to see an overall improvement in park connections.
They point out opportunities to connect the parks to the river and add more trail connections between parks.
Finally, the group mentioned that they would appreciate a greater focus on the environment and natural
resources.
There are a few weaknesses that the group has noticed within the park system. One weakness is that there
are a lot of wants within the community regarding park updates and the current budget would not be able
to accomodate those wants. They also mention that infrastructure improvements are needed in general and
more shade needs to be added to the parks. Shade doesn’t have to be provided by structures, but can rather
be provided by adding more trees to the park system. There is also a lack of accessibility within the parks and
more inclusive playground equipment should be added. Finally, the group mentioned that there is a great need
to add a splash pad to the park system.
Some of the biggest threats to the Mendota Heights Park System include climate change, being unprepared
for changing trends & demographics, limited new development, maintenance of new facilities, high traffic, and
long term park funding. Hesitation and unwillingness to make changes may have a detrimental impact on the
park system.
CITY PARTNERS
STRENGTHS
OPPORTUNITIES
WEAKNESSES
THREATS
SWOT ANALYSIS
Page 73 of 130
The Mendota Heights Park System has ample space for their parks, including open space. The parks are very
clean, well-maintained, and generally feel very safe. The park system also has good exisiting amenities such as
the skate park, golf, and pickleball. There are activities for both children and adults at the parks and the bike
path system that’s separate from the road helps keep kids safe. There is also a dog park within the park system
that is very well-used and well-loved by the community. Overall, the park system is well-loved by residents
and the staff does a great job of responding to and addressing concerns.
The main opportunities with the park system include maintaining and improving what is already existing first.
There are many improvements that can be made to the park system as it is today, including improvements to
the golf course clubhouse, accessibility at the parks, lacrosse fields, pickleball courts, trails, weed control,
and the dog park. Mendota Heights may also benefit from adding facilities such as an indoor rec center, more
hockey rinks, and trail extensions. More signage in the parks would be beneficial and add more educational
opportunities.
There is very little variety of activities to do in the parks. Each park has very similar facilities and residents
would like to see different activities such as bocce ball introduced. There is also a concern with lake activities.
Roger’s Lake water quality is not great for recreational use and the fishing area at the lake could be improved.
There is also a lack of winter sports within the parks besides skating rinks. Residents often have to travel
outside of the park system to partake in other winter activities. There are also not enough bathrooms or seating
areas. Finally, maintenace of the landscape itself can be improved. Residents find the sports fields to be dry
and foliage to be overgrown.
The biggest threats to the Mendota Heights Park System involve circulation, funding, and vandalism. The trail
system within Mendota Heights can be improved to be safer for all residents. Some areas are considered to be
dangerous because the path is degrading. Car traffic is also a problem within Mendota Heights. Some parks are
located on busy roads with no crosswalk which makes traveling to the parks very dangerous for children. There
are also concerns that the current funding will not be sufficient to cover maintenance and future development.
Finally, there is a concern that the parks are not secure enough and vandalism will become an issue like the
vandalism found in Friendly Hills.
RESIDENTS AGE 55+
STRENGTHS
OPPORTUNITIES
WEAKNESSES
THREATS
Page 74 of 130
The main strengths of the Mendota Heights Park System is the ample amount of parks within the system and
the variety of facilities that are found at each park.
The Mendota Heights Park system has the opportunity to be an inclusive system for all to enjoy and expand
communications with accessibility groups. The park system should aim to incorporate accessibility into
the parks in a way that doesn’t isolate people with disabilities from the rest of the population. Everything
that is accomodating to these groups should be mixed in with the rest of the parks. There should also be
communication strategies to notify residents of which parks would best suit their needs. Park programs should
also aim to be more inclusive and diverse. Finally, more signage should be added to the parks to make the
areas safer for those with disabilities.
The park system is difficult to navigate for those with disabilities because some parks are considered accessible
and others are not. Another weakness of the parks is the surfacing. Some of the surfacing that is used in the
parks are not ideal for people who use wheelchairs. Surfaces that are too soft make it difficult for people
to access certain amenities such as playground equipment. There is also a lack of accomodations for older
people with disabilities. For example, there are no adult changing tables within the park system and there is a
lack of programming for teens to adults with disabilities. Adding developmental disability programming would
be beneficial to these groups and provide opportunities to feel included and build friendships.
Threats to the park system include lack of fencing and funding. It is crucial to add fencing to play areas to
keep kids safe especially when the play areas are near bodies of water. There is also a concern that the current
funding will not be able to accomodate the needs of disability groups.
ACCESSIBILITY GROUP
STRENGTHS
OPPORTUNITIES
WEAKNESSES
THREATS
Page 75 of 130
SPORT USER GROUPS
The Mendota Park System is described by residents as having a small town vibe. Residents enjoy that the parks
are quiet and feel secluded/remote. There is also a good amount of mixed-use facilities at the parks that allow
for a wider variety of activities. The smaller neighborhood parks are also loved by the community and provide
residents with space to socialize with their neighbors in a space that is not very busy. Finally, sport user groups
mentioned that they are fond of the sports setup at Mendakota Park and would like to see it maintained and
improved.
Mendota Heights has the opportunity to become more involved in both youth and adult sports. Sports programs
should be able to host events and tournaments in order to reduce fees and bring more people into the parks.
The concession stands should also be available for use for these events/tournaments to help raise money
for the programs. The sports programs could also benefit from getting annual sponsors. Finally, there is an
opportunity to expand certain sports programming such as lacrosse. The park system could greatly benefit
from adding more fields for lacrosse and soccer.
Overall there is a lack of space and facilities to accomodate sports programs. In order for these programs to
thrive they need to be able to hold events and tournaments which is currently not possible with the lack of space
and infrastructure in the parks as they are now. There is also not enough parking at the parks to accomodate
such events. Another weakness within the park system is that there is not enough lighting for sports fields/
courts at night, which limits the opportunity for night games and tournaments. Finally, more soccer/lacrosse
fields are needed. There are roughly 1,500 kids who play soccer within the community and there is not enough
space for these children to play as there are a limited amount of fields within the park system.
The main threat to the park system is the upkeep of the trails. Some residents find the degrading trails to not
only be dangerous but also limiting accessibility. Today the trails are rough and not easy to roll things like
carts, strollers, and wheelchairs on. This limits the ability for certain groups to visit the parks for every day use
and events.
STRENGTHS
OPPORTUNITIES
WEAKNESSES
THREATS
Page 76 of 130
High School teens from St. Thomas Academy and Two Rivers High School were asked questions on how they
use the parks in Mendota Heights and what they would like to see added to them. Teens from both schools
mentioned that they like to use the parks to hang out and play sports. They also mentioned that they would like
to start sports groups for teens where they could meet up with friends and play casual games/tournaments.
Teens from both high schools mentioned that they would like to see more programs meant for teens where
they could meet and socialize with others their age. Teens from Two Rivers High School would like an addition
of a community garden, farmer’s market, winter activities, and hammock areas. They also mentioned that they
would like more winter programming.
Children aged 8-11 at an after school program and Mendota Elementary were asked to take a survey asking
about what they like to do at the parks. They were also asked to draw their ideas for their dream parks. Most
students reported enjoying playing at the playgrounds, playing sports, and meeting with their friends. The
children shared many ideas for the parks in their drawings, but the items that appeared the most were pools,
large slides, tall ziplines, trampolines, and basketball courts. The children also mentioned activities such as
rock climbing, walking/biking on trails, and different sports. Music festivals and food truck courts were also
a popular request. Children at the after school program specifically requested classes in the parks such as
anime and art class.
Young children at Mendota Height’s Touch-A-Truck event were asked the same questions as the elementary
children and were also asked to draw their dream parks. Similarly to the elementary students, most children in
this age group reported that they liked playing at the playgrounds the most. When asked to draw their dream
park most kids drew various types of play equipment. They specifically drew monkey bars and slides often. The
children also drew things such as pools, fishing, and other water activities.
DIRECT CONNECT
03
Youth and children are often underrepresented in engagement. To ensure their voices were captured and
amplified in this process, the City staff met with students at Two Rivers High School, St. Thomas Academy,
an after school program for kids in middle school, and students in the 4th grade at Mendota Elementary and
engaged them in conversation about their wants and needs in the park system. Young children were also
included in the process at the Touch-A-Truck event. This direct contract with students and children will be
repeated during the planning process.
16-18 YEARS OLD
8-11 YEARS OLD
3-6 YEARS OLD
Page 77 of 130
CHILD & YOUTH
ENGAGEMENT THEMES
16-18
Years Old
8-11 Years
Old
3-6 Years
Old
Teen sports leagues and
additional courts/fields
Farmer’s markets
More winter activities
16-18 Years Old
• Hammock locations
• Pickleball lessons &
tournaments
• Events for teens
• Outdoor classes
• More soccer fields
10-11 Years Old
• More soccer fields
• Playground
• Tournaments
• Football camps
• Large trees to climb
• Food trucks
• Art class
• Rock climbing
3-6 Years Old
• Walking/biking trails
• Splash pad
• Open space
• Merry-go-round
• Climbing wall
• Seesaws
More gathering
spaces
Community
Garden
Large Slides
Pools
Playground
Slides
Ziplines
Pool
Monkey Bars
Water Activities
Trampoline
Basketball
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS
PRIMARY THEME: AMENITIES THAT SUPPORT COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS AND GATHERING
PRIMARY THEME: AMENITIES THAT SUPPORT PLAY AND RECREATION
PRIMARY THEME: AMENITIES THAT SUPPORT PLAY
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
Page 78 of 130
POP-UP EVENTS
04
Method Community Engagement Name Age of Participants Date Time Amount Engaged Person
Postcard, Sticker Board
Postcard, Sticker Board
Postcard, Sticker Board
Postcard
Kids Activity, Postcard
Discussion
Postcard
Consultants
High School Activity
High School Activity
Kids Activity, Postcard
Kids Activity, Postcard
Survey, Discussion
Frozen Fun Fest: Ice Block Party
Frozen Fun Fest: Valentine’s in the Village
Frozen Fun Fest: Puzzle Competition
Mom’s Club (Informal)
School Age Care Engagement
Meeting with Augusta Shore Residents
Rotary
Focus Groups
Upper School STEM Pathway at St. Thomas Academy
Two Rivers Leadership Students
Mendota Elementary
Touch-A-Truck Event
TPAC - Senior Citizens
Families
Families
Families
Women, 50+
Children
Seniors
Adults
Varies: 4 Different Groups
Juniors and Seniors in High School
Juniors and Seniors in High School
4th Grade Students
4-6 Year Olds
Seniors
02/09/2024
02/10/2024
02/11/2024
03/18/2024
04/11/2024
04/15/2024
04/17/2024
04/18/2024
04/26/2024
04/29/2024
05/07/2024
05/11/2024
05/16/2024
4:00-6:00pm
5:00-8:00pm
9:00am-3:00pm
10:30-11:30am
4:00-5:00pm
3:00-4:00pm
7:30-8:00am
1:00-7:00pm
1:00-2:00pm
12:00-1:00pm
1:00-2:00pm
10:00am-12:00pm
1:00-2:00pm
200
150
50
8
8
4
20
46
15
25
72
105
6
Meredith Lawrence
Meredith Lawrence
Meredith Lawrence
Meredith Lawrence
Meredith Lawrence
Meredith Lawrence
Meredith Lawrence
Meredith Lawrence
Meredith Lawrence
Willow Eisfeldt
Meredith Lawrence,
Steph Meyer
Meredith Lawrence,
Ryan Ruzek
Meredith Lawrence,
Consultants
Page 79 of 130
Page 80 of 130
SUMMER 2024
LEVEL OF SERVICE
ASSESSMENT
PHASE 1
Page 81 of 130
County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles
MENDOTA ELEMENTARY
TWO RIVERS HIGH SCHOOL
FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL
SOMERSET HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CIVIC CENTER
DOG PARK
ROGER’S LAKE
FRIENDLY HILLS
MENDAKOTA
FRIENDLY MARSH
VALLEY PARK
WENTWORTH
IVY HILLS 9.1 ACRES
10.4 ACRES
6.7 ACRES
MARIE PARK
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
KENSINGTON
HAGSTROM-KING
MARKET SQUARE
87.5 ACRES
6.6 ACRES
34.5 ACRES
19.7 ACRES
15.5 ACRES
9.2 ACRES
9.6 ACRES
14.4 ACRES
.6 ACRES
.24 ACRES17.6 ACRES
8.2 ACRES
19.34 ACRES
Mendota Heights Par 3
VALLEY PARK 6 ACRES
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM
COPPERFIELD POND8.4 ACRES
UNDEVELOPED CITY OWNED VACANT PARCEL 11.65 ACRES (ID: 27-04100-42-010)
UNDEVELOPED TOT LOT .93 acres
PARKLAND (ACRES)
MINI PARKS 0.24
90.3
43.30
130.4
283.58
12.58
296.16
MEETS STANDARD
96 ACRES
-
-
-
-
-
-
NEEDS EXIST
NA
NEEDS EXIST
MEETS STANDARD
0.02 ACRES PER 1,000 0.02 ACRES PER 1,000
7.74 ACRES PER 1,000 16 ACRES PER 1,000
4 ACRES PER 1,000
4 ACRES PER 1,000
26.02 ACRES PER 1,000
26.02 ACRES PER 1,000
3.71 ACRES PER 1,000
24.31 ACRES PER 1,000
25.39 ACRES PER 1,000
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
COMMUNITY PARKS
OPEN/NATURAL AREAS
TOTAL PARK ACRES
UNDEVELOPED PARK ACRES
TOTAL DEVELOPED PARK ACRES
MENDOTA HEIGHTS SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
SPECIAL USE PARKS 19.34
11.18 ACRES PER 1,000
2 ACRES PER 1,000
NEEDS EXIST
NEEDS EXIST
NEEDS EXIST
3 ACRES
4 ACRES
7 ACRES
20 ACRES
1.66 ACRES PER 1,000
NA1.08 ACRES PER 1,000
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
AREA OUTSIDE OF PARK 1/2 MILE SERVICE AREA (PARK SYSTEM GAP)
CURRENT PARK SYSTEM
COMMUNITY PARKS
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
OPEN/NATURAL AREAS
MINI PARKS
SPECIAL-USE PARK
Page 82 of 130
EQUITY PRIORITIZATION TOOL
PARK
MH DOG PARK 1 3.34 13.0%7.4%35.6%30.8%46.2%0.0%
30.7%
20.6%
17.6%
21.1%
23.5%
24.5%
7.3%
16.3%
7.4%
20.4%
20.8%
12.5%
12.3%
10.9%
8.7%
0
2
6
3
6
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
15.8%
3.4%
20.2%
7.5%
19.9%
13.8%
43.4%
21.2%
41.7%
18.3%
8.4%
15.5%
16.3%
10.9%
4.9%
18.9%
16.4%
18.5%
13.1%
20.3%
16.0%
19.2%
20.0%
18.7%
14.8%
13.2%
19.5%
19.3%
18.8%
17.7%
10.1%
11.3%
11.8%
9.1%
10.4%
9.6%
18.9%
10.5%
18.0%
9.9%
9.2%
10.4%
10.5%
10.5%
11.1%
10.8%
11.7%
10.6%
16.0%
12.5%
13.3%
7.7%
10.3%
7.7%
14.7%
15.6%
9.3%
9.2%
8.6%
7.3%
14.7%
14.4%
14.0%
11.8%
13.8%
13.0%
14.2%
14.2%
14.3%
11.8%
11.9%
14.5%
14.6%
14.9%
15.5%
3.19
3.16
2.86
2.78
2.76
2.75
2.60
2.55
2.51
2.50
2.45
2.08
2.07
1.89
1.65
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
WENTWORTH PARK
IVY HILLS PARK
MENDAKOTA PARK
MARIE AVE PARK
MARKET SQUARE PARK
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
FRIENDLY MARSH PARK
ROGER’S LAKE PARK
CIVIC CENTER
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
COPPERFIELD PONDS
FRIENDLY HILLS PARK
KENSINGTON PARK
HAGSTROM KING
VALLEY PARK
IVY HILLS PARK
WENTWORTH PARK
VALLEY PARK
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS PARK
MARIE PARK
CIVIC CENTER
MENDAKOTA PARK
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
ROGER’S LAKE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS DOG PARK
MARKET SQUARE
FRIENDLY MARSH
COPPERFIELD PONDS
FRIENDLY HILLS
HAGSTROM-KING
KENSINGTON
7
12
5
11
4
8
10
1
EQUITY RATING COMBINED SCORE
POP.UNDER 18 YEARS OLD
BIPOC LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENTY
POP.OVER 75 YEARS OLD
HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOME <$50,000 PER YEAR
HOUSEHOLDS WHO RENT POP.WITH A DISABILITY
CURRENT PARK PROPERTY
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
AREA OUTSIDE OF PARK SERVICE AREA
3
2
6
9
13
14
16
15
Page 83 of 130
TOP 5 RANKED PARKS
01| MENDOTA HEIGHTS DOG PARK
02| WENTWORTH PARK
03| IVY HILLS PARK
04| MENDAKOTA PARK
05| MARIE PARK
The Mendota Heights Dog Park is 4.3 acres and is a dedicated spot for dogs and their owners. The
park features separate fenced in areas for small and large dogs. The park also offers off-leash
options. While the dog park is a unique, valable part of the existing park system, it is a limited
amenity for the adjacent community.
Wentworth park is a 6.5 acre neighborhood park. The park is highly programmed with a range of
amenities amenities including a basketball court, pickleball courts, hockey rink, picnic shelters, play
equipment, tennis court, and a youth softball field. The park also has a warming house for winter
activities and natural areas to enjoy. The park could benefit from more flexible all use and gathering
space to better accomodate a range of diverse activities.
Ivy Hills park is a 7.6 acre neighborhood park. The park contains a baseball/softball diamond,
basketball court, play equipment, and a tennis court. The park also has trails that allow visitors to walk
alongside natural areas and a pond. This park could benefit from overall accessibility improvements,
updates to group gathering infrastrcture, and flexible recreation areas.
Mendakota park is a 20.9 acre community park centrally located within the park system. The park’s
main features include a large softball/baseball area with fields, concession stand, and restrooms.
The park also has other amenities including a basketball court, picnic shelters, a playground,
soccer field, volleyball court, and trails. This park is centrally located within the community and well
positioned to host community events.
Marie park is a 7.4 acre neighborhood park. The park has many amenities including a basketball
court, hockey rink, playground, tennis court, youth softball field, and pickleball courts. The park also
features trails, natural areas, and warming house.
The Equity Prioritization Tool is a data-driven planning tool that identifies areas for park planning
and investment prioritization by determining which parks’ serve the highest concentration of
community members underrepresented in park use and/or historically underserved by park
systems throughout the greater metropolitan area. Integrating this tool into the planning process
helps ensure that future projects reduce barriers for participation, are developed to engage
underrepresented communities, and promote fairness and inclusivity. This integration of data-
driven equity prioritization is required to ensure consistency with larger regional park planning
priorities.
Page 84 of 130
County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles
CIVIC CENTER
FRIENDLY HILLS
MENDAKOTA
VALLEY PARK
WENTWORTH
IVY HILLS
MARIE PARK
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
HAGSTROM-KING
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
ROGER’S LAKE
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
KENSINGTON
DOG PARK
MARKET SQUARE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS DIAMONDS
MENDOTA ELEMENTARY
TWO RIVERS HIGH SCHOOL
FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL
SOMERSET HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
FRIENDLY HILLS
MENDAKOTA
IVY HILLS
KENSINGTON
1
2
CIVIC CENTER
ROGER’S LAKE
HAGSTROM-KING
FRIENDLY MARSH
VALLEY PARK
WENTWORTH
VICTORIA HIGHLAND
MARIE PARK
MARKET SQUARE
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTSDOG PARK
FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL
BASEBALL/SOFTBALL DIAMONDS
SPORTS FIELDS
Premier Baseball/Softball Diamond (High quality field for baseball or softball)
Baseball/Softball Diamond (Field for baseball or softball but the outfield may be used for soccer or other sports)
Multi-Use Field (High quality field for soccer, football, or lacrosse, usually only accessible
by teams for games)
Premier Field (Open field that allows for various field sports including soccer, lacrosse, football, and frisbee)
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
DIAMONDS 19 EXCEEDS STANDARD -1 FIELD PER 616 1 FIELD PER 4,000
SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
FIELDS 4*MEETS STANDARD -1 FIELD PER 3187 1 FIELD PER 4,000
SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
*1/3 of the diamonds located at area schools were included in the current inventory.
1 diamond
12 diamonds
4 diamonds
4 diamonds
*1/3 of the fields located at area schools were included in the current inventory.
2 fields
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
3age of 13
County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles
MARKET SQUARE
KENSINGTON
CIVIC CENTER
DOG PARK
FRIENDLY HILLS
MENDAKOTA
VALLEY PARK
WENTWORTH
IVY HILLS
MARIE PARK
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
HAGSTROM-KING
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
ROGER’S LAKE
1
1
2 1
2 1
2 11
2 1 6
111
2 1 6
1
FRIENDLY MARSH
MENDOTA HEIGHTS SPORTS COURTS
6
MENDOTA ELEMENTARY
FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL
SOMERSET HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
MARKET SQUARE
KENSINGTON
CIVIC CENTER
DOG PARK
FRIENDLY HILLS
MENDAKOTA
VALLEY PARK
WENTWORTH
IVY HILLS
MARIE PARK
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
HAGSTROM-KING
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
ROGER’S LAKE
1
1
2 1
2 1
2 11
2 1 6
111
2 1 6
1
FRIENDLY MARSH
6
MENDOTA ELEMENTARY
FRIENDLY HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL
SOMERSET HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PLAYGROUNDS
SPORTS COURTS
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
PLAYGROUNDS 12*MEETS STANDARD -1 SITE PER 973 1 FIELD PER 2,014
SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
BASKETBALL COURTSTENNIS COURTSPICKLEBALL COURTS
SAND VOLLEYBALL 2
7 *
14 *
18
MEETS STANDARD
MEETS STANDARD
MEETS STANDARD
MEETS STANDARD
-
-
-
-
1 COURT PER 5,832
1 COURT PER 1,669
1 COURT PER 835
1 COURT PER 648
1 COURT PER 3,729
1 COURT PER 2,805
1 COURT PER 3,252
-
SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
Basketball Court
Tennis Court
Pickball Court
Volleyball Court
Playground
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
playground
playground
playground
*1/3 of theplaygorunds located at area schools were included in the current inventory.
basketball court
basketball court
12 tennis courts
basketball court
*1/3 of the courts located at area schools were included in the current inventory.
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
3age of 13
0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles
FRIENDLY HILLS
MENDAKOTA
VALLEY PARK
WENTWORTH
IVY HILLS
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
HAGSTROM-KING
KENSINGTON
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
ROGER’S LAKE
11
1
MARKET SQUARE
1
11
111
1
1
11
1 1
FRIENDLY MARSH 176.4 ACRES
111
11
MARIE PARK
CIVIC CENTER
DOG PARK
MENDOTA HEIGHTS NATURE & TRAILS
County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
FRIENDLY MARSH
DOG PARK
FRIENDLY HILLS
WENTWORTH
MARIE PARK
2
IVY HILLS
VALLEY PARKVICTORIA HIGHLANDS
MENDAKOTA
ROGER’S LAKE
KENSINGTON
1
2
1
2
2
5 1
116
1 1
2 1
2 1 1
MARKET SQUARE
5
ND BBQ
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
HAGSTROM-KING
CIVIC CENTER
NATURE AND TRAILS
PICNIC AREAS AND BBQ
TRAILS
LAKES/PONDS
NATURAL AREAS
Picnic Area
Shelter
BBQ Station
TRAILS (MILES)PAVED TRAILSUNPAVED TRAILS
35.23
6.84
MEETS STANDARD
MEETS STANDARD
-
-
3.02 MILES PER 1,000
0.59 MILES PER 1,000
3 MILES PER 1,000
0.5 MILES PER 1,000
SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
SHELTERS 10 MEETS STANDARD -1 site per 1,166 1 site per 2,000
SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
3DJe8RI0
0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles
ROGER’S LAKE
1 11
HAGSTROM-KING
FRIENDLY MARSH
MARKET SQUARE
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS MENDAKOTA
FRIENDLY HILLS
VALLEY PARK
WENTWORTH
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
MARIE PARK
IVY HILLS
CIVIC CENTER
DOG PARK
KENSINGTON
MENDOTA HEIGHTS WATER ACTIVITIES
County of Dakota, Metropolitan Council, MetroGIS, Esri, TomTom, Garmin,SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
FRIENDLY HILLS
WENTWORTH
MARIE PARK
11
1
1
IVY HILLS
VALLEY PARK
VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
MENDAKOTA
FRIENDLY MARSH
MARKET SQUARE
VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS
ROGER’S LAKE
HAGSTROM-KING
KENSINGTON
DOG PARK
CIVIC CENTER
WATER ACTIVITIES
WINTER ACTIVITIES
NONMOTORIZED BOAT LAUNCH
FISHING DOCK
Ice Rink
Sledding Hill
OUTDOOR FACILITIESSPLASH PADOUTDOOR POOL
-
-
NEEDS EXIST
NEEDS EXIST
-
-
-
-
1 SITE PER 30,000
1 SITE PER 35,000
SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
ICE RINK 3 MEETS STANDARD -1 site per 3,888 1 SITE PER 50,000
SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA
CURRENT INVENTORY CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE CURRENT NEEDS
ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED
NATIONAL LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA
3DJe88RI0
This page is intentionally left blank
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
1
CHAPTER ONE DEMOGRAPHIC AND TRENDS ANALYSIS
1.1.1 INTRODUCTION
The city of Mendota Heights is implementing a Park System Master Plan that will evaluate their parks and
recreation system including the staffing needs, inventory and condition of park facilities and amenities,
financial performance of the agency, program services offered, and demographic and trends of the
community to understand the community’s needs for parks and recreation services in the future. PROS
Consulting will utilize the parks’ data information and data from other agencies near Mendota Heights
that can be applied as a comparison to the demographics of the city along with recreational trends and
programs, services, activities and amenities residents of the community indicate they would like to see
provided in the future in Mendota Heights.
1.1.2 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
The Demographic Analysis describes the population within Mendota Heights’ service area. This
assessment is reflective of the city’s total population and its key characteristics such as: age segments,
race, ethnicity, and income levels. It is important to note that future projections are based on historical
patterns and unforeseen circumstances during or after the time of the analysis. This could have a
significant bearing on the validity of the projected figures. Data from the Census Bureau has been used in
this report and at the time this report was prepared, statistics from 2020 – estimate 2023 were used.
1.1.3 DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
2020 Total Population
11,744
2020 Total Households
4,787
2020 Median Household Income
$120,257
2020 Race
89% White Alone
2020 Median Age 48.6 yrs. old
Page 89 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
2
1.1.4 METHODOLOGY
Demographic data used for the analysis was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau and from the
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), two of the largest research and development
organizations dedicated to Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and specializing in population
projections and market trends. All data was acquired in August 2019, and reflects actual numbers as
reported in the 2010 Census as well as estimates for 2020 and 2023 obtained by ESRI. Straight line linear
regression was utilized for 2029 and 2034 projections. The City’s boundaries shown below were utilized
for the demographic analysis (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Mendota Heights City Boundaries
Mendota
Heights
Page 90 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
3
1.1.5 SERVICE AREA POPULACE
POPULATION
The City of Mendota Heights’ population experienced an increase in growth within recent years,
increasing 7.34% from 2010 to 2020. Aside from the 2020 population to the estimated population in 2023
there is an estimated decrease of -0.23%). From the estimated population in the year of 2023 to the
projected population of 2038, the city of Mendota Heights is expected to have slight growth of 0.036%.
This is below the national annual growth rate of 0.85% (from 2010-2019). Similar to the population, the
total number of households also experienced an increase in recent years (1.17% since 2010) with 0.75%
average per year.
Currently, the population is estimated at 11,663 (2023) individuals living within an estimated 4,892
households. Projecting ahead, the total population is both expected to decrease slightly by 2028 and
rebound in 2033. The 2038 predictions expect to have 12,280 residents living in 5,398 households
(Figures 2 & 3).
Figure 2: Total Population of Mendota Heights
Figure 3: Total Number of Households
Page 91 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
4
AGE SEGMENT
Evaluating the City by age segments (Figure 4), the estimate for 2020, the service area has a higher
population in the 55-74 age segment (11%). This age segment is projected to comprise 15% of the
population in the next 15 years. The City of Mendota Heights median age is 48.6, which indicates that the
City may already be ahead of the aging national trend).
18%19%19%19%20%20%
19%16%16%15%14%13%
28%21%21%22%19%17%
27%33%33%31%34%35%
9%11%11%14%14%15%
2010
Census
2020
Census
2023
Estimate
2028
Projection
2033
Projection
2038
Projection
POPULATION BY AGE SEGMENTS
0-17 18-34 35-54 55-74 75+
Figure 4: Mendota Heights Population by Age Segments
Page 92 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
5
RACE AND ETHNICITY DEFINITIONS
The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for Federal statistics, program administrative
reporting, and civil rights compliance reporting are defined as below. The 2010 Census data on race is not
directly comparable with data from the 2000 Census and earlier censuses; therefore, caution must be
used when interpreting changes in the racial composition of the US population over time. The latest
(Census 2010) definitions and nomenclature are used within this analysis.
• American Indian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and
South America (including Central America), who maintains tribal affiliation or community
attachment.
• Asian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Asia, Southeast Asia,
or the Indian subcontinent including for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia,
Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
• Black – This includes a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – This includes a person having origins in any of the
original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
• White – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle
East, or North Africa.
• Hispanic or Latino – This is an ethnic distinction, a subset of a race as defined by the Federal
Government. This includes a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American,
or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
Please Note: The Census Bureau defines Race as a person’s self-identification with one or more of the
following social groups: White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native,
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, some other race, or a combination of these. Ethnicity is defined
whether a person is of Hispanic/Latino origin or not. For this reason, the Hispanic / Latino ethnicity is
viewed separate from race throughout this demographic analysis.
Page 93 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
6
RACE
Analyzing race, the City’s current population is primarily White Alone (89%). The 2023 estimate shows
that 2% of the population falls into the Black Alone category, and Asian (2%) represents the next largest
population group. The City is less diverse than the national population, which is approximately (70%)
White Alone, (13%) Black Alone, and (7%) Some Other Race. The predictions for 2038 expect the City’s
population to be slightly more diverse and will become less (83%) for White Alone, (2%) Black Alone, and
(3%) Asian (Figure 5). From the estimates of 2023 to estimate of 2038 the White alone population
decreases by 5%, while the Black Alone population is projected to be the same at 2% with only a 1%
increase in the Asian population.
Figure 5: Population by Race
94%89%88%87%85%83%
2%
2%2%2%2%2%
2%2%2%3%3%3%
1%1%1%2%2%2%
2%6%6%7%8%10%
2010Census 2020Census 2023Estimate 2028Projection 2033Projection 2038Projection
RACE
Two or More Races
Some Other Race
Native Hawaiian & Other
Pacific Islander AloneAsian Alone
American Indian & Alaska
Native AloneBlack or African AmericanAloneWhite Alone
Mendota Heights
Minnesota
Page 94 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
7
ETHNICITY
Mendota Heights’ population was also assessed based on Hispanic/Latino ethnicity and by the Census
Bureau definition which is viewed independently from race. It is important to note that individuals who
are Hispanic/Latino can also identify with any of the racial categories from above. Based on the current
estimate for 2023, those of Hispanic/Latino origin represent just 4% of the City’s current population, which
is much lower than the national average (18% Hispanic/ Latino). The Hispanic/Latino population is
expected to grow slightly over the next 15 years, to represent 6% of the City’s total population by 2038
(Figure 6).
Figure 6: Population by Ethnicity
Page 95 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
8
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
The City’s median household income ($120,257) is higher than the state ($83,993) and national ($74,755)
levels. The City’s per capita income ($72,744) is also higher than both the state ($68,840) and the national
($41,804) levels. This may indicate a higher rate of disposable income among the population served and
should be considered when evaluating financially sustainable opportunities of how the City of Mendota
Heights will address future community needs. (Figure 7 and Figure 8)
$120,257 $135,577 $150,897 $166,217
$72,744 $81,426 $90,108 $98,790
2023Estimate 2028Projection 2033Projection 2038Projection
MENDOTA HEIGHTS' INCOME CHARACTERISTICS
Median Household Income Per Capita Income
Figure 7 Income Charasterics
Figure 7: Service Area’s Demographic Comparative Summary Table
$72,744 $68,840
$41,804
$120,257
$83,993 $74,755
Mendota Heights State Data U.S.A.
2023 COMPARATIVE INCOME of State and Nation
Per Capita Income Median Household Income
Page 96 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
9
1.1.6 DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY
Researching the demographics of Mendota Heights, it bears saying that the recreation needs and priorities
should not be solely focused on those statistics alone. This data is to link the population in Mendota
Heights with appropriate programs, activities and amenities in order to evaluate recreation needs in the
City and determine if any alterations should be made to better serve residents.
Some potential inferences for Mendota Heights that were derived from research and data used in this
report:
Mendota Heights had negative population growth, compared to the National growth rate. From
previous population information in this report, the population growth rate percentage made very
slow growth. This indicates a near steady probable use in the park system, and with Mendota
Heights’ situation near St. Paul and its suburbs, outreach into these areas may stimulate other
community residents to visit the Mendota Heights Park System.
The average per person household size in Mendota Heights is projected at 2.37 persons per
household compared to the average per person average household size in the USA of 2.53
persons. While this change is insignificant, it may show an age appropriate segment of household
members are leaving the home to attend college or relocate outside of Mendota Heights. A
consideration may be to evaluate programming for empty nest parents.
Mendota Heights Average Household Size: 2.37 people
USA Average Household Size: 2.53 people
Page 97 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
10
AGE SEGMENTS
As age distribution is examined, it can stand to reason that as a particular age segment increases or
decreases, the number of program users may follow that age segment fluctuation. This is only an
observation of the research done for age segmentation, and the generalization of the recreation industry.
The three largest age segments
in Mendota Heights total 75% of
the population. These three
groups are the 55-74 year old
residents (33%) and a tie for the
1-19 with 21% and 35-74 (21%)
year old residents with a total of
42%). These three groups
benefit from programs directed
toward children, youth and
middle-aged adults and also the
“Active Seniors” that are 55-75
years old. With a total of 75% in
these age groups, programs for
children, youth and young adults should be the main areas of focus for Mendota Heights. The 0-
10 ages
21%
14%
21%
33%
11%
Mendota Heights Population by
Age Segments
0-19 Years 18-34 Years 35-54 Years
55-74 Years 75+ Years
Mendota Heights
Age Group
Segments
Change
Program Users
May Follow Age
Segments
Page 98 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
11
of the 0-19 age group will encompass the children of the lower side of the 35-54 year old young
adults. Family programs should be considered as a significant combination of these two age
groups
AGE DISTRIBUTION
Mendota Heights is 10% higher than
the USA in the 55-74 year old age
segment indicating this age group often
considered “Active Seniors” may be a
very involved group in programs and
activities. They may want programs that
are geared toward cardio fitness and
healthy exercise. The older age
segment 75+ in Mendota Heights (11%)
slightly higher than the 75+ age
segment in the US A (7%). The young
adults (ages 35 -54 years old at 33%) is
Mendota Heights is slightly lower than
that group in the USA (25%) of the
population, therefore, with this age
group in Mendota Heights and the USA being close, national recreation trends may be a guide for
selection of programs for this age group. The other age segments in Mendota Heights compared to the
USA statistics in age segment, 0-19, 20-34, local recreation trends should be a more suitable means of
planning programs and activities. The 55-74 age segment is much higher than the USA average, users
moving into that age group from the 35-54 will be interested in programs that fit their middle age lifestyle
with a family of youth age children.
RACE DISTRIBUTION
The percentages in the Mendota
Heights chart and the USA chart show
that the White Alone population is the
largest sector. Minorities of all races
other than White Alone in Mendota
Heights total nearly 12%, and in the
USA, all minorities other than White
Alone total 39%.
24%
20%
25%
23%
7%
USA Age Distribution
0-19 Years 20 - 34 Years 35-54 Years
55-74 Years 75+ Years
88.10%
1.80%
0.30%2.30%0%1.50%6.00%
Race Distribution: Mendota Heights
White Alone Black Alone American Indian
Asian Pacific Islander Some Other Race
Two or More Races
Page 99 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
12
Mendota Heights race distribution indicates a less diverse population than the US and may provide
opportunities for the park system to offer programs that offer more diversity and increase overall
attendance at programs and activities.
HISPANIC / LATINO DISTRIBUTION
Using the chart below, the Hispanic and Latino Population is compared to all other races combined.
Mendota Heights is considerably lower in this comparison than the population of the US for Hispanic and
Latino race in the community. Regarding all other races in Mendota Heights and the US, the comparison
is opposite with Mendota Heights nearly 20% higher than all other races in the US. More diverse
programming in for the Hispanic and Latino residents may incite them to participate in greater numbers.
60.60%12.60%1.10%
6.20%
0.20%
8.70%
10.60%
Race Distribution: USA
White Alone Black Alone American Indiana Asian
Pacific Islander Some Other Race Two or More Races
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
Hispanic / Latino (any race)All Other
Hispanic / Latino Population Comparison
Mendota Heights USA
Page 100 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
13
INCOME
Mendota Heights is found to be higher in both per capita income and median income than the nation.
This difference is significant by $30,940 and $45,502 respectively. Higher income in these areas indicate
more disposable income for residents in Mendota Heights, allowing them to spend more money in
various areas and this could include recreational activities.
1.1.7 DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY
To support the preceding summary information and potential opportunities reflected in the
demographics, the City should examine the regional and national recreational and sports trends
defined in the next section while also considering their own communities’ market potential index.
$72,744
$120,257
$41,804
$74,755
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
Mendota Heights USA
Comparison of Income
Per Capita Income Median Household Income
Page 101 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
14
CHAPTER TWO NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMMING TRENDS
2.1.1 PROGRAMS OFFERED BY PARK AND RECREATION AGENCIES (GREAT LAKES REGION)
NRPA’s Agency Performance Review 2019
summarize key findings from NRPA Park
Metrics. This benchmark tool compares the
management and planning of operating
resources and capital facilities within park and
recreation agencies. The report contains data
from 1,075 park and recreation agencies
across the U.S. as reported between 2016 and
2018.
Based on this year’s report, the typical agency
(i.e., those at the median values) offers 175
programs annually, with roughly 63% of those
programs being fee-based activities/events.
According to the information reported to the NRPA, the top five programming activities most frequently
offered by park and recreation agencies in the U.S. and regionally, are described in the table below.
2.1.2 LOCAL SPORT AND LEISURE MARKET POTENTIAL
MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX (MPI)
The following charts show the potential sports and leisure market data for City of Mendota Heights’
service area, as provided by ESRI. A Market Potential Index (MPI) measures the probable demand for a
product or service within the City. The MPI shows the likelihood that an adult resident of the target area
will participate in certain activities when compared to the U.S. national average. The national average is
100; therefore, numbers below 100 would represent lower than average participation rates, and numbers
above 100 would represent higher than average participation rates. The service area is compared to the
national average in four categories: general sports, fitness, outdoor activity, and commercial recreation.
As seen in the charts below, the following (sport or sports) and leisure trends are most prevalent for
residents within the service area. The activities are listed in descending order, from highest to lowest MPI
score. High index numbers (100+) are significant because they demonstrate a greater potential that
residents within the service area will actively participate in offerings provided by the City of Mendota
Heights Parks and Recreation Department.
Great Lakes Region
Page 102 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
15
96 101 113 117 119 121 124 126
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Zumba Jogging/Running WeightLifting Swimming Pilates Walking forExercise Yoga Aerobics
FITNESS MPI
Mendota Heights National Average (100)
Page 103 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
16
Page 104 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
17
2.1.3 NATIONAL CORE VS. CASUAL PARTICIPATORY TRENDS
GENERAL SPORTS
#%#%#%
Basketball 24,225 100%28,149 100%29,725 100%22.7%5.6%
Casual (1-12 times)9,335 39%13,000 46%14,405 48%54.3%10.8%
Core(13+ times)14,890 61%15,149 54%15,320 52%2.9%1.1%
Golf (9 or 18-Hole Course)24,240 100%25,566 100%26,565 100%9.6%3.9%
Tennis 17,841 100%23,595 100%23,835 100%33.6%1.0%
Golf (Entertainment Venue)9,279 100%15,540 100%18,464 100%99.0%18.8%
Baseball 15,877 100%15,478 100%16,655 100%4.9%7.6%
Casual (1-12 times)6,563 41%7,908 51%8,934 54%36.1%13.0%
Core (13+ times)9,314 59%7,570 49%7,722 46%-17.1%2.0%
Soccer (Outdoor)11,405 100%13,018 100%14,074 100%23.4%8.1%
Casual (1-25 times)6,430 56%7,666 59%8,706 59%35.4%13.6%
Core (26+ times)4,975 44%5,352 41%5,368 41%7.9%0.3%
Pickleball 3,301 100%8,949 100%13,582 100%311.5%51.8%
Casual (1-12 times)2,011 61%6,647 74%8,736 74%334.4%31.4%
Core(13+ times)1,290 39%2,302 26%4,846 26%275.7%110.5%
Football (Flag)6,572 100%7,104 100%7,266 100%10.6%2.3%
Casual (1-12 times)3,573 54%4,573 64%4,624 64%29.4%1.1%
Core(13+ times)2,999 46%2,531 36%2,642 36%-11.9%4.4%
Core Age 6 to 17 (13+ times)1,578 24%1,552 22%1,661 22%5.3%7.0%
Volleyball (Court)6,317 100%6,092 100%6,905 100%9.3%13.3%
Casual (1-12 times)2,867 45%2,798 46%3,481 50%21.4%24.4%
Core(13+ times)3,450 55%3,293 54%3,425 50%-0.7%4.0%
Badminton 6,337 100%6,490 100%6,513 100%2.8%0.4%
Casual (1-12 times)4,555 72%4,636 71%4,743 73%4.1%2.3%
Core(13+ times)1,782 28%1,855 29%1,771 27%-0.6%-4.5%
Softball (Slow Pitch)7,386 100%6,036 100%6,356 100%-13.9%5.3%
Casual (1-12 times)3,281 44%2,666 44%2,939 46%-10.4%10.2%
Core(13+ times)4,105 56%3,370 56%3,417 54%-16.8%1.4%
Soccer (Indoor)5,233 100%5,495 100%5,909 100%12.9%7.5%
Casual (1-12 times)2,452 47%3,144 57%3,411 57%39.1%8.5%
Core(13+ times)2,782 53%2,351 43%2,498 43%-10.2%6.3%
Football (Tackle)5,157 100%5,436 100%5,618 100%8.9%3.3%
Casual (1-25 times)2,258 44%3,120 57%3,278 58%45.2%5.1%
Core(26+ times)2,898 56%2,316 43%2,340 42%-19.3%1.0%
Core Age 6 to 17 (26+ times)2,353 46%2,088 38%2,130 38%-9.5%2.0%
Football (Touch)5,517 100%4,843 100%4,949 100%-10.3%2.2%
Casual (1-12 times)3,313 60%3,201 66%3,301 67%-0.4%3.1%
Core(13+ times)2,204 40%1,642 34%1,648 33%-25.2%0.4%
Gymnastics 4,770 100%4,569 100%4,758 100%-0.3%4.1%
Casual (1-49 times)3,047 64%3,095 68%3,315 70%8.8%7.1%
Core(50+ times)1,723 36%1,473 32%1,443 30%-16.3%-2.0%
Volleyball (Sand/Beach)4,770 100%4,128 100%3,917 100%-17.9%-5.1%
Casual (1-12 times)3,261 68%2,977 72%2,769 71%-15.1%-7.0%
Core(13+ times)1,509 32%1,152 28%1,148 29%-23.9%-0.3%
Track and Field 4,143 100%3,690 100%3,905 100%-5.7%5.8%
Casual (1-25 times)2,071 50%1,896 51%2,093 54%1.1%10.4%
Core(26+ times)2,072 50%1,794 49%1,811 46%-12.6%0.9%
Moderate Increase(0% to 25%)
Moderate Amount of Participants
(56-74%)
Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%)
National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends - General Sports
% Change
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend202220182023
Participation Levels
Activity
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:Large Increase (greater than 25%)
Evenly Divided between Core and
Casual Participants (45-55%)Core vs Casual Distribution:Majority Amount of Participants
(75% or greater)
Large Decrease (less than -25%)
Page 105 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
18
GENERAL SPORTS (CONTINUED)
#%#%#%
Cheerleading 3,841 100%3,507 100%3,797 100%-1.1%8.3%
Casual (1-25 times)2,039 53%2,092 60%2,360 62%15.7%12.8%
Core(26+ times)1,802 47%1,415 40%1,438 38%-20.2%1.6%
Racquetball 3,480 100%3,521 100%3,550 100%2.0%0.8%
Casual (1-12 times)2,407 69%2,583 73%2,694 76%11.9%4.3%
Core(13+ times)1,073 31%938 27%855 24%-20.3%-8.8%
Ice Hockey 2,447 100%2,278 100%2,496 100%2.0%9.6%
Casual (1-12 times)1,105 45%1,209 53%1,458 58%31.9%20.6%
Core(13+ times)1,342 55%1,068 47%1,038 42%-22.7%-2.8%
Softball (Fast Pitch)2,303 100%2,146 100%2,323 100%0.9%8.2%
Casual (1-25 times)1,084 47%1,002 47%1,123 48%3.6%12.1%
Core(26+ times)1,219 53%1,144 53%1,201 52%-1.5%5.0%
Wrestling 1,908 100%2,036 100%2,121 100%11.2%4.2%
Casual (1-25 times)1,160 61%1,452 71%1,589 75%37.0%9.4%
Core(26+ times)748 39%585 29%532 25%-28.9%-9.1%
Ultimate Frisbee 2,710 100%2,142 100%2,086 100%-23.0%-2.6%
Casual (1-12 times)1,852 68%1,438 67%1,523 67%-17.8%5.9%
Core(13+ times)858 32%703 33%563 33%-34.4%-19.9%
Lacrosse 2,098 100%1,875 100%1,979 100%-5.7%5.5%
Casual (1-12 times)1,036 49%999 53%1,129 53%9.0%13.0%
Core(13+ times)1,061 51%876 47%850 47%-19.9%-3.0%
Squash 1,285 100%1,228 100%1,315 100%2.3%7.1%
Casual (1-7 times)796 62%816 66%927 70%16.5%13.6%
Core(8+ times)489 38%413 34%387 29%-20.9%-6.3%
Roller Hockey 1,734 100%1,368 100%1,237 100%-28.7%-9.6%
Casual (1-12 times)1,296 75%1,065 78%938 76%-27.6%-11.9%
Core(13+ times)437 25%303 22%298 24%-31.8%-1.7%
Rugby 1,560 100%1,166 100%1,112 100%-28.7%-4.6%
Casual (1-7 times)998 64%758 65%729 66%-27.0%-3.8%
Core(8+ times)562 36%408 35%384 35%-31.7%-5.9%
Moderate Increase(0% to 25%)
Moderate Amount of Participants (56-74%)
Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%)
National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends - General Sports
% Change
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend202220182023
Participation Levels
Activity
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:Large Increase (greater than 25%)
Evenly Divided between Core and Casual Participants (45-55%)Core vs Casual Distribution:Majority Amount of Participants(75% or greater)
Large Decrease (less than -25%)
Page 106 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
19
GENERAL FITNESS
#%#%#%
Walking for Fitness 111,001 100%114,759 100%114,039 100%2.7%-0.6%
Casual (1-49 times)36,139 33%38,115 33%38,169 33%5.6%0.1%
Core(50+ times)74,862 67%76,644 67%75,871 67%1.3%-1.0%
Treadmill 53,737 100%53,589 100%54,829 100%2.0%2.3%
Casual (1-49 times)25,826 48%26,401 49%27,991 51%8.4%6.0%
Core(50+ times)27,911 52%27,189 51%26,837 49%-3.8%-1.3%
Free Weights (Dumbbells/Hand Weights)51,291 100%53,140 100%53,858 100%5.0%1.4%
Casual (1-49 times)18,702 36%22,428 42%23,238 43%24.3%3.6%
Core(50+ times)32,589 64%30,712 58%30,619 57%-6.0%-0.3%
Running/Jogging 49,459 100%47,816 100%48,305 100%-2.3%1.0%
Casual (1-49 times)24,399 49%23,776 50%24,175 50%-0.9%1.7%
Core(50+ times)25,061 51%24,040 50%24,129 50%-3.7%0.4%
Yoga 28,745 100%33,636 100%34,249 100%19.1%1.8%
Casual (1-49 times)17,553 61%20,409 61%20,654 60%17.7%1.2%
Core(50+ times)11,193 39%13,228 39%13,595 40%21.5%2.8%
Stationary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright)36,668 100%32,102 100%32,628 100%-11.0%1.6%
Casual (1-49 times)19,282 53%15,424 48%15,901 49%-17.5%3.1%
Core(50+ times)17,387 47%16,678 52%16,728 51%-3.8%0.3%
Weight/Resistant Machines 36,372 100%30,010 100%29,426 100%-19.1%-1.9%
Casual (1-49 times)14,893 41%12,387 41%11,361 39%-23.7%-8.3%
Core(50+ times)21,479 59%17,623 59%18,065 61%-15.9%2.5%
Free Weights (Barbells) 27,834 100%28,678 100%29,333 100%5.4%2.3%
Casual (1-49 times)11,355 41%13,576 47%14,174 48%24.8%4.4%
Core(50+ times)16,479 59%15,103 53%15,159 52%-8.0%0.4%
Elliptical Motion/Cross-Trainer 33,238 100%27,051 100%27,062 100%-18.6%0.0%
Casual (1-49 times)16,889 51%14,968 55%13,898 51%-17.7%-7.1%
Core(50+ times)16,349 49%12,083 45%13,164 49%-19.5%8.9%
Dance, Step, & Choreographed Exercise 22,391 100%25,163 100%26,241 100%17.2%4.3%
Casual (1-49 times)14,503 65%17,096 68%18,179 69%25.3%6.3%
Core(50+ times)7,888 35%8,067 32%8,063 31%2.2%0.0%
Bodyweight Exercise 24,183 100%22,034 100%22,578 100%-6.6%2.5%
Casual (1-49 times)9,674 40%9,514 43%10,486 46%8.4%10.2%
Core(50+ times)14,509 60%12,520 57%12,092 54%-16.7%-3.4%
High Impact/Intensity Training 21,611 100%21,821 100%21,801 100%0.9%-0.1%
Casual (1-49 times)11,828 55%12,593 58%12,559 58%6.2%-0.3%
Core(50+ times)9,783 45%9,228 42%9,242 42%-5.5%0.2%
Trail Running 10,010 100%13,253 100%14,885 100%48.7%12.3%
Casual (1-25 times)8,000 80%10,792 81%12,260 82%53.3%13.6%
Core(26+ times)2,009 20%2,461 19%2,625 18%30.7%6.7%
Rowing Machine 12,096 100%11,893 100%12,775 100%5.6%7.4%
Casual (1-49 times)7,744 64%7,875 66%8,473 66%9.4%7.6%
Core(50+ times)4,352 36%4,017 34%4,302 34%-1.1%7.1%
Stair Climbing Machine 15,025 100%11,677 100%12,605 100%-16.1%7.9%
Casual (1-49 times)9,643 64%7,569 65%8,075 64%-16.3%6.7%
Core(50+ times)5,382 36%4,108 35%4,530 36%-15.8%10.3%
Pilates Training 9,084 100%10,311 100%11,862 100%30.6%15.0%
Casual (1-49 times)5,845 64%7,377 72%8,805 74%50.6%19.4%
Core(50+ times)3,238 36%2,935 28%3,057 26%-5.6%4.2%
National Participatory Trends - General Fitness
% Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Large Decrease (less than -25%)
2018
Large Increase (greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
2022
Moderate Increase(0% to 25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants (75% or greater)
Activity
Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and Casual Participants (45-55%)Moderate Amount of Participants (56-74%)
Page 107 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
20
GENERAL FITNESS (CONTINUED)
#%#%#%
Cross-Training Style Workout 13,338 100%9,248 100%9,404 100%-29.5%1.7%
Casual (1-49 times)6,594 49%4,281 46%4,391 47%-33.4%2.6%
Core(50+ times)6,744 51%4,968 54%5,013 53%-25.7%0.9%
Boxing/MMA for Fitness 7,650 100%9,787 100%8,378 100%9.5%-14.4%
Casual (1-12 times)4,176 55%6,191 63%5,003 60%19.8%-19.2%
Core(13+ times)3,473 45%3,596 37%3,375 40%-2.8%-6.1%
Martial Arts 5,821 100%6,355 100%6,610 100%13.6%4.0%
Casual (1-12 times)1,991 34%3,114 49%3,481 53%74.8%11.8%
Core(13+ times)3,830 66%3,241 51%3,130 47%-18.3%-3.4%
Stationary Cycling (Group)9,434 100%6,268 100%6,227 100%-34.0%-0.7%
Casual (1-49 times)6,097 65%3,925 63%3,783 61%-38.0%-3.6%
Core(50+ times)3,337 35%2,344 37%2,444 39%-26.8%4.3%
Cardio Kickboxing 6,838 100%5,531 100%5,524 100%-19.2%-0.1%
Casual (1-49 times)4,712 69%3,958 72%3,929 71%-16.6%-0.7%
Core(50+ times)2,126 31%1,573 28%1,596 29%-24.9%1.5%
Boot Camp Style Cross-Training 6,695 100%5,192 100%5,434 100%-18.8%4.7%
Casual (1-49 times)4,780 71%3,691 71%4,003 74%-16.3%8.5%
Core(50+ times)1,915 29%1,500 29%1,432 26%-25.2%-4.5%
Barre 3,532 100%3,803 100%4,294 100%21.6%12.9%
Casual (1-49 times)2,750 78%3,022 79%3,473 81%26.3%14.9%
Core(50+ times)782 22%781 21%821 19%5.0%5.1%
Tai Chi 3,761 100%3,394 100%3,948 100%5.0%16.3%
Casual (1-49 times)2,360 63%2,139 63%2,748 70%16.4%28.5%
Core(50+ times)1,400 37%1,255 37%1,200 30%-14.3%-4.4%
Triathlon (Traditional/Road)2,168 100%1,780 100%1,738 100%-19.8%-2.4%
Triathlon (Non-Traditional/Off Road)1,589 100%1,350 100%1,363 100%-14.2%1.0%
National Participatory Trends - General Fitness
% Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
2018
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
2022
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants
(75% or greater)
Activity
Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and
Casual Participants (45-55%)
Moderate Amount of Participants
(56-74%)
Page 108 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
21
OUTDOOR/ADVENTURE RECREATION
#%#%#%
Hiking (Day) 47,860 100%59,578 100%61,444 100%28.4%3.1%
Casual (1-7 times)37,238 78%44,154 74%45,336 74%21.7%2.7%
Core(8+ times)10,622 22%15,424 26%16,108 26%51.6%4.4%Fishing (Freshwater)38,998 100%41,821 100%42,605 100%9.2%1.9%
Casual (1-7 times)21,099 54%23,430 56%23,964 56%13.6%2.3%
Core(8+ times)17,899 46%18,391 44%18,641 44%4.1%1.4%
Bicycling (Road)39,041 100%43,554 100%42,243 100%8.2%-3.0%
Casual (1-25 times)20,777 53%23,278 53%22,520 53%8.4%-3.3%
Core(26+ times)18,264 47%20,276 47%19,723 47%8.0%-2.7%
Camping 27,416 100%37,431 100%38,572 100%40.7%3.0%
Casual (1-7 times)20,611 75%28,459 76%29,060 75%41.0%2.1%
Core(8+ times)6,805 25%8,972 24%9,513 25%39.8%6.0%
Wildlife Viewing (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)20,556 100%20,615 100%21,118 100%2.7%2.4%
Camping (Recreational Vehicle)15,980 100%16,840 100%16,497 100%3.2%-2.0%
Casual (1-7 times)9,103 57%10,286 61%9,801 59%7.7%-4.7%
Core(8+ times)6,877 43%6,553 39%6,695 41%-2.6%2.2%
Birdwatching (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)12,344 100%15,818 100%16,423 100%33.0%3.8%
Fishing (Saltwater)12,830 100%14,344 100%15,039 100%17.2%4.8%
Casual (1-7 times)7,636 60%9,151 64%9,904 66%29.7%8.2%
Core(8+ times)5,194 40%5,192 36%5,135 34%-1.1%-1.1%
Backpacking Overnight 10,540 100%10,217 100%9,994 100%-5.2%-2.2%
Bicycling (Mountain)8,690 100%8,916 100%9,289 100%6.9%4.2%
Casual (1-12 times)4,294 49%4,896 55%5,434 58%26.5%11.0%
Core(13+ times)4,396 51%4,020 45%3,854 41%-12.3%-4.1%
Skateboarding 6,500 100%9,019 100%8,923 100%37.3%-1.1%
Casual (1-25 times)3,989 61%6,469 72%6,504 73%63.0%0.5%
Core(26+ times)2,511 39%2,559 28%2,418 27%-3.7%-5.5%Fishing (Fly)6,939 100%7,631 100%8,077 100%16.4%5.8%
Casual (1-7 times)4,460 64%4,993 65%5,417 67%21.5%8.5%
Core(8+ times)2,479 36%2,638 35%2,659 33%7.3%0.8%
Archery 7,654 100%7,428 100%7,662 100%0.1%3.2%
Casual (1-25 times)6,514 85%6,202 83%6,483 85%-0.5%4.5%
Core(26+ times)1,140 15%1,227 17%1,179 15%3.4%-3.9%
Climbing (Indoor)5,112 100%5,778 100%6,356 100%24.3%10.0%
Roller Skating, In-Line 5,040 100%5,173 100%5,201 100%3.2%0.5%
Casual (1-12 times)3,680 73%3,763 73%3,840 74%4.3%2.0%
Core(13+ times)1,359 27%1,410 27%1,361 26%0.1%-3.5%
Bicycling (BMX) 3,439 100%4,181 100%4,462 100%29.7%6.7%
Casual (1-12 times)2,052 60%2,792 67%3,130 70%52.5%12.1%
Core(13+ times)1,387 40%1,389 33%1,332 30%-4.0%-4.1%
Climbing (Traditional/Ice/Mountaineering)2,541 100%2,452 100%2,568 100%1.1%4.7%
Climbing (Sport/Boulder)2,184 100%2,452 100%2,544 100%16.5%3.8%
Adventure Racing 2,215 100%1,714 100%1,808 100%-18.4%5.5%
Casual (1 time)581 26%236 14%405 22%-30.3%71.6%
Core(2+ times)1,634 74%1,478 86%1,403 78%-14.1%-5.1%
Large Decrease (less than -25%)Large Increase (greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
Moderate Increase(0% to 25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants
(75% or greater)
Moderate Amount of Participants
(56-74%)
Participation Growth/Decline:
Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and Casual
Participants (45-55%)
National Participatory Trends - Outdoor / Adventure Recreation
Activity % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
2018 2022 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Page 109 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
22
AQUATICS
#%#%#%
Swimming (Fitness)27,575 100%26,272 100%28,173 100%2.2%7.2%
Casual (1-49 times)18,728 68%18,827 72%20,620 73%10.1%9.5%
Core(50+ times)8,847 32%7,445 28%7,553 27%-14.6%1.5%
Aquatic Exercise 10,518 100%10,676 100%11,307 100%7.5%5.9%
Casual (1-49 times)7,391 70%8,626 81%9,298 82%25.8%7.8%
Core(50+ times)3,127 30%2,050 19%2,009 18%-35.8%-2.0%
Swimming on a Team 3,045 100%2,904 100%3,327 100%9.3%14.6%
Casual (1-49 times)1,678 55%1,916 66%2,280 69%35.9%19.0%
Core(50+ times)1,367 45%988 34%1,047 31%-23.4%6.0%
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
2022
Moderate Amount of Participants (56-74%)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants (75% or
greater)Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and Casual
Participants (45-55%)
National Participatory Trends - Aquatics
Activity % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:
2018 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
Page 110 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
23
WATER SPORTS/ACTIVITIES
#%#%#%
Kayaking (Recreational)11,017 100%13,561 100%14,726 100%33.7%8.6%
Canoeing 9,129 100%9,521 100%9,999 100%9.5%5.0%
Snorkeling 7,815 100%7,376 100%7,489 100%-4.2%1.5%
Casual (1-7 times)6,321 81%6,005 81%6,086 81%-3.7%1.3%
Core(8+ times)1,493 19%1,371 19%1,403 19%-6.0%2.3%
Jet Skiing 5,324 100%5,445 100%5,759 100%8.2%5.8%
Casual (1-7 times)3,900 73%4,151 76%4,490 78%15.1%8.2%
Core(8+ times)1,425 27%1,294 24%1,269 22%-10.9%-1.9%
Stand-Up Paddling 3,453 100%3,777 100%4,129 100%19.6%9.3%
Sailing 3,754 100%3,632 100%4,100 100%9.2%12.9%
Casual (1-7 times)2,596 69%2,633 72%3,117 76%20.1%18.4%
Core(8+ times)1,159 31%999 28%984 24%-15.1%-1.5%
Rafting 3,404 100%3,595 100%4,050 100%19.0%12.7%
Surfing 2,874 100%3,692 100%3,993 100%38.9%8.2%
Casual (1-7 times)1,971 69%2,444 66%2,655 66%34.7%8.6%
Core(8+ times)904 31%1,248 34%1,338 34%48.0%7.2%
Water Skiing 3,363 100%3,040 100%3,133 100%-6.8%3.1%
Casual (1-7 times)2,499 74%2,185 72%2,302 73%-7.9%5.4%
Core(8+ times)863 26%855 28%832 27%-3.6%-2.7%
Scuba Diving 2,849 100%2,658 100%3,063 100%7.5%15.2%
Casual (1-7 times)2,133 75%2,012 76%2,374 78%11.3%18.0%
Core(8+ times)716 25%646 24%689 22%-3.8%6.7%
Kayaking (White Water)2,562 100%2,726 100%2,995 100%16.9%9.9%
Wakeboarding 2,796 100%2,754 100%2,844 100%1.7%3.3%
Casual (1-7 times)1,900 68%2,075 75%2,119 75%11.5%2.1%
Core(8+ times)896 32%679 25%725 25%-19.1%6.8%
Kayaking (Sea/Touring)2,805 100%2,642 100%2,800 100%-0.2%6.0%
Boardsailing/Windsurfing 1,556 100%1,391 100%1,434 100%-7.8%3.1%
Casual (1-7 times)1,245 80%1,103 79%1,162 81%-6.7%5.3%
Core(8+ times)310 20%288 21%272 19%-12.3%-5.6%
Participation Levels
2022
Moderate Amount of Participants (56-74%)
Moderate Increase(0% to 25%)Large Decrease (less than -25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants (75% or greater)
Large Increase (greater than 25%)
Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and Casual Participants (45-55%)
National Participatory Trends - Water Sports / Activities
% Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:
Activity 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend2018
Page 111 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
24
CHAPTER THREE RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS
3.1 RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS
The Trends Analysis provides an understanding of national, regional, and local recreational trends as well
recreational interest by age segments. Trends data used for this analysis was obtained from Sports &
Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA), National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), and Environmental
Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI). All trend data is based on current and/or historical participation
rates, statistically valid survey results, or NRPA Park Metrics.
3.1.1 NATIONAL TRENDS IN RECREATION
METHODOLOGY
The Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) Sports, Fitness & Leisure Activities Topline
Participation Report 2024 was utilized in evaluating the following trends:
• National Recreation Participatory Trends
• Core vs. Casual Participation Trends
The study is based on findings from surveys conducted in 2023 by the Sports Marketing Surveys USA (SMS),
resulting in a total of 18,000 online interviews. Surveys were administered to all genders, ages, income
levels, regions, and ethnicities to allow for statistical accuracy of the national population. A sample size
of 18,000 completed interviews is considered by SFIA to result in a high degree of statistical accuracy. A
sport with a participation rate of five percent has a confidence interval of plus or minus 0.32 percentage
points at a 95 percent confidence level. Using a weighting technique, survey results are applied to the
total U.S. population figure of 306,931,382 people (ages six and older).
The purpose of the report is to establish levels of activity and identify key participatory trends in
recreation across the U.S. This study looked at 124 different sports/activities and subdivided them into
various categories including: sports, fitness, outdoor activities, aquatics, etc.
Page 112 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
25
3.1.2 OVERALL PARTICIPATION
Approximately 242 million people ages six and over reported being active in 2023, which is a 2.2% increase
from 2022 and the greatest number of active Americans in the last 6 years. This is an indicator that
Americans are continuing to make physical activity more of a priority in their lives. Outdoor activities
continue to thrive. Recreation facilities are reopening. Fitness at home remains popular. Team sports
are slowly returning to pre-pandemic participation levels. The chart below depicts participation levels
for active and inactive (those who engage in no physical activity) Americans over the past 6 years.
CORE VS. CASUAL PARTICIPATION
In addition to overall participation rates, SFIA further categorizes active participants as either core or
casual participants based on frequency of participation. Core participants have higher participatory
frequency than casual participants. The thresholds that define casual versus core participation may vary
based on the nature of each individual activity. For instance, core participants engage in most fitness
activities more than fifty times per year, while for sports, the threshold for core participation is typically
13 times per year.
In each activity, core participants are more committed and tend to be less likely to switch to other
activities or become inactive (engage in no physical activity) than causal participants. This may also
explain why activities with more core participants tend to experience less pattern shifts in participation
rates than those with larger groups of casual participants. Increasing for the sixth straight year, 165
million people were considered CORE participants in 2023.
Figure 8 - Active vs. Nonactive Trend
Figure 9 - Total Core Actives
216.9 218.5 221.7 229.7 232.6 236.9 242.0
81.4 82.1 81.2 74.3 72.2 68.6 64.9
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
N
T
S
(M
I
L
L
I
O
N
S
)
ACTIVITY AND INACTIVITY TREND
Total Actives Total Inactives
143.6 147.5 149.7 154.3 156.7 158.1 165.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023NU
M
B
E
R
O
F
P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
N
T
S
(M
I
L
L
I
O
N
S
)
TOTAL CORE ACTIVES
Page 113 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
26
PARTICIPATION BY GENERATION
The following chart shows 2023 participation rates by generation. Fitness sports continue to be the go-
to means of exercise for Boomers, Gen X, and Millennials. Over half of the Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z
generation participated in one type of outdoor activity. Team sports were heavily dominated by
generation Gen Z and nearly a third of Gen X also participated in individual sports such as golf, trail
running, triathlons, and bowling.
HIGHLIGHTS
Pickleball continues to be the fastest growing sport in America by reaching 13.6 million participants in
2023 which is a 223.5% growth since 2020. The growth of pickleball participants (13.6 million) has nearly
reached the size of outdoor soccer participants (14.1 million). Following the popularity of pickleball,
every racquet sport except table tennis has also increased in total participation in 2023.
Group, full-body workout activities such as tai chi, barre and Pilates saw the biggest increase in
participation this past year. Americans continued to practice yoga, workout with kettlebells, started
indoor climbing, and while others took to the hiking trail. The waterways traffic had increases in
participation in all activities in the past year.
Over two-thirds (67.8%) of American’s participated in fitness sports followed by over half (57.3%) of
Americans participated in outdoor sports. Total participation for fitness, team, outdoor, racquet, water
and winter sports are higher than their pre-pandemic participation rates. Individual sports are the only
category still not at their pre-pandemic participation levels (45% in 2019 currently at 42.1% in 2023).
Figure 10 - Participation by Generation
68
.
6
%
23
.
8
%
45
.
3
%
8.
6
%
5.
5
%
9.
4
%
4.
0
%
66
.
9
%
32
.
7
%
54
.
2
%
14
.
1
%
17
.
8
%
14
.
5
%
9.
8
%
68
.
2
%
43
.
8
%
61
.
3
%
21
.
1
%
33
.
4
%
19
.
7
%
17
.
5
%
56
.
5
%
46
.
1
%
61
.
6
%
24
.
5
%
55
.
9
%
18
.
4
%
20
.
6
%
FITNESS
SPORTS
INDIVIDUAL
SPORTS
OUTDOOR
SPORTS
RACQUET
SPORTS
TEAM
SPORTS
WATER
SPORTS
WINTER
SPORTS
2023 PARTICIPATION BY GENERATION
Boomers(1945-1964)Gen X(1965-1979)Millennials(1980-1999)Gen Z(2000+)
Page 114 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
27
3.1.3 NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS
PARTICIPATION LEVELS
The top sports most heavily participated in the United States were basketball (29.7 million), golf (26.6
million), and tennis (23.8 million) which have participation figures well more than the other activities
within the general sports category. Playing golf at an entertainment venue (18.5 million) and baseball
(16.7 million) round out the top five.
The popularity of basketball, golf, and tennis can be attributed to the ability to compete with small
number of participants, this coupled with an ability to be played outdoors and/or properly distanced
helps explain their popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Basketball’s overall success can also be
attributed to the limited amount of equipment needed to participate and the limited space requirements
necessary, which make basketball the only traditional sport that can be played at most American
dwellings as a drive-way pickup game. Golf continues to benefit from its wide age segment appeal and
is considered a life-long sport. In addition, target type game venues or golf entertainment venues have
increased drastically (99%) as a 5-year trend, using golf entertainment (e.g., Top Golf) as a new
alternative to breathe life back into the game of golf.
FIVE-YEAR TREND
Since 2018, pickleball (311.5%), golf - entertainment venues (99.0%), and tennis (33.6%) have shown the
largest increase in participation. Similarly, outdoor soccer (23.4%) and basketball (22.7%) have also
experienced significant growth. Based on the five-year trend from 2018-2023, the sports that are most
rapidly declining in participation include roller hockey (-28.7%), rugby (-28.7%), and ultimate frisbee (-
23.0%).
ONE-YEAR TREND
The most recent year shares some similarities with the five-year trends; with pickleball (51.8%) and golf
- entertainment venues (18.8%) experiencing some of the greatest increases in participation this past
year. Other top one-year increases include court volleyball (13.3%), ice hockey (9.6%), and cheerleading
(8.3%).
Sports that have seen moderate 1-year increases, but 5-year decreases are cheerleading (8.3%), track
and field (5.8%), lacrosse (5.5%) and slow-pitch softball (5.3%). This could be a result of coming out of
the COVID-19 pandemic and team program participation on the rise. Like their 5-year trend, roller hockey
(-9.6%), sand/beach volleyball (-5.1%), and rugby (-4.6%) have seen decreases in participation over the
last year.
Page 115 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
28
CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS
General sport activities, basketball, court volleyball, and slow pitch softball have a larger core
participant base (participate 13+ times per year) than casual participant base (participate 1-12 times per
year). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most activities showed a decrease in their percentage of core
participants, but these percentages for core users are slowly reaching their pre-pandemic levels. Please
see Appendix A for the full Core vs. Casual Participation breakdown.
2018 2022 2023 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Basketball 24,225 28,149 29,725 22.7%5.6%
Golf (9 or 18-Hole Course)24,240 25,566 26,565 9.6%3.9%
Tennis 17,841 23,595 23,835 33.6%1.0%
Golf (Entertainment Venue)9,279 15,540 18,464 99.0%18.8%
Baseball 15,877 15,478 16,655 4.9%7.6%
Soccer (Outdoor)11,405 13,018 14,074 23.4%8.1%
Pickleball 3,301 8,949 13,582 311.5%51.8%
Football (Flag)6,572 7,104 7,266 10.6%2.3%
Volleyball (Court)6,317 6,092 6,905 9.3%13.3%
Badminton 6,337 6,490 6,513 2.8%0.4%
Softball (Slow Pitch)7,386 6,036 6,356 -13.9%5.3%
Soccer (Indoor)5,233 5,495 5,909 12.9%7.5%
Football (Tackle)5,157 5,436 5,618 8.9%3.3%
Football (Touch)5,517 4,843 4,949 -10.3%2.2%
Gymnastics 4,770 4,569 4,758 -0.3%4.1%
Volleyball (Sand/Beach)4,770 4,128 3,917 -17.9%-5.1%
Track and Field 4,143 3,690 3,905 -5.7%5.8%
Cheerleading 3,841 3,507 3,797 -1.1%8.3%
Racquetball 3,480 3,521 3,550 2.0%0.8%
Ice Hockey 2,447 2,278 2,496 2.0%9.6%
Softball (Fast Pitch)2,303 2,146 2,323 0.9%8.2%
Wrestling 1,908 2,036 2,121 11.2%4.2%
Ultimate Frisbee 2,710 2,142 2,086 -23.0%-2.6%
Lacrosse 2,098 1,875 1,979 -5.7%5.5%
Squash 1,285 1,228 1,315 2.3%7.1%
Roller Hockey 1,734 1,368 1,237 -28.7%-9.6%
Rugby 1,560 1,166 1,112 -28.7%-4.6%
Participation Levels
National Participatory Trends - General Sports
Activity % Change
Participation Growth/Decline:Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Page 116 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
29
3.1.4 NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS
PARTICIPATION LEVELS
Overall, national participatory trends in fitness have experienced growth in recent years. Many of these
activities have become popular due to an increased interest among Americans to improve their health
and enhance quality of life by engaging in an active lifestyle. The most popular general fitness activities
in 2023 were those that could be done in multiple environments such as at home, gym or in a virtual
class setting. The activities with the most participation was walking for fitness (114.0 million), treadmill
(54.8 million), free weights (53.9 million), running/jogging (48.3 million), and yoga (34.2 million).
FIVE-YEAR TREND
Over the last five years (2018-2023), the activities growing at the highest rate were trail running (48.7%),
Pilates training (30.6%), barre (21.6%) and yoga (19.1%). Over the same period, the activities that have
undergone the biggest decline in participation include group stationary cycling (-34%), cross-training style
workout (-29.5%) and traditional/road triathlons (-19.8%).
ONE-YEAR TREND
In the last year, fitness activities with the largest gains in participation were group-related, slow,
intentional movements activities, tai chi (16.3%), Pilates training (15.0%), and barre (12.9%). This 1-year
trend is another indicator that participants feel safe returning to group-related activities. Trail running
(12.3%) also saw a moderate increase indicating trail connectivity continues to be important for
communities to provide. In the same span, fitness activities that had the largest decline in participation
were boxing/MMA for fitness (-14.4%), traditional/road triathlons (-2.4%) and weight/resistant machines
(-1.9%).
CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS
Participants of walking for fitness are mostly core users (participating 50+ times) and have seen a 1.3%
growth in the last five years. Please see Appendix A for the full core vs. casual participation breakdown.
Page 117 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
30
2018 2022 2023 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Walking for Fitness 111,001 114,759 114,039 2.7%-0.6%
Treadmill 53,737 53,589 54,829 2.0%2.3%
Free Weights (Dumbbells/Hand Weights)51,291 53,140 53,858 5.0%1.4%
Running/Jogging 49,459 47,816 48,305 -2.3%1.0%
Yoga 28,745 33,636 34,249 19.1%1.8%
Stationary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright)36,668 32,102 32,628 -11.0%1.6%
Weight/Resistant Machines 36,372 30,010 29,426 -19.1%-1.9%
Free Weights (Barbells) 27,834 28,678 29,333 5.4%2.3%
Elliptical Motion/Cross-Trainer 33,238 27,051 27,062 -18.6%0.0%
Dance, Step, & Choreographed Exercise 22,391 25,163 26,241 17.2%4.3%
Bodyweight Exercise 24,183 22,034 22,578 -6.6%2.5%
High Impact/Intensity Training 21,611 21,821 21,801 0.9%-0.1%
Trail Running 10,010 13,253 14,885 48.7%12.3%
Rowing Machine 12,096 11,893 12,775 5.6%7.4%
Stair Climbing Machine 15,025 11,677 12,605 -16.1%7.9%
Pilates Training 9,084 10,311 11,862 30.6%15.0%
Cross-Training Style Workout 13,338 9,248 9,404 -29.5%1.7%
Boxing/MMA for Fitness 7,650 9,787 8,378 9.5%-14.4%
Martial Arts 5,821 6,355 6,610 13.6%4.0%
Stationary Cycling (Group)9,434 6,268 6,227 -34.0%-0.7%
Cardio Kickboxing 6,838 5,531 5,524 -19.2%-0.1%
Boot Camp Style Cross-Training 6,695 5,192 5,434 -18.8%4.7%
Barre 3,532 3,803 4,294 21.6%12.9%
Tai Chi 3,761 3,394 3,948 5.0%16.3%
Triathlon (Traditional/Road)2,168 1,780 1,738 -19.8%-2.4%
Triathlon (Non-Traditional/Off Road)1,589 1,350 1,363 -14.2%1.0%
National Participatory Trends - General Fitness
Activity % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)Participation Growth/Decline:Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
Page 118 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
31
3.1.5 NATIONAL TRENDS IN OUTDOOR/ADVENTURE RECREATION
PARTICIPATION LEVELS
Results from the SFIA report demonstrate rapid growth in participation regarding outdoor/adventure
recreation activities. Much like general fitness activities, these activities encourage an active lifestyle,
can be performed individually, and are not as limited by time constraints. In 2023, the most popular
activities, in terms of total participants include day hiking (61.4 million), freshwater fishing (42.6
million), road bicycling (42.2 million), camping (38.6 million), and wildlife viewing (21.1 million).
FIVE-YEAR TREND
From 2018-2023, camping (40.7%), birdwatching (33.0%), skateboarding (37.3%), BMX bicycling (29.7%),
and day hiking (28.4%) has undergone large increases in participation. The five-year trend also shows
that only two activities declined in participation, adventure racing (-18.4) and backpacking overnight (-
5.2%).
ONE-YEAR TREND
The one-year trend shows most activities growing in participation from the previous year. The most rapid
growth being indoor climbing (10.0%), BMX bicycling (6.7%), fly fishing (5.8%), and adventure racing
(5.5%). Over the last year, the only activities that underwent decreases in participation were road
bicycling (-3.0), overnight backpacking (-2.2%), RV camping (-2.0%), and skateboarding (-1.1%).
CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN OUTDOOR / ADVENTURE RECREATION
Although most outdoor activities have experienced participation growth in the last five years. It should
be noted that all outdoor activities participation, besides adventure racing, consist primarily of casual
users. Please see Appendix A for the full core vs. casual participation breakdown.
Page 119 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
32
2018 2022 2023 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Hiking (Day) 47,860 59,578 61,444 28.4%3.1%
Fishing (Freshwater)38,998 41,821 42,605 9.2%1.9%
Bicycling (Road)39,041 43,554 42,243 8.2%-3.0%
Camping 27,416 37,431 38,572 40.7%3.0%
Wildlife Viewing (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)20,556 20,615 21,118 2.7%2.4%
Camping (Recreational Vehicle)15,980 16,840 16,497 3.2%-2.0%
Birdwatching (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)12,344 15,818 16,423 33.0%3.8%
Fishing (Saltwater)12,830 14,344 15,039 17.2%4.8%
Backpacking Overnight 10,540 10,217 9,994 -5.2%-2.2%
Bicycling (Mountain)8,690 8,916 9,289 6.9%4.2%
Skateboarding 6,500 9,019 8,923 37.3%-1.1%
Fishing (Fly)6,939 7,631 8,077 16.4%5.8%
Archery 7,654 7,428 7,662 0.1%3.2%
Climbing (Indoor)5,112 5,778 6,356 24.3%10.0%
Roller Skating, In-Line 5,040 5,173 5,201 3.2%0.5%
Bicycling (BMX) 3,439 4,181 4,462 29.7%6.7%
Climbing (Traditional/Ice/Mountaineering)2,541 2,452 2,569 1.1%4.8%
Climbing (Sport/Boulder)2,184 2,452 2,544 16.5%3.8%
Adventure Racing 2,215 1,714 1,808 -18.4%5.5%
National Participatory Trends - Outdoor / Adventure Recreation
% Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation LevelsActivity
Page 120 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
33
3.1.6 NATIONAL TRENDS IN AQUATICS
PARTICIPATION LEVELS
Swimming is deemed a lifetime activity, which is why it continues to have such strong participation. In
2023, fitness swimming remained the overall leader in participation (28.2 million) amongst aquatic
activities.
FIVE-YEAR TREND
Assessing the five-year trend, all three aquatic activities saw moderate increases in participation.
ONE-YEAR TREND
In 2023, all aquatic activities saw moderate increases in participation which can be asserted to facilities
and programs returning to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels. Swimming on a team (14.6%) saw the highest
percentage increase in participation.
CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN AQUATICS
All activities in aquatic trends have undergone an increase in casual participation (1-49 times per year)
over the last five years. Please see Appendix A for full the core vs. casual participation breakdown.
2018 2022 2023 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Swimming (Fitness)27,575 26,272 28,173 2.2%7.2%
Aquatic Exercise 10,518 10,676 11,307 7.5%5.9%
Swimming on a Team 3,045 2,904 3,327 9.3%14.6%
National Participatory Trends - Aquatics
Activity % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Participation Levels
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Page 121 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
34
3.1.7 NATIONAL TRENDS IN WATER SPORTS / ACTIVITIES
PARTICIPATION LEVEL
The most popular water sports / activities based on total participants in 2023 were recreational kayaking
(14.7 million), canoeing (10.0 million), and snorkeling (7.5 million). It should be noted that water activity
participation tends to vary based on regional, seasonal, and environmental factors. A region with more
water access and a warmer climate is more likely to have a higher participation rate in water activities
than a region that has a long winter season or limited water access. Therefore, when assessing trends in
water sports and activities, it is important to understand that fluctuations may be the result of
environmental barriers which can influence water activity participation.
FIVE-YEAR TREND
Over the last five years, surfing (38.9%), recreational kayaking (33.7%), stand-up paddling (19.6%) and
rafting (19.0%) were the fastest growing water activities. From 2018-2023, activities declining in
participation were water boardsailing/windsurfing (-7.8%), water skiing (-6.8%), snorkeling (-4.2%) and
sea/touring kayaking (-0.2%).
ONE-YEAR TREND
In 2023, zero activities saw a decrease in participation. Activities which experienced the largest increases
in participation include scuba diving (15.2%), sailing (12.9%), and rafting (12.7%).
CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN WATER SPORTS/ACTIVITIES
As mentioned previously, regional, seasonal, and environmental limiting factors may influence the
participation rate of water sport and activities. These factors may also explain why all water-based
activities have drastically more casual participants than core participants, since frequencies of activities
may be constrained by uncontrollable factors. Please see Appendix A for the full core vs. casual
participation breakdown.
Page 122 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
35
2018 2022 2023 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Kayaking (Recreational)11,017 13,561 14,726 33.7%8.6%
Canoeing 9,129 9,521 9,999 9.5%5.0%
Snorkeling 7,815 7,376 7,489 -4.2%1.5%
Jet Skiing 5,324 5,445 5,759 8.2%5.8%
Stand-Up Paddling 3,453 3,777 4,129 19.6%9.3%
Sailing 3,754 3,632 4,100 9.2%12.9%
Rafting 3,404 3,595 4,050 19.0%12.7%
Surfing 2,874 3,692 3,993 38.9%8.2%
Water Skiing 3,363 3,040 3,133 -6.8%3.1%
Scuba Diving 2,849 2,658 3,063 7.5%15.2%
Kayaking (White Water)2,562 2,726 2,995 16.9%9.9%
Wakeboarding 2,796 2,754 2,844 1.7%3.3%
Kayaking (Sea/Touring)2,805 2,642 2,800 -0.2%6.0%
Boardsailing/Windsurfing 1,556 1,391 1,434 -7.8%3.1%
National Participatory Trends - Water Sports / Activities
% Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Activity Participation Levels
Page 123 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
36
APPENDIX A – CORE VS. CASUAL PARTICIPATION TRENDS
GENERAL SPORTS
#%#%#%
Basketball 24,225 100%28,149 100%29,725 100%22.7%5.6%
Casual (1-12 times)9,335 39%13,000 46%14,405 48%54.3%10.8%
Core(13+ times)14,890 61%15,149 54%15,320 52%2.9%1.1%
Golf (9 or 18-Hole Course)24,240 100%25,566 100%26,565 100%9.6%3.9%
Tennis 17,841 100%23,595 100%23,835 100%33.6%1.0%
Golf (Entertainment Venue)9,279 100%15,540 100%18,464 100%99.0%18.8%
Baseball 15,877 100%15,478 100%16,655 100%4.9%7.6%
Casual (1-12 times)6,563 41%7,908 51%8,934 54%36.1%13.0%
Core (13+ times)9,314 59%7,570 49%7,722 46%-17.1%2.0%
Soccer (Outdoor)11,405 100%13,018 100%14,074 100%23.4%8.1%
Casual (1-25 times)6,430 56%7,666 59%8,706 59%35.4%13.6%
Core (26+ times)4,975 44%5,352 41%5,368 41%7.9%0.3%
Pickleball 3,301 100%8,949 100%13,582 100%311.5%51.8%
Casual (1-12 times)2,011 61%6,647 74%8,736 74%334.4%31.4%
Core(13+ times)1,290 39%2,302 26%4,846 26%275.7%110.5%
Football (Flag)6,572 100%7,104 100%7,266 100%10.6%2.3%
Casual (1-12 times)3,573 54%4,573 64%4,624 64%29.4%1.1%
Core(13+ times)2,999 46%2,531 36%2,642 36%-11.9%4.4%
Core Age 6 to 17 (13+ times)1,578 24%1,552 22%1,661 22%5.3%7.0%
Volleyball (Court)6,317 100%6,092 100%6,905 100%9.3%13.3%
Casual (1-12 times)2,867 45%2,798 46%3,481 50%21.4%24.4%
Core(13+ times)3,450 55%3,293 54%3,425 50%-0.7%4.0%
Badminton 6,337 100%6,490 100%6,513 100%2.8%0.4%
Casual (1-12 times)4,555 72%4,636 71%4,743 73%4.1%2.3%
Core(13+ times)1,782 28%1,855 29%1,771 27%-0.6%-4.5%
Softball (Slow Pitch)7,386 100%6,036 100%6,356 100%-13.9%5.3%
Casual (1-12 times)3,281 44%2,666 44%2,939 46%-10.4%10.2%
Core(13+ times)4,105 56%3,370 56%3,417 54%-16.8%1.4%
Soccer (Indoor)5,233 100%5,495 100%5,909 100%12.9%7.5%
Casual (1-12 times)2,452 47%3,144 57%3,411 57%39.1%8.5%
Core(13+ times)2,782 53%2,351 43%2,498 43%-10.2%6.3%
Football (Tackle)5,157 100%5,436 100%5,618 100%8.9%3.3%
Casual (1-25 times)2,258 44%3,120 57%3,278 58%45.2%5.1%
Core(26+ times)2,898 56%2,316 43%2,340 42%-19.3%1.0%
Core Age 6 to 17 (26+ times)2,353 46%2,088 38%2,130 38%-9.5%2.0%
Football (Touch)5,517 100%4,843 100%4,949 100%-10.3%2.2%
Casual (1-12 times)3,313 60%3,201 66%3,301 67%-0.4%3.1%
Core(13+ times)2,204 40%1,642 34%1,648 33%-25.2%0.4%
Gymnastics 4,770 100%4,569 100%4,758 100%-0.3%4.1%
Casual (1-49 times)3,047 64%3,095 68%3,315 70%8.8%7.1%
Core(50+ times)1,723 36%1,473 32%1,443 30%-16.3%-2.0%
Volleyball (Sand/Beach)4,770 100%4,128 100%3,917 100%-17.9%-5.1%
Casual (1-12 times)3,261 68%2,977 72%2,769 71%-15.1%-7.0%
Core(13+ times)1,509 32%1,152 28%1,148 29%-23.9%-0.3%
Track and Field 4,143 100%3,690 100%3,905 100%-5.7%5.8%
Casual (1-25 times)2,071 50%1,896 51%2,093 54%1.1%10.4%
Core(26+ times)2,072 50%1,794 49%1,811 46%-12.6%0.9%
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate Amount of Participants
(56-74%)
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends - General Sports
% Change
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend202220182023
Participation Levels
Activity
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Evenly Divided between Core and
Casual Participants (45-55%)Core vs Casual Distribution:Majority Amount of Participants
(75% or greater)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Page 124 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
37
GENERAL SPORTS (CONTINUED)
#%#%#%
Cheerleading 3,841 100%3,507 100%3,797 100%-1.1%8.3%
Casual (1-25 times)2,039 53%2,092 60%2,360 62%15.7%12.8%
Core(26+ times)1,802 47%1,415 40%1,438 38%-20.2%1.6%
Racquetball 3,480 100%3,521 100%3,550 100%2.0%0.8%
Casual (1-12 times)2,407 69%2,583 73%2,694 76%11.9%4.3%
Core(13+ times)1,073 31%938 27%855 24%-20.3%-8.8%
Ice Hockey 2,447 100%2,278 100%2,496 100%2.0%9.6%
Casual (1-12 times)1,105 45%1,209 53%1,458 58%31.9%20.6%
Core(13+ times)1,342 55%1,068 47%1,038 42%-22.7%-2.8%
Softball (Fast Pitch)2,303 100%2,146 100%2,323 100%0.9%8.2%
Casual (1-25 times)1,084 47%1,002 47%1,123 48%3.6%12.1%
Core(26+ times)1,219 53%1,144 53%1,201 52%-1.5%5.0%
Wrestling 1,908 100%2,036 100%2,121 100%11.2%4.2%
Casual (1-25 times)1,160 61%1,452 71%1,589 75%37.0%9.4%
Core(26+ times)748 39%585 29%532 25%-28.9%-9.1%
Ultimate Frisbee 2,710 100%2,142 100%2,086 100%-23.0%-2.6%
Casual (1-12 times)1,852 68%1,438 67%1,523 67%-17.8%5.9%
Core(13+ times)858 32%703 33%563 33%-34.4%-19.9%
Lacrosse 2,098 100%1,875 100%1,979 100%-5.7%5.5%
Casual (1-12 times)1,036 49%999 53%1,129 53%9.0%13.0%
Core(13+ times)1,061 51%876 47%850 47%-19.9%-3.0%
Squash 1,285 100%1,228 100%1,315 100%2.3%7.1%
Casual (1-7 times)796 62%816 66%927 70%16.5%13.6%
Core(8+ times)489 38%413 34%387 29%-20.9%-6.3%
Roller Hockey 1,734 100%1,368 100%1,237 100%-28.7%-9.6%
Casual (1-12 times)1,296 75%1,065 78%938 76%-27.6%-11.9%
Core(13+ times)437 25%303 22%298 24%-31.8%-1.7%
Rugby 1,560 100%1,166 100%1,112 100%-28.7%-4.6%
Casual (1-7 times)998 64%758 65%729 66%-27.0%-3.8%
Core(8+ times)562 36%408 35%384 35%-31.7%-5.9%
Moderate Increase(0% to 25%)
Moderate Amount of Participants
(56-74%)
Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%)
National Core vs Casual Participatory Trends - General Sports
% Change
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend202220182023
Participation Levels
Activity
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:Large Increase (greater than 25%)
Evenly Divided between Core and
Casual Participants (45-55%)Core vs Casual Distribution:Majority Amount of Participants
(75% or greater)
Large Decrease (less than -25%)
Page 125 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
38
GENERAL FITNESS
#%#%#%
Walking for Fitness 111,001 100%114,759 100%114,039 100%2.7%-0.6%
Casual (1-49 times)36,139 33%38,115 33%38,169 33%5.6%0.1%
Core(50+ times)74,862 67%76,644 67%75,871 67%1.3%-1.0%
Treadmill 53,737 100%53,589 100%54,829 100%2.0%2.3%
Casual (1-49 times)25,826 48%26,401 49%27,991 51%8.4%6.0%
Core(50+ times)27,911 52%27,189 51%26,837 49%-3.8%-1.3%
Free Weights (Dumbbells/Hand Weights)51,291 100%53,140 100%53,858 100%5.0%1.4%
Casual (1-49 times)18,702 36%22,428 42%23,238 43%24.3%3.6%
Core(50+ times)32,589 64%30,712 58%30,619 57%-6.0%-0.3%
Running/Jogging 49,459 100%47,816 100%48,305 100%-2.3%1.0%
Casual (1-49 times)24,399 49%23,776 50%24,175 50%-0.9%1.7%
Core(50+ times)25,061 51%24,040 50%24,129 50%-3.7%0.4%
Yoga 28,745 100%33,636 100%34,249 100%19.1%1.8%
Casual (1-49 times)17,553 61%20,409 61%20,654 60%17.7%1.2%
Core(50+ times)11,193 39%13,228 39%13,595 40%21.5%2.8%
Stationary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright)36,668 100%32,102 100%32,628 100%-11.0%1.6%
Casual (1-49 times)19,282 53%15,424 48%15,901 49%-17.5%3.1%
Core(50+ times)17,387 47%16,678 52%16,728 51%-3.8%0.3%
Weight/Resistant Machines 36,372 100%30,010 100%29,426 100%-19.1%-1.9%
Casual (1-49 times)14,893 41%12,387 41%11,361 39%-23.7%-8.3%
Core(50+ times)21,479 59%17,623 59%18,065 61%-15.9%2.5%
Free Weights (Barbells) 27,834 100%28,678 100%29,333 100%5.4%2.3%
Casual (1-49 times)11,355 41%13,576 47%14,174 48%24.8%4.4%
Core(50+ times)16,479 59%15,103 53%15,159 52%-8.0%0.4%
Elliptical Motion/Cross-Trainer 33,238 100%27,051 100%27,062 100%-18.6%0.0%
Casual (1-49 times)16,889 51%14,968 55%13,898 51%-17.7%-7.1%
Core(50+ times)16,349 49%12,083 45%13,164 49%-19.5%8.9%
Dance, Step, & Choreographed Exercise 22,391 100%25,163 100%26,241 100%17.2%4.3%
Casual (1-49 times)14,503 65%17,096 68%18,179 69%25.3%6.3%
Core(50+ times)7,888 35%8,067 32%8,063 31%2.2%0.0%
Bodyweight Exercise 24,183 100%22,034 100%22,578 100%-6.6%2.5%
Casual (1-49 times)9,674 40%9,514 43%10,486 46%8.4%10.2%
Core(50+ times)14,509 60%12,520 57%12,092 54%-16.7%-3.4%
High Impact/Intensity Training 21,611 100%21,821 100%21,801 100%0.9%-0.1%
Casual (1-49 times)11,828 55%12,593 58%12,559 58%6.2%-0.3%
Core(50+ times)9,783 45%9,228 42%9,242 42%-5.5%0.2%
Trail Running 10,010 100%13,253 100%14,885 100%48.7%12.3%
Casual (1-25 times)8,000 80%10,792 81%12,260 82%53.3%13.6%
Core(26+ times)2,009 20%2,461 19%2,625 18%30.7%6.7%
Rowing Machine 12,096 100%11,893 100%12,775 100%5.6%7.4%
Casual (1-49 times)7,744 64%7,875 66%8,473 66%9.4%7.6%
Core(50+ times)4,352 36%4,017 34%4,302 34%-1.1%7.1%
Stair Climbing Machine 15,025 100%11,677 100%12,605 100%-16.1%7.9%
Casual (1-49 times)9,643 64%7,569 65%8,075 64%-16.3%6.7%
Core(50+ times)5,382 36%4,108 35%4,530 36%-15.8%10.3%
Pilates Training 9,084 100%10,311 100%11,862 100%30.6%15.0%
Casual (1-49 times)5,845 64%7,377 72%8,805 74%50.6%19.4%
Core(50+ times)3,238 36%2,935 28%3,057 26%-5.6%4.2%
National Participatory Trends - General Fitness
% Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
2018
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
2022
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants (75% or greater)
Activity
Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and Casual Participants (45-55%)Moderate Amount of Participants (56-74%)
Page 126 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
39
GENERAL FITNESS (CONTINUED)
#%#%#%
Cross-Training Style Workout 13,338 100%9,248 100%9,404 100%-29.5%1.7%
Casual (1-49 times)6,594 49%4,281 46%4,391 47%-33.4%2.6%
Core(50+ times)6,744 51%4,968 54%5,013 53%-25.7%0.9%
Boxing/MMA for Fitness 7,650 100%9,787 100%8,378 100%9.5%-14.4%
Casual (1-12 times)4,176 55%6,191 63%5,003 60%19.8%-19.2%
Core(13+ times)3,473 45%3,596 37%3,375 40%-2.8%-6.1%
Martial Arts 5,821 100%6,355 100%6,610 100%13.6%4.0%
Casual (1-12 times)1,991 34%3,114 49%3,481 53%74.8%11.8%
Core(13+ times)3,830 66%3,241 51%3,130 47%-18.3%-3.4%
Stationary Cycling (Group)9,434 100%6,268 100%6,227 100%-34.0%-0.7%
Casual (1-49 times)6,097 65%3,925 63%3,783 61%-38.0%-3.6%
Core(50+ times)3,337 35%2,344 37%2,444 39%-26.8%4.3%
Cardio Kickboxing 6,838 100%5,531 100%5,524 100%-19.2%-0.1%
Casual (1-49 times)4,712 69%3,958 72%3,929 71%-16.6%-0.7%
Core(50+ times)2,126 31%1,573 28%1,596 29%-24.9%1.5%
Boot Camp Style Cross-Training 6,695 100%5,192 100%5,434 100%-18.8%4.7%
Casual (1-49 times)4,780 71%3,691 71%4,003 74%-16.3%8.5%
Core(50+ times)1,915 29%1,500 29%1,432 26%-25.2%-4.5%
Barre 3,532 100%3,803 100%4,294 100%21.6%12.9%
Casual (1-49 times)2,750 78%3,022 79%3,473 81%26.3%14.9%
Core(50+ times)782 22%781 21%821 19%5.0%5.1%
Tai Chi 3,761 100%3,394 100%3,948 100%5.0%16.3%
Casual (1-49 times)2,360 63%2,139 63%2,748 70%16.4%28.5%
Core(50+ times)1,400 37%1,255 37%1,200 30%-14.3%-4.4%
Triathlon (Traditional/Road)2,168 100%1,780 100%1,738 100%-19.8%-2.4%
Triathlon (Non-Traditional/Off Road)1,589 100%1,350 100%1,363 100%-14.2%1.0%
National Participatory Trends - General Fitness
% Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:
5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
2018
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
2022
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants
(75% or greater)
Activity
Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and
Casual Participants (45-55%)
Moderate Amount of Participants
(56-74%)
Page 127 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
40
OUTDOOR/ADVENTURE RECREATION
#%#%#%
Hiking (Day) 47,860 100%59,578 100%61,444 100%28.4%3.1%
Casual (1-7 times)37,238 78%44,154 74%45,336 74%21.7%2.7%
Core(8+ times)10,622 22%15,424 26%16,108 26%51.6%4.4%
Fishing (Freshwater)38,998 100%41,821 100%42,605 100%9.2%1.9%
Casual (1-7 times)21,099 54%23,430 56%23,964 56%13.6%2.3%
Core(8+ times)17,899 46%18,391 44%18,641 44%4.1%1.4%
Bicycling (Road)39,041 100%43,554 100%42,243 100%8.2%-3.0%
Casual (1-25 times)20,777 53%23,278 53%22,520 53%8.4%-3.3%
Core(26+ times)18,264 47%20,276 47%19,723 47%8.0%-2.7%
Camping 27,416 100%37,431 100%38,572 100%40.7%3.0%
Casual (1-7 times)20,611 75%28,459 76%29,060 75%41.0%2.1%
Core(8+ times)6,805 25%8,972 24%9,513 25%39.8%6.0%
Wildlife Viewing (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)20,556 100%20,615 100%21,118 100%2.7%2.4%
Camping (Recreational Vehicle)15,980 100%16,840 100%16,497 100%3.2%-2.0%
Casual (1-7 times)9,103 57%10,286 61%9,801 59%7.7%-4.7%
Core(8+ times)6,877 43%6,553 39%6,695 41%-2.6%2.2%
Birdwatching (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)12,344 100%15,818 100%16,423 100%33.0%3.8%
Fishing (Saltwater)12,830 100%14,344 100%15,039 100%17.2%4.8%
Casual (1-7 times)7,636 60%9,151 64%9,904 66%29.7%8.2%
Core(8+ times)5,194 40%5,192 36%5,135 34%-1.1%-1.1%
Backpacking Overnight 10,540 100%10,217 100%9,994 100%-5.2%-2.2%
Bicycling (Mountain)8,690 100%8,916 100%9,289 100%6.9%4.2%
Casual (1-12 times)4,294 49%4,896 55%5,434 58%26.5%11.0%
Core(13+ times)4,396 51%4,020 45%3,854 41%-12.3%-4.1%
Skateboarding 6,500 100%9,019 100%8,923 100%37.3%-1.1%
Casual (1-25 times)3,989 61%6,469 72%6,504 73%63.0%0.5%
Core(26+ times)2,511 39%2,559 28%2,418 27%-3.7%-5.5%
Fishing (Fly)6,939 100%7,631 100%8,077 100%16.4%5.8%
Casual (1-7 times)4,460 64%4,993 65%5,417 67%21.5%8.5%
Core(8+ times)2,479 36%2,638 35%2,659 33%7.3%0.8%
Archery 7,654 100%7,428 100%7,662 100%0.1%3.2%
Casual (1-25 times)6,514 85%6,202 83%6,483 85%-0.5%4.5%
Core(26+ times)1,140 15%1,227 17%1,179 15%3.4%-3.9%
Climbing (Indoor)5,112 100%5,778 100%6,356 100%24.3%10.0%
Roller Skating, In-Line 5,040 100%5,173 100%5,201 100%3.2%0.5%
Casual (1-12 times)3,680 73%3,763 73%3,840 74%4.3%2.0%
Core(13+ times)1,359 27%1,410 27%1,361 26%0.1%-3.5%
Bicycling (BMX) 3,439 100%4,181 100%4,462 100%29.7%6.7%
Casual (1-12 times)2,052 60%2,792 67%3,130 70%52.5%12.1%
Core(13+ times)1,387 40%1,389 33%1,332 30%-4.0%-4.1%
Climbing (Traditional/Ice/Mountaineering)2,541 100%2,452 100%2,568 100%1.1%4.7%
Climbing (Sport/Boulder)2,184 100%2,452 100%2,544 100%16.5%3.8%
Adventure Racing 2,215 100%1,714 100%1,808 100%-18.4%5.5%
Casual (1 time)581 26%236 14%405 22%-30.3%71.6%
Core(2+ times)1,634 74%1,478 86%1,403 78%-14.1%-5.1%
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants (75% or greater)Moderate Amount of Participants (56-74%)
Participation Growth/Decline:
Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and Casual Participants (45-55%)
National Participatory Trends - Outdoor / Adventure Recreation
Activity % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
2018 2022 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Page 128 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
41
AQUATICS
#%#%#%
Swimming (Fitness)27,575 100%26,272 100%28,173 100%2.2%7.2%
Casual (1-49 times)18,728 68%18,827 72%20,620 73%10.1%9.5%
Core(50+ times)8,847 32%7,445 28%7,553 27%-14.6%1.5%
Aquatic Exercise 10,518 100%10,676 100%11,307 100%7.5%5.9%
Casual (1-49 times)7,391 70%8,626 81%9,298 82%25.8%7.8%
Core(50+ times)3,127 30%2,050 19%2,009 18%-35.8%-2.0%
Swimming on a Team 3,045 100%2,904 100%3,327 100%9.3%14.6%
Casual (1-49 times)1,678 55%1,916 66%2,280 69%35.9%19.0%
Core(50+ times)1,367 45%988 34%1,047 31%-23.4%6.0%
Moderate Increase
(0% to 25%)
2022
Moderate Amount of Participants (56-74%)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants (75% or
greater)Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and Casual
Participants (45-55%)
National Participatory Trends - Aquatics
Activity % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:
2018 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Participation Levels
Page 129 of 130
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS
42
WATER SPORTS/ACTIVITIES
#%#%#%
Kayaking (Recreational)11,017 100%13,561 100%14,726 100%33.7%8.6%
Canoeing 9,129 100%9,521 100%9,999 100%9.5%5.0%
Snorkeling 7,815 100%7,376 100%7,489 100%-4.2%1.5%
Casual (1-7 times)6,321 81%6,005 81%6,086 81%-3.7%1.3%
Core(8+ times)1,493 19%1,371 19%1,403 19%-6.0%2.3%
Jet Skiing 5,324 100%5,445 100%5,759 100%8.2%5.8%
Casual (1-7 times)3,900 73%4,151 76%4,490 78%15.1%8.2%
Core(8+ times)1,425 27%1,294 24%1,269 22%-10.9%-1.9%
Stand-Up Paddling 3,453 100%3,777 100%4,129 100%19.6%9.3%
Sailing 3,754 100%3,632 100%4,100 100%9.2%12.9%
Casual (1-7 times)2,596 69%2,633 72%3,117 76%20.1%18.4%
Core(8+ times)1,159 31%999 28%984 24%-15.1%-1.5%
Rafting 3,404 100%3,595 100%4,050 100%19.0%12.7%
Surfing 2,874 100%3,692 100%3,993 100%38.9%8.2%
Casual (1-7 times)1,971 69%2,444 66%2,655 66%34.7%8.6%
Core(8+ times)904 31%1,248 34%1,338 34%48.0%7.2%
Water Skiing 3,363 100%3,040 100%3,133 100%-6.8%3.1%
Casual (1-7 times)2,499 74%2,185 72%2,302 73%-7.9%5.4%
Core(8+ times)863 26%855 28%832 27%-3.6%-2.7%
Scuba Diving 2,849 100%2,658 100%3,063 100%7.5%15.2%
Casual (1-7 times)2,133 75%2,012 76%2,374 78%11.3%18.0%
Core(8+ times)716 25%646 24%689 22%-3.8%6.7%
Kayaking (White Water)2,562 100%2,726 100%2,995 100%16.9%9.9%
Wakeboarding 2,796 100%2,754 100%2,844 100%1.7%3.3%
Casual (1-7 times)1,900 68%2,075 75%2,119 75%11.5%2.1%
Core(8+ times)896 32%679 25%725 25%-19.1%6.8%
Kayaking (Sea/Touring)2,805 100%2,642 100%2,800 100%-0.2%6.0%
Boardsailing/Windsurfing 1,556 100%1,391 100%1,434 100%-7.8%3.1%
Casual (1-7 times)1,245 80%1,103 79%1,162 81%-6.7%5.3%
Core(8+ times)310 20%288 21%272 19%-12.3%-5.6%
Participation Levels
2022
Moderate Amount of Participants (56-74%)
Moderate Increase(0% to 25%)Large Decrease (less than -25%)
2023
Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%)
Majority Amount of Participants (75% or greater)
Large Increase (greater than 25%)
Core vs Casual Distribution:Evenly Divided between Core and Casual Participants (45-55%)
National Participatory Trends - Water Sports / Activities
% Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Participation Growth/Decline:
Activity 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend2018
Page 130 of 130