Loading...
06 17 2025 CC Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 17, 2025 at 6:00 PM Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Pledge of Allegiance 4.Approval of the Agenda The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions or deletions to the agenda. These items may be submitted after the agenda preparation deadline. 5.Public Comments - for items not on the agenda Public comments provide an opportunity to address the City Council on items which are not on the meeting agenda. All are welcome to speak. Individuals should address their comments to the City Council as a whole, not individual members. Speakers are requested to come to the podium and must state their name and address. Comments are limited to three (3) minutes. No action will be taken; however, the Mayor and Council may ask clarifying questions as needed or request staff to follow up. 6.Consent Agenda Items on the consent agenda are approved by one motion of the City Council. If a councilmember requests additional information or wants to make a comment on an item, the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Items removed from the consent agenda will be taken up as the next order of business. a.Approve Minutes from the June 3, 2025, City Council Meeting b.Acknowledge the February and March 2025 Fire Synopses c.Acknowledge the April Par 3 Financial Report d.Approve Liquor License Renewals e.Approve Massage License Renewal f.Appoint City Representatives to the Metropolitan Airports Commission Noise Oversight Committee g.Adopt Resolution 2025-32 to Approve Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the Kensington East Street Improvements Page 1 of 313 h.Approve Purchase Order for Replacement of Pumps at St. Thomas and Culligan Lift Stations. i.Approve List of Claims 7.Presentations a.Badge Pinning for Fire Department Training Officer Becky Johnson 8.Public Hearings a.Resolution 2025-33 Public Hearing on Easement Vacation for Mendota Heights Industrial Park 9.New and Unfinished Business a.2040 Park System Master Plan 10.Community / City Administrator Announcements 11.City Council Comments 12.Adjourn Next Meeting July 1, 2025 at 6:00PM Information is available in alternative formats or with the use of auxiliary aids to individuals with disabilities upon request by calling city hall at 651-452-1850 or by emailing cityhall@mendotaheightsmn.gov. Regular meetings of the City Council are cablecast on NDC4/Town Square Television Cable Channel 18/HD798 and online at TownSquare.TV/Webstreaming Page 2 of 313 6.a CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, June 3, 2025 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilors Lorberbaum, Paper, Mazzitello, and Maczko, were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Levine presented the consent agenda and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Lorberbaum moved approval of the consent agenda as presented, pulling items I and K. a. Approval of May 20, 2025, City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge Minutes from the March 31, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting c. Acknowledge Minutes from the September 18, 2024, Airport Relations Commission Meeting d. Acknowledge Minutes from the November 20, 2024, Airport Relations Commission Joint Meeting with the City of Eagan e. Approve Liquor License Renewals f. Approve Massage Therapist Licenses g. Approve Reciprocal Fire Service Agreement h. Approve a Letter of Interest for Xcel Thermal Energy Network Demonstration Project i. Approve Resolution 2025-30 Accepting a Donation to the Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby j. Authorize Execution of a Purchase Order for 2025 Street Striping k. Approve Public Works Maintenance Parks Lead Worker Promotion Page 3 of 313 June 3, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 7 l. Adopt Resolution 2025-31 Supporting a Request to the State of Minnesota Capital Budget for the City of Mendota Heights City Hall and Public Safety Facility Project m. Approval of Claims List Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS I) APPROVE RESOLUTION 2025-30 ACCEPTING A DONATION TO THE CLIFF TIMM MEMORIAL FISHING DERBY Councilor Lorberbaum commented that the Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby is a wonderful event. She highlighted changes that are being made to the event date, time, and registration. Councilor Lorberbaum moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2025-30 ACCEPTING A DONATION TO THE CLIFF TIMM MEMORIAL FISHING DERBY. Councilor Maczko seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 K) APPROVE PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE PARKS LEAD WORKER PROMOTION Councilor Paper congratulated Tom Weiss, commenting that he has known him since 1982. He stated that he is the hardest-working person he has ever met, and the City is fortunate to have him as an employee. Councilor Maczko echoed those comments. He noted that he received a tour of the public works facility this morning, and Tom is everything mentioned by Councilor Paper. He agreed that this is a promotion of a very quality employee. Councilor Maczko moved to approve THE PROMOTION OF TOM WEISS FROM PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORKER TO PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE PARKS LEAD WORKER. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Mazzitello commented that this continues a long tradition of promoting from within for the city, which is a great way to continue to provide a high level of service and create a great working environment. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PRESENTATIONS No items scheduled. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. Page 4 of 313 June 3, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 7 NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT TO THE LEXINGTON HEIGHTS PUD LOCATED AT 2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE (PLANNING CASE 2025-06) Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the Council was being asked to review the Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment request and provide advisory comments and recommendations to the applicant. John Riley, applicant, stated that his father developed the property 40 years ago, and they are very proud of the property, which has great demand for the units. He commented that they are in the concept stage, but believes that this building would be a great addition to the community. He welcomed the input of the Council. Councilor Lorberbaum thanked Mr. Riley for all he does within the community. She referenced the anticipated deviation from the R-3 dimensions and standards and asked for more information. Mr. Riley commented that he does not yet have those specific details, but would plan to be as close to the requirements as they can be. Councilor Lorberbaum commented that the Planning Commission did a great job reviewing this and providing input. She referenced the statement that some of the office space would be removed to increase the unit size on the first floor and asked how the units on the other floors would be made larger. Mr. Riley commented that he would stay within the unit count of the concept and would reconfigure the unit arrangement within the overall floor plan to increase the size of the units. He commented that it is about market demand as well, noting that the residents want larger units. Councilor Maczko asked, and received confirmation, that the building would be fully sprinkled. He noticed the parking is being redone. He stated that the existing parking covered the parking requirements of the existing development and asked if the new parking would meet the requirements for parking. Mr. Riley commented that the development has close to 200 parking stalls at the existing site and currently has 119 registered vehicles. He was confident that the changes to parking would still be more than sufficient for their needs. Councilor Maczko referenced the parking requirements and asked if the parking proposed to be provided would meet the Code requirements. Mr. Riley confirmed that he would still exceed the requirement of City Code. Councilor Maczko commented that the other buildings are three-story, and this would include a fourth story. He asked for more information on the reason behind the additional level. Mr. Riley commented that he wants to fit more units to allow more people to come to Mendota Heights. He stated that four stories is the typical height nowadays. Page 5 of 313 June 3, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 7 Councilor Maczko asked if there would be any anticipated issues with traffic and circulation. Mr. Riley commented that the additional traffic generated would be minimal to Lexington Avenue, a county road. He stated that he has spoken with the neighbors to the north, and they support the project, while the other neighbors are the freeway and the cemetery. He commented that the fourth floor would have great views of Mendakota Country Club and Rogers Lake. Councilor Maczko suggested landscaping and screening to the north to help buffer the neighboring properties. Mr. Riley confirmed that he would keep that in mind. Councilor Mazzitello asked for additional information on the requested units per acre, what would be allowed under City Code, and what was originally approved for the PUD. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the original approval in 1983 allowed 12.36 units per acre, but the density today is closer to 13.9 units per acre as a result of the road being widened. She stated that, as proposed, there would be a density of 18.1 units per acre, which is above the R-3 density range. She reviewed language found within the Comprehensive Plan related to redevelopment and the use of a PUD to modify density as needed. She stated that this is an area where the Council would have the discretion to approve the density of 18.1. Councilor Maczko asked about the density that would be allowed in the current City Code. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided the range she believed to be accurate, but noted that she would need to follow up with that information as it was not included in her presentation. Councilor Maczko recognized the time that was put into the development of that standard, and therefore, he would want to be cognizant of that. Councilor Mazzitello commented that there was also a lot of time put into the development of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that in 2020, at the last minute, the Council changed the density ranges for medium and high density, significantly lowering them from the recommendations of the Planning Commission. He believed that the current maximum for high density is nine units per acre, whereas the Planning Commission recommended a maximum of 26 units per acre. Mayor Levine asked, and received confirmation that the building would be within the 60-foot height limit. She asked if the applicant would meet the landscaping and impervious surface standards. Mr. Riley replied that he would. Mayor Levine asked, and received confirmation that these would be market-rate apartments. She recognized that the City is getting close to the next version of the Comprehensive Plan. She commented that the demand for housing is coming from the younger and older population, both of which are trending towards apartment living. She stated that at some point, the City will be expected to increase its density in the Comprehensive Plan by the Metropolitan Council. She recognized that the City will need to look for these opportunities as it goes forward. Page 6 of 313 June 3, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 7 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that the City will begin the Comprehensive Plan update process later this year and into next year. She did anticipate that density and housing would continue to be large issues for cities with the requirements from the Metropolitan Council. She did anticipate that the next rendition of the Comprehensive Plan would be more of an update based on the forecasts from the Metropolitan Council rather than a complete overhaul of the Plan. Councilor Maczko commented that the Metropolitan Council provides targets but cannot require the City to increase its zoning, as it is a developed community. He commented that it is a good thing that people want to be here, and there will always be demand to be in Mendota Heights. He stated that if too much supply is added, that can also reduce the demand. He stated that another neighboring community has built many apartments and is now having trouble filling those apartments. He commented that this is a spot of development, but wanted to inform the applicant of the potential discussion to come related to density. Mayor Levine commented that it is not clear to her what the correct path for density is, and wanted to be transparent that this is a discussion that is not settled on the Council. She stated that at The Reserve, the density was within the range of the Comprehensive Plan, and they did not ask for a variation. She believed that the Council would struggle if the density range is outside of the density range within the Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden thanked the Council for their input, noting that this is the purpose of the concept plan review. She stated that the current Comprehensive Plan does state that the City can use a PUD to support a deviation in density. She stated that the Council is being asked whether there would be support for a PUD amendment to support the density within this range. Mr. Riley stated that he intended to gather input from the Council on the concept and whether they believe that this would be a good fit for the community. He stated that if they go ahead with the process, they will go into much more detail. He appreciated the feedback that has been provided thus far. Councilor Paper commented that this would fit the character of the neighborhood and would provide a product that is in demand, which would be provided by a trusted partner in the community who keeps impeccable grounds for their property. He stated that Mr. Riley has proven, over decades, that he takes good care of the property. He commented that this would be a taller building, but it would be tucked back behind the other buildings. He stated that he supports the concept. Councilor Lorberbaum referenced the comment from the Planning Commission relating to the placement of the driveway and asked if Mr. Riley has considered that comment thus far. Mr. Riley stated that the engineering has not yet been done for that, and believed it could be possible to do that. He stated that if he were building this development today, he would only have one driveway. He believed that the addition of the driveway to the north would help, but is not necessary. Councilor Maczko asked if it would make sense to flip the building and have the entrance to the garage on the south end, which would allow them to maintain just one driveway with a loop. Mr. Riley commented that perhaps may be possible, as he would love not to put that road in. He stated that when the property was first built, there was an entrance and exit for the underground parking, which was required, but that it is no longer required. He commented that he will ask those questions as they go Page 7 of 313 June 3, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 7 further along in the design, but noted that it will depend upon the elements of the building and fire code being met. Mayor Levine commented that she has visited the property before, noting that there are many young residents at the property. She stated that there is a beautiful community space, pool, and tennis courts, and asked if Mr. Riley has considered a playground. Mr. Riley stated that they do have playgrounds at a number of his other properties. He stated that this property does have a basketball court, tennis court, and pool, and he has not heard a demand for a playground. He noted the proximity of Rogers Lake Park. He noted that if the residents requested it, he would consider it, but he has not heard that demand as of yet. Councilor Mazzitello referenced the report that was received one month ago, demonstrating the need for this type of housing. He acknowledged that Mendota Heights has very little land left for development, particularly for housing, and this is an opportunity with a known, quality, and willing partner. He recognized that this is a concept review and there are many more details to follow, and would support moving to the next step. Councilor Lorberbaum stated that Mr. Riley plans and delivers well with a great product that already exists. She stated that there have been some questions and things to consider, but believes there is support to move forward. Councilor Maczko agreed that the property is well maintained and noted that he was providing input. He stated that the concept of putting another building on the property does not bother him, but he does have questions related to the additional story. He stated that they did not know the density of R3 and therefore asked the question. He agreed that this would be a good location for something like this, compared to past decisions for new development. He stated that he has a firm belief that there is a point where development can change the reasons why people like the community. Mayor Levine asked if there would be any additional buildings beyond the proposed or would this be the final building for the development. Mr. Riley commented that perhaps they could build another building closer to Lexington, but believed that this would be the best place for the building. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming community events and activities. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Mazzitello commented that June is Men’s Mental Health Awareness Month, noting a required screening he participated in after returning from deployment. He learned that it is okay to ask for help and to struggle. He encouraged people to reach out if they are struggling. He noted the upcoming anniversary of D-Day. Page 8 of 313 June 3, 2025, Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 7 Councilor Lorberbaum acknowledged that June is Pride Month, congratulated upcoming Fire Department graduates, and shared a quote encouraging people to be kind. Councilor Maczko stated that his neighbor on Apache was informed that Apache was going to be dug up next week. He commented that it is outside of the communicated schedule and asked staff to provide an update if that is the case. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted the city’s infrastructure update that residents can sign up for and reviewed the recent announcements. He noted that the work on Apache is scheduled to begin on June 16th. He noted that the contractor is ahead of schedule and looking to complete the project about one month early. Councilor Maczko encouraged residents to sign up for the project updates to ensure they stay up to date. He stated that he enjoyed the tour of public works earlier today and appreciated staff taking that time. He commented that Public Works staff are cramped within the space and could benefit from additional space. Councilor Paper congratulated all recent graduates and is looking forward to the Officer Scott Patrick Memorial 5K. Mayor Levine thanked the Council for their comments. ADJOURN Councilor Paper moved to adjourn. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 7:04 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Nancy Bauer City Clerk Page 9 of 313 This page is intentionally left blank 6.b REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 17, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledge the February and March 2025 Fire Synopses ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Fire CONTACT: Assistant Fire Chief Scott Goldenstein ACTION REQUEST: Acknowledge the February and March 2025 Fire Synopses BACKGROUND: The Fire Synopses are for your information. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1.02 Feb 2025 2.03 March 2025 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 10 of 313 February 2025 Fire Synopsis Fire Calls: 25 For February 2025, the Mendota Heights Fire Department paged for service a total of 25 times. Mendota Heights 20 calls Lilydale 3 calls Mendota 0 calls Sunfish Lake 0 call Other 2 calls ---------------------------------- Total 25 calls Types of calls: Fires: 2- Mendota Heights fire responded to one vehicle fire and one cooking fire (that was contained to the container). Medical/Extrication: 5- There were five calls that were medical in nature in February. Of special note was a vehicle accident between a garbage truck and a semi-truck that resulted in the garbage truck driver having his legs pinned in the cab. The crews utilized all three of the battery-operated extrications tools (cutters, spreaders and ram) on a very frigid morning to free the driver. Hazardous Situations: 2- During the month the department responded to one call for power lines down as well as one call for a gas smell in a residence. False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 6- February had fire responding to three false alarms due to system malfunctions, two calls coded as unintentional trips, and one call for a malicious trip due to a person intentionally activating the alarm system via the pull station. Good Intent: 3- In February, MHFD was requested for two calls relating to the smell of natural gas in homes and one for a CO alarm. All three calls had no issues being detected with monitoring equipment. Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 5- The fire department was paged out to calls but then were cancelled before arriving on scene for a total of five times in February. Mutual/Auto-Aid Other: 2- For February the MHFD was requested twice for auto aid for reported structure fires in West St Paul. The first one ended up being a recreational fire and the second one had South Metro Fire cancelling additional units before MHFD arrived on scene. Page 11 of 313 February Trainings Tues, February 4, 07:00 EMS Section C Option 1 This drill is part 3 of a 4-part series for maintaining EMR certification. The series is designed to be done over 24 months. It entails both classroom and hands on refresher elements, as well as new changes to current medical response protocols. Wed, February 5, 18:30 EMS Section C Option 2 This drill is part 3 of a 4-part series for maintaining EMR certification. The series is designed to be done over 24 months. It entails both classroom and hands on refresher elements, as well as new changes to current medical response protocols. Tues, February 11, 07:00 Mandatory Ice Rescue Option 1 This drill goes over ice rescue skills and proper procedures and guidelines. When the weather allows, this drill is held at Rogers Lake. The drill emphasizes a process that begins with the lowest risk to the rescuer but then escalates depending on the needs of the victim. The bulk of the training is dedicated to the highest risk rescue with the rescuer having to go into the water to facilitate the extrication. Wed, February 12, 18:30 Mandatory Ice Rescue Option 2 This drill goes over ice rescue skills and proper procedures and guidelines. When the weather allows, this drill is held at Rogers Lake. The drill emphasizes a process that begins with the lowest risk to the rescuer but then escalates depending on the needs of the victim. The bulk of the training is dedicated to the highest risk rescue with the rescuer having to go into the water to facilitate the extrication. Wed, February 19, 07:00 Elective Hazmat Operations Option 1 This drill is a multi-station drill going over standard guidelines and scenarios as to how to safely and properly approach a Hazmat call as well as how to identify what the potential hazards are, evacuation zones, additional resources and how to access those resources as needed. Page 12 of 313 Mon, Feb 24, 18:30 Mandatory Ice Rescue Option 3 This drill goes over ice rescue skills and proper procedures and guidelines. When the weather allows, this drill is held at Rogers Lake. The drill emphasizes a process that begins with the lowest risk to the rescuer but then escalates depending on the needs of the victim. The bulk of the training is dedicated to the highest risk rescue with the rescuer having to go into the water to facilitate the extrication. Thurs, Feb 27, 07:00 Elective Hazmat Operations Option 2 This drill is a multi-station drill going over standard guidelines and scenarios as to how to safely and properly approach a Hazmat call as well as how to identify what the potential hazards are, evacuation zones, additional resources and how to access those resources as needed. Page 13 of 313 Number of Calls 25 68 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $0 Structure - MH Residential $35,000 Structure - Contract Areas $0 Cooking Fire - confined 1 $0 Vehicle - MH 1 $0 Vehicle - Contract Areas $0 Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES Other Fire OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $0 $0 Excessive heat, scorch burns MEDICAL Emergency Medical/Assist 1 Vehicle accident w/injuries 1 Extrication 1 ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$0 Medical, other 2 HAZARDOUS SITUATION $0 Spills/Leaks 1 Carbon Monoxide Incident $0 Power line down 1 Arcing, shorting $35,000 Hazardous, Other SERVICE CALL Smoke or odor removal $0 Assist Police or other agency Service Call, other GOOD INTENT Good Intent Dispatched & Cancelled 5 Current To Date Last Year Smoke Scare 20 56 38 HazMat release investigation 3 3 6 5 Good Intent, Other 0 0 0 FALSE ALARMS 0 1 4 False Alarm 2 5 6 Malfunction 3 Unintentional 2 Total:25 68 53 False Alarm, other 1 MUTUAL AID 2 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH Total Calls 25 Inspections Investigations WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year Re-Inspection Fire Calls 276.5 785 619 Meetings 22.5 80.3 302.5 Meetings ` Training 310.5 572 765 Special Activity 9.5 14 48.5 Administration Fire Marshal 0 0 0 Plan Review/Training TOTALS 619 1451.3 1735 TOTAL:0 MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT FEBRUARY 2025 MONTHLY REPORT LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS Lilydale Mendota Sunfish Lake Other FIRE LOSS TOTALS Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Only Structure/Contents Mendota Heights Only Miscellaneous Mendota Heights Total Loss to Date Contract Areas Loss to Date Total Calls for Year Page 14 of 313 March 2025 Fire Synopsis Fire Calls: 26 For March 2025, the Mendota Heights Fire Department paged for service a total of 26 times. Mendota Heights 21 calls Lilydale 2 calls Mendota 0 calls Sunfish Lake 1 call Other 2 calls ---------------------------------- Total 26 calls Types of calls: Fires: 1- In March, the fire department responded to a brush fire that was located about 30 yards from the railroad tracks in the general area of the Mendota Bridge. Due to the difficulty in accessing the area of the fire, Utility 12 (the departments UTV) was used to shuttle equipment and manpower to the fire location. It appeared as if the brush that was burning had been cut and collected in clearing the vegetation below a power line. Rail service was stopped during the fire suppression activities. Medical/Extrication: 6- In March, the fire department responded to four calls that were medical in nature, as well as two vehicle accident/rescue calls. Hazardous Situations: 4- The fire department responded to two calls for power lines down, one call for a gas cooktop that was left on (without a flame) for approximately 90 minutes while the homeowner was out, and a call for outdoor smell of gas because Xcel Energy was installing new equipment and needed to drain down a tank which caused the odor. False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 7- MHFD responded to five false alarms due to unintentional trips and two for system malfunctions. Good Intent: 2- March found the department responding to one call deemed a smoke scare, and one call for a hazmat investigation but then, after monitoring the area, no hazard was able to be detected. Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 4- In March there were four calls that were cancelled before our units arrived on scene. Mutual/Auto-Aid Other: 2- Chief 1 and Tender 10 responded to a house fire in Inver Grove Heights. Also, the MHFD was auto aided to a reported structure fire in West St Paul but was cancelled before arriving on scene due to no issue being found on site when South Metro fire arrived on scene. Page 15 of 313 March Trainings Wed, March 5 , 18:30 Mandatory Bailout/Survivability/VEIS Option 1 This drill was dedicated to a low frequency/high risk scenario where firefighters may be called on to perform VEIS (Vent-Enter-Isolate-Search) rooms in a burning structure where a confirmed victim is believed to be. In addition to the skills involved with doing VEIS, it also was incorporated with headfirst ground ladder bailout where the firefighter comes out head fist and then rotates 180 degrees on the ground ladder to be able to make a fast and safe exit from a burning structure. Mon, March 10, 18:30 Mandatory Bailout/Survivability/VEIS Option 2 This drill was dedicated to a low frequency/high risk scenario where firefighters may be called on to perform VEIS (Vent-Enter-Isolate-Search) rooms in a burning structure where a confirmed victim is believed to be. In addition to the skills involved with doing VEIS, it also was incorporated with headfirst ground ladder bailout where the firefighter comes out head fist and then rotates 180 degrees on the ground ladder to be able to make a fast and safe exit from a burning structure. Tues, March 11, 18:30 Elective Firefighter Mental Health This drill provided skills and tips to deal with the impact of being involved with witnessing numerous traumatic situations and to be aware when flags appear that outside help may be needed. Therapists Darcy Stivlland and Kate Auge from River Pines Counseling gave this presentation. Thurs, March 13, 07:00 Mandatory Bailout/Survivability/VEIS Option 3 This drill was dedicated to a low frequency/high risk scenario where firefighters may be called on to perform VEIS (Vent-Enter-Isolate-Search) rooms in a burning structure where a confirmed victim is believed to be. In addition to the skills involved with doing VEIS, it also was incorporated with headfirst ground ladder bailout where the firefighter comes out head fist and then rotates 180 degrees on the ground ladder to be able to make a fast and safe exit from a burning structure. Tues, March 18, 07:00 Elective Medical Scenarios & Skills Option 1 Page 16 of 313 This drill was a refresher with multiple medical scenarios set up at the station for the firefighters to practice accessing the scenario, deciding the correct course of action, and delivering that appropriate level of treatment based upon the equipment that we carry. Wed, March 19, 18:30 Elective Medical Scenarios & Skills Option 1 This drill was a refresher with multiple medical scenarios set up at the station for the firefighters to practice accessing the scenario, deciding the correct course of action, and delivering that appropriate level of treatment based upon the equipment that we carry. Mon, March 31, 18:30 EMS Section C Option 3 This drill is part 3 of a 4-part series for maintaining EMR certification. The series is designed to be done over 24 months. It entails both classroom and hands on refresher elements as well as new changes to current medical response protocols. Page 17 of 313 Number of Calls 26 Total Calls for Year 94 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $0 Structure - MH Residential $35,000 Structure - Contract Areas $0 Cooking Fire - confined $0 Vehicle - MH $0 Vehicle - Contract Areas $0 Grass/Brush/No Value MH 1 Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES Other Fire OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $0 $0 Excessive heat, scorch burns MEDICAL Emergency Medical/Assist 4 Vehicle accident w/injuries 2 Extrication ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$0 Medical, other HAZARDOUS SITUATION $0 Spills/Leaks 2 Carbon Monoxide Incident $0 Power line down 1 Arcing, shorting 1 $35,000 Hazardous, Other SERVICE CALL Smoke or odor removal $0 Assist Police or other agency Service Call, other GOOD INTENT Good Intent Dispatched & Cancelled 4 Current To Date Last Year Smoke Scare 1 21 77 62 HazMat release investigation 1 2 8 7 Good Intent, Other 0 0 2 FALSE ALARMS 1 2 5 False Alarm 2 7 7 Malfunction 2 Unintentional 5 Total:26 94 83 False Alarm, other MUTUAL AID 2 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH Total Calls 26 Inspections Investigations WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year Re-Inspection Fire Calls 307.5 1092.5 1006 Meetings 24 104.3 333.75 Meetings Training 345.5 917.5 1090 Special Activity 21.8 35.8 49.5 Administration Fire Marshal 0 0 0 Plan Review/Training TOTALS 698.8 2150.1 2479.25 TOTAL:0 Mendota Heights Only Structure/Contents Mendota Heights Only Miscellaneous Mendota Heights Total Loss to Date Contract Areas Loss to Date Mendota Heights Lilydale Mendota Sunfish Lake Other MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT MARCH 2025 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE LOSS TOTALS LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS Page 18 of 313 This page is intentionally left blank 6.c REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 17, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledge the April Par 3 Financial Report ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Trey Carlson, Recreation Facilities Coordinator ACTION REQUEST: Acknowledge the April Par 3 Financial Report. BACKGROUND: The Monthly Par 3 Dashboard is attached for Council review. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Monthly Expenditure-April is attached. ATTACHMENTS: 1.April 2025 Par 3 Expenditures 2.April Financial Dashboard Par 3 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 19 of 313 MONTHLY EXPENDITURE REPORT APRIL 2025 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3 BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT April 2025 (33.33% OF YEAR) April REVENUES April YTD YTD YTD BUDGET 2025 2025 % 2024 GREENS, LEAGUE & TOURN FEES $220,000 $27,766 $32,443 14.75% $27,313 RECREATION PROGRAMS $50,000 $4,251 $38,939 77.88% $33,377 CONCESSIONS $36,000 $3,466 $3,821 10.61% $3,473 SUNDRY REVENUE $0 $0 $25 100.00% $49 INTEREST $1,000 $0 $0 0.00% $0 INSURANCE CLAIM $0 $0 $0 0.00% $0 PAR 3 FUND REVENUE TOTAL $307,000 $35,483 $75,227 24.50% $64,212 EXPENDITURES April YTD YTD YTD BUDGET 2025 2025 % 2024 CLUBHOUSE SALARIES $48,200 $2,577 $3,338 6.92% $6,382 ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES $69,821 $5,115 $13,465 19.29% $11,927 FICA/PERA $21,137 $1,309 $2,678 12.67% $2,012 MEDICAL INSURANCE $18,517 $1,543 $2,743 14.81% $2,515 U/E & W/C INSURANCE $3,900 $0 $1,757 45.04% $1,822 RENTALS $8,000 $0 $0 0.00% $0 UTILITIES $16,483 $795 $3,325 20.17% $3,210 PROFESSIONAL FEES - AUDIT $3,500 $0 $0 0.00% $0 PROF FEES - CONSULTING FEES $3,100 $1,163 $1,163 0.00% $0 PROF FEES - GROUNDS MGMT $7,250 $0 $0 0.00% $0 PROF FEES - GROUNDS WAGES $27,000 $1,398 $1,700 6.30% $2,063 PROF FEES - TREE MAINTENANCE $5,000 $0 $0 0.00% $0 LIABILITY/AUTO INSURANCE $5,000 $0 $4,495 89.90% $4,100 OPERATING COSTS/SUPPLIES $17,300 $442 $2,182 12.61% $374 FUEL $3,000 $164 $282 9.40% $44 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $65,000 $536 $18,955 29.16% $12,560 SUNDRY/DUES/MILEAGE/CLOTHING $10,250 $775 $2,252 21.97% $2,954 ONLINE REG & CREDIT CARD FEES $11,600 $854 $2,879 24.82% $1,957 PAR 3 EXPENDITURES TOTAL $344,058 $16,671 $61,213 17.79% $51,920 Page 20 of 313 Mendota Heights Par 3 Community Golf Course April 2025—Financial Summary April—Tee Time Reservation Breakdown: Online Tee Times=771 (44% of Total Tee Times) Phone/Walk in Tee Times= 994 (56% of Total Tee Times) Year to Date Budget Overview—April: Current Operating Surplus as of April, 2025: $14,014 Operating Surplus as of April, 2024: $12,292 Monthly Revenues vs. Expenditures Month Revenues Expenditures Net March 2025 $14,117 $10,742 $3,375 April 2025 $35,483 $16,671 18,812 Golf Round Totals: 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 March 748 0 0 261 308 April 1678 896 1181 1923 2078 Total 2,426 896 1181 2,184 2,386 Golf Rounds by Category: 2025 Regular Senior Junior Veteran Second Round Senior Pass Footgolf Punch Card March 127 8 10 0 1 2 0 160 April 984 129 95 3 36 33 8 790 Total 1111 137 105 3 37 35 8 950 Monthly Notes: o When accounting for total monthly rounds, staff track punch card sales as (10) rounds of golf. For March the course sold 16 punch cards and in April the course sold 79 punch cards, which are then multiplied by 10 to get the total rounds tracked for that month--160 and 790 respectively. o When reporting the Tee Time Reservation Breakdown, the tee times booked reflect how the punch card rounds are used. o If someone buys a punch card in April, they may only use it four times. They also could use the punch card one time for a call-in tee time and three times for separate online tee times Category 2025 Budget 2025 YTD Actual % of Budget 2024 YTD Revenues $307,000 $75,227 24.50%$64,212 Expenditures $344,058 $61,213 17.79%$51,920 Net Position -$14,014 -$12,292 Page 21 of 313 This page is intentionally left blank 6.d REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 17, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Liquor License Renewals ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk ACTION REQUEST: Approve liquor license renewal for Haiku Japanese Bistro and conditionally approve the liquor license renewal for Tommy Chicago's Pizza pending the receipt of the outstanding required application materials and State approval. BACKGROUND: Current liquor licenses will expire on June 30, 2025. Staff have received one complete application and one incomplete application. Haiku Japanese Bistro submitted their renewal applications for On-Sale Wine (includes Sundays) and On-Sale 3.2 Malt Beverage (includes Sundays). A complete application has been submitted and the license fees paid. The background investigation is complete with no negative findings. If the renewal is approved by the City Council, the renewal licenses will be sent to the State Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division for their approval. Upon their approval, staff will then issue the liquor licenses. Council is considering this item at the last meeting before June 30, 2025, when existing liquor licenses expire. Documentation is incomplete for the renewal application for Tommy Chicago's Pizza for their On-Sale Wine & Strong Beer liquor license and On-Sale 3.2 liquor license. Staff is working with the business to complete the outstanding items in their application. The background investigation has been completed with no negative findings. The missing information is a signed form stating that required proof of alcohol awareness training has been completed. This signed form certifies that alcohol servers have received training regarding the selling or serving of alcohol to customers. Staff is seeking conditional approval from the City Council for the issuance of this license pending receipt of the required proof of alcohol awareness training and State approvals. Failure to complete the application or to receive State approval will result in the liquor license Page 22 of 313 being suspended. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 23 of 313 6.e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 17, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Massage License Renewal ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk ACTION REQUEST: Approve a massage license renewal. BACKGROUND: Massage licenses expire June 30, 2025. One application has been submitted from Cindy Messer at Green Lotus Yoga & Healing. She has submitted a complete application and payment. A background check has revealed no negative findings. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 24 of 313 This page is intentionally left blank 6.f REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 17, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Appoint City Representatives to the Metropolitan Airports Commission Noise Oversight Committee ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Appoint City Administrator Cheryl Jacbson as the primary representative, and Gina Norling and Arvind Sharma as the first and second alternates to the MSP Noise Oversight Committee for the identified term. BACKGROUND: Established in 2002, the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) is an advisory board to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), and is comprised of six airport industry and six community representatives who address aircraft noise issues associated with activity at MSP. The city of Mendota Heights, along with the cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Minneapolis and Richfield, are designated communities under NOC bylaws and each appoints a primary and alternate representative to the NOC every two years. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson serves as the city's primary representative. Airport Relations Commission chair Gina Norling and vice chair Arvind Sharma serve as the city's alternates. The city is being asked to appoint members for the term of June 26, 2025, through June 25, 2027. There is no requirement that appointees be an elected official or a member of the city's Airport Relations Commission; only that representatives be vested to represent the city and vote accordingly. The NOC meets at 1:30 pm on the third Wednesday of odd-numbered months, unless otherwise noted. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Page 25 of 313 Inclusive and Responsive Government, Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 26 of 313 6.g REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 17, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Adopt Resolution 2025-32 to Approve Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the Kensington East Street Improvements ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Lucas Ritchie, Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2025-32 approving the Final Plans and Specifications and authorizing Advertisement for Bids for the Kensington East Street Improvements. BACKGROUND: The preparation of a feasibility report for the Kensington East Street Improvements, which is required to follow the Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 process, was authorized by the Mendota Heights City Council by adopting Resolution 2024-55 at the City Council meeting held on October 1, 2024. The Statute 429 process is required because the city intends to assess a portion of the project. The feasibility report for the Kensington East Street Improvements was accepted by the Mendota Heights City Council and called for a Public Hearing on May 6, 2025, by adopting Resolution 2025-17 at the April 1, 2025, city council meeting. The recommendation of the feasibility report was to proceed with this project. The proposed streets to be rehabilitated are Abbey Way, Canton Court, Haverton Circle, Haverton Road, Morson Circle, and Winthrop Court. Based on staff observations and further verified by pavement condition ratings and a geotechnical evaluation, these streets have deteriorated to the point where it is no longer cost-effective to patch the street and rehabilitation is necessary. Council ordered the Kensington East Street Improvements at their May 6, 2025, meeting. Due to the size of the bidding package, the final plans and specifications are not included in the packet. The entire plan set is available for viewing at city hall, however the title sheet Page 27 of 313 identifying the project area and scope of improvements is included. There are no proposed roadway configuration changes as part of this project. Proposed improvements include Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) of the deteriorating bituminous pavement within the project limits, bituminous resurfacing, pedestrian ramp improvements to comply with current ADA standards, storm sewer improvements to Morson Circle and Winthrop Court, and rain garden installation at various locations to provide water quality and rate control to storm water runoff where feasible. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The total estimated construction cost of the project is $983,316.26, not including indirect costs. PROJECT COSTS ITEM CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT TOTAL STREET REHABILITATION* $614,488.81 $122,897.76 $737,386.57 TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS* $81,090.41 $16,2218.08 $97,308.49 STORM SEWER $145,635.99 - $145,635.99 RAIN GARDENS $22,511.34 - $22,511.34 SANITARY SEWER $34,398.75 - $34,398.75 WATERMAIN (CITY) $10,587.00 - $10,587.00 WATERMAIN (SPRWS)** $74,603.96 $11,190.59 $85,794.55 TOTALS $983,316.26 $150,306.44 $1,133,622.70 * Includes 20% indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance. ** Includes 15% indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance FUNDING SOURCES ITEM COST ESTIMATE RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT MUNICIPAL LEVY UTILITY FUNDS S.P.R.W.S. STREET REHAB $737,386.57 $368,693.29 $368,693.29 TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS $97,308.49 $97,308.49 STORM SEWER $168,147.33 $168,147.33 Page 28 of 313 SANITARY SEWER $34,398.75 $34,398.75 WATER MAIN (CITY) $10,587.00 $10,587.00 WATERMAIN (SPRWS) $85,794.55 $85,794.55 Totals $1,133,622.70 $368,693.29 $466,001.78 $213,133.08 $85,794.55 The total project cost is estimated at $1,133,622.70. Historically, 35% of the assessment amount has been paid prior to bond issuance and is reflected in the total bond amount. It is presumed that the City would secure bonding for the Municipal Levy and the remaining Residential Assessment portions of the project ($705,652.42). The assessment amount of $368,693.29 is equivalent to 52.2% of the bond amount. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 Special Assessment Bond Issue requires that a minimum of 20% of the total bond issue amount be recovered through special assessments. As the project is competitively bid and true construction costs are known, the calculated assessment amount will be updated leading up to the adoption of the assessment roll anticipated for October 2025. The improvements are necessary to allow for safe and reliable street and utility services within the City of Mendota Heights. The project will be competitively bid to allow for a cost-effective improvement. The feasibility study has provided an overall analysis of the feasible improvements for consideration within this project area. Therefore, the proposed improvements within the areas outlined in this report are necessary, cost-effective, and feasible from an engineering standpoint. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2025-32 Approve Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the Kensington East Street Improvements 2.Kensington East Street Improvements Title Sheet CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship Page 29 of 313 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2025-32 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE KENSINGTON EAST STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the Public Works Director reported that the proposed improvements and construction thereof were feasible, desirable, necessary, and cost effective, and further reported on the proposed costs of said improvements and construction thereof; and WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore directed the Public Works Director to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications thereof; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has prepared plans and specifications for said improvements and have presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; by the Mendota Heights City Council as follows: 1. That the plans and specifications for said improvements be and they are hereby in all respects approved by the City. 2.That the Clerk with the aid and assistance of the Public Works Director be and is hereby, authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said improvements all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes, such as bids to be received at the City Hall of the City of Mendota Heights by 10:00 A.M., Wednesday, July 9, 2025, and at which time they will be publicly opened in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall by the Public Works Director, will then be tabulated, and will then be considered by the City Council at its next regular Council meeting. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventeenth day of June, 2025. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST _________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 30 of 313 Page 31 of 313 This page is intentionally left blank 6.h REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 17, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Purchase Order for Replacement of Pumps at St. Thomas and Culligan Lift Stations. ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Public Works CONTACT: John Boland, Public Works Superintendent Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Approve a purchase order for the replacement of lift station pumps at St. Thomas and Culligan Lift Stations. BACKGROUND: The City has six sanitary sewer lift stations. In addition to regular maintenance, the pumps at these stations need to be replaced as they are nearing their end of life. The St. Thomas lift station has two pumps that were installed in 1985 and are ready for replacement. The Culligan lift station also has two pumps that were installed in 1981 that are due for replacement. Staff obtained two quotes for replacement based on the existing model Flygt brand and a Homa-branded pump. Quotes were received from Electric Pump for the Flygt pumps, and from General Repair Service for the Homa pumps. Staff switched over to Homa pumps from Flygt at the main lift station recently and have been very happy with them. Electric Pump: St. Thomas $41,210 Culligan $25,740 General Repair service: St. Thomas $16,738 Culligan $19,309 Staff is recommending approval of the purchase order for $36,047 to General Repair Service. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The funding for these pumps will come from the sanitary sewer fund, which has a $40,000 Page 32 of 313 budget for the replacement. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 33 of 313 Page 34 of 3136.i Page 35 of 313 Page 36 of 313 Page 37 of 313 Page 38 of 313 Page 39 of 313 Page 40 of 313 Page 41 of 313 Page 42 of 313 Page 43 of 313 Page 44 of 313 Page 45 of 313 7.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 17, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Badge Pinning for Fire Department Training Officer Becky Johnson ITEM TYPE: Presentation DEPARTMENT: Fire CONTACT: Dan Johnson, Fire Chief Kelly Torkelson, Assistant City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Swear in Becky Johnson as the Mendota Heights Fire Department Training Officer. BACKGROUND: The Training Officer is a critical position within the Mendota Heights Fire Department. The position oversees both the internal Mendota Heights Fire Training Academy, which annually facilitates the department's onboarding training and requirements for new fire recruits, as well as managing the entire department's ongoing training requirements. Becky Johnson joined the Mendota Heights Fire Department in 2017 and has been a tremendous asset to the department since. She previously served as the Assistant Training Officer and brings a passion and skill set that will benefit the department during her service and leadership. The appointment of Becky Johnson to the Training Officer position has initiated a change in the command reporting structure from the previous arrangement where the Training Officer reported to the Fire Chief to now have the position reporting to the Assistant Fire Chief. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 46 of 313 This page is intentionally left blank 8.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 17, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2025-33 Public Hearing on Easement Vacation for Mendota Heights Industrial Park ITEM TYPE: Public Hearing DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Hold proceedings for Resolution 2025-33, a public hearing and approval of an easement vacation commenced by petition for Lot 6 & 7, Block 1 of the Mendota Heights Industrial Park. BACKGROUND: The city of Mendota Heights received a petition for vacating drainage and utility easements on Lot 6 & 7, Block 1, Mendota Heights Industrial Park. An exhibit of the property is attached which shows the easement areas that were dedicated and obtained. Endeavor Development is under contract to purchase the property at 1315 Mendota Heights Road. The applicant has submitted plans for redevelopment of this site. The proposed site layout relocates an existing pond to an adjacent area on site where a reconfigured pond will be located. The Lot 6 & 7, Block 1 parcel proposed for redevelopment also has reconfigured utility layouts which do not align with the previously dedicated utility easements. A petition was received to vacate the existing drainage and utility easements for a water service line. New easements will be granted to the city for the proposed storm water treatment device. The property owner will also enter into a private watermain agreement with St. Paul Regional Water authority for the proposed water supply lines. Notices were sent to all properties within the Mendota Heights Industrial Park plat and all properties within 350 feet of the property. At the time of writing this memo, no responses were received. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The Mendota Heights fee schedule includes a required $500 application fee to cover mailing and recording fees and staff time which was received from the petitioner. Page 47 of 313 ATTACHMENTS: 1.Res 2025-33 Mendota Heights Industrial Park - Easement Vacation 2.EXHIBIT A - Water Easement Vacation 3.EXHIBIT B - Stormwater Easement Vacation 4.Cobalt Business Center - Civil Plans - 05.09.2025 5.Cobalt Business Center Pond Reconfiguration Plan 5-9-25 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship Page 48 of 313 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2025-33 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EASEMENT VACATION COMMENCED BY PETITION WHEREAS, Mendota Heights is party to a permanent watermain easement per Document No. 2338919, on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota further described as: Perpetual easements for watermain purposes over, under, and across that part of the following described property: Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, Mendota Heights Industrial Park, according to said plat on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota. Which lies within the perpetual easements for watermain purposes described as follows: A strip of land 30.00 feet in width over Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, Mendota Heights Industrial Park, according to said plat on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, the centerline of which is described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 6; thence North 89 degrees 50 minutes 27 seconds East, an assumed bearing along the South line of said Lot 6, a distance of 368.43 feet to the point of beginning of said centerline to be hereinafter described; thence North 03 degrees 23 minutes 13 seconds East, a distance of 12.03 feet; thence North 15 degrees 51 minutes 25 seconds East, a distance of 55.17 feet to a point to be hereinafter referred to as “Point A”; thence continuing North 15 degrees 51 minutes 25 seconds East, a distance of 145.57 feet; thence North 73 degrees 26 minutes 41 seconds West, a distance of 33.16 feet and said line there terminating. Said strip of land is to extend by its full width from said South line of Lot 6 to a line which bears North 16 degrees 33 minutes 19 seconds East and passes through said point of termination. And also: A strip of land 30.00 feet in width, over that part of said Lots 6 and 7, the centerline of which is described as follows: Beginning at said above described reference "Point A”; thence South 73 degrees 30 minutes 28 seconds East, a distance of 53.77 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 151.33 feet; thence North 67 degrees 33 minutes 39 seconds East, a distance of 40.31 feet; thence North 01 degrees 38 minutes 34 seconds West, a distance of 103.71 feet; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 14 seconds West, a distance of 241.04 feet; thence North 89 degrees 41 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 17.97 feet and said line there terminating. Said strip of land is to extend by its full width from the East line of said first above described perpetual easement to a line which bears North 00 degrees 19 minutes 00 seconds West and passes through said point of termination; and Page 49 of 313 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, Mendota Heights is party to a permanent drainage and utility easement per Document No. 1386087, on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota as being located over, under, and across that part of Lot 6, Block 1, Mendota Heights Industrial Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, said county, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot; thence North 89 degrees 50 minutes 27 seconds East, a distance of 355 feet along the south property line of said Lot; thence North 00 degrees 17 minutes 13 seconds West 15.00 feet; thence North 55 degrees 54 minutes 45 seconds West 26.65 feet; thence North 00 degrees 17 minutes 13 seconds West 60.00 feet; thence North 59 degrees 50 minutes 27 seconds West 386.27 feet to the west line of said Lot; thence South 00 degrees 17 minutes 13 seconds East, a distance of 285 feet along said west line to the point of beginning; and WHEREAS, a notice of hearing on said vacation has been duly published and posted more than two weeks before the date scheduled for the hearing on said vacation, all in accordance with the applicable statutes; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said vacation on June 17, 2025, at the City Hall of Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested in said vacation and all persons were afforded an opportunity to present their views for support or objections to the granting of said vacation. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the vacation of the permanent watermain easement per Document No. 2338919 and shown on Exhibit A titled WATERMAIN EASEMENT VACATION EXHIBIT for Lot 6 and 7, Block 1, Mendota Heights Industrial Park is in the best interest of the public and the City, and it is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. That the vacation of the drainage and utility easement per Document No. 1386087 and shown on Exhibit B titled EASEMENT VACATION EXHIBIT for Lot 6 , Block 1, Mendota Heights Industrial Park is in the best interest of the public and the City, and it is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. 3. That the above described drainage and utility easements be and the same are hereby vacated. 4. That the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and present to the Dakota County officials notice of completion of these vacation proceedings, all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes. Such recording shall not be authorized until new easements have been recorded, and transfer of property has been finalized. Page 50 of 313 Page 3 of 3 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventeenth day of June 2025. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST ________________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 51 of 313 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDENTERPRISE DRDate: Dwg Name: Design File: DE MT 4000651 Checked By: Drawn By: 1" = 100' Scale: WATER ESM VAC EXHIBIT 5/8/25 MENDOTA HEIGHTS INDUSTRIAL PARK WATERMAIN EASEMENT VACATION EXHIBIT MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA 733 Marquette Ave, Ste 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612.758.3080 612.758.3099 www.alliant-inc.com MAIN Alliant Engineering, Inc. FAX EASEMENT VACATION AREA SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS EXHIBIT A Page 52 of 313 Date: Dwg Name: Design File: DE MT 4000651 Checked By: Drawn By: 1" = 100' Scale: MENDOTA HEIGHTS INDUSTRIAL PARK WATERMAIN EASEMENT VACATION EXHIBIT MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA 733 Marquette Ave, Ste 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612.758.3080 612.758.3099 www.alliant-inc.com MAIN Alliant Engineering, Inc. FAX Watermain Easement Vacation Description Vacating the permanent watermain easement per Document No. 2338919, on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Perpetual easements for watermain purposes over, under, and across that part of the following described property: Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, Mendota Heights Industrial Park, according to said plat on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota. Which lies within the perpetual easements for watermain purposes described as follows: A strip of land 30.00 feet in width over Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, Mendota Heights Industrial Park, according to said plat on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, the centerline of which is described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 6; thence North 89 degrees 50 minutes 27 seconds East, an assumed bearing along the South line of said Lot 6, a distance of 368.43 feet to the point of beginning of said centerline to be hereinafter described; thence North 03 degrees 23 minutes 13 seconds East, a distance of 12.03 feet; thence North 15 degrees 51 minutes 25 seconds East, a distance of 55.17 feet to a point to be hereinafter referred to as “Point A”; thence continuing North 15 degrees 51 minutes 25 seconds East, a distance of 145.57 feet; thence North 73 degrees 26 minutes 41 seconds West, a distance of 33.16 feet and said line there terminating. Said strip of land is to extend by its full width from said South line of Lot 6 to a line which bears North 16 degrees 33 minutes 19 seconds East and passes through said point of termination. And also: A strip of land 30.00 feet in width, over that part of said Lots 6 and 7, the centerline of which is described as follows: Beginning at said above described reference "Point A”; thence South 73 degrees 30 minutes 28 seconds East, a distance of 53.77 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 151.33 feet; thence North 67 degrees 33 minutes 39 seconds East, a distance of 40.31 feet; thence North 01 degrees 38 minutes 34 seconds West, a distance of 103.71 feet; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 14 seconds West, a distance of 241.04 feet; thence North 89 degrees 41 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 17.97 feet and said line there terminating. Said strip of land is to extend by its full width from the East line of said first above described perpetual easement to a line which bears North 00 degrees 19 minutes 00 seconds West and passes through said point of termination. WATER ESM VAC EXHIBIT 5/8/25 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS Page 53 of 313 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDENTERPRISE DRDate: Dwg Name: Design File: DE DE 4000651 Checked By: Drawn By: 1" = 100' Scale: ESM VAC EXHIBIT 5/5/25 MENDOTA HEIGHTS INDUSTRIAL PARK EASEMENT VACATION EXHIBIT MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA 733 Marquette Ave, Ste 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612.758.3080 612.758.3099 www.alliant-inc.com MAIN Alliant Engineering, Inc. FAX Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation Description Vacating the permanent drainage and utility easement for storm water purposes described in Document No. 1386087, on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, as being located over, under, and across that part of Lot 6, Block 1, Mendota Heights Industrial Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, said county, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot; thence North 89 degrees 50 minutes 27 seconds East, a distance of 355 feet along the south property line of said Lot; thence North 00 degrees 17 minutes 13 seconds West 15.00 feet; thence North 55 degrees 54 minutes 45 seconds West 26.65 feet; thence North 00 degrees 17 minutes 13 seconds West 60.00 feet; thence North 59 degrees 50 minutes 27 seconds West 386.27 feet to the west line of said Lot; thence South 00 degrees 17 minutes 13 seconds East, a distance of 285 feet along said west line to the point of beginning. EASEMENT VACATION AREA EXHIBIT B Page 54 of 313 N89°52'24"E 881.26 N0°11'53"W 500.03N89°52'24"E 888.46 N0°15'16"W 423.94R=434.70 L=76.50 Δ=10°04'59" C.Brg=N5°17'45"W C=76.40 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDENTERPRISE DR85485685886086286486686886686888 2 8 8 08788768748 7 2 87 08688668648 6 28608588 5 6 8 5 4852 848 850 852 854 856 858 860 84 8 85 0 85 2 85 4 85 6 85 8 86 0 862 864864 862862862852860850 8 5 0 870870872874 876 878880882884886890892874876878880882884868 864 862 860 866866866 SITE Lot 6, Block 1, MENDOTA HEIGHTS INDUSTRIAL PARK, Dakota County, Minnesota. AND That part of Lot 7, Block 1, MENDOTA HEIGHTS INDUSTRIAL PARK, lying South of the Easterly extension of the South line of Lot 5, Block 1, MENDOTA HEIGHTS INDUSTRIAL PARK, through Lot 7 to the East line of said Lot 7, Dakota County, Minnesota. (Abstract Property) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1. Monuments placed (or a reference monument or witness to the corner) at all major corners of the boundary of the property, unless already marked or referenced by existing monuments or witnesses to the corner are shown hereon. 2. Address of the property is 1315 Mendota Heights Road and indicated on map. 3. The property lies within Zone X (unshaded - areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Community Panel No. 27037C0081E, effective December 2, 2011. 4. The area of the above described property is 440,946 square feet or 10.123 acres. 5. Contour lines depicted hereon are based on ground measurements and referenced to North American Vertical Datum of 1988(NAVD88). Benchmark: Top nut of Hydrant located at the southeast corner of subject property and has a elevation of 882.97 ft. 6(a). No zoning information provided. 7(a). Exterior dimensions of all buildings are shown at ground level. 8. Substantial features observed in the process of conducting fieldwork, are shown hereon. 9. There are 524 regular parking stalls and 13 handicapped parking stalls on site. 11(a). The locations of existing public utilities on or serving the property are depicted based on Gopher State One Call Ticket Nos. 250761178 & 250761125, available city maps, records and observed evidence locations. Lacking excavation, underground utility locations may not be exact. Verify critical utilities prior to construction or design 13. Names of adjoining owners are depicted based on Dakota County GIS tax information. 16. There was no observed evidence of earth moving work or building construction at the time of our field work. 17. We are not aware of any proposed changes in street right of way lines or observable evidence of recent street or sidewalk construction or repairs. TABLE A ITEMS The following are survey related exceptions set forth in Schedule B, Part II of the herein referenced Title Commitment: Item No. 12: Drainage and utility easements as shown on the recorded plat of Mendota Heights Industrial Park, recorded July 22, 1969, as Document No. 363029. Depicted on survey. NOTE: As evidenced by Declaration Vacating Private Easements dated October 3, 1978, recorded January 9, 1979, as Document No. 529936, all railway easements shown on the plat which were not dedicated as a public easement were vacated. Item No. 13: Declaration of Covenants by Northland Land Company, a Minnesota corporation, dated October 31, 1978, recorded December 21, 1978, as Document No. 528779. Affects property; not plottable. As amended by Amended, Extended and Restated Declaration of Covenants dated July 31, 1987, recorded August 6, 1987, as Document No. 799509. As affected by Waiver Letter dated May 3, 2004, recorded November 17, 2004, as Document No. 2268025. Affects property; not plottable. Item No. 14: Declaration of Covenants by The Northland Company, a Minnesota corporation, dated December 23, 1986, recorded January 15, 1987, as Document No. 762195. As amended by Amended, Extended and Restated Declaration of Covenants dated July 31, 1987, recorded August 6, 1987, as Document No. 799509. Affects property; not plottable. Item No. 15: Easement for drainage and utility for storm water purposes, together with any incidental rights, in favor of the City of Mendota Heights, a municipal corporation, as contained in the Easement Agreement, dated October 15, 1996, recorded November 6, 1996, as Document No. 1386087. Depicted on survey. Item No. 16: Memorandum of Ground Lease Agreement by and between CEC Investment LLC, as Landlord, and CEC Holdings LLC, as Tenant, dated September 30, 2004, recorded December 13, 2004, as Document No. 2275506. As affected by Limited Warranty Deed dated February 1, 2011, recorded May 3, 2011, as Document No. 2798820. Affects property; not plottable. Item No. 17: Terms, conditions, covenants, reservations, regulations and easements as contained in the Private Water Main Agreement, dated March 22, 2005, recorded July 12, 2005, as Document No. 2338919. Depicted on survey. Item No. 18: Terms and conditions as contained in the Resolution No. 10-103, Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Restaurant and Cafe, recorded December 17, 2010, as Document No. 2773148. Affects property; not plottable. Item No. 19: Riparian rights of others in and to wetlands crossing or abutting premises. No wetland flags were observed in the process of conducting the fieldwork. SCHEDULE B, PART II EXCEPTIONS VICINITY MAP LEGEND 1. This survey and the property description shown here on are based upon information found in the commitment for title insurance prepared by First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services, file no. NCS-1253903-MPLS, dated March 13, 2025. 2. The south line of Lot 6, Block 1, MENDOTA HEIGHTS INDUSTRIAL PARK is assumed to have a bearing of N89°52'24"E 3. All distances are in feet. 4. The property has vehicular access to Mendota Heights Rd and Enterprise Dr, public rights of way, via curb cuts. NOTES To Endeavor Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company and First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services: This is to Certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2021 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6(a), 7(a), 8, 9, 11(a), 13, 16 and 17 of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on April 17, 2025. Date of Plat or Map: __________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Daniel Ekrem, Professional Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 57366 Email: dekrem@alliant-inc.com CERTIFICATION Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR REVIEW ONLY PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Sheet ofJOB NO. DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALEFIELD CREW:DATE DESCRIPTIONFIELD DATE:CLIENTDOCUMENTPROPERTY ADDRESSwww.alliant-inc.com 0 SCALE IN FEET 25 50 100 N File Location: X:\4000651-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Survey\ALTA-ECON.dwg Plotted By: Mike Taverna on April 18, 2025 at 1:52:04 PM1315 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROADMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA---- 4000651RS,DA,MN,RJ04/17/2025Review copy issued04/18/2025ENDEAVORJDT,MDT1"=50'DPEALTA-NSPS LANDTITLE SURVEY---- Page 55 of 313 850852852852852850848845856 854 852 850 848 846845844846838844 838 STORMWATER PONDPROPOSED BUILDING 622' x 280' 174,160 S.F. 20' FRONT PARKING SETBACK 40' YARD BUILDING SETBACK20' FRONT PARKING SETBACK40' YARD BUILDING SETBACK10' FRONT PARKING SETBACK30' YARD BUILDING SETBACK10' FRONT PARKING SETBACK 50' YARD BUILDING SETBACK FOR RE V I E W O N L Y PRELIM I N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N C-3.0COBALT BUSINESS CENTERCITY SUBMITTALSITE PLAN733 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 612.758.3080 www.alliant-inc.com Suite 700 Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 SITE NOTES: SITE LEGEND: SITE DATA: Page 56 of 313 8548568588608628648668688668688 8 08788768748 7 2 87 08688668648 6 28608588 5 6 8 5 4852 848 850 852 854 856 858 860 84 8 85 0 85 2 85 4 85 6 85 8 86 0 862 864864 862862862852860850 8 5 0 870870872874 876 878880882884886890892874876878880882884868 864 862 860 866866866 N89°52'24"E 881.26 N0°11'53"W 500.03N89°52'24"E 888.46 N0°15'16"W 423.94R=434.70 L=76.50 Δ=10°04'59" C.Brg=N5°17'45"W C=76.40 STORMWATER PONDPROPOSED BUILDING 622' x 280' 174,160 S.F.850852852852852850848845856 854 852 850 848 846845844846838844 838 FOR RE V I E W O N L Y PRELIM I N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N C-4.0COBALT BUSINESS CENTERCITY SUBMITTALGRADING PLAN733 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 612.758.3080 www.alliant-inc.com Suite 700 LEGEND: GRADING NOTES: EROSION CONTROL SCHEDULE: EROSION MAINTENANCE: Page 57 of 313 STORMWATER PONDPROPOSED BUILDING 622' x 280' 174,160 S.F. FOR RE V I E W O N L Y PRELIM I N A R Y NOT FO R C O N S T R U C T I O N C-5.0COBALT BUSINESS CENTERCITY SUBMITTALUTILITY PLAN733 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 612.758.3080 www.alliant-inc.com Suite 700 UTILITY NOTES: LEGEND STORM SEWER SCHEDULE: Page 58 of 313     File Location: X:\4000651-00\001\40 Design\45 Stormwater\HYDRO-X - 1998.dwg  Plotted By: Dan Sjoblom on May 2, 2025 at 1:08:13 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 0 SCALE      IN      FEET 30 60 N W S E MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551201315 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROADEXISTING CITY POND - 1998 DESIGNCOBALTwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of     DAN SJOBLOM, PE 54821  I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.  05/02/2025  EDRN HYDROCAD MODEL EXISTING POND DESIGN SUMMARY: DEAD STORAGE: 57,123 CF LIVE STORAGE: 255,009 CF OUTLET: 12" RCP INV:848.70 LEGEND: DEAD STORAGE LIVE STORAGE Page 59 of 313 N89°52'24"E 881.26 N89°52'24"E 888.46 N0°15'16"W 423.94MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDENTERPRISE DR8548568588608628648 7 2 87 08688668648 6 28608588 5 6 8 5 4852 848 850 852 854 856 858 860 84 8 85 0 85 2 85 4 85 6 85 8 86 0 862 864864 862862862852860850 864 866866866 File Location: X:\4000651-00\001\40 Design\45 Stormwater\HYDRO-X.dwg Plotted By: Dan Sjoblom on May 2, 2025 at 1:07:08 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 N W S E MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551201315 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROADEXISTING CITY POND - 2025COBALTwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. EDRN EXISTING POND DESIGN SUMMARY 1998: DEAD STORAGE: 57,123 CF LIVE STORAGE: 255,009 CF OUTLET: 12" RCP INV:848.70 2025 EXISTING HYDROCAD MODEL EXISTING POND ACTUAL 2025 SUMMARY: DEAD STORAGE: 51,296 CF LIVE STORAGE: 182,108 CF (EOF 1FT LOW) OUTLET: 12" RCP INV:848.70 LEGEND: DEAD STORAGE LIVE STORAGE DAN SJOBLOM, PE 54821 05/02/2025 Page 60 of 313 N0°15'16"W 423.94MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDENTERPRISE DR8548568588608608588 5 6 8 5 4852 848 850 852 854 856 858 84 8 85 0 85 2 85 4 85 6 85 8 86 0 862862862852860850 STORMWATER POND858852850852852852852862 860866850848845858856 854 852 850 848 846845844846838844 838 File Location: X:\4000651-00\001\40 Design\45 Stormwater\HYDRO-PRO.dwg Plotted By: Dan Sjoblom on May 2, 2025 at 2:39:48 PM0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 N W S E MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 551201315 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROADPROPOSED CITY PONDCOBALTwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of DAN SJOBLOM, PE 54821 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 05/02/2025 PDRN HYDROCAD MODEL EXISTING POND DESIGN AND MODELING SUMMARY: DEAD STORAGE: 57,123 CF LIVE STORAGE: 255,009 CF OUTLET: 12" RCP INV:848.70 LEGEND: DEAD STORAGE LIVE STORAGE EXISTING POND ACTUAL 2025 SUMMARY: DEAD STORAGE: 51,296 CF LIVE STORAGE: 182,108 CF (EOF 1FT LOW) OUTLET: 12" RCP INV:848.70 PROPOSED POND  2025 SUMMARY: DEAD STORAGE: 96,003 CF LIVE STORAGE: 258,944 CF OUTLET: 12" RCP INV:845.0 NWL: 845.0 Page 61 of 313 This page is intentionally left blank 9.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: June 17, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: 2040 Park System Master Plan ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Accept the 2040 Park System Master Plan. BACKGROUND: On January 9, 2024, the City Council approved a professional services contract for the development of a 15-year Park System Master Plan. The scope of the project included an existing conditions and opportunities audit, recreation program services review and future forecast, financial sustainability analysis, equity analysis, benchmark city review and implementation plan. After a 16-month process that included community engagement, a final draft was developed by the consultant. The 2040 Park System Master Plan is encompassed in the attached document from pages 1-29 and includes the following components: •Introduction and Purpose •Planning Process Overview •Level of Service Assessment •Park System Mission, Vision and Recommendations For reference on how the 2040 Park System Master Plan was developed and the data utilized, documentation is included in the following Appendices: •Phase 1 Engagement Summary •Phase 2 Engagement Summary •Phase 1 Summary •Demographics and Trends Analysis •Benchmark Analysis •Program Assessment Page 62 of 313 •Financial Analysis and Strategies The plan was made available to the public on May 28 for review and comments. Comments were due to the Parks and Recreation Director in writing by Wednesday, June 11 at 4:30pm. All comments that were received by the deadline are included in the packet. Accepting this plan does not approve any future budgetary implications, programs, park amenities, policies, fees, or staffing additions; rather, it provides a roadmap on potential avenues the City can take to improve its parks and recreation offerings as a whole for our community. Upon acceptance of the plan, staff will begin the implementation phase, which will first include prioritization of the most important takeaways from the consultants. A future work session will be held with the Council regarding staff's five-year plan as Phase 1 of implementation. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The contract with Confluence and PROS Consulting included a total project cost of $85,970, of which was funded through the Special Parks Fund. This project was completed within budget. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Parks Master Plan 06 17 2.Comments Received as of June 11 at 4:30pm CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 63 of 313 Em relo nobistius quiaspitae laut et aut omm os nullabo rendusa net vendictat Developed by the City of Mendota Heights 2025 Reviewed for acceptance by City Council June 2025 Ulloris ameni mep orrunt 2040 PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN ACCEPTED XXX YY, 2025 CITY OFMENDOTA HEIGHTS 99% DRAFT 06.10.2025 Page 64 of 313 2 DRAFT 6/10/2025 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The 2040 Mendota Heights Park System Master Plan is the result of dedicated and ongoing collaboration among residents, elected officials, City staff, and stakeholders. The Plan was shaped by the contributions of all of these individuals. The City of Mendota Heights thanks all who have contributed to this Plan. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL Mayor Stephanie Levine Councilor Sally Lorberbaum Councilor John Maczko Councilor John Mazzitello Councilor Jay Miller Councilor Joel Paper PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Chair Jaffrey Blanks Commissioner Tica Hanson Commissioner Stephanie Meyer Commissioner Michelle O’Conner Muller Commissioner Jo Schifsky Commissioner Dan Sherer Commissioner Michael Toth Commissioner Jennifer Weichert Commissioner Daniel Van Lith Student Representative Meg Murphy Student Representative Evangeline Fuentes AGENCY STAKEHOLDERS Dakota County ISD 197 City of West Saint Paul Tri District Community Education COMMUNITY GROUPS TRAA: Two Rivers Athletic Association SALVO Soccer West Saint Paul Hockey Association Active Adults Focus Group Families and Disability Focus Group CONSULTANTS Confluence Pro’s Consulting Page 65 of 313 3 DRAFT 6/10/2025 INTRODUCTION + PURPOSE The City of Mendota Heights Park System— encompassing over 296 acres of active parks, trails, cultural sites, and natural open space— helps define the City’s scenic, natural character and enhances residents’ quality of life by offering access to nature, recreational opportunities, and community-building events. Despite its significance, high usage, and the community’s evolving needs over recent decades, the last major system-wide investment in the parks occurred in 1989 when voters approved a parks-focused referendum. The purpose of the Park System Master Plan is to provide a high-level assessment of the existing park system’s service levels and, through collaboration with community members, City staff, regional partners, and elected officials, identify opportunities for preservation, improvement, and development. This plan ensures that Mendota Heights parks are well positioned to meet both current and future community needs while adapting to regional changes. Notably, this is the first Master Plan for the Park System in the City’s history. DOCUMENT OVERVIEW This Master Plan is the result of a 16-month comprehensive planning process that included targeted community and partner engagement. This document synthesizes all the findings and recommendations from this process. All full length stand alone reports and summaries have been included in this document as appendices and will be cited throughout. This document has four parts: • Planning Process Overview: Summarizes how the City of Mendota Heights, in collaboration with community members and stakeholders, developed this plan. It provides a high-level overview of the engagement activities that informed the planning process. • Level of Service Assessment: Reviews the existing park system as a whole and identifies strengths, opportunities, and potential gaps. It provides key background information on demographics, recreation trends, and programming in reference to national standards. • Park System Mission, Vision, & Recommendations: Defines the key priorities of this plan through clear mission, vision, and guiding principles. • Implementation: Provides guidance on how to use this for capital planning, detailed design, partnerships, and park dedication expenditures. It discusses how to track progress and ensure accountability to the public. The 2040 Park System Master Plan is a clear, 15-year vision for the City’s parks and open spaces, providing guidance on resource allocation, identifying system-level opportunities, and documenting community- identified focus areas to prioritize potential improvements and development. 01 OVER 1000 MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY PROVIDED INPUT DURING THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS THROUGH A VARIETY OF ENGAGEMENT TOOLS. THEIR FEEDBACK DEFINED THE MISSION AND VISION OF THIS MASTER PLAN. Page 66 of 313 The 16-month master planning process consisted of five defined stages, each building upon the previous phase to ensure a thorough, data-driven foundation for all recommendations and implementation plans. This comprehensive approach allowed for an in-depth assessment of the existing park system, community needs and priorities, and the feasibility of proposed improvements. Additionally, the process emphasized thoughtful engagement with community members and elected officials, providing ample time to address questions and concerns. Below is a brief stage-by-stage overview of the project. 4 DRAFT 6/10/2025 Existing System Assessment Community Engagement Needs Assessment completed a comprehensive evaluation of the current parks and recreational facilities, programs, staffing, and financial resources gathered input from residents, stakeholders, and user groups using diverse tools to ensure the plan reflects community needs. This included online surveys, focus groups, and direct outreach to foster meaningful dialogue and gather diverse perspectives identified strengths, gaps, and opportunities for improve- ment by analyzing data from the existing system assessment, community engagement, national trends, and community demographics Spring 2024 Spring -Fall 2024 Summer 2024 16-MONTHSCOMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PHASESWHAT IS HERE?WHAT Do PEOPLE THINK?WHAT IS NEEDED?planning process OVERVIEW Visioning + Prioritization Documentation + Implementation identified key priorities, potential improvements, and devel- oped a strategic framework to guide future investments and decision-making through establishing a long-term vision finalizes the master plan by compiling community input, assessment findings, and strategic recommendations into a clear, actionable document Fall 2024 WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN FIRST?HOW DO WE MAKE IT HAPPEN?Winter 2024-2025 02 Page 67 of 313 5 DRAFT 6/10/2025 POPULATION PROJECTIONS Total households in Mendota Heights from 2017-2021. The average household size in Mendota Heights is 2.37 persons per household. The Twin Cities metro has an average house- hold size of 2.53 persons per household Total housing units in Mendota Heights from 2017-2021. 55.7% of householders moved into their homes before 2010. 115 Vacant Units 3,927 Owner-Occupied Units 767 Renter-Occupied Units 51%OF RESIDENTS ARE ABOVE THE AGE OF 4511% ABOVE THE REGIONAL AVERAGEMendota Heights is a small, affluent suburb in the southeastern portion of the Twin Cities with a lower population density, higher median income, and smaller household sizes when compared to the larger Twin Cities metro area. Most residents are long-term homeowners, and the population is predomi- nantly white, with limited racial and ethnic diversity. The population is fairly stable, with only 600 new residents expected to join the Mendota Heights community in the next 15 years. As a result, park planning should prioritize accessibility and amenities that cater to older adults and multiple generations. This includes expanding passive recreation options, such as walking trails, seat- ing areas, and social gathering spaces, rather than focusing solely on playgrounds and sports facilities. Given the community’s stable population, the level of service outlined in this plan will remain relevant in the coming years. However, regular assessments are necessary to align with evolving national stan- dards. COMMUNITY PROFILE 15,000 2010 CENSUS 2020 CENSUS Population Annual Growth Rate 2023 ESTIMATE 2028 ESTIMATE 2033 ESTIMATE 2038 ESTIMATE 12,000 10,941 11,744 11,663 11,681 12,062 12,280 9,000 6,000 3,000 0 0.73% 0.03% 0.65%0.36%-0.23% 4,787 <5 Years Old MEDIAN AGE: 48.6 YEARS Metro Area: 6.3% Metro Area: 13.3% Metro Area: 12.3% Metro Area: 28.6% Metro Area: 25.5% Metro Area: 12.4% Metro Area: 1.7% 5-14 Years Old 15-24 Years Old 25-44 Years Old 45-64 Years Old 65-84 Years Old 85+ Years Old 11,744 TOTAL POPULATION BY AGE 5.7% 10.4% 13.4% 19.3% 27.5% 21.2% 2.4% 4,809 Median household income in Mendota Heights from 2017-2021. The median household income in the Twin Cities area is $94,098 and $74,755 in the USA. The projected median household income in Mendota Heights for 2038 is $166,217. $120,257 Percent population of Mendota Heights with a disability from 2017-2021. The percent population of the Twin Cities area with a disability is 10%. 8.1% SOURCE: 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. Straight line linear regression was utilized for projec- tions. Page 68 of 313 6 DRAFT 6/10/2025 To gain a deeper understanding of the community’s needs, the City engaged with the broader community, a targeted group of residents, and partners to explore their visions for the park system. Through online surveys, pop-up events, direct outreach, and focus group discussions, thousands of ideas and insights were gathered about the current park system and future priorities. A comprehensive summary of the engagement efforts is available in Appendices 1 and 2. While community engagement was an ongoing component of the master planning process, there were two primary phases for capturing public input. The first phase, conducted at the beginning of the master plan, aimed to gather community opinions and insights on the existing park system and whether it met their needs (Master Plan Appendix 1). Residents were also asked to share their initial vision for the future of the park system. In both phases of engagement, the community members expressed that the parks and trails throughout Mendota Heights are highly valued and widely used. However, there is strong interest in diversifying and updating park amenities to be more flexible, inclusive and consistent with current park design practices. Additionally, the community identified a need for indoor recreation and gathering spaces. Some larger priorities emerged, including comprehensive accessibility and trail system improvements, an inclusive playground, and park renovations. However, there is currently no dedicated funding source for large-scale projects and improvements. This current funding model would limit the feasibility of improvements. As such, the second phase of engagement sought community feedback on the findings from the first phase and assessed public opinion on additional funding needed to achieve the park system vision (Master Plan Appendix 2). The responses from the second phase reinforced the initial findings. Respondents generally supported expanded programming and select park system improvements. The majority also expressed willingness to support some level of increased funding to meet these needs and priorities. In summary, input from both phases directly informed the development of the plan’s recommendations. These insights shaped the plan’s direction, leading to six key themes that emerged from the engagement process. 01| Recognition of Park System’s Value: Engagement participants emphasized the park system as a valuable asset to the Mendota Heights community and a key contributor to quality of life. The trail system and natural areas were especially appreciated. 02| Desire for Diversification of and Upgrades to Park Amenities: Park amenities should be diversified to better meet the needs and interests of all residents. Specifically, residents are interested in passive recreation amenities, community gathering, and connection to natural resources. Residents especially want flexible indoor community space for programming and gathering. 03| Need for Accessibility Improvements and Enhancements throughout the Park System: Accessibility is a concern across demographic groups. Residents would like to see improvements that both meet accessibility standards as well as offer unique, inclusive opportunities. 04| 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 indoor community space. 05| Strong Support for Funding Expansion: Engagement participants strongly supported increasing funding for park improvements and staffing. Most survey respondents favored a tax referendum of some level- even though they were not given specific concepts to review. Rather they were asked if they generally supported the types of park projects listed. Further study should be completed by the City to explore potential funding expansions for the coming years. 06| Desire for Continued Planning: Participants expressed a desire to see more specific concepts and designs for potential improvements suggested by the community through the master planning process. This would help the community focus in on specific parks of interest and prioritize projects in greater detail. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Page 69 of 313 MAINTENANCE NUMBER OF PARKS NUMBER OF TRAILS PARK PROXIMITY CLEANLINESS PARK CONNECTIVITY SAFETY WATER ACTIVITIES DIAMOND UPDATES YOUTH SPORTS 600 RESIDENTS POSITIVES NEGATIVES 7 DRAFT 6/10/2025 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY NONE 10% 0% 20% 30% $8 PER MONTH $15 PER MONTH $22 PER MONTH OTHER28%23%16%28%5%in favor of at least one of the tax increase ranges 67% + majority of these respon- ses include those in favor of more or less than the ranges provided TOP FIVE THEMES FROM PHASE 1 TOP FIVE THEMES FROM PHASE 2 75.2% OF RESPONDENTS VISIT THE PARKS AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH90% OF RESPONDEN T S W E RE IN FAV O R OF EXPANDED RECREATION1. Residents like the scale, condition, character and locations of the existing parks and want this preserved in the future park system. 2. Connections between these parks and neighborhood connec- tions 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 interest- ed in passive recreation, community gathering, and connections to natural resources. There was also a strong interest in aquatics programming. 4. Accessibility 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 in- door and outdoor. TOP REQUESTS ACROSS ALL GROUPS Accessibility, trail, and safe route improvements Indoor gathering and recreation Programming and staff General park upgrades and improvements New park development 1. Strong Support for Funding Expansion: Residents supported some level of expanded funding for park system improvements and/or staffing. A significant majority of survey respondents fa- vored 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 find- ings, the top priorities for expanded funding support included ac- cessibility 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 commu- nity 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 Men- dota Heights community and an important contributor to qual- ity 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 improve - ments to better understand proposed enhancements. TOP REQUESTS ACROSS ALL GROUPS Accessibility improvements Walking and hiking trails Aquatics (Splash pad/pool) Updated playgrounds (Including fully inclusive playground) Expanded programming Field and diamond improvements Page 70 of 313 8 DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY SHOULD STRIVE FOR 100%63% of THE City’s POPULATION IS WITHIN 1/2 MILE OF A PARK With over 296 acres of parks and open space, the Mendota Heights Park System provides a range of amentities for its residents within the City. Existing Park System Summary The park system in Mendota Heights encompasses 17 parks, open space, and cultural sites. This includes Oheyawahe- a 112-acre site considered sacred by Dakota people - that is preserved as an open space. The majority of the parks are smaller, neighborhood parks that serve nearby residents. They provide standard uniform amenities throughout the community, including courts, playgrounds, picnic areas, and ball fields. These neighborhood parks are complemented by three community parks - Rogers Lake, Mendakota, and Kensington - which offer unique and mostly recreational sports related amenities within the community. Rogers Lake is the only park with water access in the Park System. There is also one golf course operated and maintained by the City. Mendakota Country Club and Somerset Country Club are private courses and clubs that add to the overall bucolic character of the City and provide private opportunities for recreation (private courses are not counted in the 296 acres of parks and open space). Operated by Dakota County, the Mendota- Lebanon Hills and River to River Greenways provide a recreation and open space backbone to the City. They connect many of the City’s existing parks as well as connect Mendota Heights to neighboring communities. These trails complement the 6 miles of existing paved trails that are part of the City’s system. The west side of the City - with recent multifamily housing development - is currently underserved by the park system . This is also the most diverse area of the City. Efforts should be made to diversify amenities in this zone and potentially add parkland and/or programming. PARK SERVICE GAP LEVEL OF SERVICE ASSESSMENT 03 T Y P I C A L L Y 15-20% IS THE NATIONAL STANDARD44% of THE City’s park land is dedicated natural open space Page 71 of 313 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 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 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM COPPERFIELD PONDS 8.4 ACRES CIVIC CENTER DOG PARK ROGERS LAKE FRIENDLY HILLS MENDAKOTA FRIENDLY MARSH VALLEY(natural area) WENTWORTH IVY HILLS 9.1 ACRES 10.4 ACRES 6.7 ACRES MARIE 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 Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway River to River Greenway VALLEY (neighbohood park) 6 ACRES UNDEVELOPED City OWNED VACANT PARCEL 11.65 ACRES (ID: 27-04100-42-010) UNDEVELOPED TOT LOT .93 acres 1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA AREA OUTSIDE OF PARK 1/2 MILE SERVICE AREA (PARK SYSTEM GAP) COMMUNITY PARKS NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS OPEN/NATURAL AREAS MINI PARKS SPECIAL-USE PARK REGIONAL TRAIL LOCAL TRAIL 9 DRAFT 6/10/2025 PARK TYPE CURRENT INVENTORY SERVICE LEVEL BASED ON CURRENT POPULA- TION RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS FOR STUDY AREA ASSESSMENT ADDITIONAL NEED Mini Parks 0.24 acres .02 acres per 1,000 residents .02 acres per 1,000 residents Meets Standard - Neighborhood Parks 90.3 acres 7.74 acres per 1,000 residents 16 acres per 1,000 residents Needs Exist 96 acres Community Parks 43.3 acres 3.71 acres per 1,000 residents 4 acres per 1,000 residents Needs Exist 3 acres Special-Use Parks 19.34 acres 1.66 acres per 1,000 residents 2 acres per 1,000 residents Needs Exist 4 acres Open/Natural Areas 130.4 acres 11.18 acres per 1,000 residents 4 acres per 1,000 residents Exceeds Standard - Total Developed Park Acres 283.58 acres 24.31 acres per 1,000 residents 26.02 acres per 1,000 residents Needs Exist 20 Undeveloped Park Acres 12.56 acres 1.08 acres per 1,000 residents NA NA - Total Park Acres 296.2 acres 25.39 acres per 1,000 residents 26.02 acres per 1,000 residents Needs Exist 7 acres EXISTING PARK SYSTEM Page 72 of 313 10 DRAFT 6/10/2025 Park Classifications LEVEL OF SERVICE Park Type Definition Neighborhood Parks * Neighborhood parks are the foundation of the park system and serve as the recreational and social focus of the neigh- borhood. They accommodate a wide variety of age and user groups, both children and adults. They create a sense of place by bringing together the unique character of the site and the neighborhood. Community Parks * Community parks are designed to meet the recreational needs of several neighborhoods or larger segments of the community. They are intended for ball fields, larger athletic facilities, and community gatherings. Open/Natural Areas * Natural resource areas are lands set aside to preserve significant or unique landscapes. They are often, but not always, properties with steep slopes, drainage ways, ravines, or wetlands. In addition, there may be locations where local tree protection, or state and local wetland ordinances restrict development. Mini-Parks A mini-park (also called a pocket park) is a small, publicly accessible green space typically less than an acre in size, designed to serve nearby residents, workers, or visitors. Special-Use Parks Special-use parks are designed for a specific purpose or activity, rather than general recreation. These could include sports complexes, golf courses, cultural sites, or outdoor recreation. *Park type definitions from the City of Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Overall, Mendota Heights is fairly well served in total park acreage per resident, primarily due to the large amount of open and natural spaces within the City. However, when compared to national standards for a City of its size, there is a need for neighborhood and community parks. As the City is nearly fully built out, adding additional acreage is difficult. As such, the existing parks should be planned to better meet diverse interests and accommodate a variety of users. Reflective of its suburban development patterns and lower-than-average neighborhood park acreage, only 63% of residents live within a half- mile of a park. While there isn’t a single national standard for this metric, the City should aim for a 10-minute walk to a park for most residents. Park access outside of the half-mile walkshed could be improved by extending and enhancing multimodal trails throughout the park system. Mendota Heights’ parks are concentrated along the central spine of the City, with the highest concentration in the southeast and south-central areas. There are two significant park service gaps: a larger one in the southwest and a smaller one along the border with West Saint Paul. The western park gap is in an area with higher levels of industrial and commercial development, but recent multifamily development in the area has increased the need for park access and programming. Additionally, the parkland adjacent to the western park gap—the Dog Park—is minimally developed and could benefit from diversified amenities to better serve the broader community. This park is also near a known cultural site, and there is a high likelihood that the land may have archaeological significance. A high level of due diligence and a feasibility study should be completed before making any development recommendations. Alternatively, the City owns an 11.65-acre parcel on the western side of the City that presents an opportunity for potential park development. Additional study should be completed to assess feasibility and interest. SEE MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 3 FOR PHASE 1 SUMMARY INCLUDING LEVEL OF SERVICE. The Park System Master Plan consists of five park classifications. Each classification serves a particular purpose in meeting park and recreation needs and are necessary to ensure that the City’s system is well-balanced and efficient. This plan recommends all current park classifications remain. Page 73 of 313 11 DRAFT 6/10/2025 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. Below shows the priority ranking for each of the individual parks based on the adjacent community demographics. This ranking should be taken into account when selecting projects for future planning and investment activities. 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 PARK MARKET SQUARE PARK VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS PARK FRIENDLY MARSH PARK ROGERS LAKE PARK CIVIC CENTER PARK VICTORIA HIGHLANDS PARK COPPERFIELD PONDS FRIENDLY HILLS PARK KENSINGTON PARK HAGSTROM KING PARK VALLEY PARK EQUITY RATING COMBINED SCORE POP.UNDER 18 YEARS OLD BIPOC LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY POP.OVER 75 YEARS OLD HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOME <$50,000 PER YEAR HOUSEHOLDS WHO RENT HOUSEHOLDS WITH AT LEAST ONE MEMBER WHO HAS A DISA-BILITY (%) IVY HILLS WENTWORTH VALLEY VICTORIA HIGHLANDS MARIE CIVIC CENTER MENDAKOTA VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS ROGERS LAKE MENDOTA HEIGHTS DOG PARK MARKET SQUARE FRIENDLY MARSH COPPERFIELD PONDS FRIENDLY HILLS HAGSTROM-KING KENSINGTON 7 12 5 11 4 8 10 1 CURRENT PARK PROPERTY 1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA AREA OUTSIDE OF PARK SERVICE AREA 3 2 6 9 13 14 15 Page 74 of 313 12 DRAFT 6/10/2025 Park Features and Amenity Inventory As part of the Level of Service Analysis, the number of park amenities by type was compared to national recommendations set by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). These benchmarks reflect typical park systems based on population and density. The analysis found that Mendota Heights met or exceeded national recommendations for most amenity types, including courts, fields, shelters, and trails (see Appendix 3). Similar to the overall distribution of park services, amenities were concentrated in the central and eastern parts of the City, while the west side lacked key features such as playgrounds, trails, courts, and picnic areas. The primary park in this area functions mainly as a dog park, limiting its recreational offerings for residents. Of particular note, the number of ball fields/ diamonds and playgrounds within the Mendota Heights park system far exceeded national recommendations—roughly three times the suggested number of ball diamonds per resident. Both ball diamonds and playgrounds are highly resource-intensive park features. Additionally, a review of playgrounds identified accessibility challenges for individuals with physical disabilities and neurodiversity, as well as a lack of variety in available playground types. The City could benefit from a destination playground in a central location to serve a wider range of users. One of the most significant gaps in the park system is the lack of indoor recreation and programming space. This is particularly problematic for communities in northern climates, as it severely limits services during the colder months and reduces year-round offerings for individuals who require indoor spaces for comfort and recreation. In addition to the absence of indoor recreational space, there is a lack of water-based activities— both of which are recommended amenities for a community of Mendota Heights’ size and population. Equity Prioritization Assessment The top five parks identified by the Equity Prioritization Tool were the Dog Park, Wentworth, Ivy Hills, Mendakota, and Marie. This assessment identifies those parks with the highest concentration of individuals historically underserved by park systems within their primary service area. This equity ranking should be used to prioritize future site planning and improvements. Park Assessments Site assessments of individual parks found that properties were generally well-maintained and in fair to good condition. Consistent with the park system inventory, site visits confirmed that parks across the system feature similar amenities. This presents a strong opportunity to diversify amenities based on community-identified needs and national trends. A key takeaway was the need for accessibility improvements throughout the park system. Basic access to key site features was limited in most parks. It is recommended that the City conduct a comprehensive accessibility assessment to prioritize necessary improvements and develop a strategy for addressing system-wide accessibility concerns. Additionally, there is a general need for improved internal and external multimodal connectivity, as well as safer routes, alongside accessibility improvements. Addressing these needs will require tailored solutions for each individual site. Civic Center Civic Center is a 17.6-acre neighborhood park located next to the Mendota Heights City Hall and Police Station. The current amenities are limited to a large natural area, a walking trail, and baseball diamond. Residents exercise along the trail and baseball games and practices are hosted at the baseball diamond often. The park is in good condition. It would benefit from accessibility improvements - specifically accessible walkways - to the baseball diamonds. If the City proceeds with building a new City Hall in the future, the current City Hall could be renovated as an indoor recreation space and the adjacent parkland master planned to meet more generalized community needs, complement any interior recreation space, and leverage the natural resources. At that time, a master plan of this site should be completed. high priority planning OPPORTUNITY several of the parks in the existing park system have been identified as HIGH PRIORITY PLANNING opportunities. This designation is meant to help PRIORITIZE FUTURE RESOURCE ALLOCATION FOR PLANNING AND POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. REASONING FOR THE DESIGNATION IS PROVIDED IN EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARK DESCRIPTIONS. Page 75 of 313 13 DRAFT 6/10/2025 Dog Park The Dog Park is a 8.2-acre minimally developed neighborhood park. Current amenities are limited to two large fenced in off-leash dog runs and a small seating area with a shade structure. Visitors also bring movable lawn chairs to the park. This park is highly used by the community. This park has been identified as an opportunity for future planning. It is located adjacent to the park system gap and is located in the area of the City with the highest proportion of historically underserved communities. It’s location as well as its current lack of development makes it a unique resource for the community for future planning. Future planning should be approached with a high level of due diligence. The park is located across the street from the culturally significant Oheyawahe site. Although no archaeological study has been conducted within the dog park boundaries, one should be completed prior to any future development. Friendly Hills Friendly Hills Park is a neighborhood park that contains trails, a natural area including a pond, a hockey rink with seasonal pickleball courts, a baseball diamond, picnic shelters, and tennis courts. There is also a hill that can be used for sledding in the winter. The park would benefit from improved connecting walkways throughout the site. A redesign and relocation of the basketball court and playground could also enhance user safety and overall usability. Community feedback should be sought to evaluate the value of the multi-use diamond at this location. The central natural pond is a valuable feature of the park and would benefit from ecological restoration. Friendly Marsh Friendy Marsh Park is a natural area park with paved walking trails. This large park contains wetlands and grasslands and is adjacent to the Dodge Nature Center. It is a valuable natural resource within the park system and the City should continue to support natural resource restoration and preservation efforts within it. Hagstrom-King Hagstrom-King Park is a 9.6-acre neighborhood park featuring a large playground, a basketball court, and a baseball diamond. It also includes natural areas and a trail that connects to nearby neighborhoods. The park—particularly the baseball diamond—is well maintained and appears to be in good condition. However, the park would greatly benefit from improved walkways and enhanced accessibility throughout. Currently, it lacks a safe pedestrian entrance. Additional accessibility improvements should include accessible routes to site amenities and accessible play surfacing. The proximity of the court to the adjacent road as well as the lack of any screening or barriers decreases user safety and comfort. Basketball Court at Friendly Hills Park The crosswalk does not connect to an accessible walkway, making it both inaccessible and unsafe for all users. Pedestrian Crossing at Hagstrom-King Park Though limited in development, the Dog Park is highly used and has a devoted group of regular visitors. Dog Park Entrance Page 76 of 313 14 DRAFT 6/10/2025 Ivy Hills Ivy Hills Park is a well-maintained neighborhood park featuring tennis courts, a trail, a baseball diamond, a basketball court, a picnic area, and a playground. The park’s features and amenities are highly compartmentalized. It would benefit from accessible, passive recreation amenities located adjacent to more active features (e.g., a gathering area near the lawns or courts, or a picnic shelter near the playground). The stormwater wetland is a valuable park asset and could be further utilized for passive programming. The park is also adjacent to privately owned open space. Clearly delineating between areas with public access could be better defined. Kensington Kensington Park is a community park that contains high quality soccer fields, a playground, picnic areas, restrooms, and a concession building. The concession stand is no longer used as tournaments are no longer held in this park due to parking constraints. The primary driver for the limited use of this park for field sports is the parking limitations. The fields are in excellent condition. Additional study and master planning work could explore potential design solutions to address this limitation and improve usability for the best multi-use fields in the City. Marie Marie Park is a neighborhood park that contains tennis courts, a hockey rink with seasonal pickleball courts, a warming house, a playground, a baseball diamond, and a basketball court. This neighborhood park is frequently in use and has received positive feedback during community engagement for future improvements. The courts and warming house are well situated in the park. However, there is significant safety concerns in the location and design of the existing playground. Additional planning that accounts best practices for locating play areas should be considered when the playground is flagged for replacement. Market Square Market Square Park is a 0.24-acre mini park located within the Village of Mendota Heights development. Nestled between shops and other businesses, the park offers space for picnics and community gatherings. Mendakota Mendakota Park is a 20.9-acre community park centrally located within the park system and serves as the primary venue for community events. Its main features include a large softball/baseball complex with four fields, a concession stand, and restrooms. Additional amenities include a basketball court, picnic shelter, playground, soccer field, volleyball court, and trails. Given its size, central location, and long-standing use, the park is well positioned to remain a key asset within the system. However, both active and passive recreation opportunities could benefit from overall improvements and updates to better meet the evolving needs of the City and park users. Potential The current parking and entrance alignment of the park creates user conflicts during heavily visited times. This limits the poten- tial use of the park despite having high-quality fields. Aerial Image of Entrance to Kensington Park The existing playground is located between the entry drive and an open pond, raising safety concerns. The potential for conflicts between ve- hicles and pedestrians is high, and the proximity to open water poses an additional risk—particularly for individuals with autism, for whom water can present a significant safety hazard. Playground at Marie Park Page 77 of 313 15 DRAFT 6/10/2025 enhancements include a comprehensive accessibility assessment, playground upgrades, and field improvements to better accommodate youth sports. Valley Valley Park is a 93.5-acre park featuring a trail system, tennis courts, a basketball court, a playground, a baseball diamond, and a picnic area. Its most notable feature is the expansive natural area—an urban forest—that runs the length of the park, buffering adjacent neighborhoods from I-35E. Additionally, Valley Park contains a significant portion of the River to River Greenway, connecting the City to the Mississippi River. The park’s main amenities are concentrated near the entrance off Marie Avenue. The basketball court, playground, and baseball diamond are located directly adjacent to the parking area with minimal barriers, creating potential user conflicts and safety concerns, particularly for playground and basketball court users. Given its location along the regional trail system, opportunities for partnerships with Dakota County, valuable natural resources, and the need to address safety concerns related to park amenity placement, Valley Park has been identified as a priority for future planning. Valley View Heights Valley View Heights Park is a small .6-acre neighborhood park that contains a playground, walking trails, and a basketball court. There are also picnic tables within the park. This park would benefit from assessment of adjacent uses and circulation. Victoria Highlands Victoria Highlands Park is a well-maintained 6.7-acre neighborhood park that contains a baseball diamond, a playground, a basketball court, and a walking trail. There are also picnic tables near the playground. Wentworth Wentworth Park is a 10.4-acre neighborhood park that offers a wide range of amenities, including a basketball court, a hockey rink with seasonal pickleball courts, picnic shelters, a playground, tennis courts, and a youth softball field. It also features a warming house to support winter activities and includes natural areas. While the park is highly programmed, it could benefit from more flexible-use areas and gathering spaces to better accommodate a broader range of activities and diverse users. Rogers Lake Rogers Lake Park is an 8.7-acre community park that offers space for play, picnics, kayaking, and fishing. The most recent amenity added was a skate park completed in May 2024. This is the only park in the Mendota Heights system with an active shoreline and water access. Given its unique role within the park system, additional master planning could help position it for future use and maximize its value to the community. Potential improvements could include enhanced shoreline restoration, expanded water access for kayaking and fishing, improved picnic and gathering spaces, and better trail connections to surrounding neighborhoods. Upgrades to parking, pathways, and accessible launch areas could improve inclusivity, ensuring individuals of all abilities can fully enjoy the park’s amenities. The concentration of park amenities at the entrance to the park creates a high potential for user conflict and decreases user comfort. This park would benefit from further master planning to provide alternatives to the current layout. Basketball Court and Trailhead at Valley Park Rogers Lake is a unique and valuable resource within the Park System. Small improvements - including trail and paddling boat launch - would improve overall usability. Fishing Pier at Rogers Lake Page 78 of 313 WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARKS?OVERALL TRENDS (NATIONAL) RECREATIONAL TRENDS ANALYSIS The Recreational Trends Analysis examines national, regional, and local recreational trends to provide context and guidance for the future needs of the Park System. This analysis offers insight into the activities the community values and reinforces the need for improved parks, trails, facilities, and recreation programs. Data for this analysis was sourced from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) Sports, Fitness & Leisure Topline Participation Report (2022), the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), and the Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI). All trend data is based on current and historical participation rates, statistically valid survey results, or NRPA Park Metrics. The analysis covers categories such as sports, fitness, outdoor activities, aquatics, and other recreational pursuits. (See Appendices 3 & 4 for full Recreational Trends Analysis and Phase 1 Summary.) In 2023, approximately 242 million Americans (ages 6+) reported being active, a 2.2% increase from 2022 and the highest level in six years. Outdoor activities continue to grow, home fitness remains strong, and team sports are gradually returning to pre-pandemic levels. OUTDOOR & FITNESSOVERALL ACTIVITY INCREASE 165 million Americans were classified as “core participants” (frequent engagement), marking a six-year increase. Core participants are more committed and less likely to switch activities. CORE VS. CASUAL Fitness sports dominate across generations. Outdoor activities are especially popular among Gen Z, Millennials, and Gen X, while team sports are primarily driven by Gen Z. GENERATIONAL TRENDS The most popular sports by total participation included basketball, golf, and tennis. Baseball saw a 7.6% increase in participation from the previous year and a 4.9% increase over the past five years. Current recreational trends highlight the need for flexible community spaces—both indoor and outdoor—within the Mendota Heights park system. These adaptable spaces would support a variety of growing fitness and wellness activities, as well as allow for year-round classes and programs. Expanding indoor programming is especially important given the city’s aging population, who have expressed strong interest in such offerings. Overall, the park system provides a relatively balanced distribution of amenities based on population and national trends, with two notable exceptions. First, the number of baseball diamonds significantly exceeds national standards. While baseball remains a popular sport, its space allocation should be reconsidered to ensure equitable access to other recreational opportunities. Second, the system lacks aquatic facilities. As community interest in aquatic activities continues to rise, so too will the demand for swimming and water-based programming. Addressing these imbalances will help the park system better meet the evolving needs of all residents. There is currently a sufficient number of pickleball courts. However, this should be reassessed in the coming years if participation continues to increase. The rising interest in golf highlights the value of the City-owned golf course and presents opportunities to expand programming and amenities at the course. Pickleball was the fastest-growing sport in 2023, with participation skyrocketing to 13.6 million—a 223.5% increase since 2020. Group fitness activities such as tai chi, barre, Pilates, and yoga also saw significant growth, reflecting a broader trend toward community- based exercise. Water-based recreation experienced a rise in participation across all ages, highlighting increased interest in aquatic sports and potential benefits to a broad swath of the community . Page 79 of 313 17 DRAFT 6/10/2025 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Recreation programs and services are the backbone of a thriving park system, fostering engagement, wellness, and community connection. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the current programming landscape, this plan includes a detailed Program Assessment. The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate existing recreation offerings and identify opportunities for enhancement and expansion. By aligning programming recommendations with community needs and priorities identified in the Community Needs Assessment, the City can ensure that its recreation services remain relevant, inclusive, and responsive to residents of all ages and abilities. SEE MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 6 FOR THE FULL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Strengths MHPR has strong community engagement and high participation rates, particularly in sports camps such as golf and tennis. However, third-party organizations currently use a disproportionate share of MHPR resources. Lease agreements with sports associations should be reassessed to clarify responsibilities and adjust fees to better reflect MHPR’s resource investment. Community special events, in particular, play an important and meaningful role in the community. Special events are a high priority for the community and MHPR resources should be expanded to focus on this area. The City has a history of partnering with other regional institutions to share facilities and/ or programming. Strengthening partnerships with School District 197, Dakota County, and West Saint Paul could expand program offerings despite existing constraints. However, this depends on the availability and resources of these organizations and may not be consistent over time. Challenges The primary challenges to sustaining recreational programming include limitations in staffing, funding, and available space. These constraints hinder both current offerings and the department’s ability to expand programs in response to community interest. Additionally, the absence of a clear pricing strategy complicates financial planning and impacts program accessibility. Addressing these issues will be essential to maintaining and growing programming in the years ahead. Primary Observations MHPR serves most age groups but needs more offerings for preschoolers (ages 5 and under) and older adults (ages 55+). •A significant portion of MHPR programming is in the “Saturated” or “Decline” stage, signaling a need for diversification. •Most programs rely on earned income (e.g., user fees) but lack clear cost recovery goals. •Special events are a high community priority and need more dedicated resources including dedicated staff. •Over half of the programs are classified as “Value-Added” or serve individual interests which typically should require cost recovery through user fees; however, cost recovery goals and a detailed cost-of-service analysis need to be further established. Action Items •Core Program Areas & Recommendations: MHPR should clearly define core programs to focus resources on areas of greatest community value. •Accessibility: Expand accessible programming, train staff, and improve facility accessibility to ensure inclusive participation. •Balance User Groups: Focus on introductory youth sports programs while requiring third-party association to bear more financial responsibility. •Special Events: Invest in a dedicated Event Coordinator to manage growing demand for community events. •Senior Programs: Rebrand and diversify offerings to meet the varied needs of older adults, including digital literacy, social engagement, and wellness programs. •Marketing: Create a marketing plan aligned with MHPR goals and annually update marketing strategies to reflect community needs. •Data-Driven Decisions and Performance Tracking: Performance metrics, including participation rates, satisfaction surveys, and cancellation tracking, will support continuous improvement and effective program design. By implementing these action points, MHPR can improve program quality and alignment with strategic priorities, fostering continuous improvement and better serving the community. Page 80 of 313 18 DRAFT 6/10/2025 BENCHMARKING This Benchmark Analysis compares park systems in cities with similar size, demographics, and social infrastructure to Mendota Heights. The analysis helps the City assess trends, identify alternative approaches, and evaluate how it measures up to other peer communities. It can reveal significant deviations, such as funding or staffing being notably lower than other cities, or confirm that Mendota Heights’ approach to spending, staffing, and facilities aligns with similar communities. The data used for comparison comes from five benchmark agencies. Four were nearby cities: Golden Valley, New Brighton, New Hope, and West Saint Paul. A fifth, Green River, WY was added as a national benchmark. The analysis also includes national data from the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) for cities with populations under 20,000 to offer broader context. SEE MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 5 FOR FULL BENCHMARKING ASSESSMENT. Key Findings Mendota Heights has a well-utilized park system but operates with fewer resources compared to its peers. The City maintains 146 acres of parkland, equating to 12.4 acres per 1,000 residents, which is below the NRPA average of 20.9 acres per 1,000 residents. Additionally, the number of paved and unpaved trails is relatively low compared to other benchmark communities, highlighting a potential opportunity to enhance connectivity and access to outdoor recreation. MHPR also operates with the smallest full-time and seasonal staff among benchmark agencies, making it difficult to fully meet the demands of park maintenance, recreation programming, and administrative support. Benchmark cities with larger staff teams provide a broader range of services and higher levels of facility upkeep, reinforcing the need for additional staffing in Mendota Heights to maintain high-quality recreational opportunities. In terms of programming, MHPR takes a targeted approach, focusing on arts, technology, and net sports like tennis and pickleball. However, the analysis reveals gaps in adult sports, fitness programs, and indoor/outdoor aquatics, which are common offerings in peer communities. Expanding the variety of recreational programming could help MHPR engage a wider segment of the population while also generating additional revenue. While MHPR’s total participant numbers are smaller compared to some benchmark agencies, engagement remains strong, with a high level of repeat visits. This suggests that while the City’s programs serve a committed base of users, there is room to broaden participation through new offerings and expanded outreach. MHPR’s golf course operations also present opportunities for improvement. The City’s 9-hole course generated $296,818 in revenue in 2023, significantly less than similar facilities in New Brighton ($327,741) and New Hope ($529,939). Both peer agencies utilize indoor spaces for additional programming and rentals, which allows them to increase revenue beyond traditional seasonal golf operations. Adding amenities such as an indoor simulator, enhanced clubhouse, and expanded programming could improve the financial performance of the golf course. Financially, MHPR is more reliant on program fees, which account for 62% of earned revenue, a higher percentage than any of its benchmark agencies. This highlights the importance of program fees in maintaining financial sustainability. However, MHPR brings in significantly less non-tax revenue— including sponsorships, grants, and partnerships— compared to similar agencies. Exploring additional funding sources such as permits, facility rentals, and land leases could help diversify revenue streams and provide a more stable financial foundation for the department. Strategic Implications The benchmarking analysis highlights both strengths and areas for improvement in Mendota Heights’ park system. While the City efficiently manages a well-used park system, its lower staffing levels, limited trail mileage, and narrower program offerings indicate key areas that require attention. Expanding recreational opportunities—particularly in adult sports, fitness, and aquatics—could better align with regional trends while increasing community engagement and revenue potential. Additionally, diversifying funding sources beyond program fees will be critical to ensuring long-term financial sustainability. By addressing these gaps, Mendota Heights can strengthen its park system, enhance accessibility, and ensure that investments in staffing, amenities, and funding strategies position the community for continued success. These insights will directly inform the master plan’s recommendations, guiding the City in shaping a well-balanced and financially sustainable park and recreation system for the future. Page 81 of 313 19 DRAFT 6/10/2025 FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS A financially sustainable park system ensures that parks and recreation services remain accessible, well-maintained, and responsive to community needs. This chapter provides an analysis of Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation (MHPR)’s financial landscape, cost recovery trends, and funding strategies to secure the long-term viability of the park system. SEE MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 7 FOR FULL FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT. Financial Overview A review of MHPR’s financial data from 2019- 2024 reveals key trends in revenue generation, expenditures, and cost recovery. While MHPR’s operational budget is within national norms, spending is disproportionately allocated toward park maintenance, leaving recreation services underfunded. National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) benchmarks suggest a more balanced approach to budgeting, with a greater share allocated to recreation programming. Cost Recovery Trends Parks: Cost recovery for parks remains extremely low, averaging 1-2% compared to an industry standard of ~22%. While parks are not expected to be self-sufficient, the current recovery rate is unsustainable and highlights the need for alternative funding sources. Recreation: Recreation services have seen a sharp decline in cost recovery from 111% in 2019 to a projected 36% in 2024. Increased free events and reduced program fees have contributed to this decline. A more structured pricing approach is necessary to improve financial sustainability while ensuring equitable access. Golf: Golf operations perform significantly better than recreation and parks, recovering nearly all operating costs. The introduction of additional revenue-generating amenities, such as a golf simulator, could further improve cost recovery and expand year-round use of facilities. Capital Expenditures: Funding for capital improvements has largely relied on the Special Park Fund, which is depleting without a sustainable replenishment mechanism. Mendota Heights currently spends well below the national benchmark for capital reinvestment, putting long- term infrastructure at risk. Financial Benchmarking and Challenges MHPR’s per capita spending on parks falls within the middle quartile of national standards, yet recreation services remain significantly underfunded compared to similar communities. Additionally, the current per capita investment in capital improvements is well below recommended levels, posing long-term risks to park maintenance and facility upgrades. A major challenge for MHPR is its heavy reliance on tax support, with limited alternative revenue streams to balance its financial structure. This dependence on a single funding source threatens long-term sustainability and highlights the necessity of adopting a more diversified financial strategy. Expanding revenue generation through user fees, sponsorships, partnerships, and other innovative mechanisms will be essential to achieving fiscal stability and ensuring the continued success of the park system. Recommended Funding Strategies To achieve financial sustainability, MHPR must adopt a diversified funding approach that includes: User Fees & Pricing Adjustments: Implementing a structured fee policy that aligns with market standards while ensuring access for low-income residents through scholarship programs. Public-Private Partnerships: Collaborating with local businesses, nonprofits, and neighboring municipalities to develop and maintain facilities. External Funding Sources: Expanding grant applications, sponsorships, and philanthropic partnerships to increase non-tax revenue. Alternative Revenue Streams: Introducing naming rights, advertising opportunities, and concession management to generate additional income. Tax & Government Support: Exploring local sales tax initiatives, special service districts, and strategic use of park dedication fees to fund improvements. To maintain and enhance its park system, MHPR must take a proactive approach to financial sustainability. By diversifying funding sources and aligning expenditures with best practices, the City can ensure that parks and recreation services continue to meet community needs for generations to come. A well-funded and strategically managed park system not only enhances the quality of life for residents but also fosters community engagement, economic development, and environmental stewardship. Page 82 of 313 ACCESSIBILITY + INCLUSION 20 DRAFT 6/10/2025 Ensuring equitable access to parks and recreational amenities is essential for every community. While Mendota Heights has a well- maintained park system, accessibility improvements are needed throughout the park system to ensure that all residents—regardless of age or ability—can fully enjoy public spaces. A fundamental step toward achieving this goal is ensuring that every park includes ADA- compliant pathways and accessible routes to key amenities. Beyond basic accessibility, park systems should incorporate inclusive play- ground equipment, improved wayfinding signage, destination ame- nities, and adaptive sports fields. Additionally, upgrading restroom facilities and seating areas with accessible features will enhance comfort and usability for all visitors. Community engagement efforts and site assessments conducted by the consultant team have identified significant accessibility gaps throughout the Mendota Heights park and trail system. Currently, many parks do not meet baseline accessibility standards, limiting opportunities for individuals with disabilities to participate fully in outdoor recreation. To address these issues strategically, the City should conduct a comprehensive accessibility assessment of all park properties to identify and prioritize necessary improvements. Beyond infrastructure, programming and public engagement play a critical role in accessibility. MHPR can expand inclusion efforts by offering adaptive sports, sensory-friendly events, and bilingual pro- gramming to better serve the needs of diverse community members. Establishing partnerships with organizations specializing in disabil- ity advocacy and inclusive recreation will provide valuable insights and help guide best practices in program development. Effective communication and public awareness are also essential for accessibility. Residents should have access to clear, detailed infor- mation about available amenities and accessibility features before they visit parks or trails. Improved digital and on-site signage, maps, and online accessibility guides can help individuals plan their visits with confidence. Improving accessibility in the park system is not just a matter of compliance—it is a commitment to creating inclusive, welcoming spaces for all residents. By prioritizing inclusive infrastructure, en- hanced amenities, and diverse programming, Mendota Heights can build a park system that promotes equity, encourages participation, and strengthens community connections. HOW CAN THE EXISTING PARKS BE IMPROVED? Complete an Accessibility Assessment of all parks and trails Prioritize improvements identified in the Accessibility Assessment using the Equity Prioritization Tool Initiate implementation by integrating recommendations into park specific master plans. Integrate Accessibility Best Practices in all future work COMMUNICATION SPECTRUM MULTILEVEL APPROACH BASICS UNIQUE DESTINATIONS CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT Clearly communicate available amenities and access infor- mation to the community prior to their visit. During their visit, provide visible signage and intuitive wayfinding tools to support a welcoming and navigable experience Provide for the basic needs and comfort of all visitors (restrooms, water, shade, clear pathways, safe en- trances and exits) Create a diverse range of sensory environments and ame- nities to spark use by diverse user and age groups Provide spaces and amenities that are important to users including fully accessible playgrounds, differ- ent scales of gathering spaces, and areas to connect to nature Inclusion should be addressed at all levels - Parks, Program- ming, Planning, Improvement Prioritization Best practices, community needs, and demographics are constantly changing and evolving. Practices should be in place to allow frequent check-ins with users and experts to ensure the park system provides the most relevant services NEXT STEPS: 1 2 3 ACCESSIBILITY BEST PRACTICES Page 83 of 313 21 DRAFT 6/10/2025 This chapter establishes the guiding principles that will shape the future of Mendota Heights’ parks, recreation, and natural spaces. By defining a clear vision, this plan helps direct resources effectively, balance diverse community needs, and create a park system that is welcoming, sustainable, and adaptable. The ultimate goal is to support the City in providing high-quality parks and recreation opportunities for all residents. The mission and vision statements presented here are the result of a comprehensive 16-month planning process that engaged community members, elected officials, and key partners. This inclusive approach ensures that the guiding framework reflects the community’s priorities, balancing recreation, natural resource preservation, and equitable access. By incorporating a broad range of perspectives, the plan provides a strong foundation for decision- making, ensuring future investments align with shared goals. For the master plan to be successful, its recommendations must be both aspirational and practical. Implementation will require a strategic approach that considers financial feasibility, staffing capacity, and evolving community needs. A well-scaled, sustainable funding strategy will be essential to ensuring long-term success, allowing the City to maintain and improve parks, expand programming, and address evolving recreational demands without overburdening resources. Diversifying funding sources—including strategic public investment—will help create a resilient park system that can adapt to growth and changing priorities. This chapter outlines key goals for the park system’s future, detailing actionable steps to transition from planning to execution. By balancing short-term wins with long-term investments and securing stable funding, the City can ensure steady progress while maintaining the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions. This strategic approach will enable Mendota Heights’ park system to evolve sustainably, equitably, and meaningfully for years to come. A clear mission and vision for the Mendota Heights park system will provide a solid foundation for future decision-making and prioritization of competing needs and resources, ensuring that investments align with community values and long-term goals. Park System Mission, Vision, & RecommendationS 04 Page 84 of 313 22 DRAFT 6/10/2025 01: MEET NEEDS THROUGH DIVERSIFICATION • Diversify park amenities • Diversify and expand programming • Ensure ongoing community engagement • Expand winter programming and amenity options • Add flexible indoor & outdoor space • Add aquatics options • Consider all ages and abilities in amenity development and design vision preserve valued features of the current park system while innovatively expanding recreational opportunities to meet the needs of current and future park users to create an inclusive environment where all visitors can enjoy the City’s trails and open spaces. MISSION 02: PRIORITIZE ACCESSIBILITY + INCLUSIVITY • Complete City-wide accessibility study and improvement plan to identify and address issues • Define accessibility standards that meet and exceed ADA outdoor accessibility standards • Provide a fully inclusive playground and amenities within City • Update communications to current accessibility standards • Include accessibility improvements to all planned park improvements • Expand communications - media, language (as needed) • Add physical trail connections and road crossing improvements • Connect to the Minnesota River Valley • Ensure all residents can connect to nearby quality parks 03: IMPROVE CONNECTIVITY to preserve and enhance the quality of life for Mendota Heights residents through continued care of parkland, providing exceptional recreational opportunities and programming, maximizing fiscal efficiency, and fostering an inclusive environment. 04: MAINTAINING QUALITY • Stewardship of public dollars • Making park spaces “do more” to address gaps • Identifying additional funding/ revenue opportunities • Utilize data-based methods—such as ongoing maintenance data collection and asset management software—to document existing practices and conditions, enabling informed, data- driven decision-making • Ensuring Operation & Maintenance efficiency • Maintaining appropriate staffing levels • Tying decision-making to long-term goals and vision 05: PRESERVE EXISTING VALUED PARK FEATURES • Natural resources • Programming and education • Natural surface trails • Enhancement - improve quality • Character - scale/type/quaintness of neighborhood parks • Trail quality 06: DEVELOP LONG- TERM SUSTAINABLE FUNDING MODEL • Diversify revenue sources • Optimize cost recovery • Balance park and recreation expenses • Leverage Interagency Partnerships • Dakota County • West Saint Paul • Metropolitan Council • Eagan • ISD 197 School District GUIDING PRINCIPLESPage 85 of 313 23 DRAFT 6/10/2025 LEVEL OF SERVICE Implementing a Park System Plan is a new endeavor for Mendota Heights. The following is a practical tool for staff to guide the park system’s future develop- ment, redevelopment, maintenance, and recreation efforts. The following framework plan outlines key improvement areas that guide and inform more detailed Park System improvements. The following Action Plan consists of actions in four categories. The goal of this section is to provide a framework that outlines strategies to upgrade the park system in Mendota Heights to meet the City’s evolving needs. As implementation occurs, the City will assess and monitor these actions with an em- phasis on adequate staffing, financing, and equitable resource allocation. Mendota Heights recognizes the planning horizon of the Park System Master Plan may require modifica- tions to specific recommendations as conditions change. Shifts in development patterns, redevelop- ment, demographic changes, technology, staffing, funding, or recreational interests can reshape needs and priorities, warranting new implementation ap- proaches. The overall System Plan, and this Action Plan are living documents that guide but do not prescribe. The framework is expected to be modified in the future. Implementation flexibility enables the City to adjust, refine, and improve strategies to deliver accessible, equitable, innovative, and high- quality recreational experiences. It is recognized that the community engagement pro- cess for the Master Plan identified gaps between the public’s desires and needs for the park system and current facilities, funding, and staffing levels. Staff and City leadership will need to work together to cre- atively bridge these gaps through increased resource allocation, staffing, and efficiencies in processes. The following recommendations provide one avenue to improve the system. There are other means to achieve the goals of this Master Plan, and this Action Plan should be flexible and updated over time. A series of Goals, Strategies, and Tactics are pre- sented below and tied to a budget category found in the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP Budget Category responses identify the financial or staff level effort associated with the tactic. This order of magnitude ranking is the consul- tants’ opinion and should be used for resource plan- ning purposes. It should be updated as necessary. CIP BUDGET CATEGORY DEFINITION: Lifecycle Maintenance - routine efforts requiring a modest level of financial commitment and/ or staff time to complete. Many of these tactics should be on a set schedule. Enhancement - requiring an increased level of financial commitment or additional staff resources to complete. These tactics go above and beyond normal operating procedures to make a tangible improve- ment to the system. Visionary Element - requires significant enhance- ment to achieve, often requiring City leadership to direct significant resource allocation. These elements have a significant cost, but provide significant direc- tional change that will last long into the future. MISSION + VISION CONNECTION The Action Framework supports all of the Key Themes of the Guiding Principles. However, each category of the Action Framework directly supports some Principles more than others. IMPLEMENTATION TOOL CIP Budget Category Lifecycle Maintenance Enhancement Visionary Action Plan Key 01: MEET NEEDS THROUGH DIVERSIFICATION 02: PRIORITIZE ACCESSIBILITY + INCLUSIVITY 03: IMPROVE CONNECTIVITY 04: MAINTAINING QUALITY 05: PRESERVE EXISTING VALUED PARK FEATURES 06: DEVELOP LONG-TERM SUSTAINABLE FUNDING MODEL Page 86 of 313 24 DRAFT 6/10/2025 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06 01, 05, 06 02, 03 02, 03 01, 06 03, 05 03, 05, 06 03, 05 01, 02, 03, 04 01, 02, 03, 04 01, 02, 03, 04, 06 02, 03, 05, 06 02, 03, 06 02, 03, 06 02, 03 01, 03, 04, 05 04, 05, 06 = RECOMMENDED PLANNING PRIORITY Upgrade Parks and Trails to meet community needs and expectations with quality park design and amenities that support Mendota Heights’ high quality of life. Determine the capital investment needed to enhance existing community and neighborhood parks in the system to bring them up to a higher recreational experience value over a ten-year period through effective park design and amenities that provide a diversity of recreation opportunities, support community recreation needs and provide a positive experience. Improve and enhance the existing trail system by supplementing the Comprehensive Plan with the Bike and Pedestrian Plan (2022) to fill gaps and create an easy to use multimodal system of trails and on street sidewalks that allow any user to walk, run or bike in a safe environment. Acquire park land in underserved areas of the City as development occurs in the southwest. Reinforce consistent signage, education and branding of the park system that includes existing parks, trails, and major attractions to make it easy for residents and visitors to access the facilities and amenities provided. Develop additional sports fields to accommodate lacrosse and soccer for youth. Improve accessibility of all parks and facilities to accommodate all residents. •Establish a priority list of existing parks to be updated based on the equity analysis provided in this master plan. Update the priority list and analysis annually to ensure system is up-to-date and continues to respond to community needs. •Develop community-driven updated park site master plans and program plans for each park that is said to be improved and how residents benefit from the improvements slated to be completed and incorporate new types of amenities to broaden user types where appropriate. •Incorporate amenities in existing parks where appropriate to create a balance of amenity experiences across the City. •Track the use and impact of the park improvements on visitor rates and economic benefit to the City. •Submit state grants for trail enhancements in the City with the goal of completing one new mile a year until completed. •Improve safety and perception of arterial road crossings. Work with Engineers during road re-design efforts. •Identify opportunities to integrate natural surface trails through natural areas to support hiking and mountain biking. Focus on low-quality vegetation areas near existing parks & trails. •Establish policies for trails and open space development that require future development, and significant re-development, to connect with existing trails where possible. •Host events on the trails to promote usage such as trail runs and health walks so users understand the value of the trails in the City.Track the health of residents each year for areas of the City that have the trail system passing through it. Partner with health advocacy groups. •Set aside land for park space as a part of development and develop a site master plan for the new park site. •Seek to acquire enough land to provide amenities lacking in that part of the City. Develop a master plan to understand site capabilities. •Seek partners to help develop the park such as the school corporation or local developers who will benefit by having the park in their area of development. •Reaffirm signage brand for the park system and update inconsistent signage to make the brand stronger and more identifiable. •Create wayfinding along trails and at key attractions. •Work with the Chamber of Commerce, Public Works, and the school corporation on appropriate signage/wayfinding for connecting parks and special events held in the City. •Work to develop soccer and lacrosse fields to accommodate the needs of residents. Evaluate conversion of existing over-served diamonds. •Update practice fields to accommodate competitive games. •Complete an ADA audit for parks and incorporate changes needed to be in compliance over the next five years. •Provide programming opportunities that support all residents with or without disabilities. CIP Budget Category Associated Guiding PrinciplesStrategyTactics Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement GOAL 1 IMPLEMENTATION Enhancement Enhancement Page 87 of 313 25 DRAFT 6/10/2025 01, 02, 03, 06 06 01, 04, 06 04, 06 04, 05, 06 04, 05, 06 04, 06 04, 05, 06 04, 05, 06 01, 04, 05, 06 01, 04, 05, 06 01, 04, 05, 06 01, 04, 05, 06 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06 01, 04, 06 06 04, 06 Meet the desired program unmet needs outlined in the citizen survey as priorities for the parks and recreation system to build on in the future.GOAL 2 IMPLEMENTATION CIP Budget Category Strategy Tactics Implement the program recommendations outlined in the Master Plan that require indoor and outdoor space for year-round programming. Update pricing policies and partnership policies to create equity and fairness between partners, user groups, and the City for the level of benefit received beyond what a general taxpayer receives to offset operational and maintenance costs. Establish partnership policies for public/public partnerships that include the school district, public not-for-profit partnerships such as youth sports associations to create fairness in use and how operations are funded by the City in the future. Develop a feasibility study and business plans for future indoor program spaces to meet the needs of the community in a financially equitable manner. Study outdoor ice use and benefit to maximize cost benefit to the community; consider decommissioning low use/ low quality rinks and/ or covering high use outdoor ice facilities to maximize their use and to operate in the most efficient manner. Expand/ remodel the Par 3 Golf Course clubhouse to accommodate more use and revenue generation, encourage winter use, and allow for full operations of restrooms and concessions. • Match program needs with indoor and outdoor spaces available. Acquire or develop new program spaces to meet residents’ needs in the City. Include 15,000-20,000 sq ft of indoor recreation space in future City facilities planning. Life. Maint. Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Life. Maint. Visionary Element Visionary Element • Seek partners who are willing to share indoor space needs and costs to meet unmet program needs in the City. • Update pricing policies to reflect the cost of programmable space to meet the cost recovery goal desired. • Continue to meet annually with each sports group/association to review their partnership agreement and use of Mendota Heights facilities. Adjust agreements as needed. • When working with new sports organizations or other recreation providers that are wanting to partner with the City, meet prior to that organization starting their program and ensure the partnership is equitable. • Consider the creation of a sports advisory group that includes parks, the school district, and youth sports associations to discuss coordination of community space, key issues, and how to support each other’s needs through appropriate advertising, marketing, and policy implementation. • Establish the true cost of what the City is investing in existing facilities on an annual basis through asset management software, training, and tracking of parks maintenance activities. • Assess the level of public and private benefit each partnership receives from the use of City facilities, along with the associated costs to prepare park sites for leagues and tournaments. This evaluation will help determine an equitable cost-sharing approach among all participating groups. • Make agreements as fair and equitable as possible between the City and the responsible group. • Implement the program space needs with other partners to support core program needs in the City. • Develop an operating proforma to demonstrate to key leaders that the Department is operating within the guidelines established in the feasibility study. • Determine capital financing options to fund these program facilities that reach the widest level of users in the City. • Determine the value, cost, and feasibility of extending the use and value of outdoor ice rinks via a feasibility study. • Develop a program plan for the sites involved that can incorporate skating and ice hockey. • Study clubhouse expansion to fully utilize restrooms, concessions, and seating space. Acquire golf simulator. • Determine what programs can be offered on enhanced ice and how they can contribute to the cost to operate them. • Develop a feasibility study and business plan to demonstrate the payback to the City for enhancing the site. • Utilize online reservation software to maximize revenue generation. Enhancement Visionary Element Associated Guiding Principles = RECOMMENDED PLANNING PRIORITY = VISIONARY PLANNING PRIORITY Page 88 of 313 26 DRAFT 6/10/2025 01, 02, 04, 05 01, 04, 05, 06 01, 02 01, 02, 03, 06 01, 02, 03, 06 04, 06 01, 04, 06 01, 02, 03, 04, 06 04, 05, 06 04, 05, 06 04, 05, 06 04, 05, 06 03, 04, 05, 06 04, 06 04,06 04, 06 04, 06 04, 06 GOAL 3 IMPLEMENTATION Provide high quality recreation programs and amenities that are well-developed, desired, and delivered to build a strong user basis. CIP Budget Category Strategy Tactics Strengthen and diversify core program offerings. Develop a cost-of-service study for each core program to be considered to determine the cost to operate effectively and how to fund it through user fees and earned income as much as possible. Develop and enhance special events in the City to bring the community together to celebrate living in Mendota Heights. Enhance the volunteer program to assist program staff in hosting special events and programs in the City. • Establish at least one new core program each year that focuses on summer camps, sports, special events, active senior services, outdoor adventure, youth and adult sports, arts and culture, golf and people with disabilities. • Prioritize special events, a high-demand service, by increasing resources and staffing. • Re-brand senior programs to include passive and active recreation opportunities for different abilities and interests. • Focus on entry-level instructional youth sports programming rather than resource-intensive leagues and tournaments. • Develop program staff to support these programs in the most cost-effective manner. • Establish a cost recovery framework for the staff to cost out each program they provide based on the cost of service and how the program is classified as core essential, important and value added. • Continue scholarship fund to support equitable access while maintaining financial sustainability. • Increase fees for third-party associations using MHPR sports fields to better reflect resource usage. • Introduce differential pricing (e.g., prime vs. non-prime time rates) to enhance revenue development. • Establish at least four additional special events a year working with various groups in the City. • Hire full-time or part-time staff to develop the special events in the City and develop working volunteer groups who will work with staff to pull the events together. • Develop operating budgets for each special event and incorporate earned sponsors to help fund the events for the residents in the City. • Volunteer coordination is currently a minor component of the full-time Administrative Services Assistant’s role. To ensure continuity of the volunteer program, this responsibility should be formally maintained within the position’s defined scope of duties. • Use volunteers in park maintenance for neighborhood park cleanups, set up and take down of events, and planting of flowers in parks. • Establish a goal of 5% of the total workforce hours are made up of volunteer hours. • Seek out program spaces that can be rented or created to support these core services. • Determine price points based on the level of service provided and the classification determined. • Develop a fee policy to reflect the level of cost recovery desired by each core program area. Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Associated Guiding Principles = RECOMMENDED PLANNING PRIORITY Page 89 of 313 27 DRAFT 6/10/2025 GOAL 3 IMPLEMENTATION 02, 03, 04,06 02, 03, 04 02, 03, 04 03, 04 03, 04 01, 04 04 01, 04 01, 04 06 06 06 06 04 04, 05 04, 05, 06 04 CIP Budget Category Strategy Tactics Establish an effective marketing plan to enhance the use of all public mediums to encourage more community awareness, use, and appreciation for program services. Improve program management and lifecycle planning. Strengthen partnerships and resource sharing with organizations in near proximity and/ or aligned in vision/ mission. Improve staffing capacity to expand recreation services asked for by the public. • Establish a funding process to implement the marketing plan in the upcoming budget years to deliver the message to encourage the highest use levels for each core program and event offered in the City. • Implement an automated email marketing system to streamline communication with residents. • Conduct a social media audit to refine content strategies and measure effectiveness. • Enhance the branding identity of the park system to bring greater recognition on the value of the park system to the citizens. • Conduct annual program lifecycle reviews to ensure a healthy mix of new, growing, and mature programs. • Implement a standardized program evaluation process to determine whether programs should be expanded, restructured, or retired. • Aim for 50-60% of programs in the beginning stages to maintain innovation and community engagement. • Regularly track program participation, retention rates, and customer satisfaction to guide decision-making. • Expand partnerships with School District 197, Dakota County, and neighboring cities to secure additional space and resources for programs. • Expand collaborations with health organizations to offer wellness-focused programs for all ages. • Review and renegotiate third-party contracts and lease agreements to ensure equitable cost sharing. • Develop a staffing plan to ensure sufficient personnel before expanding programs. • Hire a full-time Event Coordinator to oversee special events and sponsorships. • Introduce technology solutions to automate administrative tasks and improve efficiency. • Market community-wide events in the parks. • Actively seek funding and sponsorships from local businesses, non-profits, and foundations to supplement program revenue. • Provide staff training on quality assurance, program evaluation, and customer service standards. Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Associated Guiding Principles Provide high quality recreation programs and amenities that are well-developed, desired, and delivered to build a strong user basis.CONTINUED = RECOMMENDED PLANNING PRIORITY Page 90 of 313 28 DRAFT 6/10/2025 01, 02, 03, 04, 05 04, 06 04, 06 04, 06 04 04 04, 06 04, 06 01, 04, 06 04, 06 04, 06 04 Develop long-term capital investment plan outlined in the master plan for existing parks and future indoor program space over the next ten-year period.GOAL 4 IMPLEMENTATION 01, 02, 04, 06 01, 02, 03, 04, 05 01, 02, 04, 06 01, 02, 04, 06 01, 02, 04, 06 01, 02, 04, 06 01, 02, 04, 06 CIP Budget Category Strategy Tactics Identify capital improvement priorities for key parks in the system that will enhance their value, usability, and overall experience for both residents and visitors. Ensure staffing of park maintenance and program staff is aligned with community expectations. Incorporate as many new funding options as possible that are outlined in the master plan to help support the system of the future and provide future capital and operational funding for parks and recreation amenities moving forward. Explore submission of a parks referendum to fill capital, operations, and programming gaps and needs identified in the Master Plan. Seek to attract high performing employees that can implement this master plan and deliver high-quality programs and services to the community. •Develop updated site plans for existing parks and new parks for the future with capital costs and operational costs to go with each improvement. •Seek as many funding options as possible that are outlined in the master plan to support capital improvement needs including some taxpayer investment as well as operational funding. •Develop a long-term funding strategy and financial plan for capital improvements in the next ten years. •Develop a maintenance management plan that aligns with defined maintenance standards and assigns responsibilities to full-time, part-time, seasonal, or contracted staff. The plan should address all City-owned functions and amenities, ensuring timely upkeep and replacement of assets as they reach the end of their useful life. •Provide training for full-time, part-time, seasonal staff, and volunteers to ensure they understand and can meet maintenance standards in their assigned areas, fostering a culture of excellence. Collect data on productivity, efficiency, and output to evaluate and enhance the effectiveness of parks maintenance operations. •Link the cost of implementing maintenance standards for types of parks and recreation facilities to the budget so the right dollars are budgeted to achieve the right outcome desired. •Seek a combination of dedicated and earned income funding options for the department to meet the community expectations based on the results of the master plan moving forward. •Work with the local community advocacy groups to create a park foundation to support future park and recreation capital needs of the system. •Build on the community engagement from this master plan. Provide additional studies and analyses to determine the appropriate amount of a potential referendum ask to the public. •Create the right balance between full-time staff and part-time staff in parks and in recreation services to match the expectations of City leaders and the public. •Establish key performance indicators to demonstrate to elected officials and key City leadership the value of the parks system to the community and its ability to deliver to the public’s expectations of parks. •Teach and train staff through various management schools hosted by NRPA on delivering on the key components of park maintenance, program management, facility management and financial management for the system moving forward. Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Lifecycle Maintenance Visionary Element Visionary Element Associated Guiding Principles = RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITY Develop implementation plans for the top requested amenities from the master plan and incorporate funding needs into the CIP. •Complete a feasibility study for 15,000- 20,000 sq ft of indoor recreational space including detailed budget. •Develop a comprehensive funding strategy to support field redesign improvements and the construction of a new, modernized concession building at Mendakota Park. •Develop a funding strategy for a fully accessible playground at Mendakota Park. •Develop a funding strategy for improvements to the Par 3 Golf Course, including the addition of a golf simulator. = VISIONARY PLANNING RECOMMENDATION •Develop a funding strategy for master plan and implementation of Kensington Park. Visionary Element Visionary Element Visionary Element Visionary Element Visionary Element Visionary Element •Develop a funding strategy for a covered refrigerated ice rink within the City’s park system. Page 91 of 313 29 DRAFT 6/10/2025 The 2040 Mendota Heights Park System Master Plan establishes a comprehensive and strategic vision for the future of the City’s parks, trails, and recreational spaces. It reflects the input of over 1,000 community members, elected officials, stakeholders, and experts, ensuring that the recommendations are rooted in the needs and priorities of residents. Through this extensive engagement process, six key themes emerged, shaping the guiding principles of this plan: preserving the park system’s value, expanding and diversifying amenities, improving accessibility, prioritizing enhancements over new development, ensuring sustainable funding, and fostering continued community involvement. Mendota Heights boasts a well-loved and highly utilized park system, yet the City faces challenges that must be addressed to sustain and enhance its parks and recreation services. The benchmarking analysis highlights that while the City provides a strong foundation for outdoor recreation, it operates with fewer resources than peer communities. Staffing shortages, limited program diversity, gaps in accessibility, and underfunded capital improvements present ongoing barriers to maintaining a high-quality park system. Additionally, funding constraints and a reliance on program fees necessitate a more sustainable financial model that balances public investment, partnerships, and alternative revenue sources. The implementation strategy outlined in this plan provides a realistic roadmap for prioritizing investments, improving existing parks, enhancing connectivity, and expanding recreation opportunities. The recommendations focus on both short-term actions, such as improving park accessibility and upgrading outdated amenities, and long-term visionary projects, such as developing an inclusive playground, enhancing Rogers Lake Park’s water access, and exploring new indoor community gathering spaces. Ensuring accessibility and inclusion is a central priority of this plan. Currently, many parks lack ADA-compliant pathways, adaptive sports fields, and inclusive playgrounds. A City-wide accessibility assessment will be a key first step toward identifying and addressing these gaps. Additionally, continued investment in safe routes, trail connectivity, and pedestrian access will enhance park accessibility for all residents, regardless of age or ability. A sustainable funding model will be critical to implementing the recommendations in this plan. Community members expressed strong support for additional investment in park improvements, and future funding strategies should explore public-private partnerships, grants, sponsorships, and tax-supported initiatives to ensure long-term financial stability. Diversifying revenue sources will allow the City to expand programming, maintain high-quality facilities, and meet evolving community needs without over-relying on user fees. The Mendota Heights park system provides a strong foundation, and with continued investment and thoughtful enhancements, it has the potential to become an even greater asset to the community. By implementing the recommendations outlined in this plan, the City can build on its successes, expand recreational opportunities, and ensure that parks remain vibrant and accessible for future generations. Each step taken—whether small improvements in accessibility or large-scale facility investments— will help create a stronger, more inclusive, and better-connected park system that serves the entire community. The 2040 Park System Master Plan is not just a static document—it is a living strategy that will evolve alongside the City. By committing to regular evaluation, community engagement, and strategic decision-making, Mendota Heights can continue to provide exceptional parks and recreation services that enhance quality of life, promote environmental stewardship, and strengthen community connections. With thoughtful planning, dedicated resources, and strong leadership, the City is well-positioned to preserve its cherished park system while innovatively expanding opportunities for future generations. This plan marks the beginning of an exciting new chapter for Mendota Heights. Through collaboration, commitment, and community- driven action, the City will ensure that its parks remain vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable for decades. CONCLUSION Page 92 of 313 30 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 11 SPRING 2024 PHASE 1 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 1 Page 93 of 313 31 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 INFORM CONSULT INVOLVE EMPOWERCOLLABORATE MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 12 OVERVIEW OBJECTIVES The purpose of Phase 1 engagement was to capture the community-identified strengths and weaknesses of the existing Mendota Heights park system. Additionally, it was 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, online mapping application, survey, and idea wall. A series of small group discussions including individuals with similar interests, passions, or relationships with the City. Discussions with these groups were led by consultants to gain knowledge about the existing system’s 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 two primary events for pop-up engagement including 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 and high schools within Mendota Heights, in addition to the 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 conversation 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 94 of 313 32 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 13 OVERVIEW THEMES At the end of Phase 1 Engagement, results were aggregated and reviewed. There were five 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 these 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 amenities, community gathering, and connection to natural resources. There was also a strong interest in aquatics programming. 4- Accessibility is a concern across the park system. Residents expressed a desire for improvements that not only meet accessibility standards but also provide unique and inclusive opportunities for people of all abilities. 5- Residents want flexible community gathering spaces - both indoor and outdoor. Page 95 of 313 33 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 14 ONLINE TOOLS Approximately 500 individuals completed an online survey via Social Pinpoint to share their opinions about the current Mendota Heights park system and suggest areas for improvement or diversification. Overall, residents expressed enjoyment of the park system and a strong fondness for memories created in the parks. However, they also identified needed improvements and desired additions that could enhance the system now and into the future. The trail system was identified as a primary strength of the existing park system. In particular, residents highlighted the number and length of trails as standout features. Participants also praised the neighborhood parks—specifically their number, maintenance, cleanliness, and proximity to homes— as valuable community resources that contribute to a park system residents enjoy using. Many shared how they use the parks for watching sports events, enjoying nature, and spending time with family and friends. Residents also appreciated the abundance of sports fields and noted the recent addition of pickleball courts as a welcome improvement. Despite these positives, residents expressed frustrations with certain aspects of the parks and the overall system. Common concerns included the limited diversity of amenities, poor trail connections, unsafe crosswalks and lack of sidewalks, outdated baseball/softball diamonds, inadequacies in youth sports programs, and the absence of water-based recreational activities. Respondents emphasized the need for a broader range of activities and more accessible play environments. While the City was recognized for offering many program facilities, residents noted a lack of variety in the programming. For example, although there are numerous baseball and softball fields, many residents expressed interest in additional options such as mountain biking and cross-country skiing. In summary, while residents of Mendota Heights are generally fond of their park system, they would like to see expanded programming and enhanced safety features in the future. 01 ONLINE SURVEY Page 96 of 313 34 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 15 600 RESIDENTS 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 updating. 23 residents wrote that the youth sports programs 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 97 of 313 35 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 16 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 Amenities Improve Maintenance Improve Accessibility Diversify Programs Improve Parking Other No Improvements Needed Add Signage to Facilities Add Picnic & Sitting Areas Increase Beautification Expand Parks & Open Space Increase/Improve Amenities Outdoor Pool Splash Pad Hiking Trails Native Plant Gardens Pickleball Courts Baseball Fields Bike Course Updated Playgrounds Open Space Community Garden Inclusive Playground Fishing Pier Dog Park Multi-Sports Fields Picnic Areas Performance Area Basketball Courts Other Sand Volleyball Courts Soccer Fields Art Garden Disc 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 98 of 313 36 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 17 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? Walking Car Biking 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 Expensive Physical 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 99 of 313 37 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 18 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 ROGERS LAKE FRIENDLY HILLS MENDAKOTA FRIENDLY MARSH VALLEY WENTWORTH IVY HILLS MARIE 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 100 of 313 38 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 19 FRIENDLY HILLS HAGSTROM-KING FRIENDLY MARSH ROGERS LAKE GOLF COURSE VALLEY KENSINGTON MENDAKOTA 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 accommodate 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 101 of 313 39 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 110 IVY HILLS MARIE 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 to be updated Great playground Family uses park for birthdays and picnics Softball field needs to be updated Great playground and tennis courts Softball field is in rough shape Basketball court needs to be 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 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 102 of 313 40 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 111 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, backgrounds, and relationships with the City staff and consultants. Consultants led 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 lack diversity and do not fully accommodate all groups within the community. There is a particular shortage of programming options beyond athletics, a need for flexible indoor spaces, and a lack of infrastructure that supports individuals with varying 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 insufficient funding. There are concerns that current funding levels are inadequate to meet existing needs or to support long-term planning and improvements for the future. S W O T STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS Page 103 of 313 41 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 112 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 opportunity themes emerged during the focus group meeting: inclusivity, connectivity, and natural resources. Participants noted that existing parks tend to have similar designs and amenities throughout the system. They recommended diversifying park features to better serve older adults, individuals with disabilities, and those with a wider range of interests. City partners also emphasized the need to improve connectivity across the park system, highlighting opportunities to create stronger links between parks and the river, as well as to expand trail connections. Lastly, the group expressed a desire for a stronger emphasis on environmental stewardship and the protection of natural resources. The group identified several weaknesses within the park system. One major concern is the gap between the community’s desires for park updates and the limitations of the current budget, which is unlikely to accommodate all of these requests. They also noted that general infrastructure improvements are needed, along with increased shade throughout the parks. While shade structures are one option, the group emphasized that additional tree plantings could also provide natural, long-term shade. Accessibility remains a challenge, and the addition of more inclusive playground equipment was recommended. Finally, there was strong support for adding a splash pad to the park system to enhance recreational opportunities for families. 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 104 of 313 42 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 113 The Mendota Heights park system offers ample space, including generous areas of open space. Parks are consistently described as clean, well-maintained, and safe. The system includes strong existing amenities such as a skate park, golf facilities, and pickleball courts. Parks provide activities for both children and adults, and the separated bike path system is appreciated for enhancing safety, particularly for young users. The dog park is another highlight—heavily used and beloved by the community. Overall, residents express deep appreciation for the park system, and City staff are recognized for being responsive and attentive to community 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. The water quality in Rogers Lake 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, maintenance 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 105 of 313 43 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 114 The main strength 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 become a truly inclusive space for all community members. Efforts should be made to expand communication and collaboration with accessibility-focused groups to better understand and meet diverse needs. Accessibility improvements should be integrated throughout the park system in a way that fosters inclusion, rather than isolating individuals with disabilities. Features that support accessibility should be thoughtfully blended into the overall park design. In addition, clear communication strategies are needed to help residents identify which parks best suit their specific needs. Park programming should also strive to be more inclusive and reflective of the community’s diversity. Finally, additional signage should be installed to improve safety and wayfinding, particularly for individuals with disabilities. The park system presents navigation challenges for individuals with disabilities, as some parks are considered accessible while others are not. Inconsistent and inadequate surfacing is another concern—certain materials, particularly those that are too soft, make it difficult for wheelchair users to access key amenities such as playground equipment. Additionally, the park system lacks adequate accommodations for older individuals with disabilities. For example, there are no adult changing tables, and programming for teens and adults with disabilities is limited. Expanding developmental disability programming would provide meaningful opportunities for inclusion, social connection, and community engagement for these groups. Threats to the park system include both a lack of fencing and insufficient funding. Installing fencing around play areas—especially those located near bodies of water—is critical to ensuring the safety of children. Additionally, there is concern that current funding levels may be inadequate to address the needs of individuals with disabilities, which could limit both the accessibility and inclusivity of the park system. ACCESSIBILITY GROUP STRENGTHS OPPORTUNITIES WEAKNESSES THREATS Page 106 of 313 44 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 115 SPORT USER GROUPS The Mendota Heights 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, the Mendota Heights park system lacks the space and facilities needed to adequately support sports programs. For these programs to thrive, they must be able to host events and tournaments— something that is currently not feasible due to limited space and outdated infrastructure. In addition, insufficient parking further limits the capacity to accommodate large events and expanded programming. Another significant weakness is the lack of lighting on sports fields and courts, which restricts the ability to hold evening games and tournaments. Finally, there is a pressing need for additional soccer and lacrosse fields. With approximately 1,500 children participating in community soccer, the current number of fields is not adequate to meet the growing demand. A primary threat to the park system is the deteriorating condition of its trails. Some residents view the degraded surfaces as not only hazardous but also as barriers to accessibility. Currently, many trails are uneven and difficult to navigate with carts, strollers, or wheelchairs. This limits everyday use and participation in events for individuals with mobility challenges, families with young children, and others who rely on smooth, accessible pathways. STRENGTHS OPPORTUNITIES WEAKNESSES THREATS Page 107 of 313 45 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 116 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 events 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 Heights’ 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 a diverse range of students, This included 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. Young children were also included in the process at the Touch-A-Truck event. This direct contact with students and children will be repeated during the planning process. 16-18 YEARS OLD 8-11 YEARS OLD 3-6 YEARS OLD Page 108 of 313 46 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 CHILD & YOUTH ENGAGEMENT THEMES MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 117 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 109 of 313 47 APPENDIX 1DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 118 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 Shores 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 110 of 313 48 DRAFT 6/10/2025 APPENDIX 2 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 21 FALL 2024 PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT APPENDIX 2 Page 111 of 313 49 DRAFT 6/10/2025 APPENDIX 2 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. MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 22 Page 112 of 313 50 DRAFT 6/10/2025 APPENDIX 2 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 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 23 Page 113 of 313 51 DRAFT 6/10/2025 APPENDIX 2 QUESTION 1 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 24 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 question This 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 RESPONSES 9 SKIPPED RESPONSE - 67% of respondents favor increased taxes to support expanded programming. Page 114 of 313 52 DRAFT 6/10/2025 APPENDIX 2 QUESTION 2 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 25 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 115 of 313 53 DRAFT 6/10/2025 APPENDIX 2 QUESTION 3 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 26 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 upgradesThis 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 116 of 313 54 DRAFT 6/10/2025 APPENDIX 2 QUESTION 4 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 27 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 RESPONSES 12 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 price 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 amenties 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 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 RESPONDENTS NEED MORE INFORMATION Page 117 of 313 55 DRAFT 6/10/2025 APPENDIX 2 QUESTION 5 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 28 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 118 of 313 56 DRAFT 6/10/2025 APPENDIX 2 QUESTION 6 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 29 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 119 of 313 57 DRAFT 6/10/2025 APPENDIX 2 QUESTION 7 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 210 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 RESPONSES 37 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 120 of 313 58 DRAFT 6/10/2025 APPENDIX 2 QUESTION 8 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 211 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 RESPONSES 71 SKIPPED Page 121 of 313 59 DRAFT 6/10/2025 APPENDIX 2 FOCUS GROUPS 02 Athletic Associations + Sports Clubs Active Adults Partners (schools, cities, non-profits, county) A series of small group conversations were held with individuals who shared similar interests, backgrounds, or relationships with City staff and consultants. These focus groups were facilitated by the consultant team to gather insights on the perceived strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement within the existing park system. This marked the second and final round of focus group meetings. 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: PRIORITIZATION EXERCISE 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 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 212 Page 122 of 313 60 DRAFT 6/10/2025 APPENDIX 2CITY PARTNERS GROUP 1CITY PARTNERS GROUP 2RESIDENTS OVER 55+ACCESSIBILITYSPORT USER GROUPS$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 marketing and communication 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 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 213 Page 123 of 313 61 DRAFT 6/10/2025 APPENDIX 2 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. Sensory free spaces are so important 13. Could we put something like this by our parks by the playgrounds? 14. #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 but need further discussion of what Charitable Gambling consists of 8. TRAA will send out the survey to all users to try to boost participation 9. TRAA will stay invested in the process 10. SALVO in addition will send out the survey link to their families (encourage MH residents to fill it out) 11. 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 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 214 Page 124 of 313 62 APPENDIX 3DRAFT 6/10/2025 SUMMER 2024 SUMMARY PHASE 1 APPENDIX 3 Page 125 of 313 63 APPENDIX 3DRAFT 6/10/2025MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 322 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 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 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM COPPERFIELD PONDS 8.4 ACRES CIVIC CENTER DOG PARK ROGERS LAKE FRIENDLY HILLS MENDAKOTA FRIENDLY MARSH VALLEY(natural area) WENTWORTH IVY HILLS 9.1 ACRES 10.4 ACRES 6.7 ACRES MARIE 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 ACRES 17.6 ACRES 8.2 ACRES 19.34 ACRES MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3 Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway River to River Greenway VALLEY (neighbohood park) 6 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 CURRENT PARK SYSTEM 1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA AREA OUTSIDE OF PARK 1/2 MILE SERVICE AREA (PARK SYSTEM GAP) COMMUNITY PARKS NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS OPEN/NATURAL AREAS MINI PARKS SPECIAL-USE PARKS Overall, Mendota Heights is fairly well served in total park acreage per resident on account of the amount of open/natural spaces within the City. However, when the land was categorized by park type, the analysis did show a need for neighborhood and community parks when compared to national standards. If additional acreage is not feasible, the existing parks should be planned for diverse interests and needs to better accommodate the diversity of users and high usage potential. Currently, Mendota Heights’ parks are concentrated along the central spine of the city with the highest concentration in the southeast and south central area of the City. There are two significant areas of park service gaps: a larger area in the southwest and smaller area along the border with West Saint Paul. The park gap in the west is in areas with more industrial and commercial development rather than residential. However, there is significant multifamily development within this area that would benefit from increased park access and programming. Any park gaps and unequal park acreage distribution can lead to disparities in access to green space and recreation within the City. REGIONAL TRAIL LOCAL TRAIL Page 126 of 313 64 APPENDIX 3DRAFT 6/10/2025MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 323 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 PARK MARKET SQUARE PARK VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS PARK FRIENDLY MARSH PARK ROGERS LAKE PARK CIVIC CENTER PARK VICTORIA HIGHLANDS PARK COPPERFIELD PONDS PARK FRIENDLY HILLS PARK KENSINGTON PARK HAGSTROM- KING PARK VALLEY PARK IVY HILLS WENTWORTH VALLEY VICTORIA HIGHLANDS MARIE CIVIC CENTER MENDAKOTA VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS ROGERS 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 PROFICIENCY 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 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. EQUITY PRIORITIZATION TOOL PARK EQUITY RATING COMBINED SCORE POP.UNDER 18 YEARS OLD BIPOC LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY POP.OVER 75 YEARS OLD HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOME <$50,000 PER YEAR HOUSEHOLDS WHO RENT HOUSEHOLDS WITH AT LEAST ONE MEMBER WHO HAS A DISA-BILITY (%) Page 127 of 313 65 APPENDIX 3DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 324 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 WENTWORTH IVY HILLS MARIE VICTORIA HIGHLANDS HAGSTROM-KING 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 ROGERS 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 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles FRIENDLY HILLS MENDAKOTA IVY HILLS KENSINGTON 1 2 CIVIC CENTER ROGERS LAKE HAGSTROM-KING FRIENDLY MARSH VALLEY WENTWORTH VICTORIA HIGHLAND MARIE MARKET SQUARE VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTSDOG PARK MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIELDS 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 AMENITY DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY: The number of ball fields and diamonds within the City far exceeds national standards, with a field or diamond located in nearly every park. These fields are large, resource-intensive site features. SUMMARY: The number of fields meet the national standard in terms of field per population but are unequally distributed throughout the park system. All fields are located in the south east area of the City. Fields are highly flexible site features and valuable for both active and passive park users. Page 128 of 313 66 APPENDIX 3DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 325 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 FRIENDLY MARSH MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLAYGROUNDS FRIENDLY HILLS MENDAKOTA VALLEY WENTWORTH IVY HILLS MARIE VICTORIA HIGHLANDS HAGSTROM-KING KENSINGTON VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS ROGERS LAKE 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MARKET SQUARECIVIC CENTER DOG PARK 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 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles MARKET SQUARE KENSINGTON CIVIC CENTER DOG PARK FRIENDLY HILLS MENDAKOTA VALLEY WENTWORTH IVY HILLS MARIE VICTORIA HIGHLANDS HAGSTROM-KING VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS ROGERS 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 PLAYGROUNDS SPORTS COURTS OUTDOOR FACILITIES PLAYGROUNDS 12*MEETS STANDARD -1 SITE PER 973 1 PLAYGROUND 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 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 Pickleball 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 AMENITY DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY: The number of playgrounds within Mendota Heights exceeds the national standard. However, as the parkland is unequally distributed in the City, there are several areas of the City that do not have access to a playground within a 1/2 mile walk. Futher review of the playgrounds also found overall issues with accessibility for those with physical disabilities and/or neurodiversity. The City could also benefit from one destination playground to better serve a wider range of users in one central location. SUMMARY: The number of courts exceeds the national standard in terms of courts per population. Page 129 of 313 67 APPENDIX 3DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 326 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles FRIENDLY HILLS MENDAKOTA VALLEY WENTWORTH IVY HILLS VICTORIA HIGHLANDS HAGSTROM-KING KENSINGTON VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS ROGERS LAKE 11 1 MARKET SQUARE 1 11 111 1 1 11 1 1 FRIENDLY MARSH 176.4 ACRES 111 11 MARIE CIVIC CENTER DOG PARK MENDOTA HEIGHTS NATURE & TRAILS NATURE AND TRAILS TRAILS LAKES/PONDS NATURAL AREAS 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 1/2 MILE PARK SERVICE AREA 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 FRIENDLY MARSH DOG PARK FRIENDLY HILLS WENTWORTH MARIE 2 IVY HILLS VALLEY VICTORIA HIGHLANDS MENDAKOTA ROGERS LAKE KENSINGTON 1 2 1 2 2 5 1 116 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 MARKET SQUARE 5 PICNIC AND BBQ VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS HAGSTROM-KING CIVIC CENTER MENDOTA HEIGHTS PICNIC & BBQ PICNIC AREAS AND BBQ Picnic Area Shelter BBQ Station 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 AMENITY DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY: The number of shelters meet the national standard in terms of picnic shelters for the population. SUMMARY: The trails meet the national standard in terms of trails for the population. Page 130 of 313 68 APPENDIX 3DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 327 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles ROGERS LAKE 1 11 HAGSTROM-KING FRIENDLY MARSH MARKET SQUARE VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS MENDAKOTA FRIENDLY HILLS VALLEY WENTWORTH VICTORIA HIGHLANDS MARIE 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 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles FRIENDLY HILLS WENTWORTH MARIE 11 1 1 IVY HILLS VALLEY VICTORIA HIGHLANDS MENDAKOTA FRIENDLY MARSH MARKET SQUARE VALLEY VIEW HEIGHTS ROGERS LAKE HAGSTROM-KING KENSINGTON DOG PARK CIVIC CENTER MENDOTA HEIGHTS WINTER ACTIVITIES WATER ACTIVITIES WINTER ACTIVITIES NONMOTORIZED BOAT LAUNCH FISHING DOCK Ice Rink Sledding Hill OUTDOOR FACILITIES SPLASH 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 AMENITY DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY: There is a lack of water activities in the City. These are highly resource intensive features. SUMMARY: The number of winter activities exceeds the national standard in terms of features for the population, important with Minnesota’s climate. Page 131 of 313 69 APPENDIX 3DRAFT 6/10/2025MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 328 15,000 2010 CENSUS 2020 CENSUS Population Annual Growth Rate 2023 ESTIMATE 2028 PROJECTION 2033 PROJECTION 2038 PROJECTION 12,000 10,941 11,744 11,663 11,681 12,062 12,280 9,000 6,000 3,000 0 Mendota Heights is a small, affluent suburb located in the southeastern part of the Twin Cities metro area in Minnesota. Compared to the larger metro area, Mendota Heights has a lower population density, a higher median household income, and smaller household size reflecting its relatively affluent population. The majority of residents own their homes and have lived in their homes for more than 10 years. The suburb has a predominantly White population, with fewer residents from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds compared to the Twin Cities metro area. The population of the community is relatively stable and is only expected to add an additional 600 residents in the next 15 years. The population in Mendota Heights tends to be older on average, with a higher percentage of residents over the age of 65 than the metro area. The community has a lower rate of disability compared to the regional average as well. Understanding and planning for the specific demographics of the community are key to identifying and prioritizing park plan recommendations when viewed in conjunction with community engagement results. <5 Years Old MEDIAN AGE: 48.6 YEARS Metro Area: 6.3% 0.73% 0.03%0.65%0.36%-0.23% Metro Area: 13.3% Metro Area: 12.3% Metro Area: 28.6% Metro Area: 25.5% Metro Area: 12.4% Metro Area: 1.7% 5-14 Years Old 15-24 Years Old 25-44 Years Old 45-64 Years Old 65-84 Years Old 85+ Years Old Total households in Mendota Heights from 2017-2021. The average household size in Mendota Heights is 2.37 persons per household. The Twin Cities metro area has an average household size of 2.53 persons per household. 4,787 11,744 TOTAL POPULATION BY AGE 5.7% 10.4% 13.4% 19.3% 27.5% 21.2% 2.4% Total housing units in Mendota Heights from 2017- 2021. 55.7% of householders moved into their homes before 2010. 115 Vacant Units 3,927 Owner-Occupied Units 767 Renter-Occupied Units Median household income in Mendota Heights from 2017- 2021. The median household income in the Twin Cities area is $94,098 and $74,755 in the USA. The projected median household income in Mendota Heights for 2038 is $166,217. Percent population of Mendota Heights with a disability from 2017-2021. The percent population of the Twin Cities area with a disability is 10%. 4,809 $120,257 8.1% POPULATION PROJECTION SOURCE: 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. DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS Page 132 of 313 70 APPENDIX 3DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 329 The Trends Analysis provides an understanding of national, regional, and local recreational trends, as well as recreational interests by age segments. Trends data used for this analysis was obtained from Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA), National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), and Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI). All trends data is based on current and/ or historical participation rates, statistically valid survey results, or NRPA Park Metrics. Recreational Trends Analysis PARTICIPATION LEVELS GROWING TRENDS NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS The top sports most heavily particpated in the United States were basketball (29.7 million), golf (26.6 million), and tennis (23.8 million) which have participation figures well above 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 a 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 makes 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. TENNIS SOCCER BASKETBALLPICKLEBALLGOLF 5-YEAR TREND -5-YEAR TREND -5-YEAR TREND -5-YEAR TREND -5-YEAR TREND - 1-YEAR TREND -1-YEAR TREND -1-YEAR TREND -1-YEAR TREND -1-YEAR TREND - 23.8 M PARTICIPANTS 14.0 M PARTICIPANTS 29.7 M PARTICIPANTS13.5 M PARTICIPANTS 26.6 M PARTICIPANTS +33.6%+23.4%+22.7%+311.5%+99.0% +1.0%+8.1%+5.6%+51.8%+18.8% Page 133 of 313 71 APPENDIX 3DRAFT 6/10/2025MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 330 PARTICIPATION LEVELS CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS GROWING TRENDS NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS 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 were walking for fitness (114.0 million), treadmill (54.8 million), running/jogging (48.3 million), and yoga (34.2 million). BARRE YOGA DANCE EXERCISETRAIL RUNNING PILATES 5-YEAR TREND -5-YEAR TREND -5-YEAR TREND -5-YEAR TREND -5-YEAR TREND - 1-YEAR TREND -1-YEAR TREND -1-YEAR TREND -1-YEAR TREND -1-YEAR TREND - 4.2 M PARTICIPANTS 34.2 M PARTICIPANTS 26.2 M PARTICIPANTS14.8 M PARTICIPANTS 11.8 M PARTICIPANTS +21.6%+19.1%+17.2%+48.7%+30.6% +12.9%+1.8%+4.3%+12.3%+15.0% Participants of walking for fitness are mostly core users (participating 50+ times) and have seen a 1.3% growth in the last five years. PARTICIPATION LEVELS GROWING TRENDS NATIONAL TRENDS IN OUTDOOR/ADVENTURE RECREATION Results from the SFIA report demonstrates 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). BIRD WATCHING BICYCLING (BMX)HIKING (DAY)CAMPING SKATEBOARDING 5-YEAR TREND -5-YEAR TREND -5-YEAR TREND -5-YEAR TREND -5-YEAR TREND - 1-YEAR TREND -1-YEAR TREND -1-YEAR TREND -1-YEAR TREND -1-YEAR TREND - 16.4 M PARTICIPANTS 4.4 M PARTICIPANTS 61.4 M PARTICIPANTS38.6 M PARTICIPANTS 8.9 M PARTICIPANTS +33.0%+29.7%+28.4%+40.7%+37.3% +3.8%+6.7%+3.1%+3.0%-1.1% CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS Although most outdoor activities have seen participation growth over the past five years, it is important to note that participation in all outdoor activities—except adventure racing—primarily consists of casual users. Page 134 of 313 72 APPENDIX 3DRAFT 6/10/2025 MASTER PLAN APPENDIX 331 PARTICIPATION LEVELS HIGHLIGHTS GROWING TRENDS NATIONAL TRENDS IN WATER ACTIVITIES PARTICIPATION BY GENERATION 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. Fitness sports continue to be the preferred form of exercise for Boomers, Gen X, and Millennials. Over half of Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z participated in at least one type of outdoor activity. Team sports were most popular among members of Gen Z, while nearly one-third of Gen X reported participating in individual sports such as golf, trail running, triathlons, and bowling. Pickleball continues to be the fastest growing sport in America by reaching 13.5 million participants in 2023, a 223.5% growth since 2020. The growth of pickleball participants 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, started indoor climbing, and trail hiking. Additionally there was an increase in the participation in all paddlesport activities over the past year. Over two-thirds (67.8%) of Americans participated in fitness sports and 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 dropping from 45% in 2019 to 42.1% in 2023). RAFTINGKAYAKINGSTAND-UP PADDLING 5-YEAR TREND -5-YEAR TREND -5-YEAR TREND - 1-YEAR TREND -1-YEAR TREND -1-YEAR TREND - 4.0 M PARTICIPANTS14.7 M PARTICIPANTS 4.1 M PARTICIPANTS +19.0%+33.7%+19.6% +12.7%+8.6%+9.3% Page 135 of 313 73 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS 1 CHAPTER ONE DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS ANALYSIS 1.1.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Mendota Heights is implementing a Park System Master Plan to assess its parks and recreation system—including staffing needs, facility inventory and conditions, financial performance, program offerings, and community demographics and trends. The goal is to gain a deeper understanding of current conditions and plan effectively for future parks and recreation needs. PROS Consulting will analyze local park data alongside information from nearby agencies to provide relevant comparisons. This analysis will be informed by city demographics, regional recreation trends, and the programs, services, activities, and amenities that residents have expressed interest in for the future of Mendota Heights. 1.1.2 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS The Demographic Analysis outlines the characteristics of the population within Mendota Heights’ service area, including age distribution, race, ethnicity, and income levels. The analysis reflects the City’s total population and provides insight into current and projected trends. Future projections are based on historical patterns and may be influenced by unforeseen events occurring during or after the time of the analysis. This could have a significant bearing on the validity of the projected figures. At the time this report was prepared, statistics from the 2020 – estimate 2023 Census Bureau data 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 APPENDIX 4 Page 136 of 313 74 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 USA 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 137 of 313 75 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 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 2023 to the projected population of 2038, the City of Mendota Heights is expected to experience slight growth of 0.36%. 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 expected to decrease slightly from 2020 to 2023 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 138 of 313 76 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS 4 AGE SEGMENT Evaluating the City by age segments (Figure 4) and the estimate for 2020, the service area’s largest population segment is the 55-74 age segment. 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 139 of 313 77 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 USA 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 140 of 313 78 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS 6 RACE As of 2023, the City's population is predominantly White Alone (approximately 88%). The next largest racial groups are Black Alone and Asian, each representing 2% of the population. Compared to national demographics—approximately 70% White Alone, 13% Black Alone, and 7% Some Other Race—the City is significantly less diverse. Projections for 2038 indicate a slight increase in diversity: the White Alone population is expected to decline to 83%, while the Black Alone population remains steady at 2%, and the Asian population increases slightly to 3% (Figure 5). Overall, the projected change from 2023 to 2038 reflects a modest 5% decrease in the White Alone population and a 1% increase in the Asian population. Figure 5: Population by Race Mendota Heights Minnesota Page 141 of 313 79 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS 7 ETHNICITY Mendota Heights’ population was also assessed based on Hispanic/Latino ethnicity 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 142 of 313 80 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 for 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 2023 Estimate 2028 Projection 2033 Projection 2038 Projection MENDOTA HEIGHTS' INCOME CHARACTERISTICS Median Household Income Per Capita Income Figure 7. Income Characteristics Figure 8. 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 143 of 313 81 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 these statistics alone. This data is to link the population in Mendota Heights with appropriate programs, activities and amenities in order to evaluate recreation needs and determine if any alterations should be made to better serve residents. Below are 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. The average household size in Mendota Heights is projected at 2.37 persons per household compared to the 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 (-.23%) Page 144 of 313 82 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 are: • 0– 17 year olds and 35 – 54 year olds tied at 21% of the population • 55 – 74 year old residents at 33% of the population. These groups benefit from programs directed toward children, youth, middle-aged adults and “Active Seniors” that are 55-75 years old. With a total of 75% in these age groups, programs for children, youth and young adults, as well as seniors should be the main 21% 14% 21% 33% 11% Mendota Heights Population by Age Segments 0-17 Years 18-34 Years 35-54 Years 55-74 Years 75+ Years Mendota Heights Age Group Segments Change Program Users May Follow Age Segments Figure 9. Age Segments for Mendota Heights Page 145 of 313 83 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS 11 areas of focus for Mendota Heights. The 0-10 ages of the 0-19 age group will encompass the children of the lower population side of the 35-54 year old young adult groups. 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%) is slightly higher than the 75+ age segment in the USA (7%). The young adults (ages 35 -54) years old at 21% in Mendota Heights is slightly lower than that group in the USA (25%). With this age group in Mendota Heights and the USA being close, national recreation trends for this group may be a guide for programs and activities that are popular in the nation. 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 0-17 Years 18 - 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 Figure 10. USA Age Distribution Figure 11. Race Distribution for Mendota Heights Page 146 of 313 84 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS 12 Mendota Heights’ race distribution indicates a less diverse population than the USA 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 As shown in the chart below, the proportion of Hispanic and Latino residents in Mendota Heights is significantly lower than the national average. In contrast, the percentage of residents identifying with all other racial groups is higher in Mendota Heights compared to the U.S. overall. Expanding culturally relevant programming may encourage greater participation among Hispanic and Latino residents. 60.60% 12.60%1.10% 6.20% 0.20% 8.70%10.60% Race Distribution: USA White Alone Black Alone American Indian Asian Pacific Islander Some Other Race Two or More Races 4.50% 95.50% 19.40% 80.60% 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 Figure 12. Race Distribution for the USA Figure 13.Hispanic / Latino Population Comparison Page 147 of 313 85 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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. Higher income in these areas indicate more disposable income for residents in Mendota Heights, allowing them to spend more money in various areas that may 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 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 Comparison of Income Per Capita Income Median Household Income Figure 14. Comparison of Income United States Mendota Heights Page 148 of 313 86 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 summarized 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 USA 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 programming activities most frequently offered by park and recreation agencies in the USA and regionally, are described below. 2.1.2 LOCAL SPORTS AND LEISURE MARKET POTENTIAL MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX (MPI) The following charts show the potential sports and leisure market data for the 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 USA 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. 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 149 of 313 87 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS 15 Figure 15. General Sports MPI Figure 16. Outdoor Activity MPI Page 150 of 313 88 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS 16 96 101 113 117 119 121 124 126 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Zumba Jogging/ Running Weight Lifting Swimming Pilates Walking for Exercise Yoga Aerobics FITNESS MPI Mendota Heights National Average (100) Figure 17. Fitness MPI Figure 18. Commercial Recreation MPI Page 151 of 313 89 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 152 of 313 90 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 Trend 20222018 2023 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 153 of 313 91 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 154 of 313 92 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 155 of 313 93 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 156 of 313 94 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 157 of 313 95 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 158 of 313 96 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 as recreational interest by age segments. Trends data used for this analysis was obtained from Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA), National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), and Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI). All trends 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 (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 U.S.A. (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 159 of 313 97 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 reopened, fitness at home maintains popularity, and team sports are slowly reaching 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 casual 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 19 - Active vs. Inactive Trend Figure 20 - 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 2023NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (MILLIONS)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 2023NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (MILLIONS)TOTAL CORE ACTIVES Page 160 of 313 98 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 participated in one type of outdoor activity. Team sports were heavily dominated by 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 the U.S. 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, while others took to the hiking trail. The waterways traffic increased in participation for all activities in the past year. Over two-thirds of Americans (67.8%) participated in fitness sports, while 57.3% participated in outdoor sports. Total participation in fitness, team, outdoor, racquet, water, and winter sports is now higher than pre-pandemic levels—with one exception. Team sports remain the only category that has not yet returned to pre-pandemic participation levels, with 45% participation in 2019 compared to 42.1% in 2023. Figure 21 - 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 161 of 313 99 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS 27 3.1.3 NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS PARTICIPATION LEVELS The popularity of basketball, golf, and tennis can be attributed to the ability to compete with a 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 makes 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. CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS General sport activities such as 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. Page 162 of 313 100 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS 28 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 163 of 313 101 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS 29 3.1.4 NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS PARTICIPATION LEVELS Overall, national fitness participation has grown in recent years, driven by a rising interest in health and quality of life through active lifestyles. In 2023, the most popular fitness activities were those offering flexibility across settings—whether at home, in the gym, or through virtual classes. The activities with the most participation were 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 body motion activities including, 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/resistance 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 growth in the last five years. Page 164 of 313 102 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 165 of 313 103 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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%) have 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. Page 166 of 313 104 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 167 of 313 105 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 experienced moderate increases in participation, likely due to the return of facilities and programs to pre-COVID-19 levels. Swimming on a team saw the highest percentage increase in participation, reaching 14.6%. 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. 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 168 of 313 106 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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, there were no activities that 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 sports 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. Page 169 of 313 107 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 170 of 313 108 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS 36 3.1.8 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 171 of 313 109 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 Trend 20222018 2023 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 172 of 313 110 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 173 of 313 111 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 174 of 313 112 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 175 of 313 113 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 176 of 313 114 APPENDIX 4DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 177 of 313 115 APPENDIX 5DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 1 1.1.1 INTRODUCTION Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation 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 Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation relates congruently. The goal of the analysis is to evaluate how Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation 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 City 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 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 Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation determined the information they wanted to obtain from the benchmark agencies, a data request 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 Saint Paul, MN Parks and Recreation Four of the five benchmark cities were chosen not only because of their proximity to Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation, 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 Parks and Recreation 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 Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation 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 graphics that portray the metrics for reference to the City of Mendota Heights. The consultants will also use the data researched to aid in the development of the Master Plan. APPENDIX 5 : BENCHMARK ANALYSIS Page 178 of 313 116 APPENDIX 5DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 purposes, this analysis uses metrics to identify cities with park systems and fundamental characteristics similar to those of Mendota Heights. The population column details the number of residents to understand 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 the residents of the Mendota Heights community. With a population of 11,744, Mendota Heights is the second smallest among all benchmark cities and ranks fourth in land area. While Golden Valley is slightly larger in size, its population is nearly double that of Mendota Heights, resulting in significantly higher population density. Figure 1. Benchmark Cities Information West Saint Paul, MN 21,722 5.01 Square Miles Agencies Population City Size (square 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 Square Miles 7.06 Square Miles 6 Square Miles Page 179 of 313 117 APPENDIX 5DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 3 2.1.2 NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION BENCHMARKING To provide additional contrast data to Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation, 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 should be used as an additional reference for Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation, but because NRPA segments their city population, their data should be an extended view of agencies nationwide. NRPA does not gather data for the metrics Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation 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 Parks and Recreation 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. 2.1.3 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 Figure 2. NRPA Population Data Reference: FTEs as Example Figure 3. Park Property Information 145 14 0.5 West Saint 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 180 of 313 118 APPENDIX 5DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 4 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 Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation 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 of paved and unpaved trails quantify the extent of trail infrastructure within each park system—an important factor influencing the number of maintenance staff required. Paved and unpaved miles of trails in the chart also show 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 of parkland care for acres and miles of trails. 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 Saint Paul P&R Parks & Parkland Number of Parks Acres Maintained Figure 4. Parks and Parkland 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 Parks and Recreation has 146 acres of parkland, equaling 12.4 acres per 1,000 residents and 28 miles of trails. NRPA Agencies with 250 acres or less have 8.9 FTE Page 181 of 313 119 APPENDIX 5DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 5 The bar graph above clearly shows that Green River Parks and Recreation has 5.48 times more acres maintained than Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation. (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 example, an agency responsible for a large number of parks typically manages a significant amount of parkland. This broad coverage demands substantial resources and careful coordination to ensure all areas are properly maintained. Beyond the total acreage, the number of parks, natural areas, ball fields, and facilities also influences the type and complexity of maintenance required. Moreover, having more parks often indicates a broader commitment to providing accessible green spaces for the community. This contributes 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 type of parkland requiring maintenance. This reflects the total staff that each of the benchmark agencies require to care for in their park systems. This underscores the need for effective resource allocation and strategic planning to maintain high standards of park care across all properties. 2.1.4 STAFF The contents of the chart below show the number of staff for each benchmark agency separated into the various employee positions as well as their job classification. (Figure 5.) Responses from NRPA agencies in cities of 20,000 or less show 14.0 (FTEs) Full Time Equivalent employees Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation has: • the lowest number of full-time staff. There is an imbalance of personnel in maintenance, recreation and administrative divisions. 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. Figure 5. Staff Information 10 West Saint 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 Full-Time Parks Maintenance Staff Part -Time Maintenance Staff Seasonal Maintenance Staff Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation 6.25 49 4.25 0 Page 182 of 313 120 APPENDIX 5DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 6 Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation has: • the second lowest number of seasonal staff in parks and recreation benchmark communities Seasonal 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, and snow plowing and removal. Referring to the NRPA percentage calculations above (Figure 6.), percentages were used to determine what the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation full time operations/ maintenance staff ratio is to the overall full-time staff. Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation is above the NRPA percentage of 43% for maintenance/operations employees by referencing park systems nationally from NRPA and the highest for benchmark cities. 43% Operations/ Maintenance 27% Programmers 22% Administration 5%Capital Development 3%Other Percentage of Staff Positions with NRPA Agencies Operations and Maintenance Programmers Administration Capital Development Other Figure 6. Staff Positions Figure 7. Staff Information Benchmark Data: STAFF INFORMATION Agencies Total Staff Full-Time Parks Maintenance Staff NRPA Percentage Data Comparison Current 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 Saint 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 183 of 313 121 APPENDIX 5DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 7 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 all responsible for the ongoing upkeep of park facilities and grounds. However, there is currently an imbalanced number of staff across these categories, which impacts operational efficiency and workload distribution. 2.1.5 CORE PROGRAMS The comprehensive list of core programs was developed by combining the core programs of all benchmark agencies. (Figure 8.) The data for core programs across the benchmark agencies reveal interesting comparisons between Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation and other agencies. Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation provides a focused selection of programs, singularly offering Arts and Technology Programming as a unique program provided only by them. Core Programs that Mendota Heights offers are: • Special Events and Programming • Net Sports • Golf Programs • Art and Technology • Senior Programming • Youth Camps and Field Trips Figure 8. 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 ● ● ● ● ● ● West Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Page 184 of 313 122 APPENDIX 5DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 8 Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation offers programs that two or more benchmark agencies also offer indicating programs that are popular with residents in their respective communities: •Adult Softball •Senior Programming •Specialty Events •Youth Sports •Youth Programs Areas that could be considered as gaps in core programs at Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation that the benchmark agencies offer but Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation 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 •Specialty Programs •Summer Playground Programs In summary, while Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation offers niche programs for 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 Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation versus the broad, inclusive strategy employed by the benchmark agencies. The total number of programs for all agencies: Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation: 15 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 Saint 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 offered. In-house programs can be a financially viable solution when more programs are offered, while facilities and amenities can accommodate additional programs. Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation has the highest number of programs among the benchmark agencies. Percentage of NRPA agencies that have programs in common with Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Special Events: 89% Racquet Sports: 73% Golf: 49% West Saint Paul Parks and Recreation Page 185 of 313 123 APPENDIX 5DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 9 Park Visitors Park systems utilize visitor numbers in various ways to evaluate operations, administration, maintenance, and to improve their parks. In this benchmark analysis visitors have been sorted in two classifications. (Figure 9.) • 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 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, Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation 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. 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. West Saint Paul Parks and Recreation and Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation have a very close number of participants, yet West Saint Paul Parks and Recreation has 18% more participations. Looking solely at Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation participants and participations, the larger number of participations indicates that users are frequently involved in programs and activities. Figure 9. Park Visitors Green River, WY Golden Valley, MN Park Visitors West Saint Paul, MN 4,995 2,583 New Brighton, MN no data provided 13,224 programs only New Hope, MN 7,565 programs only 6,867 2,529 2,750 2,601 no data provided no data provided Agencies Annual Number of PARTICIPATIONS Annual Number of PARTICIPANTS Mendota Heights, MN 4,168 Page 186 of 313 124 APPENDIX 5DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 10 2.1.6 OPERATIONAL REVENUE & EXPENSES The chart below shows financial information about Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation 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. Figure 10. Revenue and Expenses West Saint Paul, MN Parks and Recreation 2024 budget $94,543 2023 actual $104,536 2024 budget $1,687,810 2023 actual $1,360,295 2024 budget $298,500 2023 actual $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 2024 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 Page 187 of 313 125 APPENDIX 5DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 11.) Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation generates 62% of its earned revenue from program fees. This percentage is highest of all benchmark agencies, indicating the fees are important to the financial sustainability of Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation, and offering more programming will have a positive effect on earned revenue. Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation currently generates significantly less revenue from permits, reservations, rentals, and land leases compared to benchmark cities. While the department relies more heavily on other forms of unearned or non-tax revenue—such as sponsorships, grants, and partnerships—it may benefit from exploring additional revenue opportunities within these underperforming categories. These sources can provide more consistent and sustainable funding year over year and help strengthen the department’s overall financial resilience. Figure 11. Revenue NRPA shows nationally the Program Revenue average is 56% of Earned Revenue Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Program Revenue is 62% of Earned Revenue Benchmark Data: REVENUE Agencies Earned Revenue Program Revenue Total from: Permits, Reservations, Rentals, Land Leases Total for Advertising and Marketing Non-Tax Revenue: Sponsorships, Grants, Partnerships, other $161,035 New Brighton Parks and Recreation $2,051,027 $669,518 $397,681 $0 data not provided New Hope Parks and Recreation $3,255,779 $1,226,496 $987,615 $5,945 Green River Parks and Recreation $0 $25,000 Data not provided Data not provided Golden Valley Parks and Recreation Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation $50,467 $31,510 $18,957 $40,437 West Saint Paul Parks and Recreation $104,536 $61,986 $54,784 $0 Page 188 of 313 126 APPENDIX 5DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 12 2.1.8 GOLF COURSES Benchmark agencies provided a financial set of data (Figure 12.) 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 Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Par 3 Golf Course or the other similar providers that all have 9-hole courses. Green River and West Saint 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. The Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course reported a total revenue of $296,818. In comparison, New Brighton’s Golf Course generated a total revenue of $327,741, which is $30,923 more than the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course. This means that New Brighton’s Golf Course has total revenue approximately 10% higher than the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course. Greens fees and cart rentals are not the only source of revenue to a golf course. Including golf technology with an Online Tee Time Software and Virtual Golf Simulators, a driving range, a well-stocked concession stand, and golf merchandise can provide additional revenue and a value-added service to golfers. With a dedicated full-time golf course staff, additional golf programs and lessons, hosting tournaments and business outings can add 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 brought in total revenue of $529,939 for 2023, which is $233,121 higher or 78.5% higher than the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course total revenue. TOTAL GOLF COURSE REVENUE FOR 2022 Considering 2022, the full year prior, the Mendota Heights Par 3 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 the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course. This represents approximately 10.1% higher earnings for New Brighton compared to the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course. Figure 12. Golf Statistics Benchmark Data: GOLF COURSES No Golf Course West Saint 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: $327,741 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 189 of 313 127 APPENDIX 5DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 13 The difference is more significant when comparing the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course revenue with New Hope’s Golf Course which had revenue for 2022 of $438,982, which is $174,621 higher than the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course’s revenue. This marks an approximate higher revenue of 66.1% for New Hope over the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course. The graph below provides a visual of total revenue for 2022 and 2023 for the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course, New Brighton Golf Course, and New Hope Golf Course. (Figure 13.) TOTAL GOLF COURSE OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES 2022 & 2023 In 2022, the expenditure data for golf courses at Mendota Heights, New Brighton, and New Hope is shown with the Golf Course Expenditures Chart 2022- 2023 (Figure 14). The Mendota Heights Par 3 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 the Mendota Heights Par 3 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 Par 3 Golf Course with New Hope’s Golf Course, where operational expenditures for 2022 were $400,741, which is $180,432 more than the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course expenditures. This is approximately 81.9% more in spending in New Hope over the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course. Of the three agencies previously reviewed, (New Hope Golf Course, New Brighton Golf Course, and Golden Valley) all had 2022 revenue that exceeded expenditures. Figure 13. Total Golf Course Revenue Green River Parks and Recreation and West Saint Paul Parks and Recreation do not have a Golf Course Page 190 of 313 128 APPENDIX 5DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 14 The data comparing expenditures from 2022 and 2023 for Mendota Heights’ Par 3 Golf Course to similar provider agencies is presented in the graph below. GOLF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES Revenue and expenditures for the years 2022 and 2023 are shown below. (Figure 15.) Figure 14. Total Golf Course Expenses Figure 15. Golf Course Revenue / Expenses Green River Parks and Recreation and West Saint Paul Parks and Recreation do not have a Golf Course 2022 Revenue 2022 Expenses 2023 Revenue 2023 Expenses Mendota Heights P&R Par 3 Golf Course $264,361 $220,309 $296,818 $245,178 Golden Valley P&R Golf Course $2,231,437 $2,194,216 $2,516,874 $2,360,222 New Brighton's P&R Golf Course $291,137 $206,718 $327,741 $330,442 New Hope's P&R Golf Course $438,982 $400,741 $529,939 $489,866 Benchmark Golf Course Revenue / Expenses Page 191 of 313 129 APPENDIX 5DRAFT 6/10/2025 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MASTER PLAN; BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 15 GOLF PROGRAMS REVENUE Including the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course, two other benchmark agencies produce revenue with the golf programs they offer. (Figure 16.) 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. The Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course has a larger amount of program revenue than New Brighton for nearly the same total golf course revenue. Golf Program Revenue GOLF PROGRAM REVENUE Figure 16. Golf Program Revenue $400,000 2023 2022 $500,000 Golden Valley P&R $53,928 2023 2022 $50,923 Mendota Heights P&R included with operational revenue 2023 2022 included with operational revenue New Hope P&R $11,081 2023 2022 $10,527 New Brighton P&R Page 192 of 313 130 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 identifies the strengths, challenges, and opportunities in current programming. It also highlights core programs, gaps in services, and key system-wide issues. The assessment offers strategic recommendations to improve existing offerings and guide future program planning for both residents and visitors. Implementing these recommendations will require strong support from City leadership, including investments in funding, staffing, and facilities, to ensure MHPR’s long-term success. MHPR boasts strengths in its program offerings, particularly evident in the high public participation rates. This enthusiasm demonstrates strong community engagement and a clear demand for MHPR services. Sports programming for golf and tennis 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 be 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, 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 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. APPENDIX 6 Page 193 of 313 131 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment 2 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 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 MHPR’s overall budget. • The program area is offered 3-4 seasons per year. • The program area has wide demographic appeal. • 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. • MHPR controls a significant percentage (20% or more) of the local market. Page 194 of 313 132 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 3 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 seasonal events and programs that benefit multiple age and interest groups. This includes legacy events, the summer Music in the Park program and Tour De Rec. Events and programs 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 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: • Clear goals provide a roadmap for program development and decision-making, ensuring that efforts are aligned with the MHPR mission and community needs. Special Events & Programs Golf Net Sports Seniors Art & Tech Youth Camps & Field Trips Page 195 of 313 133 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment 4 •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 MHPR to identify strengths and areas for improvement, leading to enhanced program quality and community satisfaction. •Well-defined goals and outcomes communicate 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 well as staffing for tournaments Page 196 of 313 134 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/20255 and events. Currently, the leagues operated by associations utilize a disproportionate amount of 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. 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 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 197 of 313 135 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 was 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 MHPR 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 for 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 ensure 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 198 of 313 136 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 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. 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 the core program area, exhibiting an over-arching view of the age segments served by different program areas. The analysis also displays 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. Figure 1: Age Segment Analysis 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 of 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 country 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. 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 Age Segment Analysis Page 199 of 313 137 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 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 MHPR 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 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 MHPR 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. 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 200 of 313 138 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 9 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 See if re- programming existing 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 MHPR 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 201 of 313 139 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment 10 1.3.3 PROGRAM CLASSIFICATION 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. All MHPR programs should be assigned cost recovery goal ranges, through an MHPR pricing policy, for the different classifications or core program areas. 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. 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 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 Public interest; Legal Mandate;Mission Alignment Page 202 of 313 140 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/202511 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 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 an 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 to the public when a program is in decline, but enjoyed by a few, is discontinued. 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. 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 MHPR. Page 203 of 313 141 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment 12 Based on an analysis of current program data, available facilities, recreation trends, comparable providers, and community input, MHPR may consider expanding its offerings to include private nonprofit associations, leagues, tournaments, and other activities. If pursued, it will be important to preserve scheduling for popular existing programs to avoid disruptions. The following chart illustrates how the MacMillan Matrix can help guide decisions about where to invest future recreation program resources. 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 204 of 313 142 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 13 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. Page 205 of 313 143 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment 14 ALTERNATIVE PROVIDER ANALYSIS Five-mile radius Core Programs Areas 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 Mendota 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 • • • • • 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. Page 206 of 313 144 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 15 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. • 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 CAPACITY BUILDING CLEAR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES ENHANCED TECHNOLOGY WELL PLANNED INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION 01 02 03 04 05 Page 207 of 313 145 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment 16 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 online software 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. 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. Page 208 of 313 146 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/202517 1.4 COST RECOVERY 1.4.1 PRICING STRATEGIES Pricing strategies are one mechanism MHPR 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 8 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, MHPR 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. 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. Figure 8: MHPR prices most of its programming by residency status and the customer’s ability to pay. As MHPR looks to establish cost recovery goals, other recommended strategies can enhance earned income capabilities. Core Program Area Age SegmentFamily/ Household StatusResidencyWeekday/ WeekendPrime / Non-Prime TimeGroup DiscountsBy LocationBy Competition (Market Rate)By Cost Recovery GoalsBy Customer's Ability to PaySpecial 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 209 of 313 147 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment 18 •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 discounts 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 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 Page 210 of 313 148 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/202519 achieved through clear guidelines for fund allocation, selection processes, and regular reporting to the community on the impact of scholarships 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 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. 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 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 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 211 of 313 149 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment 20 •Required time for offering program/service Agencies use a 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 and 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 additional accessibility guidelines and new technology to improve usability. The overall user 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. Page 212 of 313 150 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/202521 MHPR should continue to utilize website analytics to track user behavior and regularly identify other areas for improvement. 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. MHPR should consider online events and challenges, live videos, 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 Page 213 of 313 151 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment 22 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. •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 the 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 demographics 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 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 214 of 313 152 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/202523 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 communications 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. •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: Page 215 of 313 153 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment 24 •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 MHPR’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 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 event management, invasive species removal, general park clean-up, and tree planting efforts. Each volunteer position comes with a service description that outlines the skills desired, responsibilities, and outcome or learning opportunities. ESTABLISH FORMAL VOLUNTEER AND PARTNERSHIP POLICIES AND AGREEMENTS To strengthen volunteer and partnership efforts, Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation should implement the best practices outlined in the following section and begin consistently tracking volunteer metrics—such as the number of individuals engaged and total hours donated annually. Additionally, the department should establish measurable outcomes for each partnership and monitor these metrics on an annual basis. 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 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. Page 216 of 313 154 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/202525 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 opportunities for those in the 55+ age group. •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 the Department’s capacity with the City 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 217 of 313 155 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment 26 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT APPENDIX A : VOLUNTEER/PARTNERSHIP BEST PRACTICES & RECOMMENDATIONS BEST PRACTICES IN VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT In developing a volunteer policy, some best practices that 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 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 MHPR 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 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 MHPR 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. 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 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 MHPR to Page 218 of 313 156 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 27 provide a task or service on MHPR’s behalf at public facilities. These unique partnership principles are as follows: • Upon entering into an agreement with a private business, group, association or individual, 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 MHPR. • As an outcome of the partnership, 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 MHPR. The outcomes will include standards of quality, financial reports, customer satisfaction, payments to MHPR, and overall coordination with 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 MHPR. The management plan can and will be negotiated, if necessary. Monitoring the management plan will be the responsibility of both partners. MHPR 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 MHPR advisory or governing boards for renewal of a contract. Any such action will be cause for termination. All negotiations must be with MHPR Director or their designee. • MHPR 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 counsel. If none can be achieved, the partnership shall be dissolved. PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES MHPR currently has a strong network of recreation program partners. Therefore, the following recommendations are both an overview of existing partnership opportunities available to 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 MHPR 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 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 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 MHPR to provide programs and events, and/or serve specific constituents in the community collaboratively. Page 219 of 313 157 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment 28 4.Co-Branding Partners: Private, for-profit organizations that can gain brand association and notoriety as a supporter of 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 of leveraging private sector resources, grants, other public funding opportunities, and resources from individuals and groups within the community to support the goals and objectives of MHPR on mutually agreed strategic initiatives. BEST PRACTICE FOR ALL PARTNERSHIPS All partnerships developed and maintained by MHPR should adhere to common policy requirements. These include: •Each partner will meet with or report to 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 220 of 313 158 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 29 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT APPENDIX B: LIFECYCLE STAGES OF CURRENT PROGRAMS Introducti on Take-Off Growth Mature Saturated Decline Core Program Area Program New program; modest participati on Rapid participati on 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 Music in the Park X Tour De Rec 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 For each Program, place an 'X' to indicate which Lifecycle Stage it is currently in. Page 221 of 313 159 APPENDIX 6DRAFT 6/10/2025 Mendota Heights, MN Program Assessment 30 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT 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 Music in the Park X Tour De Rec 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 222 of 313 160 APPENDIX 7DRAFT 6/10/2025 Financial Analysis and Strategies 1 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS As a key element of the Master Plan, available information was reviewed to assess the financial situation of Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation(“MHPR”). The revenues and expenditures were analyzed to identify trends and assess MHPR’s financial integrity. The cost recovery at major functional levels has also been analyzed to assess the adequacy of revenues to cover continuing operations. DATA REVIEWED The detailed cost and activity information prepared by MHPR’s staff was reviewed as part of this analysis. Financial reports for fiscal years 2019 through 2024 were analyzed to assess the financial situation of the Department. COST RECOVERY A summary of the cost recovery for each of the respective operating funds is provided in Figure 1. MHPR has demonstrated an adequate cost recovery rate for most of the years in the study period. Recreation operations show a drop in cost recovery for the last two years due to more free events being offered. PARKS The revenue and expenditure amounts, and cost recovery percentages for park operations are illustrated below in Figure 2. Cost recovery percentages are low at 1% and 2% while industry standards are approximately 22%. Park operations are not anticipated to recover the full cost of operations. Figure 2 – Park Cost Recovery Figure 1 - Summary of Cost Recovery from Operations *Golf Includes Capital Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Fiscal Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Parks 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% Recreation 111% 87% 78% 60% 50% 36% Golf 68% 90% 106% 100% 95% 92% PROS Anticipated Cost Recovery 0% to 30% 60% to 100% 80% to 100% Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Revenues $14,925 $5,816 $17,901 $18,412 $18,957 $18,000 Expenditures $854,346 $899,059 $875,215 $1,244,352 $1,291,808 $1,202,146 Revenues Over / (Under) Expenditures ($839,421) ($893,243) ($857,314) ($1,225,940) ($1,272,851) ($1,184,146) Cost Recovery 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% APPENDIX 7 Page 223 of 313 161 APPENDIX 7DRAFT 6/10/2025 Financial Analysis and Strategies 2 The park revenue and expenditure details are shown in Figure 3. Park expenditures increased at a rate greater than the revenues. The distribution of park expenditures are shown in Figure 4. The distribution of expenditures has been consistent over the study period, indicating the cost increases are primarily the result of inflation. RECREATION The revenues and expenditures for recreation operations are illustrated below in Figure 5. Recreation cost recovery dropped in the last two years below the anticipated cost recovery of similar entities. Figure 3 – Park Revenues and Expenditures Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Expenditures Human Resources 67% 63% 71% 60% 65% 71% Contractual Services 7% 13% 5% 14% 4% 6% Commodities 20% 17% 17% 17% 20% 19% Other Charges 6% 7% 7% 8% 6% 4% Capital Outlay 0% 0% 0% 1% 5% 0% Total Expenditures 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Figure 4 – Park Expenditures Figure 5 – Recreation Operations Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Revenues $52,305 $22,319 $34,260 $42,267 $39,004 $40,975 Expenditures $47,317 $25,580 $43,661 $71,002 $77,905 $112,800 Revenues Over / (Under) Expenditures $4,988 ($3,261) ($9,401) ($28,735) ($38,901) ($71,825) Cost Recovery 111% 87% 78% 60% 50% 36% Percent Revenues Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Increase 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019 to 2024 Total Revenues $14,925 $5,816 $17,901 $18,412 $18,957 $18,000 21% Expenditures Human Resources $570,678 $569,821 $619,408 $740,877 $819,937 $856,396 50% Contractual Services $62,988 $119,227 $42,214 $178,963 $57,630 $66,650 6% Commodities $173,093 $148,458 $153,165 $213,299 $268,015 $231,100 34% Other Charges $47,587 $61,553 $60,427 $101,713 $83,111 $48,000 1% Capital Outlay - - - $9,500 $63,115 - N/A Total Expenditures $854,346 $899,059 $875,214 $1,244,352 $1,291,808 $1,202,146 41% Page 224 of 313 162 APPENDIX 7DRAFT 6/10/2025 Financial Analysis and Strategies 3 Recreation revenue and expenditure details are shown in Figure 6. Recreation expenditures have increased significantly over the study period. The revenues have not recovered from the drop during COVID. GOLF The revenues and operating expenditures without Capital Outlay for golf operations are illustrated below in Figure 7. Golf operations recovered most of the cost of operations in the last four years. Golf operations recovered over 101% of the operating expenditures for the actual years of operations. The 2024 budget is projected to recover 96% of operating expenditures. Figure 7 – Golf Cost Recovery *not including Capital Figure 6 – Recreation Revenues and Expenditures Percent Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Change Revenues 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019 to 2024 Recreation Programs $41,523 $14,151 $26,512 $37,366 $33,030 $35,000 -16% Softball Fees $10,782 $8,168 $7,748 $4,901 $5,974 $5,975 -45% Total Revenues $52,305 $22,319 $34,260 $42,267 $39,004 $40,975 -22% Expenditures Human Resources - - - - - - N/A Contractual Services - - - - - - N/A Commodities - - - - - - N/A Other Charges $47,317 $25,580 $43,661 $71,002 $77,905 $112,880 139% Capital Outlay - - - - - - N/A Total Expenditures $47,317 $25,580 $43,661 $71,002 $77,905 $112,880 139% Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Revenues $162,981 $173,927 $246,148 $262,790 $302,105 $265,450 Expenditures $146,200 $145,078 $215,020 $220,181 $280,602 $265,450 Revenues Over / (Under) Expenditures $16,772 $28,849 $31,128 $42,609 $21,503 ($9,877) Cost Recovery 101% 120% 114% 119% 108% 96% 111%111% Page 225 of 313 163 APPENDIX 7DRAFT 6/10/2025 Financial Analysis and Strategies 4 The golf revenue and expenditure with capital outlay details are shown in Figure 8. Golf revenues have increased at a rate greater than the expenditures, improving the cost recovery. The total cost recovery with Capital Outlay has improved 37% over the study period. The distribution of golf expenditures is shown in Figure 9. Distribution of expenditures has been consistent over the last years of study period indicating the cost increases are primarily the result of inflation. Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Expenditures 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Human Resources 37% 40% 46% 42% 39% 47% Contractual Services 10% 10% 12% 11% 8% 14% Commodities 16% 19% 24% 23% 34% 25% Other Charges 4% 6% 11% 8% 7% 10% Capital Outlay 33% 25% 7% 16% 12% 4% Total Expenditures 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Figure 9 – Distribution of Golf Expenditures Figure 8 – Golf Revenues and Expenditures with Capital Outlay Percent Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Change Revenues 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019 to 2024 Green Fees $93,078 $150,061 $167,782 $176,412 $209,668 $177,000 90% Recreation Programs $33,229 $23,251 $49,488 $53,928 $50,923 $54,000 63% Concessions $19,538 - $25,295 $33,596 $36,090 $34,000 74% Sundry Revenue $16,068 $195 $3,771 $425 $146 - -100% Interest $1,068 $420 ($188) ($1,571) $5,278 $450 -58% Total Revenues $162,981 $173,927 $246,148 $262,790 $302,105 $265,450 63% Expenditures Human Resources $79,568 $77,601 $107,251 $110,217 $122,913 $134,284 69% Contractual Services $21,772 $18,407 $28,395 $30,090 $26,229 $38,088 75% Commodities $36,093 $37,330 $55,150 $58,468 $107,879 $73,050 102% Other Charges $8,776 $11,740 $24,224 $21,406 $23,581 $29,905 241% Capital Outlay $71,723 $48,526 $17,135 $41,552 $37,288 $12,000 -83% Total Expenditures $217,932 $193,604 $232,155 $261,733 $317,890 $287,327 32% ($54,951) ($19,677) $13,993 $1,057 ($15,785) ($21,877) 61% Cost Recovery 75% 90% 106% 100% 95% 92% 37% Revenues Over / (Under) Operating Expenditures Page 226 of 313 164 APPENDIX 7DRAFT 6/10/2025 Financial Analysis and Strategies 5 MHPR’s investment per round of Golf is shown in Figure 10. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES The Special Park Fund continues to provide necessary investments to MHPR’s facilities and infrastructure as shown in Figure 11. The capital funds provided to MHPR from budgeted funds and the Special Park Fund are shown in Figure 12. Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 4460 Construction Costs $32,249 $3,814 $34,738 $21,307 $53,695 $5,000 4620 Capital Outlay $328,696 $54,818 $133,004 $363,360 $520,788 $235,000 Total Capital Expenditures $360,945 $58,632 $167,742 $384,667 $574,483 $240,000 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Revenues Over / (Under) Expenditures ($70,740) ($19,677) $13,993 $1,056 ($15,785) ($21,877) Rounds 8,324 14,283 15,618 16,246 19,760 20,089 Investment Per Round $8.50 $1.38 ($0.90) ($0.07) $0.80 $1.09 Figure 10 – Investment Per Round of Golf Figure 12 –Capital Expenditures from All Funds Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Parks $0 $0 $0 $9,500 $63,115 $0 Recreation - - - - - - Golf 71,723 48,526 17,135 41,552 37,288 12,000 Special Park Fund 360,945 58,632 107,742 384,667 574,483 240,000 Total Capital Expenditures $432,668 $107,158 $124,877 $435,719 $674,886 $252,000 Figure 11 – Special Park Fund Capital Expenditures $6.60 $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ ($54,951)$1,057 Page 227 of 313 165 APPENDIX 7DRAFT 6/10/2025 Financial Analysis and Strategies 6 FINANCING THE SYSTEM FORWARD ANALYSIS AND BENCHMARK SUMMARY The Mendota Heights Financial Analysis focuses on best practices as provided by the National Recreation and Park Association (“NRPA”) Performance Review information for the 2024 year. In the report under the financial segment, it provides financial benchmarks including the following: •The Park Operational 2024 Budget is $1,202,146 and per capita spending is $103.96. This makes up 91% of the total operational budget for park services. According to the National Recreation and Parks Association, typical parks operational budgets usually make up about 46% of the total operational budget for parks and recreation agencies in similar size communities. One of the key challenges in Mendota Heights is that the recreation budget accounts for only 8.5% of the City’s overall operational budget, compared to a national average of approximately 41%.In terms of spending Mendota Heights is spending dollars in the Middle Quartile of the NRPA Performance Review standards for similar size systems. Balancing the budget between parks and recreation would achieve a stronger overall impact to the community of park and recreation services. This would also activate more park spaces with more programs targeted to people of all ages. Ideally the parks and recreation budget should be combined into one budget document to track the true impact of money that is spent by the city for parks and recreation purposes. •Based on the NRPA per capita basis for populations under 20,000 people, Mendota Heights is spending below the Upper Quartile Standard on a per capita basis at $169.43, which includes both the parks and recreation budget. NRPA Best Practices for similar size cities is $229.61 per capita. •To determine the amount of funds to use for capital spending, most best practice agencies calculate 5% of the total asset value of the parks system then deduct the land value to arrive at the amount they spend to maintain what they already own. •The Golf 2024 Budget is $287,327 and $24.85 per capita for golf operations. Typically golf operations cover 100% of the operating budget from green fees and related golf revenues. The current per capita subsidy for Golf operations is $1.89 per capita. The golf course has a very small clubhouse and no practice facilities for golfers to use. Adding a golf simulator to the clubhouse would open the opportunity for youth and adults to practice year-round as well as offer lessons and grow the game for youth and adults in the City and generate significant amounts of revenue. In the winter, the golf course is not utilized to generate revenue, rather as a community gathering space. •The average capital spending for Parks and Recreation in Mendota Heights per year is $202,355. The NRPA Performance Report for similar size cities indicates capital spending is normally at $823,757 on capital expenditures per year. •The total budget is $1,314,946 which is 10.66% of the total city budget of $12,331,671. Normally Park and Recreation Services make up between 7 and 10% of the city budget. Mendota Heights’ budget is in the appropriate range of funding, but it is not balanced by the three core functions of park maintenance, recreation services and administration. •Typical staffing of FTE for parks and recreation is 20.1 people for communities under 20,000 residents in the Upper Quartile and in Mendota Heights the FTE number is 7.3 with a newly hired employee in March. Balancing out recreation program staff with additional administrative staff will bring a much higher level of use to the park system and create more operational revenue through program fees and charges. Page 228 of 313 166 APPENDIX 7DRAFT 6/10/2025 Financial Analysis and Strategies 7 •Mendota Heights has 25.39 park acres per 1,000 residents. This is higher than 21.1 acres for Upper Quartile cities in the United States. •A city the size of Mendota Heights typically has 2.0 square feet of indoor recreation space per population served. This ratio would require Mendota Heights to have 23,400 square feet of indoor programable space. The City has currently has 2,506 square feet for programmable space. •Earned income revenues for communities the size of Mendota Heights typically contribute to 24.6% of their operational budget. In 2023, MHPR generated approximately 21.3% of their total budget from earned income which equates to $360,066. The lower percentage is likely, in part, due to MHPR’s limited space that is dedicated to indoor and outdoor program ming. MHPR should develop other funding options to support the efforts to build a park and recreation system that is balanced and responsive to citizens’ needs. Incorporating a pricing policy, earned income policy and partnership policy to manage the system forward will all help the department to manage in a best-practice mode of operation. This follows the summary data outlined at the start of this document on - Financing the System Forward. It is important for MHPR to meet the expectations of the community while creating consistency across the system as it applies to access and priority of use. These policies will allow for less entitlement of special interest groups who use city facilities and services and provide greater fairness for the City to control the facilities the taxpayers are funding for everyone. FUNDING STRATEGIES OVERVIEW Public recreation faces a constant challenge securing reliable funding for projects, programs, daily operations, and ongoing maintenance. While traditional funding sources exist, they can be subject to change. To ensure a sustainable future, it is crucial to diversify funding streams and actively seek new opportunities. Developing a dynamic funding strategy is key. This strategy should consider different levels, from overall departmental needs to specific facilities and core programs. While the process of identifying and securing new funding can be time-consuming, the long-term benefits are significant. Additional and non-traditional sources can provide a critical boost for ongoing operational costs. These funding options are used by similar size park and recreation systems in Minnesota. All will help to supplement what the city is investing now in the park and recreation system. FUNDING SOURCES USER FEES Fees and Charges MHPR should position its fees and charges to be market-driven and based on surrounding public, private, and non-profit facilities. The potential outcome of revenue generation is consistent with national trends relating to public park and recreation sports facilities, which can generate a majority of all the operating expenditures. Fees include admissions, memberships, programs, rentals, field usage and other similar sources. Implications for MHPR: This approach could cover a substantial portion of operating costs for specific value- added services. MHPR will need to ensure inclusive access for low-income visitors, and this can be done Page 229 of 313 167 APPENDIX 7DRAFT 6/10/2025 Financial Analysis and Strategies 8 through an enhanced scholarship or financial aid program. Also, MHPR should take a policy-driven approach to establishing user fees that will provide staff and City officials with a basis for how fees are established, and which groups should receive discounted rates. The policy should also determine the required cost recovery levels for various services, as suggested in the plan’s program assessment. Lastly, non-resident rates should be included in future pricing policy discussions for certain types of programs. Reservations and Permits This revenue source comes from the right to reserve specific public spaces or property for a set amount of time. The reservation rates are usually set and apply to multipurpose rooms for various gatherings, hardcourts, sports fields, and other types of facilities for special activities. Implications for MHPR: Charging for space reservations (e.g., sports fields, multi-purpose rooms) creates a dedicated revenue stream while managing usage efficiently. Clear policies and competitive pricing will be essential to balance revenue goals with public accessibility. MHPR should take the same market and policy driven approach to reservations as suggested for fees and charges including non-resident rates. EXTERNAL FUNDING Corporate Sponsorships This revenue-funding source allows corporations to invest in the development or enhancement of new spaces or renovation of existing amenities/facilities in park systems. Sponsorships are also universally used for programs and events. Implications for MHPR: MHPR is currently implementing this strategy for recreation programs and events. Sponsorships can also provide significant funding for capital improvements and larger amounts could be overseen and managed by the Mendota Heights Community Foundation or a future Park Foundation. However, care must be taken to align sponsors with the MHPR mission and values to avoid a negative perception from the public. A sponsorship agreement should be created for each opportunity that protects all parties involved and clearly outlines terms. Sponsorships and advertising can be structured with strict graphic standards that reinforce the brand of the community. Foundations/Gifts Traditionally, these dollars are raised from tax-exempt, non-profit organizations established with private donations in promotion of specific causes, activities, or issues. They offer a variety of means to fund capital projects, including capital campaigns, gift catalogs, fundraisers, endowments, sales of items, etc. This funding source can be used for operations and capital costs. Implications for MHPR: Partnering with foundations can provide grants or endowments for operations and capital costs. This funding source is versatile but requires strong grant writing and fundraising efforts. MHPR should continue to strengthen its relationship with the Mendota Heights Community Foundation to ensure future success. The Community Foundation could be an option to manage gifts and large-scale donations as well as take the lead role in planning future special fundraisers. Page 230 of 313 168 APPENDIX 7DRAFT 6/10/2025 Financial Analysis and Strategies 9 Partnerships Partnerships are joint development funding sources or operational funding sources between two separate agencies, such as two government entities, a non-profit and a governmental entity, or a private business and a governmental entity. Two partners jointly develop revenue producing park and recreation facilities and share risk, operational costs, responsibilities, and asset management, based on the strengths and weaknesses of each partner. Implications for MHPR: A partnership could co-develop facilities and amenities such as a pickleball facility, play areas, or other rental facility upgrades, enhancing amenities without straining park resources and generating revenue for reinvestment back into the park system. Partnerships should be regularly evaluated to ensure that they align with the MHPR mission and priorities. Partnership agreements should be specific to private, public and non-profit organizations. The funding source could be used for either operations or capital development. The goal is to make partnerships as equitable as possible and not create a sense of entitlement. Agreement terms should focus on meeting the outcomes desired by both partners. Private Donations Private Donations may also be received in the form of funds, land, facilities, recreation equipment, art, or in- kind services. Donations from local and regional businesses as sponsors for tournaments, events or spaces should be pursued. Implications for MHPR: Donations from individuals or businesses can provide financial or in-kind support for events or specific projects. Regular communication with donors is critical to maintaining these relationships and ensuring long-term support. MHPR is currently working to establish a policy for receiving donations and currently implements a Memorial Bench Program. Volunteerism The revenue source is an indirect revenue source in that people donate time to assist the organization in providing a product or service on an hourly basis. This reduces the organization’s cost in providing the service plus it builds advocacy into the system. According to independentsector.org the value of a volunteer hour is worth $33.49. This monetary value can be used for matching money for some state and federal grants. Implications for MHPR: Volunteer efforts reduce costs and build community support. The City of Mendota Heights' Volunteer Policy provides a comprehensive framework for managing volunteers. The policy outlines volunteer management procedures and 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. This includes event management, invasive species removal, general park clean-up, and tree planting efforts. The program assessment outlines some other best practices with volunteer management that MHPR can consider for enhancing its engagement with future volunteers. Page 231 of 313 169 APPENDIX 7DRAFT 6/10/2025 Financial Analysis and Strategies 10 Irrevocable Remainder Trusts An Irrevocable Remainder Trust allows a donor to place assets (e.g., cash, stocks, real estate) in a trust that generates income for the donor or designated beneficiaries during their lifetime or a specified term. After the income period ends, the remaining trust assets (the "remainder") are donated to a charitable organization, such as a city’s parks department or a nonprofit supporting local parks and natural resources. Implications for MHPR: This strategy can come in the form of land conservation, a park endowment for park maintenance and programming, or enhancements and expansion for park properties and a trail system. FRANCHISE/LICENSES Advertising Sales This revenue source is for the sale of tasteful and appropriate advertising on park and recreation related items such as print materials, on scoreboards, dasher boards and other visible products or services that are consumable or permanent and expose the product or service to many people. Implications for MHPR: Tasteful advertising on signage or within events and programs can provide a steady revenue stream without detracting from the park's aesthetic. This must be carefully managed to ensure public approval and brand alignment. Catering Permits and Services This is a license to allow caterers to work in the parks and recreation system on a permit basis with a set fee or a percentage of food sales returning to MHPR. Implications for MHPR: Allowing caterers to operate in the parks under permit agreements provides revenue from events while supporting local businesses. This is particularly valuable for weddings or corporate events at pavilions or future facilities. Concession Management This funding source is from retail sales or rentals of soft goods, hard goods, or consumable items. There may be opportunities where MHPR could either contract for the service and receive a set amount of the gross percentage or the full revenue dollars that incorporates a profit after expenses. Implications for MHPR: Concession sales, such as food, beverages, or equipment rentals, provide an opportunity for profit sharing or direct revenue. Contracting out services ensures consistent offerings without increasing park staff workload. Interlocal Agreements Contractual relationships entered between two or more local units of government and/or between a local unit of government and a non-profit organization for the joint usage/development of sports fields, regional parks, or other facilities. Implications for MHPR: These agreements could support funding, resource sharing, environmental conservation, recreational programming, and community engagement. The City of Mendota Heights could Page 232 of 313 170 APPENDIX 7DRAFT 6/10/2025 Financial Analysis and Strategies 11 further establish an agreement with the City of West S aint Paul or other adjacent communities to jointly maintain and develop a regional trail system. An agreement with Dakota County could help MHPR leverage resources for conservation efforts, park maintenance, and help apply for large-scale park grants. Lastly, an agreement with surrounding Dakota County libraries and School District 197 could help enhance programming while limiting the strain on current staffing levels and facilities. Leases This includes options where developers / agencies lease space from municipal-owned land through a subordinate lease that pays out a set amount plus a percentage of gross dollars for recreation enhancements. These could include recreation centers and ice arenas. Implications for MHPR: Leasing land or facilities to private operators could generate revenue for specific enhancements. This reduces operational costs for the City while ensuring facility use. Leases can often require oversight of private operators. Naming Rights Many municipalities have turned to selling the naming rights for new buildings or renovation of existing buildings and parks for the development cost associated with the improvement. Implications for MHPR: Selling naming rights for new or renovated amenities could fund significant capital costs. The naming rights value is determined by impression points of the specific business or organization in a given period, such as a year. Pouring Rights Some private soft drink companies execute agreements with organizations for exclusive pouring rights within their facilities. A portion of the gross sales goes back to the organization. This comes from vending machines and soft drink serve stations. Implications for MHPR: Exclusive agreements with beverage companies could bring in consistent revenue from vending machines and concessions. This strategy is most viable for high-traffic facilities or events. GRANTS Grants can be an essential funding source as part of a greater overall funding strategy for capital projects and some for specific services. For most, grants are seen as an opportunity for free money, increased credibility of fiscal stewardship, increased access to valuable data, and the ability to point to past grants awarded in future applications. Platforms such as Grant Gopher and Instrumentl® provide databases that can be searched for national, regional, and state specific grants for parks and recreation. It is also suggested that MHPR regularly track organizations such as the National Recreation and Parks Association, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association for funding opportunities for park projects and recreation programming. Page 233 of 313 171 APPENDIX 7DRAFT 6/10/2025 Financial Analysis and Strategies 12 It is important for MHPR to understand each grant’s requirements. In many instances, agencies look at the pros and cons of each individual grant to understand the cost-benefit ratio. Consider the following to determine MHPR’s potential level of success: •What is the overall time commitment expected from staff for grant administration, reporting, and implementation? •What is the level of competition? •How well does the MHPR project or service meet the application requirements? •Is there an opportunity to renew the grant or will MHPR fund the project for the long-term? •What are the reporting requirements and length of time given for the overall project? MHPR has had past success in obtaining grants, most recently from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the United States Tennis Association (USTA). Below are brief descriptions of some impactful grant opportunities. Outdoor Recreation Grant Program Provides matching grants to local governments for up to 50% of the cost of acquiring, developing, or redeveloping local parks and recreation areas. Eligible projects include playgrounds, picnic shelters, trails, and athletic facilities. The maximum grant award is $350,000. Natural and Scenic Area Grant Program Offers grants up to $500,000 to local governments for acquiring natural and scenic land to protect and develop for public use. Aims to preserve significant natural landscapes and provide outdoor recreational opportunities. Local Trail Connections Program Provides grants ranging from $5,000 to $250,000 to local units of government for the acquisition or development of short trail connections between where people live and desirable locations. A 25% match is required. Priority is given to projects that provide significant connectivity. Regional Trail Grant Program Offers grants ranging from $5,000 to $250,000 for the development of trails that are of regional or statewide significance. A 25% cash match is required. Federal Recreational Trail Program Awards grants between $2,500 and $200,000 for maintenance/restoration of recreational trails; development or rehabilitation of recreational trail linkages or trailhead facilities; environmental awareness and safety education programs; and redesign or relocation of trails to benefit the environment. A 25% cash or in-kind match is required. Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program Funds conservation projects that restore, enhance, or protect forests, wetlands, prairies, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife in Minnesota. Non-competitive grants from $5,000 to $50,000 with a 10% non-state match requirement are available to local, regional, state, and national nonprofit organizations, including government entities. Page 234 of 313 172 APPENDIX 7DRAFT 6/10/2025 Financial Analysis and Strategies 13 No Child Left Inside Grant Program Aims to support and increase efforts to expand programming that connects youth to the outdoors. Grants are provided for outdoor environmental, ecological, and other natural resource based education and recreation programs serving youth. Active Transportation and Safe Routes to School Infrastructure Grants Programs administered by the Minnesota Department of Transportation State Aid for Local Transportation, these grants provide funding for eligible bicycle and pedestrian improvements. TAX SUPPORT Local Option Sales and Use Tax Cities in Minnesota with sufficient retail businesses can implement a local option sales tax to fund specific capital projects, such as parks, trails, and recreational facilities. Minnesota State Statute 297A.99: Subd. 1a. states that local sales taxes are to be used instead of traditional local revenues only for construction and rehabilitation of capital projects when a clear regional benefit beyond the taxing jurisdiction can be demonstrated. Mendota Heights has a moderate number of retail businesses, and this source would need to evaluated thoroughly before pursuing. Implications for Mendota Heights: This source requires legislative approval and a voter referendum. It could provide a continuous revenue stream for park infrastructure projects. Property Taxes The city can dedicate a portion of its property tax revenue to fund parks and natural resources, either through the general levy or a special parks levy. Implications for Mendota Heights: An appropriate level of property taxes provide a reliable and recurring source of funding. Public approval will be required if structured as a special levy. This would require careful justification and transparency. Park Dedication Fees Park Dedication Fees are governed by state law, specifically Minnesota Statutes § 462.358, Subdivision 2b. These fees are designed to ensure that as new development occurs, there are adequate parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities to serve the growing population. Implications for Mendota Heights: The City currently implements this strategy; however, the City is almost fully developed and future use will be limited. Special Service Districts According to Minnesota Statutes 428A.01-428A.101, a city can create an SSD where property owners in a defined area agree to additional property taxes to fund specific services or improvements, such as park enhancements. Implications for Mendota Heights: Special Service Districts could provide targeted funding for specific parks or natural areas; however, it requires property owner consent. Page 235 of 313 173 APPENDIX 7DRAFT 6/10/2025 Financial Analysis and Strategies 14 Conservation Easements and Land Value Tax Adjustments This strategy provides tax incentives or abatements for landowners who place their property under conservation easements. Implications for Mendota Heights: Encourages preservation of natural areas without an upfront city expenditure. Conservation easements require collaboration with landowners and conservation organizations. Local Hotel/Motel Tax Cities can impose a lodging tax, with revenues used to promote local tourism, including improvements to parks and trails. Implications for Mendota Heights: This strategy supports parks and recreation as part of tourism promotion and has a minimal impact on residents as the tax is paid by visitors. The revenue potential depends on the City’s lodging market size. Page 236 of 313 From:daniel passer To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Park System Master Plan Draft - Comment Date:Thursday, May 29, 2025 1:29:28 AM Hello - Thank you for seeking input from the public. My wife and I live in Inver Grove Heights, next door to Mendota Heights. We frequent Ze's Diner and my wife loves the boutique across the street. We also attend the annual summer food truck and music festival, as well as other interesting public events in Mendota Heights, such as music in the town square. My only input regarding the Park System Master Plan Draft is that I hope public safety is the top priority. Ample lighting at night is a must; hours of operation need to be clearly posted. Personally, I would hope that you could implement a no marijuana smoking policy, such as the policy used for the MN State Fair. Surely, you also don't want the park to become a gathering place for beer drinking, etc, with empty liquor bottles and empty beer cans strewn all over the place. You're going to have to lay down the rules, spell them out, and enforce them. Perhaps consider requiring residents of Mendota Heights to obtain a park pass, and consider selling annual park passes to visitors who live outside of Mendota Heights, in order for visitors to be allowed to enter and use the park facilities. It is public space, so surveillance cameras should be placed in strategic locations to help monitor and record what is going on in the park - and the parking lot(s) - in order to help ensure public safety. Daniel Passer Page 237 of 313 From:Amy "Blake" Warzybok To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Feedback on Master Plan Date:Friday, May 30, 2025 1:06:34 PM Dear City Planners, Thank you for your thoughtful work on this project. I wanted to give feedback on the importance of maintaining nature areas in our parks. As populations grow in nearby cities and traffic increases; as large plots get subdivided to allow for more homes to be built, we continue to see a loss of nature areas in ours and surrounding cities and in turn an increase in a wide range of pollution types. All residents benefit greatly from clean air, clean water, and well-being that nature access provides. There is a value in nature existing even if we can't always quantify it in terms of dollars; though fields of study like ecosystem services have attenpted to do this to help make the case for nature. I strongly encourage planners to preserve and consider increasing nature spaces in our shared public parks. We could consider adding nature play areas that have been successful in many other cities in the metro area; instead of just thinking in terms of manufactured playgrounds and sport's fields. Many local school's already offer built sport's fields and playgrounds; so it would be great to diversify offerings to residents with more nature trails and play areas. We need to do our part to protect our city's nature and in turn support a healthy ecosystem for all who live here. Sincerely, Amy Warzybok -- "Let each day be a blank canvas for you to paint with joy, beauty, playfulness and most importantly love!" Amy E Warzybok (Blake) sunshineamy4@gmail.com Page 238 of 313 From:L. Garcia To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Parks System Master Plan - comments Date:Monday, June 9, 2025 9:30:56 PM Thank you for sharing the draft plan. I read through some of it and skimmed some of it. We are homeowners near Marie Park. In the section for priorities for Marie Park, I did not see prioritization of additional parking or parking adjustments or sidewalk development for the safety of park users and neighborhood walkers, something we mentioned in our survey response. I see that some people would like an expansion of the basketball courts. I am very concerned about expanding any facilities at Marie Park when there is not enough parking for the current facilities. Often, there are so many cars that when we walk in the neighborhood we have to walk up the middle of the street. With the curve of the street, we often feel unsafe. Please confirm you have received this email and will consider a response to this concern before adding services to Marie Park. Thank you Carlos and Laurie Garcia Page 239 of 313 From:Tom Stevens To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Concern Regarding Proposed Fee Increases in Master Plan Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 7:21:34 AM Hi Meredith, I’m writing to express my concern about the proposed increase in athletic field rental fees included in the Mendota Heights Park System Master Plan. As an active volunteer with the Two Rivers Athletic Association (TRAA), I’ve seen firsthand the critical role our organization plays in this community—not just in offering youth sports, but in creating meaningful connections among families and neighbors. TRAA is a community-based, non-profit organization run entirely by volunteers. Our programs bring people together in powerful ways: Parents meet their children’s friends and form relationships with other families. Kids build friendships and gain valuable life experiences with peers from across the city. Volunteers—whether coaching, coordinating, or volunteering in many of the other event roles —get to know neighbors they otherwise may never have met. This organic web of connections fosters a sense of belonging and strengthens our community far beyond the playing fields. TRAA helps make Mendota Heights not just a place to live, but a place to feel rooted. Raising field rental fees would significantly increase the cost of participation in our programs. That risks turning youth sports into a luxury, when it should be a shared, accessible experience. The lower the barrier to entry, the more kids can participate—and the more our community thrives. Increasing fees works against this vision and could unintentionally exclude families who would benefit the most from these programs and from these important connections to the community. Please consider the long-term value of keeping youth sports affordable and inclusive. Our fields should remain a place where all families—regardless of income—can come together, build connections, and grow stronger as a community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Tom Stevens 837 Cheri Ln, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 TRAA VP of Administration Page 240 of 313 From:Briana Randle To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Please Help Keep Youth Sports Affordable in Mendota Heights Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 7:58:30 AM Dear City Council and Park Committee, I am writing to share how important the TRAA youth sports programs are to my family and many others in our community. As a parent, I need all the help I can get financially so my son can play sports. Football season is coming up, and honestly, it’s very expensive. With the current economy and high living costs, I barely manage to get by even with the help and assistance from the sports program. The City of Mendota Heights has released a draft Park System Master Plan that includes a proposal to increase rental fees for city-owned athletic fields. If this plan goes through, it will make it much more expensive to run these programs. This would likely lead to much higher registration fees for TRAA sports, which could prevent many families from participating. TRAA is a community-based, non-profit organization run completely by volunteers. The sports programs do so much more than just teach kids to play games, they help with physical, mental, and emotional health. They also teach important life skills like teamwork, discipline, and resilience. TRAA brings families together not only on the fields but also through volunteering and supporting each other. Raising the field rental fees will create unnecessary barriers for families like mine and make youth sports less affordable and less inclusive in Mendota Heights. I ask you to please reconsider any increases and help us keep these valuable programs available for all children. Thank you for your time and understanding. Sincerely, Bri Page 241 of 313 From:Heather Hanson To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Do NOT support raising rental fees for city-owned athletic fields Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:05:49 AM To whom it may concern, I am writing to ask you to reconsider raising the rental fees on Mendota Heights owned athletic fields. This will significantly impact our city and community athletic programs who utilize the fields for sports throughout the year. The cost of these increases will be passed along to families and will raise prices for this invaluable community asset. Raising prices will also force these programs to look elsewhere for facilities taking income away from the city and moving gatherings of neighbors elsewhere. Please consider that these programs are nonprofit and volunteer run - they are doing a great service to our community and the city should work WITH them to continue to bring sporting events to our community instead of forcing them out. Please don't raise the fee structure for city athletic facilities as part of your long term parks plan. Sincerely, Heather Hanson Parent of Students in District 197 and TRAA Student Athletes Page 242 of 313 From:Kelly Jo Flaa To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:No increase please! Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:16:27 AM Hello, I am writing to urge you to NOT increase field fees in your new proposal. Youth Sports plays a vital role in helping our youth grow and our community thrive. By increasing fees, the costs passed along to associations like TRAA have harsh consequences, especially for those who already have difficulty accessing affordable extracurricular activities. As a former coach in these programs and a parent of four kids in the community, I can attest to the positive impact Youth Sports can have. If anything, I believe the city and surrounding community should be looking for ways to make it MORE affordable and accessible to all, not less. Please change the proposal, vote no, and find other ways to invest in our parks AND our youth in the community. Thank you, Kelly Jo Flaa Page 243 of 313 From:JANE LONERGAN To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Athletic fields Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:17:39 AM I am opposed to a fee increase for renting the athletic fields. The kids that play on these fields receive many positives by being able to participate in the sports played there. They develop a strong sense of community, fair play, get exercise, and it helps their mental health too. With an increase in fees, some kids would not be able to participate. This would be a disservice to those kids and families. I urge you not to increase the rental fee. Sincerely, Jane Lonergan Jane Lonergan Page 244 of 313 From:Laura Tedrick To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Opposition to Proposed Athletic Field Fee Increases Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:19:25 AM To Whom It May Concern, I am writing as a concerned parent and community member in response to the draft Park System Master Plan. I want to express my strong opposition to the proposed increases in rental fees for city-owned athletic fields in Mendota Heights. Programs like TRAA are completely volunteer-run, nonprofit organizations that make youth sports accessible and affordable for families in our community. These programs don’t exist to make money, they exist to teach our kids teamwork, discipline, resilience, and healthy habits. They also bring our community together in powerful, positive ways. Raising field rental fees would place a huge financial burden on these organizations, which would ultimately be passed down to families. Many of us are already stretching to cover the cost of registration, equipment, and transportation. Increasing these costs could push youth sports out of reach for some families and that’s not the kind of community we want to build. I respectfully urge the City to reconsider this part of the plan and find a solution that keeps youth sports affordable and inclusive for all. Sincerely, Laura Tedrick Page 245 of 313 Mark Kruse Senior Recruiter | Clinical Ops & Telecom Phone: 651-280-5524 www.c4techservices.com From:Mark Kruse To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:increase rental fees for city-owned athletic fields Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:23:50 AM Attachments:Outlook-ct4s0tjj.png Outlook-vzjit1xq.png Get creative and come up with another idea other than increasing rental fees Why create areas to use and then create barriers to their use? You're an intelligent group, come up with an intelligent solution I'm not opposed to paying for use - is there another way to do it without taxing the kids/families/organizations exorbinately? Thank you – Page 246 of 313 From:Kelli Nielsen To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:keep youth sports affordable Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:28:55 AM Hello Mr. Lawrence, My name is Kelli Nielsen and I am a constituent in Mendota Heights, MN. I am emailed to advocate for reconsideration of the drafted Park System Master Plan that would substantially increase the cost to rent athletic fields within the city of Mendota Heights. As a mother of 4 small children who all participate in sports and constantly use the park system, please do not raise the cost of participation. One season of softball and tee-ball for our family is already nearly $400 for in-house and will only rise as our children grow up and become more involved. Please consider the following points as this decision is made: 1). Two Rivers Athletic Association is a community based non-profit- Youth sports bring together so many members of the community, enriching everyone's lives. I have met numerous neighbors, gotten to know my children's friend's parents, and fostered friendships that enhance community engagement. I have become more active in this community as a result, going to more school events, community festivals, and have also learned more about the community as a whole. Our family is newer to the area, so this has been invaluable to me. It has made me a better neighbor and citizen. 2). Two Rivers Athletics also is entirely volunteer run- Creating more cost will put strain on this organization. It is already challenging to get enough volunteers, but asking people to volunteer while also increasing costs with further this burden. 3). I am a physical therapist who understands exercise is medicine- Promotion of youth sports enhances the well-being of children and community health. We have an obesity epidemic as a society. The physical, mental, and social benefits of youth sports have longer term cost savings for communities and improved health overall for kids. We want health kids, but please also recognize that youth sports participation is likely saving other costs down the line. 4). Increasing costs via increase in field fees will lead to unnecessary barriers for families and threaten the affordability of sports participation. This is heartbreaking for families faced with tough choices in this challenging economic time. This burden will disproportionately affect lower income families. I believe Mendota Heights wants to be an inclusive community, so keeping youth sports affordable should be a priority. Thank you for your time. I feel very passionately about the good that youth sports has done for my 4 children. However, if it continues to grow in expense, this will put a strain on our family and reduce our involvement in the community as a whole. Please let me know if you have any follow up questions. Thank you in advance for reconsidering the Park System Master Plan. Kelli Nielsen, PT, DPT, NCS Associate Professor Doctor of Physical Therapy Program F-37 St. Catherine University P: 651-690-7824 2004 Randolph Ave St. Paul, MN 55105 Pronouns: She, Her, Hers Page 247 of 313 From:Lindsey Mickelson To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Increase in field fees Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:31:45 AM To whom it may concern, Increasing field fees would be detrimental to the inclusiveness TRAA is trying to accomplish by keeping registration fees affordable for families. Sports programs should be a way to bring children from all backgrounds together, and increasing fees would only hinder that. Please reconsider. Thank you, Lindsey (TRAA family for 10+ years) Page 248 of 313 From:Lauren Lanpher To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:City athletic field rental fees Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:33:13 AM Mr. Lawrence, I am writing to share my concern regarding increasing the rental fees for city own athletic fields. It is a poor choice to increase fees when so many children in our community use these spaces for good! Here are some excellent talking points against raising fees as laid out by the TRAA; TRAA is a community-based, non-profit organization, run entirely by volunteers. Our youth sports programs promote physical, mental, and emotional well- being while teaching life skills like teamwork, discipline, and resilience. TRAA builds a stronger, more connected community by bringing families together—on the field, in the stands, and through shared volunteer work. Increasing field fees would create unnecessary barriers for families and threaten the affordability and inclusiveness of youth sports in Mendota Heights. Thank you for your time and consideration. Lauren Lanpher Page 249 of 313 From:Adam Crepeau To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com; Executive Director Subject:Support Youth Access to Health and Community Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:49:47 AM Hello Meredith: Please pass the following statement, as you see fit. Adam To whom it may concern: It is imperative that the city recognizes that parks and sports fields are maintained and improved for all community members, not just families who are enjoying those spaces through an organized permitted user group. Our taxes are already in use to support the spaces of Mendota Heights. To burden the sports association with more cost, is not equitable, when anyone (residents and non residents) who choose to visit a Mendota Heights park is able to enjoy golf, pickleball, hockey, tennis, ballfields, soccer and football fields at their leisure, for free, due to the taxes my fellow Mendota Heights residents pay. Parks are available to the extended community. I don’t believe it is equitable to exclude any community, including, for example, our close neighbors in Lilydale or Mendota from local pickleball courts, or require them to pay to play. Thankfully, parks are available to everyone! Please pass along the wishes of the TRAA Board that increasing price for families and the tax paying community is not the only remedy for the pressures that the city is facing with affording to manage facilities. Our volunteer corps is willing to do more to support keeping our park and field spaces in great shape. The partnership with our coaches, parks and recreation, and the public works staff has led to the best conditioned fields in my time as a resident of MH, which is 12 years this September. We are willing to do more, but need the participation of the council and administrators to do this. We can help avoid cost and get innovative with our association and volunteer corps. Know that the association has an enormously low overhead cost (8%), meaning 92% of our costs do not go to paying anyone a salary, or insurance, accounting services, safe sport services, or sports management web based systems. The majority of that spend goes to permitting of fields and facilities, jerseys, and equipment. We operate a program with over 2000 instances of a child registering for a youth sport each year. And we do all those activities with 1 person who is paid part time. We are able to Page 250 of 313 support the community with affordable activities because of this. That is why the fee increase is so impactful to what we do. That means our mass of volunteers provides a great experience together for our kids. It creates community and it can grow even greater. Key points are below about the association and why this matters. Thank-you for the time and I am available to elaborate, collaborate and work together to keep city cost low and experiences amazing. Adam Crepeau President Two Rivers Athletics Association TRAA is a community-based, non-profit organization, run entirely by volunteers. Our youth sports programs promote physical, mental, and emotional well- beingwhile teaching life skills like teamwork, discipline, and resilience. TRAA builds a stronger, more connected community by bringing families together—on the field, in the stands, and through shared volunteer work. Increasing field fees would create unnecessary barriers for families and threaten the affordability and inclusiveness of youth sports in Mendota Heights. Page 251 of 313 From:Melissa Ingram To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Park System Master Plan Comment Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:51:32 AM Dear Mr. Lawrence, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed increase in rental fees for city-owned athletic fields as outlined in the draft Park System Master Plan. As a supporter of the Tri-Rivers Athletic Association (TRAA), I want to highlight the vital role this community- based, non-profit organization plays in Mendota Heights. TRAA is run entirely by dedicated volunteers who give their time and energy to provide high-quality youth sports programs. My husband has coached my daughter's softball team for 5 seasons and we have greatly benefited from the in house program. These programs are more than just games—they are essential opportunities for our children to grow physically, mentally, and emotionally. Through participation, young athletes learn teamwork, discipline, resilience, and other life skills that serve them well beyond the field. TRAA also strengthens our community by bringing families together—whether cheering from the stands, coaching on the sidelines, or volunteering behind the scenes. These shared experiences foster a sense of belonging and civic pride that benefits everyone in Mendota Heights. Raising field rental fees would significantly increase the cost of operating these programs. This, in turn, could force TRAA to raise registration fees, creating unnecessary financial barriers for families. Such a move threatens the affordability and inclusiveness of youth sports, potentially excluding children who would benefit most from participation. I urge you to reconsider this proposal and prioritize accessibility and equity in our park system. Let’s work together to ensure that all children in Mendota Heights have the opportunity to play, grow, and thrive through community sports. Sincerely, Melissa Ingram 593 Sibley Court Mendota Heights MN 55118 melissacingram@gmail.com Page 252 of 313 From:Ted Seykora To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Park System Master Plan Proposal for Increase to Fees for City-Owned Athletic Fields Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:52:10 AM Good morning - I have a child and several other family members who are involved in TRAA sports. I would like to express strong opposition and provide a specific concern with regards to the proposal of increasing rental fees for city-owned athletic fields. Please strongly consider that there has been a significant increase over the last 5 to 10 years of private clubs becoming the primary organizations for youth sports in several parts of the Twin Cities metro area. There are a number of school district related teams with clearly lower registration numbers participating in leagues, as privately owned and run clubs are increasing in popularity. One prominent example is MASH baseball and softball training, which operates in Savage with its own campus, including specialized exercise facilities with personalized training. A price increase to TRAA sports will very easily push the cost of participation in youth sports nearer to that of club organizations and pull registration out of the city and into private club teams. It seems reasonable that the first groups to migrate would be the most committed to the sport, which would have a residual consequence of driving down interest and quality for other participants (easily resulting in the reduced interest from other participants). It's also important to consider the consequence then to decreased need for use of city-owned athletic fields, as the club teams (which, again, are already growing in popularity) own and use their own facilities and have no need to pay cities to organize games and leagues. Increases to the costs of participating in local area sports will certainly drive participants to private groups and out of the community, reducing not only the reliance on city-owned facilities and distributing local interest and investment into the community to profit driven organization in surrounding areas. The fees collected from our community organizations, run primarily by volunteers and as non- profit entities, must not be leaned on to further increase revenue if we wish to continue to have them and take pride in them. Thank you for your time. Page 253 of 313 From:Michael Oxley To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Proposed increase in rental fees Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:59:37 AM Kids sports are expensive enough. Increasing rental fees is not a good idea. If implemented, this would significantly raise the cost of operating our programs and could lead to much higher costs. Please consider other avenues. Thanks for your time, Mike Oxley Page 254 of 313 From:Billee Jo Hall To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Youth Sports Affordable Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 9:01:46 AM Hello, I hope this email finds you well! My name is Billee Jo Hall and I am the mother of 2 students, one is at Heritage (8th grade) and one is at Two Rivers (Senior). My son who is in 8th grade is an athlete. He plays soccer and runs track and loves being able to be active with his friends. I would like to comment about the possible increase in costs for city owned rents on the athletic fields. Some of the reasons that I feel we should leave these fees alone is that it will impact each family- and some of us are not wealthy Mendota Heights families, who have to really set money aside for sports. I personally feel that I make a good living, but with all of the increased costs, we struggle. A few key points that I would like to mention is that TRAA is a community- based, non-profit organization, run entirely by volunteers.Us parents volunteer to keep our costs down and also do it because of the love for our athletes. Our youth sports programs promote physical, mental, and emotional well- being while teaching life skills like teamwork, discipline, and resilience. Allows kids to make lifelong friends, and stay off of video games. Youth sports truly help build relationships with our youth so that they feel a part of something. With increases in costs many kids will no longer be able to participate. I make too much money to qualify for the discounts and yet I can't afford to put them into the sports as it is already. I work two jobs to do this. TRAA builds a stronger, more connected community by bringing families together— on the field, in the stands, and through shared volunteer work. Increasing field fees would create unnecessary barriers for families and threaten the affordability and inclusiveness of youth sports in Mendota Heights. Please consider not increasing rent for our athletes. Thank you! Billee Jo Hall 6514-307-8025 Page 255 of 313 From:curbcrasher@icloud.com To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Park Master Plan Comments and Feedback Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 9:01:49 AM Dear Meredith, I am writing to provide feedback on the Park System Master Plan Draft. It is a comprehensive report that offers a wealth of information. Could you please inform me of the cost incurred by the city of Mendota Heights for the consulting company and the development of this draft? I am deeply concerned about the proposal to increase the rental fees for the athletic fields. I strongly oppose this increase and believe that there should be no fee from the city for local youth associations to utilize city fields. The majority of the users who play on these fields are taxpayers, and their contributions should be allocated towards the maintenance of these fields. As a parent of two children who have benefited from youth sports in Mendota Heights through the Mendota Heights Athletic Association, now Two Rivers Athletic Association, I have personally witnessed the positive impact of youth sports on our community. These activities promote physical health, as well as mental and emotional well-being. Raising the fees for the athletic association would consequently increase the costs for families participating in these sports. Such an increase would create a significant socio-economic barrier and could deter many families who rely on team sports. Having grown up in a lower-class neighborhood, I often reflect on how youth sports helped me stay out of trouble and wonder where I would be today without them. The Two Rivers Athletic Association has done an outstanding job in increasing participation in youth sports since our involvement. While many other communities have seen a decline in participation due to the rise of club sports, our association has thrived. Has any research been conducted on the increase in participation within our athletic association over the past decade? There are several minor policy updates and park improvements that could be implemented to offset the city's costs instead of increasing fees for the athletic association: Allow local businesses to advertise at the athletic complexes Organize city-run tournaments to help offset costs Host larger events to generate more revenue for the city In conclusion, I strongly oppose the proposed increase in fees for third-party associations. Page 256 of 313 I look forward to your feedback and response. Sincerely, Caleb Churchill 676 Cheyenne Lan Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Page 257 of 313 From:Michael Gove To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Park System Master Plan Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 9:25:06 AM Hello Mr. Lawrence, My name is Michael Gove and I am a constituent in Mendota Heights, MN. I am messaging you to advocate for reconsideration of the drafted Park System Master Plan that would substantially increase the cost to rent athletic fields within the city of Mendota Heights. As a parent of children who all participate in sports and constantly use the park system, please do not raise the cost of participation. Please consider the following points as this decision is made: 1). Two Rivers Athletic Association is a community based non-profit- Youth sports bring together so many members of the community, enriching everyone's lives. I have met numerous neighbors, gotten to know my children's friend's parents, and fostered friendships that enhance community engagement. I have become more active in this community as a result, going to more school events, community festivals, and have also learned more about the community as a whole. Our family is newer to the area, so this has been invaluable to me. It has made me a better neighbor and citizen. 2). Two Rivers Athletics also is entirely volunteer run- Creating more cost will put strain on this organization. It is already challenging to get enough volunteers, but asking people to volunteer while also increasing costs with further this burden. 3). Promotion of youth sports enhances the well-being of children and community health. We have an obesity epidemic as a society. The physical, mental, and social benefits of youth sports have longer term cost savings for communities and improved health overall for kids. We want health kids, but please also recognize that youth sports participation is likely saving other costs down the line. 4). Increasing costs via increase in field fees will lead to unnecessary barriers for families and threaten the affordability of sports participation. This is heartbreaking for families faced with tough choices in this challenging economic time. This burden will disproportionately affect lower income families. I believe Mendota Heights wants to be an inclusive community, so keeping youth sports affordable should be a priority. Please consider all of the above for everyone, trust me when I say that many cannot afford higher costs and it will very much cut the attendance of youth sports down. Thank you, Page 258 of 313 From:Kelli Walters To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Opposition to Proposed Fee Increase Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 9:26:19 AM Dear Two Rivers Athletic Association, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed increase in field fees for the youth sports programs offered by the TRAA. While I understand that there may be financial pressures on the association, I believe that such an increase would have a detrimental impact on the affordability and accessibility of these programs, especially for families in Mendota Heights. As you know, TRAA is a community-based, non-profit organization that is run entirely by volunteers (I am one of those volunteers). The work that TRAA does goes far beyond just providing recreational activities for children. Your programs foster physical, mental, and emotional well-being, while also teaching life skills like teamwork, discipline, and resilience. These lessons are invaluable and contribute significantly to the overall development of our youth. Moreover, TRAA plays a crucial role in building a stronger, more connected community by bringing families together—whether on the field, in the stands, or through shared volunteer opportunities. This sense of community is something that cannot be overlooked, and it is something that families, especially those with multiple children, greatly depend on. Increasing field fees would create unnecessary barriers for families, and, in particular, for families with multiple children involved in youth sports. For many, the current fees are already a stretch, and any increase could make it even harder to afford participation. This is especially true for single-parent households, where resources are often more limited. In these situations, the ability for children to participate in youth sports is not only a form of recreation, but a crucial aspect of their development—emotionally, socially, and physically. I strongly urge you to reconsider the proposed fee increase and explore other avenues to support the association’s funding needs without compromising the affordability and inclusiveness of these vital programs. The ability for all children, regardless of financial background, to participate in sports is essential to building a healthy, thriving community. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter. I look forward to hearing from you and hope that we can work together to find a solution that keeps youth sports accessible to all families in Mendota Heights. Sincerely, Kelli Walters Page 259 of 313 From:Carley Hansen To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:commets@traawarriors.com Subject:Oppose fee increases Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:01:34 AM On behalf of the families of our community I oppose raising fees for TRAA. For the past 12+ years my family has been a part of TRAA - a community-based, non-profit, fully volunteer-run organization. Not only have our athletic skills improved, more importantly we learn the value of how physical movement can improve physical fitness, skill development. And, how participating in sports contributes to emotional and mental development - like learning life skills like teamwork, discipline, and resilience. As my children age out of the programs offered, our family will forever be indebted to the countless hours VOLUNTEER coaches and organization leaders gave to grow and develop the amazing humans I call my children. Additionally, as a parent, I have built lifelong friends in the community. Together we make this community what it is. Part of why we maintained our relationship with TRAA through the years was the affordability of the programs offered. As such, raising costs WILL impact access to some athletes who currently make this such a rich and diverse community. Carley Hansen Sent from my iPhone Page 260 of 313 From:Katie Winge To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Park System Master Plan Draft Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:06:36 AM Hello Mr. Lawrence, I am Katie Winge, mother of two girls and softball coach for both in-house TRAA softball teams. The cost and time commitment for one season of softball for both girls is significant, even with the waiver of DIBS. This will only increase as my girls get older and more involved. I am writing to urge the City of Mendota Heights to reconsider increasing rental fees for city-owned athletic fields. Increased rental fees will significantly raise the cost of operating the program. This will create unnecessary barriers for many families, including my own, which will hinder participation and inclusiveness of youth sports in the City. This will put a strain on the organization. TRAA is a community-based nonprofit, run entirely by volunteers, that brings so many benefits to families and the community. Youth sports programs are crucial for thriving communities, bringing families together, teaching kids the power of teamwork and sportsmanship, and promoting improved health overall for our kids. It is already difficult to get enough volunteers. Asking participating families to get more involved and volunteer more time, while increasing registration fees simultaneously, will further burden the program. Thanks for your consideration. Increasing registration fees will negatively affect the organization. Please reconsider the Park System Master Plan to allow our community to continue enjoying TRAA programs. Katie Winge Page 261 of 313 From:Nick Kalkman To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:TRAA Input Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:08:52 AM Attachments:image003.png Hello, The TRAA and Mendota Heights fields have been a staple in my families lives for the past 8 years. I have a 13 year old, 11 year old and a 8 year old all of which I’ve coached in softball and baseball at the Mendota Heights fields over the years. I’ve seen first hand the joy that these games/activities bring to these kids lives no matter the talent level. I know many of the Mendota Heights families have the resources for higher dues but there are equally as many families that are struggling to make ends meet and could very likely be phased out of their kids being able to take part in these Summer activities if an increased dues is enforced. As a mortgage banker I see all too many scenarios where families are living paycheck to paycheck trying to make ends meet and if it comes to gas and groceries vs. a kid playing sports because of a large entry fee…….. the family will likely cut out the sports so they can feed their family. Please reconsider the projected increase in the TRAA dues so ALL kids can take part in the softball and baseball programs offered by the TRAA! Thanks! Nick Nick Kalkman Senior Mortgage Banker NMLS 848682 971 Sibley Memorial Hwy | Suite 201 | Lilydale, MN 55118 Phone 651.785.6087 | Fax 1-855-800-9801 nkalkman@bell.bank | www.homebuyingmn.com Facebook A Local and National Award-Winning Company Page 262 of 313 PS: Referrals are the greatest compliment we can receive. Click here to help a friend with their mortgage. Bell cares about safeguarding your information. Never email or text documents that contain personal or sensitive information. Please contact me to discuss possible options I can provide to securely upload documentation that may contain personal information. ****NOTICE: The information in this e-mail and any attachments is for the sole use by the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the addressee, any review, use, retention or distribution of this e-mail or its attachments is prohibited and may be a violation of law. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this e-mail and all attachments. Any opinions or comments are personal to the sender and may not represent those of Bell Bank. This e-mail and its attachments neither constitute an agreement to conduct transactions by electronic means nor create a legally binding contract or enforceable obligation in the absence of a fully signed written agreement.**** Page 263 of 313 From:Scibora, Stephanie L. To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Urgent: Help Keep Youth Sports Affordable Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:09:57 AM Attachments:image001.png Hello, As a TRAA community supporter and benefactor, I am submitting a public comment in opposition to the proposed increases for rental fees for city-owned athletic fields. TRAA is a community-based, non-profit organization, run entirely by volunteers. Our youth sports programs promote physical, mental, and emotional well-being while teaching life skills like teamwork, discipline, and resilience. TRAA builds a stronger, more connected community by bringing families together—on the field, in the stands, and through shared volunteer work. Increasing field fees would create unnecessary barriers for families and threaten the affordability and inclusiveness of youth sports in Mendota Heights. Thank you in advance for considering this information and opposing the rental fee increases for city-owned athletic fields! Stephanie L Scibora Pronouns: she/her/hers Director, Business Operations Employee Benefits Solutions stephanie.scibora@securian.com 400 Robert Street North, St. Paul, MN 55101-2098 651-214-5056 (mobile) Securian Financial Group, Inc. securian.com Securian Financial is the marketing name for Securian Financial Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Insurance products are issued by its subsidiary insurance companies, including Minnesota Life Insurance Company and Securian Life Insurance Company, a New York authorized insurer. Variable products are distributed by Securian Financial Services, Inc., member FINRA. This email transmission and any file attachments may contain confidential information intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender and delete this email from your system. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, copy, or distribute the contents of this email. Page 264 of 313 From:Nicholas Mendes To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Park System Master Plan - Increase Rental Fees for City-Owned Athletic Fields Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:14:36 AM Good morning, I have been made aware of a proposal for increased rental fees for city-owned athletic fields. As an active parent and volunteer of the the Two Rivers Athletic Association, I ask that this increase be removed from the master plan. I have seen firsthand how TRAA positively impacts our community by bringing families together and promoting social, physical, and mental well being. This is all done by volunteers as a non-profit organization. This increase would force the association to have to pass the increase onto the families that participate, thus threatening the affordability and inclusiveness of youth sports in Mendota Heights and West St. Paul. In an environment of opportunistic price increases, please do the right thing for our community and remove from the plan. Is this not what our tax dollars are already for? Best regards, Nick Mendes Page 265 of 313 From:trish honsalighting.com To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:please don"t increase field fees Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:16:43 AM Hi, Please don't increase field fees. It will increase the cost of youth sports and make it unaffordable for some kids to play. We appreciate all that you are doing with updating fields but please don't pass this cost along to the youth programs by increasing field fees. Thank you for your time. Trish Hetland Page 266 of 313 From:Johnson, Matt J To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:Matt Johnson; comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Master Plan Feedback - Increase Rental Fees Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:17:16 AM Re: Proposed Increase in Athletic Fees Dear M Lawrence, I am writing to provide feedback regarding the “Park System Master plan”. First of all, I would like to commend the community for taking on this great endeavor. Our family is fairly new to the community and it’s great to see that the community looking into the future of Mendota Heights. I’d like to provide feedback regarding the proposed increase in rental fees for city-owned athletic fields. I’m a parent where my child participates through TRAA athletic association softball program. It’s always a goal of an association to keep fees reasonable so everyone has an opportunity to participate. This helps foster community involvement. With an increase in fees this will only limit people from participating due to the increased costs that would need to be passed on. I’ve had the opportunity to see how other communities foster the development of their communities through athletic participation. I’m my opinion Mendota Heights has not done a very good job utilizing the full potential of their athletic fields to maximize the economic development to the community. With increased rental fees for the facilities this will only decrease the potential economic benefit to the community and make it more difficult for the TRAA athletic association to maximize its full potential to the community. If other surrounding communities make it more economical it’s only natural to move within these communities. Also, when you have a young demographic (youth & parents), it helps drive future economic growth within the community. When you have good facilities it attracts this demographic as a place they would want to raise their children. This is a huge payoff for the future of a community where families want to stay and invest into the community. Sincerely, Matt Johnson 1902 South Ln Page 267 of 313 This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary, privileged and/or private information. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity designated above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately, and delete the message and any attachments. Any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this message or any attachments by an individual or entity other than the intended recipient is prohibited. TRVDiscDefault::1201 Page 268 of 313 From:P Watson To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:slevine@mendotaheights.gov; John Mazzitello; Joel Paper; comments@traawarriors.com; Nicole Watson Subject:Athletic Field Rental Fees for TRAA Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:21:08 AM Good morning Meredith, I was approached by volunteers from TRAA regarding the increasing rental fees for city athletic fields. Though I’m not familiar with many of the specifics, I’d like to urge the City to continue supporting the “town/city” teams over Club sports due to the accessibility of athletics for parents/caregivers who can’t afford to put their kids into the MUCH MUCH more expensive Club programs. Our family wasn’t able to afford club sports for our sons when they were younger - and MHAA (now TRAA) supplied us with a MUCH appreciated opportunity for them to develop their minds and bodies that we otherwise couldn’t have afforded at the time. The accessibility of this and other recreation opportunities was what drew us to MH in the first place 18 years ago. These are the next generation of Two Rivers Warrior Athletes - and keeping our public schools strong and attractive for families keeps our city healthy as well. Please, let’s continue the positive relationship, and extend a certain amount of goodwill and grace, to the all- volunteer run TRAA - and make sure they get priority and affordable rental rates for city owned athletic facilities. Thank you! Patrick & Nicole Watson 1327 Delaware Ave 612-214-4559 CC. Mayor Stephanie Levine Council Members Joel Paper and John Mazzitello Page 269 of 313 From:Nena Flores To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Park System Master Plan Proposal Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:55:10 AM We need to keep youth sports affordable, inclusive, and accessible for all families in our community. We do not need to increase rental fees for city-owned athletic fields. This will create unnecessary barriers for some families and threaten the affordability and inclusiveness of youth sports. TRAA is a community-based, non-profit organization, run entirely by volunteers. Also, TRAA builds a stronger, more connected community by bringing families together on the field, in the stands, and through shared volunteer work. Youth sports programs promote physical, mental, and emotional well- being while teaching life skills like teamwork, discipline, and resilience. Please consider this email when considering your proposed increase. Thank you for your time, Rhiannan Flores Page 270 of 313 From:Darrin Hubbard To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Park System Master Plan Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:01:16 AM Hello Meredith, Thank you for your work on the park system master plan. This process has been thorough and I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback and comment along the way. Upgrading our parks will be a tremendous benefit to our community. For the last 8 years, I have been involved as a youth coach for soccer, flag football, and basketball. Most of my time is now dedicated to the baseball program, but with my youngest being a kindergartner I see many more years of service ahead of me. Through my time volunteering with TRAA, I've seen kids from all backgrounds learn skills (EG: teamwork, resilience, service, dedication) that will benefit them for the rest of their lives. I have seen the kids follow the lead of their families who are participating in park clean ups, volunteering with younger siblings teams as helpers, and supporting fundraising activities like concessions to offset costs. The organization is a strong vehicle to develop youth into positive contributors and representatives for our community. I wanted to share my thoughts on the funding strategies for the upgrades. While it seems like "low hanging fruit" to increase user fees to the volunteer-run organizations (and their families), it sends the wrong signal. Increasing field fees would create unnecessary barriers for families and threaten the affordability and access of youth sports for our residents. When our family relocated from St Paul in 2015, one of the attractions was the lower tax base. Shortly thereafter we supported the district 197 facilities referendum. Why? Better facilities creates more involvement, stronger communities, increases property values and demand for local businesses. Similarly, the parks upgrade creates value-add for the entire community and the funding should not be pinpointed to youth user groups. The other funding strategies you outlined - corporate partnerships, grants and even tax increases would be more appropriate compared to increasing user group fees. Thank you again for your work on this and the opportunity to comment. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions about my position. Best, Darrin Hubbard, MBA 651-249-6668 Page 271 of 313 From:John Werner To:Meredith Lawrence; comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Park System Master Plan - Cost Increases Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:08:40 AM Hello - My name is John Werner, and I’m a Mendota Heights resident and proud parent of children who play baseball and lacrosse through the Two Rivers Athletic Association (TRAA). I’m writing to express my concern about the proposed increase in field rental fees outlined in the Park System Master Plan. While I understand the City’s need to improve financial sustainability and maintain high-quality facilities, I worry that these cost increases will be passed down to families like mine. For many of us, youth sports are not just extracurricular activities—they are vital opportunities for our children to grow, build friendships, and stay active. Raising field rental fees could lead to higher registration costs, making it harder for some families to participate. I’m especially concerned about the potential impact on lower-income households and the risk of excluding kids from the game due to affordability. We all want to see our parks and programs thrive, and I believe we can find a balanced approach that supports both the City’s goals and the needs of our community’s families. Thank you for your time and service to our city. Warm regards, John Werner Page 272 of 313 From:Bruce Carpenter To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Proposed Increased Rental Fees for City Fields Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:22:59 AM Greetings, I am writing today to express my concern over the proposed increases in field rental fees. My family and I entered this district in 2017 when I took a coaching job at the University of St. Thomas and immediately got involved in youth sports not only as parents but also as coaches (Mostly my wife). We immediately recognized in many cases the barriers of finances that hinder many in this area and how that barrier affects some of our students and families. I am currently the co-head Coach at Two Rivers High School and we battle daily to try and make sure our programs are affordable and all are welcome. The proposed increases would invariably trigger increased fees for youth sports. This will cut out a section of our communities. Those that are cut out lose the chance for ALL the benefits I have listed below. It benefits our kids physically Improving muscular fitness Strengthening bones Reducing the risk of obesity and other health related problems It benefits them mentally and emotionally Studies show it lowers rates of anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts It boosts self esteem and a sense of belonging It helps them develop the VERY important skill of resilience It benefits them socially and prepares them for life working with others Teaches them teamwork Teaches them leadership skills Allows them to work with piers in ways they wouldn't otherwise experience Improves their performance in the classroom In addition to those benefits it brings families and communities together who otherwise would not cross paths, get to know, understand and respect each other. I understand there are a myriad of factors that must be considered financially when making these decisions, but I ask that you make sure to factor these irreplaceable benefits as you find ways to work and help us keep youth sports affordable. Sincerely, Page 273 of 313 -- Page 274 of 313 From:Tanya Rothstein To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Park System Master Plan Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:23:31 AM Good Morning, I have lived in Mendota Heights for the last 9 years. Over those 9 years, my two kids have attended school within the district and been involved in the TRAA softball, baseball, football, soccer, and volleyball program. My children are very active in the sports programs that TRAA provides. These programs are very well run and I have seen my kids thrive physically and mentally while being involved in these sports programs. The relationships they have developed and the sense of community my family has experienced is irreplaceable. However, my husband and I are a middle class family. It appears your current Park System Master Plan includes a proposal to increase the fee of city owned sports fields. Which will only mean by increasing these fees trickles down to me...the one who pays for my children to be involved in these sports programs. Many families already struggle to pay the current fees, I can only predict that increasing the fees means we will lose children who want to play sports because their family is unable to pay the fees. As I am sure you know, the registration fee is only a small portion of the ability to play sports. There is also equipment, supporting the concessions, and often times tournament fees, hotels, meals, and gas. Almost all of our programs are operated by volunteers who dedicate their time and energy to making sure these programs run smoothly and efficiently. But most importantly, that every child that wants to play is able to and has a great experience so they continue to play. Please do not raise the rental fees for the fields. You are only hurting the people that matter in these sports...the kids of Mendota Heights. Thank you Tanya Heitzinger Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer Page 275 of 313 From:Raquel Calles To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Detrimental Park System Master Plan Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:36:59 AM Greetings, My name is Raquel Calles and I am lifelong baseball fan, parent, and past resident of Mendota Heights. I read today that there is a proposal to increase rental fees for city owned athletic fields and fear that this will result in a detrimental impact to children and families like mine with us taking on the burden of having to pay more to play. I am a single mom—I know that carries its stereotypes when said but our story is far from that, and my son and I have overcome much adversity. On one income, through his 14 years, I have tried my very hardest to provide him with the best opportunities possible and baseball has been at the forefront in fostering his leadership, resilience, and sportsmanship. My son Aiden Benedict Verduzco has learned much on the field that he applies in everyday life and he gets excited to play with kids his age during the summer months while school is out. He gets to connect with neighborhood kids, friends from school, and through the years he’s been able to reconnect with friends from peewee sports that he hadn’t seen but they see each other on the field. He has been mentored by positive male role models each season as his coaches have always been supportive of his growth and learning. Two Rivers Athletics Association is the reason he’s built a strong community that he can trust, have fun with, and just bond over their shared passion for the sport. We are California transplants and have lived in Minnesota for about 6 years. This school year for 8th grade, my son decided to go live with his dad in CA to see if he’d want to stay there for high school but he came back because he wanted to be here. For many reasons he missed MN—this is home—one big reason being—he wanted to be part of the Warriors team. My son is proud to play baseball for TRAA. He was ready to play baseball for his 14/15 league just 1 day after landing and played an incredible game, he smiled and laughed, he was helpful—like he’d never left —with his teammates that he hadn’t seen for the first part of the season—he was in community. I was fortunate enough to not have to pay for the entire season this year since my son couldn’t join until school was over in California. Though cost was a barrier, TRAA was willing to work with me to ensure that my son got on a team. Baseball brings joy and fills his life with the experiences he needs to stay motivated outside the field. I know this is the case for many other kids. I fear that others who might have a similar family dynamic as mine will choose not to play if the costs for registration increases. TRAA won’t be able to help as many families if any at all…Rising cost of living is a barrier for families who will have to choose between playing or meeting basic living needs. The cost of living continues to increase and I hope that city planning takes into account the fact that increased field fees will get passed down to families and it will be even harder to afford to play. TRAA is run entirely by dedicated volunteers, families who love the sport, fueled because we all see the value of sports and child development. We see the self-esteem, confidence and support kids provide each other. We see how much parents want to help one another—we are a caring community who give our time and money because we see how much it helps our kids grow. Please reconsider the proposed Park System Master Plan Draft and do not increase rental fees for city-owned athletic fields. Please continue being the community leaders that promote affordability and inclusiveness of youth sports. For any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at this email or call: 559-344-4848. Thank you for your time and consideration! Best, Page 276 of 313 — Raquel Calles Sent from my iPhone Page 277 of 313 From:cakm143 To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Increased fees for city-owned fields Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 11:44:23 AM Hello, I am disappointed to learn that the city is proposing an increase in fees. Youth sports are an investment in the community as a whole resulting in an investment in Mendota Heights future. These young athletes grow up to be community leaders even-- if they don't continue in the sport those fundamentals learned in team sports continue to benefit us all. Keeping youth sports fees affordable and accessible is a building block to our future. Increasing field fees would create unnecessary barriers for families and threaten the affordability and inclusiveness of youth sports in Mendota Heights. Please reconsider this proposal. Thank you. Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device Page 278 of 313 From:Mike Kennedy To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Public Comment on Draft Park System Master Plan – Opposition to Field Rental Fee Increases Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 12:08:14 PM Dear Ms. Lawrence, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed increase in rental fees for city- owned athletic fields outlined in the draft Park System Master Plan, specifically to Two Rivers Athletic Association (TRAA). TRAA is a community-based, non-profit organization run entirely by volunteers. Its programs provide invaluable opportunities for youth in our community to grow physically, mentally, and emotionally through sports. These programs teach essential life skills such as teamwork, discipline, and resilience, while also fostering a strong sense of community among families. Raising field rental fees would significantly increase the cost of running these programs, leading to much higher registration fees. This could create unnecessary financial barriers for families and threaten the affordability and inclusiveness of youth sports in Mendota Heights. I respectfully urge the City to reconsider this proposal and explore alternative solutions that support, rather than hinder, access to youth athletics. Keeping these programs affordable is vital to maintaining a healthy, connected, and vibrant community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Mike Kennedy 2558 Whitfield Drive Mendota Heights, MN Page 279 of 313 From:Mitch Hoffman To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Increasing Field Fees Undermines the Goal of Accessiblity and Inclusion Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 12:31:42 PM I am writing to voice my concern of the proposed increase of field fees for TRAA programs. As a coach, volunteer and board member I have seen the positive and robust programs that our community is fortunate to have here. In reading the report there is a clear theme of inclusivity and accessibility. TRAA is a COMMUNITY program serving your immediate tax paying community with over 50% of the participants being residents. The other participants are from neighboring communities and make it possible to have teams, coaches and volunteers to sustain the program. These fee increases will be directly passed on to the families and make sports less accessible to kids that are challenged by the financial barriers of sports. These youth programs engage families and drive participation in your parks that can be quantified directly. I think it is important to not use a one size fits all approach to field fees. Associations vary greatly in how wide of geographical population they serve and the financial structure they use to operate. As my kids begin to age out of these programs I can tell you the association and the spaces have been an integral part of their growth in leadership, challenge, diversity and character. It is critical that these programs dovetail with local schools and governments to find shared success that enhances and brings together communities. Local groups take ownership and care about the fields they use. I personally have raked, chalked, dried and maintained these fields for years before and after we use them because they are 'our' fields and we take a collective pride in our home facilities. It is my hope you can work collaboratively and openly with TRAA leadership to better understand the common ground that will make both groups successful Mitch Hoffman Associate Director of Programs University Recreation and Wellness | recwell.umn.edu Office for Student Affairs | osa.umn.edu University of Minnesota | umn.edu mitch@umn.edu | 612-624-9779 Page 280 of 313 From:Tony Gatti To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Opposition to Increased Rental Fees for City Owned Athletic Fields Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 12:34:32 PM Meredith- I hope the city will reconsider the increased rental feels for city owned fields in Mendota Heights. TRAA is a relatively small association that is run by volunteers and provides numerous opportunities for our youth in Mendota Heights and the surrounding communities. As you know, youth sports provides opportunities for youth to grow, compete and create a sense of community. We have also continued to stay on the same level as much bigger organizations due to getting as many youth involved as possible and the efforts of the hardworking adults in our association. I feel that raising the fees on fields, and raising the fees for our families, will have a negative impact on our community. The more people that we can get involved in our association, the better off we will all be. That means keeping our fees as reasonable as we possibly can. Thank you for your time! Tony Gatti Page 281 of 313 From:Ellen Kennedy To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Feedback on Draft Park System Master Plan – Opposition to Field Rental Fee Increases Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:08:56 PM Importance:High Dear Ms. Lawrence- I'm working to express my concern in the proposed increase in rental fees for city-owned athletic fields outlined in the draft Park System Master Plan, specifically to Two Rivers Athletic Association (TRAA). TRAA is a community-based, non-profit organization run entirely by volunteers. Its programs provide invaluable opportunities for youth in our community to grow physically, mentally, and emotionally through sports. These programs instill essential life skills such as teamwork, discipline, and resilience, while also fostering a strong sense of community among families. Increasing rental fees would substantially raise the cost of running these programs, resulting in much higher registration fees. This will create financial barriers for families and jeopardize the affordability and inclusiveness of youth sports in Mendota Heights. I highly recommend the City to reconsider this proposal and consider alternative solutions that support, rather than hinder, access to youth athletics. Thank you for your time and hope you take the feedback into consideration. If you'd like to discuss further please reach out anytime. Thank you, Ellen Kennedy 651-983-1122 Sent from my iPhone Page 282 of 313 From:Eric Young To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Mendota Heights Parks Master Plan Draft Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:20:30 PM Hello, I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed use of the district 197 school district as a source of funding for the increased budget of the Mendota Heights Park System. I strongly believe that this proposal could have negative consequences for the community, particularly for youth sports programs. Below are some key points I would like you to consider: Community-Based Organization: TRAA is a non-profit, volunteer-driven organization that exists solely to serve the youth of our community. The association relies on the dedication of volunteers and the support of families who participate in its programs. Strengthening Community Bonds: TRAA plays a crucial role in fostering community cohesion. It brings families together, both on the field and in the stands, and creates a sense of belonging through shared volunteer work and family involvement. Affordability and Inclusivity: Increasing field fees could create financial barriers for many families in Mendota Heights. This would limit access to sports and recreational activities, potentially excluding children from low-income households from participating in these valuable programs. Unnecessary Financial Burden: Asking TRAA to shoulder the burden of funding for the increased park system budget could detract from the organization's core mission. These additional financial pressures may divert resources away from serving our youth and undermine the sustainability of youth sports programs. Risk to Youth Sports Accessibility: The proposed fee increases could lead to higher registration costs for participants, making youth sports less affordable and accessible to a broad cross-section of the community, ultimately reducing the number of children who can benefit from these programs. For the health, well-being, and continued success of our community, I urge you to reconsider using district 197 school district as a source of funding for the park system's budget. Ensuring that youth sports remain affordable and accessible should remain a priority. Here are some other ways that funding could be procured for the parks master plan: Grants State and Federal Grants: There are often government grants available for park development, recreation, and community wellness projects. For example, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) offers funding for outdoor recreation, as well as federal programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Non-profit and Private Grants: Many foundations focus on supporting community Page 283 of 313 spaces, public parks, and youth programs. For example, the Knight Foundation, the Bush Foundation, and other regional non-profits offer grants for community improvement projects. Corporate Sponsorships Local Businesses: Local businesses could contribute to park funding through sponsorship opportunities (e.g., sponsoring a park or field in exchange for advertising). Mendota Heights has several large businesses that might be willing to support community projects. National Brands: Companies with national footprints, especially those that align with outdoor, sports, or community wellness initiatives, could also be potential sponsors (e.g., sporting goods companies, tech companies supporting community well-being, etc. Park and Recreation Districts Regional Funding: The city could explore establishing a park and recreation district in collaboration with neighboring municipalities (e.g., West St. Paul, Eagan). These regional collaborations can pool resources and create economies of scale for park improvements. User Fees for Non-Youth Sports Adult Programs: Implementing or increasing user fees for adult recreational programs (e.g., adult leagues, fitness classes) rather than youth sports can help alleviate the burden on youth participants while still generating revenue. Public-Private Partnerships Partnership with Developers: When new development occurs in the area, the city can require developers to contribute to parks or recreation funding as part of the zoning approval process. These funds can be directed toward the park system. Partnership with Non-profits: Partnering with other local non-profit organizations focused on health, wellness, or environmental sustainability can help pool resources for park improvements. Dedicated Park Funds Park Impact Fees: Some cities charge an impact fee to developers for every new residential or commercial unit built. These fees are earmarked specifically for park improvements or land acquisition and can be a steady source of funding. Fundraising Campaigns Community Fundraisers: Local residents could organize fundraising events like charity runs, auctions, or community events that benefit the park system. This helps engage the community and raises awareness of the park’s needs. Crowdfunding: Setting up a crowdfunding campaign through platforms like GoFundMe or Kickstarter can allow local residents to contribute directly to the park’s development. Page 284 of 313 Endowments and Charitable Funds Establishing an Endowment Fund: Creating an endowment fund specifically for park maintenance and improvements could provide a long-term source of funding. This could be supported through donations, memorial funds, and bequests. In-Kind Contributions Volunteer Labor: TRAA and other community organizations could provide volunteer labor for park improvements, reducing overall project costs. Additionally, local businesses may be able to donate materials or services, such as landscaping, construction, or equipment. Revenue from Events Park Events: Hosting events, festivals, or concerts in the park system can generate revenue. These events can include entry fees, concessions, or vendor booths, all of which could contribute to park funding. Sales of Park-Related Goods Park Merchandising: Selling park-related merchandise like T-shirts, hats, or sports equipment can raise funds. Additionally, park amenities like rentable pavilions, courts, or fields could be monetized to help offset costs. Reallocation of Existing Budgets Reprioritizing City Spending: The city might be able to reallocate funds from less critical projects or administrative budgets to the park system. It could also look for efficiencies in the park system’s existing operations to free up funds for the master plan. By exploring a combination of these funding sources, Mendota Heights can ensure the park system improvements are adequately funded without placing an undue financial burden on organizations like TRAA. It’s important to approach this holistically, combining local, regional, and private sector resources to make the park system sustainable and accessible for everyone in the community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Eric Young Page 285 of 313 From:Kelly Mischke To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Proposed Increases to TRAA sports Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 1:48:40 PM Hello, I am writing to express my concern about the potential increase in sports registration fees and to emphasize the importance of keeping youth sports affordable and accessible for all families in our community. Sports play a critical role in the physical, emotional, and social development of children. Beyond fitness, they teach valuable life skills such as teamwork, discipline, resilience, and time management. For many families, especially those with limited income, increased costs can become a significant barrier to participation—shutting out children from these important experiences. Raising registration fees risks reducing participation rates, which can impact team sizes, league competitiveness, and overall community engagement. It may also disproportionately affect lower-income families, undermining efforts toward inclusion and equal opportunity. Keeping sports affordable helps ensure that every child has the chance to play, grow, and thrive. I hope we can protect that opportunity. Thank you, Kelly Boland Page 286 of 313 From:Sarah Hessler To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Park System Master Plan Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 2:25:38 PM Good afternoon, I am writing to you to share some thoughts I have regarding the proposed improvements to the Mendota Heights Park System. I have had the opportunity to watch my niece and nephew flourish in TRAA athletic programs. They have participated in soccer, flag football, baseball, softball, and other activities offered by the organization for the last 6 years. My daughter has now reached the age where she can begin to participate in the same programs that my niece and nephew have, and I am so excited for the positive impact that being on a team will have in her life. Not only does it promote physical activity, but being on a team also helps children build confidence, resilience, relationships, communication skills, and countless other life skills. I am concerned that this new plan will significantly impact the operation of TRAA programs. An increase in program fees has the potential to make participating in these programs unattainable for many families. If the cost of programs go up, participation will decrease and I'm not confident I would be able to continue to have my child enrolled. Please reconsider increasing fees for field usage so that all families can have access to quality programs. Thank you for your time. -- Sarah Hessler Fourth Grade Teacher Urban Academy 1668 Montreal Ave., St. Paul, MN 55116 651-215-9419 urbanacademymn.org Page 287 of 313 From:Dan Schultz To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Public Comment on Proposed Master Park Plan Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 2:47:05 PM For submission into the public record. Please reconsider the impacts of some of the ways you are looking to fund the master plan. For example, I have multiple children in TRAA programs and one of the reasons we have them in multiple sports and engaged in the organization is due to the ease entry point for fees. An increase in fees would likely have us reconsider some of the programs. The fees naturally increase as kids get older, but increasing fees earlier in a child's development would have an impact on participation numbers and force families to consider eliminating some levels of participation. Please make sure you consider this when you are weighing the options. What makes this community great is the low entry point so that families can afford getting their kids involved and building early development for kids and their peers. Increasing the fees to offset the cost of parks improvements can threaten that. Thanks, Dan Schultz Sent from Yahoo! Page 288 of 313 From:P M To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Park Fees Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 2:57:58 PM Increasing facilities fees by more than a nominal amount would be a mistake. Mendota Heights has had a long history of supporting youth athletics through charging low fees. From what I can tell by this study, there isn’t a plan to change the facilities/services/ programming. If there isn’t a major change in facilities/ services or programming, then increasing fees is a mistake. Peter Page 289 of 313 From:Theresa Menke To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Proposed increase in park rental fees Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:57:27 PM Good afternoon, I’m a mom of several kiddos who play sports for the TRAA in house teams. We live in south St. Paul, but our children attend school at St. Joseph’s in West St Paul. We have made the decision to enroll our children in Mendota heights athletics so that they can join their classmates in playing community sports. I am concerned with the proposed increase in field rental prices in Mendota Heights. Community sports costs are already significantly more expensive in Mendota Heights than many surrounding communities. If prices were further increased, I have no doubt that many families would choose other, more affordable programs for their children. I urge you to reconsider increasing field rental fees to keep children’s sports open all children, regardless of family means. Thank you for your time and consideration, Theresa Menke Page 290 of 313 From:Krista Abbott To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarrrios.com Subject:MH Park System Master Plan Opposition Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 4:18:56 PM To Whom It May Concern, My name is Krista Abbott, I have a prior residence history in Mendota Heights (1994-2011), I currently reside in Inver Grove Heights, however, my children continue to engage in youth sports through TRAA. I am writing to you to request consideration for the access and affordability of youth sport engagement with Mendota Heights City Parks. I understand there is a plan to enhance the parks with an emphasis on diversifying and making the parks more accessible to all. I believe most would support such goals, however my concern is for the cost increase to those who regularly utilize the parks. TRAA has historically been a great partner to the city. Through league play and hosting tournaments, the association brings in a large population of visitors to our community. TRAA is a community-based non-profit organization run solely by volunteers. From administration, coaching, concessions, to field crew. Our youth rely on our volunteerism to support their efforts to engage in activity. Youth sports are fundamental contributors to inclusion, partnership, physical and mental well-being and promoting self-esteem. Many of our families rely on the association for assistance to make these things a possibility for their children. As we continue to look to improve the parks (i.e. lighting, accessibility, maintenance), I ask for you to consider the funding resources. Community sports bring life to the parks and to the city and it should continue to be affordable for all. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, Krista Abbott Page 291 of 313 From:Matt Cremers To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:MH Park System Master Plan Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 5:58:58 PM Good afternoon, My name is Matt Cremers. I am a resident of South St. Paul, but my children have always and will continue to be students in ISD 197, and have always participated in TRAA programming. While I am not a resident, I consider myself part of this community, and have volunteered hundreds of hours coaching or volunteering in support of it. Our experience in the TRAA Fastpitch program has unquestioningly been the best youth sports’ experience we’ve been involved in. This is largely due to the volunteer coaches, parents, and staff who work tirelessly on behalf of this community and its youth athletes to provide affordable programming focused on youth development, safety, and inclusivity. These invaluable qualities are built and nurtured on the fields across Mendota Heights, and should always remain within financial reach for every community member. To that end, TRAA has done it’s part by providing financial assistance to ensure an equal opportunity for all Mendota Heights’ community members, and keeping fees affordable by relying on engaged and devoted volunteers for concessions, field maintenance during tournaments, coaching, and administration. We adopted this community, were welcomed into it, and adore it for many reasons, and our experience in TRAA is at the top of that list of reasons. I humbly ask that the City of Mendota Heights reconsider its plan to increase field fees for MHPR fields to help ensure TRAA can continue to provide sports programming that is financially accessible to all community members. Thank you for your consideration, Matt Cremers Page 292 of 313 From:Jason Stone To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Increase Rental Fees for City-Owned Athletic Fields. Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 10:40:57 PM Attachments:image002.png image004.png image006.png image012.png image014.png image016.png image018.png image020.png image022.png image026.png Meredith, I hope this message finds you well. I’m writing on behalf of the Two-Rivers Athletic Association (TRAA), a community-based, non-profit organization that is run entirely by dedicated volunteers. TRAA offers youth sports programs that go far beyond the game. Through participation, our young athletes gain not only physical fitness, but also important life skills such as teamwork, discipline, and resilience. These experiences help shape confident, capable individuals both on and off the field. Our programs also play a vital role in strengthening the Mendota Heights community. TRAA brings families together—whether they’re coaching, cheering from the stands, or volunteering behind the scenes. It’s about building connections and a shared sense of purpose. I am concerned that increasing field fees would pose a significant barrier to participation for many families. Higher costs threaten the affordability and inclusiveness that are central to our mission and could limit access to these valuable developmental opportunities for children in our area. I respectfully ask for your consideration in keeping field usage fees reasonable, so we can continue to provide accessible, community-driven sports programs for all families in Mendota Heights. Thank you. Jason Jason Stone Branch Manager NMLS# 1018649 985 Smith Ave S. West St. Paul, MN 55118 Office #651-888-8171 Cell #651-253-2144 eFax:866-446-9434 Page 293 of 313 Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in and transmitted with this communication is strictly confidential, is intended only for the use of the intended recipient, and is the property of Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation NMLS #2289 or its affiliates and subsidiaries. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of the information contained in or transmitted with the communication or dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately return this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it in your possession. Equal Housing Opportunity. Page 294 of 313 From:Angela Hanzal To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Proposal for increased rental fees - impact for cost of youth sports Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 12:09:30 AM Hello I am writing in opposition of the proposal for increased rental fees for city owned athletic fields. As someone who has two (soon to be 3) daughters heavily involved in TRAA / Mendota Heights sports this will put a large dent in our budget for youth sports and possibly will need to reevaluate which sports we can afford, and possibly look Elsewhere out of our neighborhood. I am a proud Mendota Heights resident and avid volunteer within our youth sports programs. The thought of such a large increase being passed down directly to the families of youth sports programs is very discouraging and disappointing. Please reconsider passing the increased fees directly to those that need the savings the most. Thank you for your consideration, Angela Hanzal Sent from my iPhone Page 295 of 313 From:Tom Solo To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Park System Master Plan Draft public comment Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 9:16:41 AM Please do not increase rental fees for city-owned athletic fields. Youth sports are already too expensive. TRAA builds a stronger, more connected community by bringing families together —on the field, in the stands, and through shared volunteer work. Charging TRAA more to use athletic fields isn't a good idea and would be detrimental to many families in the area. Sincerely, Tom Hagler Page 296 of 313 From:Stephen Abbott To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:MH Park System Master Plan Opposition Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 10:02:32 AM To Whom It May Concern, I'm reaching out to you regarding the discussions about the increased rental fees for city owned fields. It is my understanding that this will result in increased costs for youth sports in the Mendota Heights area. I have 5 children. Three of them have participated in several sports in the Mendota Heights area for the past few years, and I have two younger children who will also participate in the future. At least that is our hope. We love to sign our kids up for as many activities as possible, but it does come with a cost of both time, and money. There are many other families similar to mine, and asking them to pay more to participate in sports will be a huge burden for them. My belief is that the city should want to make youth activities easier and more affordable for as many families as possible. Keeping our kids active in the city is good for the children, the families, the community, and the city of Mendota Heights. Our leagues are already short on money, and dependent on volunteers. I'm asking you respectfully to help us to make youth sports affordable, and available for everyone. Thank you. Stephen Abbott Page 297 of 313 From:Amy Smith To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Increased field usage fees Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 10:21:02 AM Meredith, I hope you are well. As a former Parks and Rec commissioner, I was saddened to see the suggestion of increasing field usage fees for Mendota Heights fields. The youth of Mendota heights really have limited options for playing fields and then to increase the amount parents will have to pay for the kids to use them seems irresponsible. I know there are other resources that could increase revenue for Park and Recreation. I do think all those avenues should be exhausted before increasing fees to your users. At some point, playing youth sports will not be affordable for families and you’ll have empty fields along with a lot of young families NOT looking at MH as an option to raise families because of the lack of accessibility. Sometimes policies look good on paper but when you think about who it is truly impacting, I think it is a different story. Thank you, Amy Smith Page 298 of 313 From:Meggan Oldham To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Park System Master Plan Comments - TRAA Base/Softball Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 10:27:26 AM Hi Meredith! Thank you for all the work you and your team did on the Parks Master Plan. It was a very thorough plan and I appreciated a lot of the suggestions that came out. Namely the indoor community center and pool options as we have a lot of young kids who love to burn energy in the winter! One area I wanted to express concern about was the proposed increase in cost and potential reduction in baseball/softball fields. I have 3 children who currently use these facilities frequently (~5 days a week) and 2 more that will use them in the future. The children enjoy playing base/softball on their teams and are learning valuable skills during it. Teamwork, physical strength / endurance improvement and learning how to be resilient. All skills that will serve them and the community well in the future. Additionally, during our kids' practices and games we find ourselves at the playgrounds that are next to the ball fields. Without having as much access to the fields; we certainly would not frequent the playgrounds in our community as often. I understand and can appreciate that adding amenities to the community comes with an increase in cost, however, I would encourage a partnership to creatively determine other ways to raise funds. Perhaps there would be an option to sell concessions via a "snack shack" at some of the fields that don't have a building. It is essentially a pull behind camper stocked with all the treats that kids enjoy. Perhaps this could be staffed with volunteers from the TRAA teams, however a portion of the proceeds could go back to the city. This is what the Highland Softball organization does at the fields at Urban Academy. Highland Baseball and the hockey programs in WSP and St. Paul also have a similar model which benefits everyone. Another idea that I have seen at other fields is businesses have banners on the outfield fences that I would assume are sponsored financially through those businesses. Lastly perhaps there could be additional leagues run through the MH parks and rec for adult base/softball leagues? This could bring additional use to the fields as well as increased facility fee revenue during off hours (Sunday evenings) or later weeknight evenings. Thank you for the consideration and if you have any questions or want follow up details please let me know! Thank you! Meggan Oldham Page 299 of 313 From:Lani McCollar To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Park System Master plan draft: Opposing rental fees Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 11:32:37 AM Good morning~ To whom it may concern: We are writing to express our opposition to the potential in increasing rental fees for TRAA sports teams using MH city parks. Reasons stated below support this. Increasing field fees would create unnecessary barriers for families and threatens the affordability and inclusiveness of youth sports in Mendota Heights. Pricing for sports across the US has become almost completely unaffordable for families due to higher and higher costs. The current economy is very uncertain and has worsened considerably in the last four years. Our family has participated in TRAA sports with both of our children over the years, and TRAA sports does a phenomenal job in maintaining a volunteer-led non-profit that is affordable for ALL families, in being welcoming to ALL. More expense added to the parks are not going to do anything to change the sports game that so many families have enjoyed and played on the parks over the years, but rising prices will ...and it will oust many families out of being able to participate in the sports at all. Please reconsider the plan. Our MH parks are just fine as is...actually, they are some of the best in the cities. Only upgrade absolutely what is essential through this plan. Thank you. Thank you, Lani McCollar Page 300 of 313 From:Charlie Calvert To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Need for updated pickleball courts Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 1:16:41 PM To whom it may concern. I am part of a growing constituency of avid pickleball fans/players who play and have played in Mendota Heights/Marie Park for years. Last year, all the maintenance crew did was to paint over the courts, leaving serious wear and tear damage underneath. (putting a bandaid on an open heart wound!) We submit that the need for a year round/more established and up to date pickleball structure with multiple courts can and does promote health, community support and a real value to Mendota residents. I strongly encourage you to consider very carefully where you decide to put tax dollars at work. This sport is now attracting all age groups. When you weigh the value of this proposal over the other areas you are looking to spend tax dollars in, you should be able to realize that this is a solid component in building better community support and participation! Thank you for your consideration! Charlie Calvert Page 301 of 313 From:Tim Lamkin To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Draft 2040 Park System Master Plan comments Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 12:44:33 PM Dear Meredith Lawrence, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the 2040 Park System Master Plan, specifically the proposed increase in rental fees for city-owned athletic fields. I am a volunteer coach with Two Rivers Athletic Association (TRAA) and a father of two daughters that love to play various sports. TRAA is a volunteer-run, nonprofit organization dedicated to youth athletics in our community, I want to emphasize the vital role our programs play in Mendota Heights. TRAA is powered entirely by local volunteers who give their time to create meaningful opportunities for young people to grow and thrive through sports. Our programs do more than just teach kids how to play a game—they help shape character. Through participation, children develop essential life skills like perseverance, collaboration, and accountability. These experiences contribute to their physical health, emotional resilience, and social development. Beyond the field, TRAA fosters a sense of belonging and civic pride. Families come together to cheer, coach, and contribute, creating a network of support that strengthens our community fabric. Raising field rental fees would place an added burden on families and could limit access to youth sports for many. This shift risks making participation less inclusive and more financially challenging, especially for those already balancing tight budgets. We believe that public spaces should remain accessible and affordable for all residents, especially when they serve such a critical role in youth development and community connection. We respectfully urge you to reconsider the proposed fee increases and explore alternatives that preserve equitable access to our city’s athletic facilities. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Tim Lamkin Volunteer Coach with TRAA Page 302 of 313 From:Emily Paper To:Meredith Lawrence Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 3:10:06 PM To Whom It May Concern, As a family who participates in and values TRAA softball, I am writing to ensure that proposed increases to using our ballparks are fair and reasonable. This is essential to ensure that cost does not become a barrier or limitation to the families who wish to participate in this important community youth program. Our organization is run completely by volunteers and we are grateful to our committed coaches and all those who give their time to our kids. Their commitment allows our kids to enhance their development, physically, mentally, and socially, while learning life skills like teamwork, discipline, and resilience. As mentioned above, I want to ensure that increasing field fees does not create barriers for families and threaten the affordability and inclusiveness of youth sports in Mendota Heights. With costs going up for WSP parks, it's important we manage our increases to make sure all of our children are able to participate. I encourage you to look at all possible avenues for helping to fund our parks and their improvements so that our children all have access to playing in our community. Our MH/WSP communities must work together to be sure we can keep these costs down for our TRAA families. Thank you for your time. Emily Paper Page 303 of 313 From:Jinan Foss To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Affordable Sports/A Must Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 3:27:22 PM City of Mendota Heights, As a Special Education Teacher/Mom and Community Member in the Mendota Heights area I strongly oppose the proposed increase in rental fees for city owned athletic fields. TRAA and these spaces are vital community spaces that promote health, youth development, and community engagement, and are run entirely by volunteers! Raising fees would create unnecessary financial barriers for local teams, nonprofits, and families especially for those with limited means. Instead of making access more difficult, we should be encouraging inclusive use of our public spaces. I urge the City of Mendota Heights to reconsider and Keep these spaces affordable and accessible for all residents. Thank you, Jinan Foss Page 304 of 313 From:maureen cotter To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:MH Master Plan Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 3:30:12 PM Good afternoon, > My name is Maureen Cotter and I live at 1156 Kingsley Court in Mendota Heights. My grandchildren participate in several TRAA sports, including basketball, soccer, baseball, and softball. These sports keep them physically active and teach them a number of valuable life skills. > > I strongly oppose the recommendations identified in the Master Plan to increase fees for "third-party" associations such as TRAA. When my children participated in youth sports (in Wisconsin) they were run by either the schools or City Parks & Rec departments. The cost was very low and sometimes even free! I understand many Cities have eliminated sports programs for budget savings and they are now run by parent volunteers. It seems backwards that Cities would now charge fees to these residents that volunteer their time to provide critical youth programming to the community. I am confident a large majority of taxpayers would strongly oppose the recommendations in the Master Plan. > > These costs inevitably get passed on to participants, which essentially becomes a tax on young families. There will be families that can't afford the increased costs and money should not be a reason our children can't have an opportunity to participate in youth sports. Most of them will go on to pursue successful paths outside of sports and these activities help build the foundational experiences and life skills that will serve them well in the future. > > Sincerely, > Maureen Cotter Sent from my iPhone Page 305 of 313 From:L. Garcia To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Re: Parks System Master Plan - comments Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 3:40:46 PM Attachments:image001.png Thank you for sharing. Could you please add to the comments for the City Council a request for a specific assessment of the parking and walking safety around Marie Park to guide any plan implementation? There are significant safety issues when the ballpark is being used by community partners or when the pickleball and basketball courts are fully utilized. Thank you Laurie Garcia On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 2:31PM Meredith Lawrence <MLawrence@mendotaheightsmn.gov> wrote: Good afternoon: The plan does not do a deep dive on parking lots, but it does include recommendations on specific parking lots if the audit consultant didn’t think they were adequate. The consultant found the most concerns with the parking lot capacity at Kensington Park. The plan does distinguish between community and neighborhood parks as well. Thank you, Meredith Lawrence, CPRE Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights Direct: 651-255-1354 Website | Connect Page 306 of 313 From: L. Garcia <lauriegarciamn@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2025 11:13 AM To: Meredith Lawrence <MLawrence@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: Re: Parks System Master Plan - comments Thank you for your response. One question, does the Park System Master Plan include a review of parking at the parks, and does it differentiate "neighborhood" type parks from ones that are not integrated into neighborhoods like Marie Park is when making implementation decisions? On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 8:18AM Meredith Lawrence <MLawrence@mendotaheightsmn.gov> wrote: Good morning: Thank you for taking the time to read through our 2040 Park System Master Plan. Our entire team has spent a lot of time developing this plan to ensure a bright future for Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation and I appreciate you being part of the process. I will ensure your comments are provided to the City Council to review. My best, Meredith Lawrence, CPRE Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights Direct: 651-255-1354 Website | Connect Page 307 of 313 From: L. Garcia <lauriegarciamn@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 9:31 PM To: Meredith Lawrence <MLawrence@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: Parks System Master Plan - comments Thank you for sharing the draft plan. I read through some of it and skimmed some of it. We are homeowners near Marie Park. In the section for priorities for Marie Park, I did not see prioritization of additional parking or parking adjustments or sidewalk development for the safety of park users and neighborhood walkers, something we mentioned in our survey response. I see that some people would like an expansion of the basketball courts. I am very concerned about expanding any facilities at Marie Park when there is not enough parking for the current facilities. Often, there are so many cars that when we walk in the neighborhood we have to walk up the middle of the street. With the curve of the street, we often feel unsafe. Please confirm you have received this email and will consider a response to this concern before adding services to Marie Park. Thank you Carlos and Laurie Garcia Page 308 of 313 From:Angela Mattson To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Park Fee increase - Negative Impact for youth TRAA sports Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 4:00:54 PM To whom it may concern, I am concerned if fees are increased to use city parks and sports fields, it will negatively impact our TRAA youth sports program. These increases, which would most likely be passed on to the registrant, will eventually destroy what remains of TRAA community sports in Mendota Heights. Unfortunately, crappy parents and their relationships/ politics have done a great job with this already. They don't need your support. People need to be honest with themselves and their children, abide by the rules created to maintain honesty, and evaluate players consistently across the board. If these things were followed, I believe kids would remain in TRAA longer, as it would be both fun and competitive. I loved playing summer softball in the 80's for Mend-Eagan. Being from Eagan, it was helpful to meet kids from Mendota Heights whom I would attend school with a few years later in junior high. I am still friends with these teammates today. One team never kicked everyone else's ass. We won some. We lost some. Usually, there was one, maybe two, stand-out players on each team. Super Saturday was a tourney that anyone could win. It was REAL recreational community ball. Unfortunately, now we "stack" teams according to their parent's friends, not their friends, which school they attend, which "club team" they play for, etc. Part of the TRAA sports experience is "community." TRAA needs to look inward to ensure they are supporting this, in addition to working with the City of Mendota Heights. Sports have become increasingly competitive at a younger age, and children are now often focused on one sport before entering seventh grade. TRAA is an option that provides an opportunity for all kids to explore a new sport or participate in multiple sports until they enter high school. This is possible at a reasonable price without incurring travel costs. It is also an opportunity to bridge TRAA with the TR High School Warriors. I am concerned about other Two Rivers High School sports following this path, given the potential price increase. We already need to continue to reach further into the middle schools for participants in Junior Varsity and Varsity sports (Soccer, Swim & Dive, Tennis, Golf, Wrestling, and Lacrosse). My son, G, has played lacrosse for TR since 7th grade. He was 12 years old, playing Junior Varsity against 14- to 17-year-olds. My daughter wrestled on the Varsity team at 12 years old this year. She is a beast, and it is a weight-based competition, so it is more "balanced." We made a family decision with our kids at the time, considering whether participating at this level at their age was the right decision. It is not the right decision for all kids. The City of Mendota Heights and TRAA need to ask themselves if a price increase is worth compromising some children's safety for the sake of playing a sport. Many parents may not consider this. Involvement in youth sports is needed! Kids need physical exercise to help manage their energy. It also offers numerous other benefits, including improved physical and mental health, enhanced social skills, and increased academic achievement. Participating in sports can also foster teamwork, leadership, and goal-setting abilities while promoting a Page 309 of 313 healthy lifestyle and positive social interactions. Additionally, it offers an opportunity for kids and families to walk or ride to practices and games. As kids get older and more independent, it also provides an opportunity for them to learn life skills such as coordinating schedules, time management, navigating their community, and developing independence if they can practice these skills on their own. This has been extremely important to BOTH my kids. Suppose TRAA sports become too expensive for families to participate in, making it difficult for their kids to experience new sports opportunities. Where will they need to look for them? Will they be in our position, having an athlete who loves a sport but it is not available in our community? Considering moving or enrolling him in a different school so he has the opportunity to play on a reputable high school lacrosse team? Also, if we lose players, will we lose the volunteers that make up our coaches? Currently, we are watching lacrosse fall apart (both at TRAA and Two Rivers High School) because of club team/ private school "pissing" matches. Our 15-year-old son (2027 graduate) was involved with lacrosse in St. Paul before it came to Mendota Heights. G has been trying to recruit others every year for the association's lacrosse team. My husband helps him spread the word. We get a few, and due to poor experiences, many do not return. G wants lacrosse to succeed in Mendota Heights because of his negative experience. Every other year, the challenge of having a team or not having a team to play with in his age group in TRAA repeated itself. This summer, he is coaching the U14 Boys team. He is committed to getting his Gold coaching certification (currently Silver) within the next few days. G wants to help new and inexperienced players learn the basic concepts needed to become proficient so they can get on the field and feel more confident playing with club teammates and against experienced teams. One of these players includes his sister, who is the only girl on the team. He is willing to meet up with a small group at a park or Two Rivers after his activities or before practice to get in a few extra reps. G and L also practice in the backyard, happily talk about lacrosse and games, and have a stronger relationship. His goal is to work hard, get reps, and have fun. Leave better than when you arrived. At present, Two Rivers Co-Ops with St. Paul. There are also issues with that program. Lacrosse is known as the backup plan for the "washed-out" baseball players who don't make the team. We had four experienced 8th-grade lacrosse players in 2024 who decided not to return to play in 2025. We also lost a few new lacrosse players in other grades. The 2025 Varsity Roster had 9 Two Rivers players out of 25 players. We will lose 4 of them because they graduated this year. JV roster information is not available. I am not certain, but I believe only 2-3 other TRAA players participated. That is less than 10 lacrosse players between 7th and 12th grades! Within two years, I predict Two Rivers will not have a team or players to seek a co-op for. The TR Athletic Director and TRAA should collaborate on more "Youth Nights" for community events, exploring ways to support each other and provide a consistent flow of athletes to keep our athletic teams strong and numbers consistent. Parents are considering private schools based on their children's sports opportunities rather than their educational quality. I understand this is a long explanation as to why I do not believe there should be any price increase for Parks that will impact TRAA activities. However, the community needs to understand that our youth sports program with TRAA is directly related to our program at Two Rivers High School. Our story is about lacrosse. However, I can guarantee that you could replace 'lacrosse' with any other name for a sport, and there would be some other Page 310 of 313 residents with similar experiences. It would be a shame to deny kids opportunities for sports because they can't afford to use the space due to registration fees. If our TRAA teams don't use the fields, who does? Probably no one, and you don't get anything for the space in the end anyway. Thank you for hearing our story and hopefully thinking about how this could impact Mendota Heights in the future. Angela Mattson 2102 Timmy Street Page 311 of 313 From:Nick Sattler To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:2040 Mendota Heights Park System Master Plan Thoughts Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 4:26:56 PM Meredith, After reviewing the 2040 Mendota Heights Park System Master Plan proposal, I have the following concerns. Currently, you are proposing significant fee increases for the local Two Rivers Athletic Association which is a non-profit organization supporting the youth of our community. Essentially, because the tax paying parents of these kids are using the provided fields to help their kids learn basic skills, you are proposing to raise the costs which will prohibit many people & kids from being able to utilize them. Instead of raising fees on the associations, I propose you look at alternative measures. For example… 1. Any park or field that is rented by a “For Profit” organization outside of our community should have their fees increased to use the facilities. 2. Additionally, advertising signs could be sold for “High Visibility” parks like Mendakota, Hagstrom King, or Civic Center and placed on the outfield walls. Currently, signs are sold at the WSP Ice Arena for $2500-$5,000/sign and this could absolutely be done at those parks or even on the ice boards set up at Marie, Friendly Hills, and Wentworth Parks. This could easily generate anywhere from $50,000 to $500,000+ worth of revenue each year. This strategy is also utilized by many other communities in Minnesota and is no where mentioned in your report. In summary, don’t raise the fees of the community organizations who utilize the amenities just because it’s an easy avenue to sell our fields to outside organizations. Regards, Nick Sattler 1041 Marie Ave. W Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Nick Sattler Partner, Executive Director nsattler@verticalxchange.com Page 312 of 313 www.verticalxchange.com O: 952-224-7613 M: 651-245-6432 F: 952-736-9362 4580 Scott Trail, Suite 100 Eagan, MN 55122 Page 313 of 313 From:Meaghan Sherer To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Mendota Heights - Master Plan Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 4:39:13 PM Good Afternoon, My name is Meaghan Sherer and I live at 2459 Hampshire Ct in Mendota Heights. My kids participate in several TRAA sports, including basketball, soccer, baseball, and softball. We utilize the parks, trails, summer camps, golf… to name a few. These sports keep them physically active and teach them a number of valuable life skills. I strongly oppose the recommendations identified in the Master Plan to increase fees for "third-party" associations such as TRAA. My family has been part of planning baseball tournaments in the community, and my neighbors are often surprised how much we pay in permit fees to use the fields we pay tax dollars towards. We aren’t hosting these tournaments for anything other reason than to raise funds to make out-of-town tournaments more affordable for families. I personally know many families that express concern with current fees and being able to have their child participate in sports. Increasing these fees would be devastating. Sports are so valuable to our youth; they teach them so much more than they would get sitting at home on electronics. I am confident a large majority of taxpayers would strongly oppose the recommendations in the Master Plan. Inevitably, the costs of youth sports are passed on to participants, effectively creating a tax burden on young families. While some families may struggle to absorb the increased expenses, financial constraints should never be a barrier to our children's participation in youth sports. As these families will largely go on to pursue successful careers outside of sports, these activities impart essential experiences and life skills that will serve them well in their future endeavors. Sincerely, Meaghan Sherer Sent from my iPhone From:Alicia Hemmons To:Meredith Lawrence Cc:comments@traawarriors.com Subject:Concern About Increasing Field Fees Date:Wednesday, June 11, 2025 6:01:36 PM To Whom it may concern, I just wanted to share my thoughts as a parent about the proposed increase in field fees. TRAA has been such a valuable part of our community, run entirely by volunteers who truly care about our kids. Their sports programs do more than just keep kids active—they teach important skills like teamwork, discipline, and resilience. It’s also a great way for families to come together, cheer on the kids, and build a stronger neighborhood. My son has been playing in TRAA programs for the last 5 years along with my many nieces and nephews. I'm worried that raising the fees could make it harder for many families to participate. It might create unnecessary barriers and threaten the inclusiveness that makes youth sports in Mendota Heights so special. Thanks for taking the time to consider this. I really hope we can find a way to keep these programs accessible for everyone. Best, Alicia Hemmons 651.431.8992 From:Andy Gongoll To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Increase rental fees for city-owned athletic fields Date:Thursday, June 12, 2025 11:30:35 PM Hello. My name is Andy Gongoll. I was informed that there would be a possible increase in rental fees for athletic fields which would increase the cost for my family and every other family for our kids to play local sports. The cost of living has gone up 23.6% for families since 2020. The idea of increasing the cost of youth sports for families is unacceptable. There must be another way. As a youth softball coach we are already responsible for maintaining the fields and equipment for our players. in addition to all the other free volunteering and fundraising families do for youth sports. Please reconsider. Thank you. -- Andy Gongoll | Director of Sales Multifamily Carpet Cleaners O. (651) 478-0638 C. (612) 799-1682 Multifamily is proud to be carbon and water neutral. We invest in certified mitigation projects to offset 100% of our carbon emissions and water consumption. From:Rachel Davis To:Meredith Lawrence Subject:Support for Fee Increases Date:Friday, June 13, 2025 12:21:44 PM Ms. Lawrence, I wanted to write in support of the proposed increased fee schedule for athletic facility use. The City of Mendota Heights does a wonderful job maintaining its facilities and the conditions of its fields, rinks, and other areas. A reasonable fee increase is necessary to ensure this ongoing commitment to a safe, enjoyable, and appropriate environment. Thank you, Rachel Davis 554 Junction Ln, Mendota Heights, MN 55118