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