Rochester City Council Regular Session - July 7, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Rochester City Council Regular Session - July 7, 2025
The Rochester City Council met on July 7, 2025, for a regular session. The meeting included public comments, approval of a consent agenda with numerous routine items, public hearings on two major land subdivisions and an interim use permit, and discussion on a schematic design for the Rochester Sports and Recreation Complex, a drone program update, and initiation of historic landmark evaluation for Central Park. Key votes included 7-0 approvals on most items, with a 5-2 vote on the sports complex schematic design.
Consent Calendar
- Approved unanimously (7-0): The consent agenda included minutes of the June 16, 2025 meeting; accounts payable of $50,304,939.41; appointments and reappointments to boards and commissions; an off-site gambling permit; updates to Council Rules of Procedure; bid advertisements and contracts for various capital projects (Cascade Creek Trail, Large Diameter Trunkline Inspection, Pedestrian Facilities, Center St E reconstruction, 36th Ave SE Culvert Replacement, Link BRT Maintenance Bay and Architecture, Prairie Ridge Boulevard Tree Green Facilities Agreement, sale of surplus equipment, renewal of hazardous material response team contract, utility connection agreement, revocable permit, joint powers agreement with High Forest Township, purchase agreement for land near 4th St SE, construction manager at risk contract for Parks & Forestry relocation, and Center Street Ramp temporary license agreement). Councilmember Wall noted that the bid for Item F12 (Link BRT Maintenance Bay) came in $860,000 under the engineer's estimate.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Chris Armstrong expressed appreciation for council civility and the sustainability plan, but questioned oversight and financial assumptions of the Rochester Sports and Recreation Complex, asking how the proposal aligns with Vision 2050 goals and noting it differs from how it was marketed to voters.
- Mike O'Brien (disability advocate) raised concerns about Lime scooters blocking sidewalks and curb ramps, urging designated parking zones and enforcement under ADA.
- Rebecca Ganaway (Southeast Rochester resident) criticized lack of council response after speaking previously about deteriorating Orangeburg sewer pipes causing raw sewage issues. She noted homeowners are unaware of repair responsibility and provided contacts for assistance, stating she makes $420/month too much for aid.
- Barry Skolneck supported the mayor's initiative to have Central Park evaluated for historic landmark designation, urging the Heritage Preservation Commission to decide.
- Barb Hudson highlighted Central Park's history (169 years old, older than NYC's Central Park), its role as a public gathering place, and its listing on Rochester's Inventory of Historic Places.
- John Creesell also supported the Central Park designation, noting its historical importance as a gathering place for military events and community activities.
Public Hearings
G1 - Mercy Hill Third Major Land Subdivision
- Staff presented a proposal to subdivide 13.8 acres into 50 residential lots (R2 zoning). Applicant Craig Britton (Widseth) agreed with staff conditions. No public testimony. Councilmember Wall raised groundwater concerns but staff noted no known issues. Vote: Approved 7-0.
G2 - Pebble Creek Sixth Major Land Subdivision (Lennar) and G3 - Interim Use Permit for Substantial Land Alterations
- Combined public hearing. Staff and applicant (Steve Trotsky, Lennar) described the subdivision of 185 acres into 454 single-family lots and 12 outlots, with a total build-out of 950-1,000 homes. The interim use permit allows movement of 844,000 cubic yards of dirt (up to 25 feet cut/fill). Applicant accepted seven conditions. No public testimony. Council discussion covered traffic studies, grading scope (comparable to Dakota Middle School), housing diversity, and environmental review. Vote on G2: Approved 7-0. Vote on G3: Approved 7-0.
Reports and Recommendations
H1 - Rochester Sports and Recreation Complex Schematic Design (Project J2870)
- Staff (Ben Bolt, Jenna Bowman) presented the schematic design for the outdoor phase of the sports complex. Budget: $65 million from sales tax. Design includes eight artificial turf baseball fields (with temporary fencing for softball), two rectangular fields, 12 pickleball courts, a central building with concessions/restrooms, playground, trail connections, and future indoor facility footprint. Community working group provided input. Pro forma indicates neutral-to-positive operations with 16-18 tournament weekends annually. Value engineering items (alternates) were noted. Council discussion centered on community access, operating model transparency, phase two funding, and project scope. Councilmembers Miller and Doring opposed, citing lack of community trust, need for operating model details, and concerns that the design differs from what voters expected. Councilmembers Wall, Keene, Fredericks, Palmer, and Council President Schubring supported, emphasizing economic development, need for tournament-caliber facilities, and risks of delay. Vote: Approved 5-2 (Miller and Doring opposed).
H2 - RPD Drone Program Update and Contract with Axon Enterprise, Inc.
- Chief Franklin presented an expansion of the drone program with two permanently docked drones as first responders (DFR). Fully funded by a grant from Mayo Clinic for a five-year pilot. Drones can launch within 20 seconds, provide real-time situational awareness to officers, and are expected to cover about two-thirds of the city. Staffing will be phased (starting with designated officer, then dispatchers). Privacy safeguards include state statute compliance, automatic deletion of non-criminal data within seven days (or sooner), and direct camera focus during transit. Council discussion covered coordination with Mayo helicopters, cost-benefit analysis, and technology integration. Vote: Approved 7-0.
H3 - Local Designation for Central Park as a Historic Landmark
- Mayor Norton requested the council initiate evaluation of Central Park for local historic landmark designation and ask the Heritage Preservation Commission to prioritize review. Public comments and council discussion highlighted the park's age (169 years) and significance. Councilmembers noted that the council cannot designate directly by ordinance but must follow UDC process with HPC review and public hearing. Staff indicated phase one evaluation could be completed in weeks. Vote: Approved 7-0 to initiate evaluation and request HPC prioritization.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Agenda: All 22 items approved 7-0.
- G1 - Mercy Hill Third Subdivision: Approved 7-0.
- G2 - Pebble Creek Sixth Subdivision: Approved 7-0.
- G3 - Interim Use Permit for Land Alterations: Approved 7-0.
- H1 - Rochester Sports and Recreation Complex Schematic Design: Approved 5-2 (Councilmembers Miller and Doring dissenting).
- H2 - RPD Drone Program and Axon Contract: Approved 7-0.
- H3 - Central Park Historic Landmark Initiation: Approved 7-0.
- K1 - Annexation Ordinance (Second Reading): Approved 7-0.
- Other Business: Councilmember Doring acknowledged thanks for support after his bicycle accident; Councilmember Miller requested an update on Lime scooter parking zones.
Meeting Transcript
Recording in progress. We're going to get started. If you could please rise as you're able for the Pledge of Allegiance. And to the Republic for which it stands. One nation onvisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, and welcome everybody to our July 7th, 2025 City Council meeting. As you may notice, Councilmember Doring is joining us remotely this evening. Can you hear us, Councilmember? Can we hear you? I hope so. Yes, we can. Thank you. Unfortunately, uh Councilmember Doring recently suffered a serious bicycle accident and is currently undergoing physical rehab. On behalf of the council, we wish him a full recovery. Per a doctor's order, he is unable to attend in person. Thus, he is authorized to participate fully in discussions and votes. So we will recognize him. And also because of Councilmember Doring's remote attendance, we will conduct a roll call vote on all of our policy items this evening. So with that, we begin every meeting with our open comment period. This is an opportunity for anyone from the public to speak on items that we will not be taking a public testimony during a public hearing later in the agenda. Each person has up to two minutes to speak for a total of 20 minutes. And I will be keeping track of time through a variety of methods, including these stoplight here and the red time timer up uh above uh staff. Uh so please know that I may need to cut you off and because of the limited time, we want to make sure that others have an opportunity to speak. And I'd also request that each speaker be concise to allow more people to speak. And uh participant participants are also encouraged to limit comments generally to topics that are within the scope and jurisdiction of the council's ability to affect policy. Uh if you uh council members will not respond directly uh to public comment, uh but if you have items or material or need to uh be in touch with uh city teammates, please share with uh our city clerk's office to my right here. Uh with that, I will call on folks as they signed up, and we will start with uh Mr. Chris Armstrong or Ms. Chris Armstrong. Thank you. Um I started attending city council meetings to learn about how local decisions are made. Thank you for your civility and cooperation with each other, the high quality of your questions, and especially your sense of humor. Please uh applause. I learned we use community codesign. So cool. Thank you also for passing the sustainability plan. I like knowing I live in a city that thinks about the future. Thank you, City Council President Schubring, for your letter to the editor, recognizing there's a disconnect between the city and the people. Uh, and inviting us to coffee. I'm gonna take you up on that. Okay. Uh the rest of my comments are about the disconnect with the regional sports complex. The site, thumbs up, you did the best you could. My questions, assuming that the city has already decided that being in the business of tournaments as a municipal service it wants to deliver, what kind of oversight will there be for the management company to make sure this is not a drain on limited city resources? Question two. Assuming that every dollar the complex brings in will change hands in town seven times, like the PB reported. How is this different from trickle-down economics, which we already know from history doesn't work? Three, how does the current proposal align with what we residents identified in the Rochester Vision 2050 survey as our top 12 goals? Four, as has been noted, the current proposal is very different from how it was marketed to the voters. And the community working group appears to be made up of people who are already thinking well within the proposal.
openpublica.com