Rochester City Council Recap — July 21, 2026

Public hearing: Wakefield Street zoning correction

00:40:20–00:57:35

Planning and Development Director Seth Creightonpresented an amendment changing three properties from Residential-2 to Downtown Commercial:

• 90 Wakefield Street
• 94½ Wakefield Street
• 96 Wakefield Street

The Planning Department believes the properties were inadvertently left out of the Downtown Commercial District when Rochester completed its major rezoning and redrew its zoning map in 2014.

The packet offers several pieces of evidence:

• The tax card for 90 Wakefield Street already described the property as Downtown Commercial.
• The city had previously treated that property as commercially zoned in earlier applications.
• Two of the properties lie within the Historic District Overlay but were the only properties in that area not also classified as Downtown Commercial.
• All three properties were included in the urbanized area exempted from state Shoreland Protection requirements.
• The Planning Board reviewed and supported the correction.

Creighton explained that the Shoreland exemption and the zoning district are separate matters. The three properties were already in the exemption area; the proposal only corrected their local zoning classification.

Downtown Commercial zoning generally allows owners more uses by right and reduces the need to seek variances or other relief. Creighton described the current R-2 classification as more restrictive and said the correction would make the properties more conforming.

Property owner withdraws opposition

00:52:00

Marilyn Johnson Foster, who lives at 94½ Wakefield Street and owns two of the affected parcels through a trust, said she had initially opposed the change. Following discussions with city staff, she changed her position:

“I was opposed to this, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives.”

She added:

“I would like to withdraw my objection.”

CAPSC project and federal funding urgency

00:53:05

Councilors asked whether Community Action Partnership of Strafford County, which owns the Gaffney Home property at 90 Wakefield Street, had supported the change.

The mayor and planning staff said CAPSC supported it and had some urgency because federal funding was tied to a project timeline. Creighton said the zoning correction would help CAPSC move forward with its future plans without first seeking relief from the Zoning Board.

This prompted a useful transparency question: Was the city truly correcting an old mapping mistake, or was it rezoning the property specifically because CAPSC needed it?

Staff answered that CAPSC’s project prompted the closer review, but the review uncovered a long-running conflict between the city’s zoning map, tax records, and historical treatment of the property. In other words, CAPSC’s application exposed the apparent error; staff maintained that it did not create the underlying justification.

Assessment implications

00:55:44

A councilor asked whether moving the privately owned properties into a commercial zone could increase their assessments.

Chief Assessor Marybeth Walker said that, as the properties currently exist, the change would not alter their assessed values. They are already assessed within a multi-unit residential land neighborhood, and their current physical use would remain unchanged.

The public hearing closed without further opposition.

City Council workshop and public input

Mayor Chuck Grassie opened the workshop by recognizing Councilor John Larochelle’s 79th birthday.

Financial requests and “blank checks”

00:58:03–01:03:37

Ward 4 resident Carol Petrusewicz argued that some recent Council approvals had effectively amounted to “blank checks.” Her surname is badly rendered in the auto-transcript, but official city minutes from another 2026 meeting identify her as Carol Petrusewicz.

She asked that every future financial request include two perspectives:

1. The department, organization, or person requesting the money.
2. The taxpayer responsible for funding it.

She cited several examples:

• A water and sewer rate consultant whose final cost was not clearly known during earlier discussions.
• Work involving Route 11 where the eventual charge from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation was uncertain.
• Municipal labor contracts, where she questioned who specifically represents taxpayers during negotiations.

Her most pointed question was:

“Who represents the taxpayers in that negotiation?”

She suggested including a councilor, local business representatives, and non-city-employee taxpayers in labor negotiations. She also recommended clearer infographics for RSA 79-E tax-relief requests, showing projected tax revenue, permit revenue, costs, and foregone revenue over the full relief period.

She asked the Council to test a new presentation format beginning in August and potentially consider embedding financial-disclosure requirements in the City Charter.

No action was taken during the meeting.

Heated permit dispute over 3 Flag Road

01:04:00–01:18:54

Resident and property owner Rick Perreaultdelivered one of the evening’s most emotional and contentious comments.

Perreault owns highway-commercial property around 3 Flag Road and Route 125. He said he wants to build a roughly 24-by-40-foot structure to store his personal boats and equipment.

He explained that:

• The property has numerous permitted commercial uses.
• Existing structures and uses on the property are apparently nonconforming.
• A building intended primarily for personal storage is not automatically allowed in the Highway Commercial District.
• He was told that pursuing the building as a commercial structure would trigger site-plan, parking, drainage, landscaping, lighting, snow-storage, and engineering requirements.
• He had already spent approximately $12,000 before the process stalled.

Perreault repeatedly emphasized that he was not proposing a business expansion or an unattractive structure. He described the planned building as modest, visually compatible, and intended only to protect personal property.

“I’m coming here begging for help.”

He alleged that a planning employee had effectively told him he was “S.O.L.” He also said:

“Why am I here? Because there’s nobody helping me get that done.”

The comment escalated when he said he had the financial resources to pursue litigation:

“If that means to sue, I will sue.”

Perreault argued that the city’s rules create a perverse incentive. If he must pay for a full commercial development review, he said he would be inclined to build the largest income-producing project allowed rather than the smaller storage building he originally wanted.

Councilors asked about the property’s zoning, the size of the building, and why personal storage was a problem in a commercial district. However, the Council did not reach a legal conclusion or direct staff to approve the permit.

This was a public description of an unresolved permitting dispute, not a formal appeal hearing. The Council received Perreault’s complaint but took no vote.

Academy Street sidewalks, trash carts, and bulky waste

01:19:40–01:29:30

Professional engineer and Rochester developer Christian Kozlowski raised concerns about recurring sidewalk obstructions along Academy Street, the Woodman area, and nearby streets around Charles Street.

He said the city invested approximately $10 million in reconstructing that corridor, including utilities, roads, sidewalks, and streetscape improvements. His concern was not how the project was built, but how the completed public investment is being maintained.

Kozlowski described:

• Trash and recycling carts left across pedestrian routes for days.
• Mattresses, furniture, and bulky waste placed outside authorized collection periods.
• Sidewalk areas functioning as unofficial dumping or collection points.
• Residents using wheelchairs, walkers, or strollers being forced into the roadway.
• Repeated complaints that generate responses to individual incidents but do not solve the recurring pattern.

He said he had communicated with Public Works, code enforcement, building officials, the city manager, and a previous mayor over several years.

His central argument was that complaint-based enforcement had become reactive rather than preventative:

“The purpose of enforcement isn’t simply to respond to violations. It’s to prevent violations from becoming routine.”

His closing line drew a favorable reaction from councilors:

“A city isn’t judged by the sidewalks it builds; it’s judged by the sidewalks it keeps usable.”

Council response

Councilor Daniel Fitzpatrick called it a valid issue and asked that it be placed on the Council’s work list. He suggested staff may need to examine enforcement procedures or staffing.

Another councilor noted that staffing shortages have also delayed scheduled bulky-waste collection, sometimes leaving items out longer than expected. Even with that complication, councilors broadly agreed that the recurring problem deserves a new plan.

Councilor Kevin Sullivan asked Kozlowski which streets were involved and whether code enforcement had responded to his complaints. Kozlowski said he had received responses, but the recurring conditions continued.

Discussion also touched on the city’s apparent reliance on citizen complaints rather than proactive enforcement. The mayor said the issue predated his term, took notes, and promised to follow up.

No ordinance or enforcement change was adopted, but the Council showed clear consensus that the issue should return for further work.

Carole Court subdivision: assessments, safety, and unfinished infrastructure

Official Rochester records spell the speakers’ names Lesia and Kevin Willey and the street Carole Court, despite variations in the auto-transcript. Kevin Willey has also served as an alternate Planning Board member.

Lesia Willey: Are unfinished conditions reflected in assessments?

01:29:45–01:40:49

Lesia Willey, of 18 Carole Court, said assessors recently visited her property following a small roofing and fascia project. She felt the city was carefully examining her home for improvements that might increase its assessed value while failing to recognize the negative conditions surrounding the property.

She described the neighborhood as having remained an incomplete construction zone for approximately six or seven years, depending on when each family moved in.

Conditions she identified included:

• A dirt roadway.
• Incomplete drainage and infrastructure.
• Dust and construction noise.
• Limited or disrupted access.
• Sidewalk and curbing deficiencies.
• No reliable completion schedule.
• Safety limitations for children who cannot safely ride bicycles or scooters.

Her central question was:

“If a three-season room can increase the assessed value of a home, shouldn’t a dirt road, incomplete infrastructure, ongoing construction activity, drainage concerns or failures, dust, noise [and] limited access … reduce value?”

She argued that the city cannot simultaneously assess the homes as if they are in a completed residential neighborhood while telling residents they must accept ongoing problems because they live in a construction zone.

“We didn’t buy into a construction zone.”

And:

“Both positions cannot be true at the same time.”

Willey also said she had personally reviewed the approved construction plans and identified apparent sidewalk deficiencies in front of her home. She questioned why a resident without engineering credentials had to flag work that city officials and project professionals should have caught.

Her requests included:

• An explanation of whether neighborhood conditions affect assessments.
• A firm timeline for completion.
• Clear action to ensure the roadway and infrastructure are finished.
• Greater priority for existing residents.

“Residents should come first, not developers.”

The Council did not provide a detailed assessment-policy answer during her comment period.

Kevin Willey: “A project being active is not a legal standard”

01:41:34–02:02:43

Kevin Willey followed with a lengthy, document-based presentation.

He acknowledged that construction projects involve disruption, delays, and changes. His position was that what Carole Court residents have experienced goes far beyond ordinary inconvenience.

Willey referred to an engineering review and deficiency list covering issues such as:

• Roadway geometry.
• Catch basins.
• Pavement reconstruction.
• Drainage infrastructure.
• Sidewalk corrections.
• Signs and lighting.
• Erosion controls.
• Other incomplete subdivision work.

He said the corrective work had previously been characterized as requiring approximately two to four weeks and needing completion as soon as possible to protect residents. Yet months had passed.

Willey said the roadway was torn up in stages during May and June, sometimes with little or no notice to residents, and that meaningful work had again stalled.

He sharply rejected the idea that the project could be considered acceptable merely because it remained technically active:

“A project being active is not a legal standard. Compliance is.”

He distinguished between legally abandoning a development and abandoning the people already living there:

“Have they abandoned the residents? Absolutely. Have they abandoned their responsibilities? Absolutely.”

Willey said he was not asking the city to stop or punish the development:

“I’m asking for accountability. I don’t want the project stopped. I want this thing finished.”

His requested actions

Willey asked the city to:

1. Conduct a joint inspection and issue a written list of all remaining deficiencies.
2. Provide that report to residents.
3. Review the status and adequacy of performance bonds and other financial guarantees.
4. Require a detailed construction schedule with enforceable milestones.
5. Provide residents with written progress reports.
6. Use available permit, occupancy, and enforcement leverage.
7. Obtain a written legal opinion if officials believe the city lacks authority to act.
8. Explain what conditions would allow the city to draw upon the subdivision’s surety.

He estimated that less than $50,000 remained secured for the original nine-lot portion and argued that this would not be enough to reconstruct more than 400 feet of roadway if the city ultimately had to complete the work.

Council discussion

Councilors questioned Willey about communications with staff, stormwater facilities, the developer’s responsiveness, and the city’s available leverage.

He said staff had generally responded to emails, but residents had seen little resulting activity in the field. He also raised concerns about the condition and safety of the development’s detention area.

The mayor said state law and the city’s existing approvals may limit some immediate options, but he described the subdivision as an issue of personal interest and said it had moved:

“Back up to the top of the table.”

Councilors suggested that the Public Works and Buildings Committee should follow up on the project.

Important contradiction between the packet and testimony

The Engineering Division’s written June report says:

“Carole Court progressed infrastructure corrections. Engineering staff conducted several meetings with the Owner’s agent to ensure compliance with City standards during the correction activities.”

That official report contrasts sharply with the Willeys’ testimony that work has repeatedly stalled, the road remains unfinished, and residents lack a credible completion schedule. The report confirms that the city has been meeting with the owner’s representative, but it does not provide the Council or residents with measurable completion dates, outstanding deficiency counts, or enforcement milestones.

Communications from the City Manager

02:03:08–02:04:28

City Manager Katie Ambrose reported that the city had received one online public comment from Geraldine Fazio concerning the Senior Center. The substance of the submission was not read aloud, so the transcript does not provide enough information to summarize her specific request.

Ambrose also thanked everyone involved with the Lilac Family Fun Festival, including Recreation and Arena staff, police, fire, the library, the school district, volunteers, and councilors.

She noted that use of the new school field and track came down to the wire because of ongoing construction, but the school department worked with the city to make the traditional location available. She described the event and fireworks turnout as highly successful.

Communications from the Mayor

02:04:30–02:06:09

Mayor Grassie discussed:

• A National Night Out proclamation that he planned to present on August 4.
• Rochester Pride on August 1 in the downtown area.
• Municipal road-law and Class VI road training opportunities available through the New Hampshire Municipal Association and Road Scholar program.

He encouraged councilors to take advantage of free training and to speak with the city manager if paid municipal training would benefit their Council work.

National Night Out date discrepancy

The agenda identifies August 4, and the mayor also said August 4 during the meeting. The proclamation included in the packet, however, ends by calling for the event on August 8. The city’s official event announcement confirms that National Night Out is Tuesday, August 4, meaning the August 8 language in the proclamation appears to be a drafting error.

The city’s official announcement also confirms Rochester Pride is scheduled for August 1.

City Council goals for 2026–2027

02:06:16–02:12:54

The packet presented a Primex-facilitated goal-setting report developed from a February session involving councilors, the city manager, and department heads.

The document organized the Council’s ideas into four categories:

1. Internal Processes

• Revise parking codes.
• Consider kiosks, signage, parking-lot improvements, and pedestrian routes.
• Continue property inspection cycles and public education about assessing.
• Evaluate land-use codes.
• Promote industrial growth.

2. Budget and Finance

• Maintain services without major tax-rate spikes.
• Limit reliance on fund balance and borrowing.
• Increase paving funding over four years.
• Implement manageable water and sewer rate increases.

3. Employee Relations

• Implement NeoGov performance and learning modules.
• Improve employee coaching, evaluations, and communications.
• Develop additional opportunities for staff input.

4. Community Engagement and Support

• Make city actions and decisions easier for the public to understand.
• Create an index of city services, boards, volunteer opportunities, and resources.
• Develop a standard digital-document submission system.
• Use data to quantify Rochester’s unhoused population.
• Review housing-affordability and homelessness strategies used elsewhere.

Council rejects immediate adoption

Although the agenda bill recommended adoption, Mayor Grassie opened by saying the document would likely remain in Committee of the Whole while councilors refined it. He said portions had value but other parts did not and that the Council needed to “pick and choose.”

Several councilors initially had no comments or said they were still reviewing the material. Those who did speak were frequently critical.

Councilor Kevin Sullivan

Sullivan said some goals did not accurately capture what councilors had tried to communicate during the session. He called portions “shortsighted” and “very simplistic.”

He used the water fund as an example. The document says the goal is to stabilize water and sewer rates. Sullivan said the real issue is more substantial:

• Catching up on accumulated debt and deferred needs.
• Making the utility system financially self-supporting.
• Developing a more durable long-term objective than simply stabilizing rates.

Councilor Matthew Richardson

Richardson gave the bluntest brief assessment:

“Personally, I think it’s pretty vague and poorly written.”

Councilor Susan Rice

Rice said the document did not exactly match what she remembered from the goal-setting meeting and planned to review it more closely.

Deputy Mayor David Walker

Walker described the listed goals as little more than highlights:

“There’s no meat and potatoes that we discussed.”

He said breakout groups worked on individual goals, but the full Council never reconvened to examine every goal collectively. As a result, members were effectively operating in silos and were not necessarily aware of ideas developed by other groups.

“The whole process was kind of lacking.”

Councilor John Larochelle

Larochelle wanted more creativity and open-ended brainstorming. He proposed organizing future goals through a clearer hierarchy:

• High-level vision or philosophy.
• Strategy.
• Tactics.
• Specific action items.

Councilor Daniel Fitzpatrick

Fitzpatrick was more comfortable with the document and said he looked forward to implementing the goals. He supported sending individual sections to the appropriate standing committees.

Councilor Debby Thompson

Thompson said her position reflected a combination of the concerns raised by Walker and the more implementation-focused approach supported by Fitzpatrick.

Outcome

The Council did not adopt the goals.

Instead:

• Relevant sections will go to standing committees.
• Councilors who do not serve on a particular committee may still participate.
• The mayor will work with councilors and committee chairs.
• The Council will incorporate issues that have arisen during its first six months, not merely rely on the February workshop.
• The mayor said he hoped to bring a stronger package back within approximately 30 days.

This was a significant departure from the packet’s recommended action, which had called for immediate adoption.

June department reports

02:12:55–02:13:07

The mayor asked whether councilors had questions about any department report. No one did, and the Council moved on almost immediately.

The reports therefore received no public discussion, but the packet contains several notable updates.

Assessing

• Staff continued inspections of recently sold properties and work associated with permits issued between April 2025 and March 2026.
• The department continued reviewing properties enrolled in Current Use.
• The departure of a trained field employee was expected to slow cycle inspections.
• Gina Carbone moved from a part-time library role into an assessing position and began field training.

Building and Licensing

• June revenue: approximately $105,237.
• Fiscal-year-to-date revenue: approximately $870,649.
• Building permits generated the largest share of June revenue, followed by electrical permits.

City Clerk and elections

• The annual voter-verification process was underway for residents who had not voted in five or more years.
• Fifteen State Representative candidates and four Republican State Convention delegate candidates filed through the city.
• The office was preparing for the September 8 State Primary.
• The office reported 20,049 registered voters as of June 2.
• Staff received training on the accessible OmniBallot voting system.

Public Works and Engineering

Highlights included:

• Catch-basin cleaning, drainage maintenance, street markings, and repairs.
• Paving of deteriorated portions of Milton Road.
• Continued work on the Pickering Road bridge project.
• Engineering review of Route 11 safety work.
• Infrastructure work at Ridge Phase II.
• Carole Court correction meetings with the owner’s representative.
• A proposed Wakefield Street railroad-crossing replacement in early August involving intermittent full closures over approximately one day.
• Continued review of city street-acceptance procedures.

Water Distribution reported 159 work orders and replacement of two hydrants. The treatment report said all drinking-water quality requirements were met or exceeded.

Finance

The Finance Office reported:

• Completion of the FY27 budget process.
• Continued work with Raftelis on water and sewer rates.
• Building-permit revenue at approximately 132% of budget.
• Motor-vehicle registration revenue at approximately 109% of budget.
• General Fund expenses at approximately 100% of the annual budget at year-end.
• Overtime budget lines substantially over budget in several public-safety areas, including Police, Dispatch, and Fire.

Those overtime figures should be viewed alongside the significant staffing shortages described in the Police report.

Planning and Development

The department reported activity involving:

• Residential subdivisions.
• Condominium conversions.
• The Hemingway Drive housing proposal.
• AutoZone.
• The Granite Ridge development.
• Several ongoing commercial and residential applications.

The department explicitly said Rochester’s growth pressures leave it understaffed by at least two positions.

The report also noted Kevin Willey’s resignation from the Planning Board.

Recreation and Arena

• All four pools opened.
• Summer camp and swim lessons began.
• Accessible pool chair lifts were added.
• Access to Gonic Pool was affected by the Pickering Road closure.
• Programs recorded approximately 2,850 attendances.

Fire Department

• Firefighters contained an apartment fire at Wyndotte Falls.
• Rochester crews provided roughly 12 hours of mutual aid at a recycling-facility fire in Berwick.
• The department handled 306 calls in June and 1,665 year to date.
• The Central Fire Station renovation contract was awarded, with construction expected to begin July 20 and last approximately six months.
• Crews began using the city-owned property at 2 St. James Terrace for practical training.

Police Department

The most consequential report concerned staffing:

• The department had 41 of 65 authorized full-time officers, or approximately 66%.
• Three officers were on administrative or injury leave.
• Five were deployed with the military.
• Seven newer officers remained in training and were not yet independently patrolling.
• June patrol staffing was listed as 22 officers, compared with 31 the previous June.
• Three officers were hired and one resigned.
• Four additional candidates were in the process, but none were certified officers.
• Officers conducted 283 traffic stops.

The report’s year-over-year June call comparison requires caution: the 2026 data only covered June 1–24, while previous years represented the full month. It should not be interpreted as a clean full-month reduction.

Library

• Summer Reading registration reached 326 children, 111 teens, and 238 adults by June 30.
• Thirty programs drew 842 participants.
• A late-August cabling and security upgrade was expected to require at least one full-day closure.

Tax Collector

• First-half tax bills were mailed June 10 and due July 10.
• The office reported more than $11.7 million in online payments during FY26.
• Seven properties associated with unpaid 2023 taxes were taken by tax deed.
• Additional staffing hours approved in FY27 were expected to help during peak periods.

Welfare

• Direct assistance totaled approximately $23,883.
• Assistance involved 37 families and nine single-person households.
• The Community Outreach Facilitator continued working with unhoused residents, service organizations, and police.
• Weekly public outreach hours were being held at the library.

Special City Council meeting and final vote

02:13:26–02:14:03

The Council reconvened for the special meeting and took up the Wakefield Street zoning amendment for second reading and adoption.

A motion was made and seconded. There was no additional debate.

The Council approved the amendment by voice vote with no opposition.

The amendment became effective upon passage and moved 90, 94½, and 96 Wakefield Street into the Downtown Commercial District.

Although the agenda listed possible sessions involving legal consultation, collective bargaining, and personnel, the mayor announced that no non-public sessions would be held.

Action and follow-up tracker

Most contentious moments

The strongest criticism during the meeting centered on four subjects:

• Rick Perreault’s permitting experience, including his allegation that staff dismissed his options and his warning that he might sue.
• Carole Court, where residents accused the developer of abandoning its responsibilities and the city of failing to use available leverage.
• The Primex goal-setting document, which councilors called “vague,” “poorly written,” “simplistic,” and lacking “meat and potatoes.”
• Financial transparency, with Carol Petrusewicz describing some recent authorizations as “blank checks.”

The most concrete action taken all night remained the unanimous Wakefield Street zoning correction. The other major concerns were referred for follow-up rather than resolved at the meeting.