ROCHESTER

A proposed dome isn’t likely to be added to Rochester’s emerging sports and recreational complex in the near future.

“I don’t feel the urgency to do it right now,” Rochester City Council member Nick Miller said of the proposal to add a 200,000- to 250,000-square-foot facility at the new complex.

His fellow council members voiced similar opinions, following months of discussion regarding a community desire for more indoor recreational opportunities after the plan for the initial phase of the new sports and recreation complex was scaled back.

The eventual budget for the proposed indoor-outdoor facility failed to stay within the $65 million budget provided by a 2023 voter-approved sales-tax extension, which prompted the council to take a phased approach and start with outdoor ballfields and other amenities.

The new dome was proposed after Rochester Community and Technical College opted to discontinue annual use of its stadium dome, which has provided space for community recreation during the winter.

While seen as an option to fill a need, council member Norman Wahl said it’s too early to expand plans at the new sports complex site.

“When we had the disappointment of the $65 million not going as far as we had been led to believe it could, I was of the opinion at that point – and maybe I’m coming back to that opinion – that we be as responsible as we can with the $65 million, and we show the community how this can work for the community,” he said.

At that point, he said adding an indoor component could find added community support needed to justify the cost..

While Deputy City Administrator Aaron Parrish said the potential use of property taxes and lodging taxes aren’t recommended for the proposed $55 million dome project, he did point to the potential for continuing sales tax collection beyond the $205 million in projects approved in 2023.

He said city staff wasn’t aware of the flexibility in state statute when the initial sales-tax extension was sought, but continued study into options for meeting community calls for added indoor recreational space led to the discovery that cities with populations of more than 100,000 could continue the tax for recreational facilities after the initial goal is met.

The current tax is authorized for 24 years, but Parrish said projections point to the $241.5 million needed for authorized projects and related interest payments to be generated in the next 12 to 13 years.

It could leave the potential to collect another $153 million for projects meeting requirements in state statute, which include recreational facilities and civic centers.

With more than a decade until the sales tax for current projects is likely to be collected, council members voiced a desire to wait before starting another big project.

“I would say we’re kind of in a place where we’re seeing sports-complex fatigue,” City Council President Randy Schubring said. “I feel it from the community, and I think I’m picking up on what all of my colleagues have said.”

Parrish said a pause is possible under current conditions, but he pointed out the state flexibility related to the sales tax could change.

“Legislation changes all the time, and people may change that,” he said, noting legislative changes between the city’s 2012 and 2023 led to some of the concerns raised with the recent effort.

While several local lawmakers sought to rescind legislative approval of the local sales tax to fund the new sports complex earlier this year, Mayor Kim Norton said she believes they would be willing to support future efforts with enough community support.

“The legislators are ready to go forward to make changes in the legislation to try to help us,” she said.

Norton and several council members highlighted the need for more community involvement before decisions on future steps are made.

Council member Patrick Keane said differing views of what an indoor complex would bring continue to be heard among residents.

“I still think we’re not talking about the same things,” he said, noting some people envision the proposed indoor facility as a recreation-based community center and others see it focused on tournament sports with community access during the week.

The community disconnect was also highlighted by council member Dan Doering, who has voiced opposition to moving forward with the outdoor-focused sports complex, due to community members’ calls for a facility that puts community use before tournaments.

While a domed facility could meet some expectations for indoor space, he said more community input is needed.

“I’d be willing to wait for a while to make sure that those community conversations could happen in a very robust way,” he said.

Voicing support for the economic benefit expected from the outdoor facility slated to open next year, council member Andy Friederich also supported the wait-and-see approach for expanding work on the site.

“I’m very comfortable with walking down the hill slow and taking a big breath,” he said.