Rochester 91-A Records Show Internal City Emails Dismissed Public Concerns Over Growth, Capacity, and Public Safety

ROCHESTER, N.H. — Internal City of Rochester emails released through a New Hampshire Right-to-Know request are raising new questions about how city officials handled public concerns involving growth, development, police and fire staffing, EMS coverage, infrastructure, and taxpayer impact.

The records stem from a June 6, 2026 inquiry submitted by Rochester NH Scanner Alerts / Scanner Alerts Media Group through the City of Rochester’s official website contact system.

The inquiry asked city officials for information or a public-facing statement about how Rochester is preparing for the impact of continued residential and commercial growth on police, fire, EMS, dispatch, schools, roads, infrastructure, and municipal services.

Rather than simply answering the questions or directing the requester to a specific public report, internal emails show several city officials discussing the inquiry in dismissive terms.

According to the records, City Manager Katie Ambrose forwarded the June 6 inquiry internally to Matthew Wyatt and Michael Scala, writing, “Please see below. We can discuss next week.”

Matthew Wyatt later responded internally, “My initial thoughts — This is Facebook.” He added that his answer would be to encourage the requester “to watch and attend meetings and provide official public input” either in person or by email.

That comment has drawn scrutiny because the inquiry was not merely a Facebook comment. It was submitted through the City’s own official contact form and identified Rochester NH Scanner Alerts / Scanner Alerts Media Group as the sender.

Michael Scala, Rochester’s Director of Economic Development, responded in another internal email: “We can come up with a short response if needed.” Scala then wrote, “He’s just responding to the normal posts of the uninformed that assume development impacts all city services and we don’t have existing capacity in the system.”

That statement is now central to the concern.

Public records reviewed by Rochester NH Scanner Alerts show multiple signs of service-capacity strain, including police staffing shortages, dispatch overtime, reduced proactive policing due to staffing, EMS cost increases, rising fire call volume, reliance on mutual aid, infrastructure concerns, traffic concerns, and repeated resident questions about whether growth is being measured against the City’s ability to provide services.

The issue is not whether Rochester has planning processes. The City has repeatedly referenced the Master Plan, Planning Board, Technical Review Group, capital planning, land-use regulations, annual budgets, public meetings, department reports, and other mechanisms.

The concern is whether those processes provide one clear, current, public-facing analysis showing that Rochester’s approved and proposed growth can be absorbed without additional strain on police, fire, EMS, dispatch, roads, utilities, schools, infrastructure, or taxpayers.

In a later response to the inquiry, City Manager Katie Ambrose wrote that she did not have an official statement to provide, but said Rochester’s approach to infrastructure and growth is informed by “multiple mechanisms such as the Master Plan, land use regulations, capacity studies, best practices, capital planning, the annual budget, and associated processes.”

Ambrose also pointed to public meetings, the Rochester Post, City podcasts, department reports, City Council agenda packets, and the City’s Civics 101 class as ways residents can stay informed and participate.

However, critics say that is exactly the problem: information may exist across many different public records, meetings, reports, budgets, and agenda packets, but there does not appear to be one easily accessible explanation showing how growth is being measured against service capacity and taxpayer burden.

The internal emails also show that the identity and legitimacy of the requester became a point of discussion.

After responding to the inquiry, Ambrose forwarded her response to City Council and wrote, “There are limited circumstances where I would typically respond to an anonymous request, but I did provide information to help direct citizens to our official channels for information and public input.” She also wrote, “The requestor refused to identify themself individually.”

Rochester NH Scanner Alerts says the inquiry identified the organization and provided contact information. A follow-up response to the City also stated, “You are corresponding with Scanner Alerts Media Group LLC / Rochester NH Scanner Alerts.”

Councilor Timothy Fontneau also responded internally to Ambrose’s email, writing, “I would not personally respond to that request for the same reasons.” He added, “It did not come from an individual, so we have no idea if whoever is writing that is a Rochester resident, NH citizen, or even a live person for that matter.”

Fontneau then wrote, “I also firmly believe that this particular Facebook group is simply a bait page. Designed to lure in responses so that they and their followers can attack them.” He concluded, “You gave them more than I think they deserve!”

Those comments have intensified concerns that city officials were not only dismissive of Rochester NH Scanner Alerts, but also dismissive of residents who have raised concerns about growth, public safety, EMS, dispatch, roads, infrastructure, taxes, and service capacity.

The original June 6 inquiry stated that residents across the Scanner Alerts network, including Rochester NH Scanner Alerts’ large local audience, had expressed concerns about development and its potential impact on city services. The inquiry offered to publish the City’s response in full so residents could better understand how Rochester is preparing for future growth.

Following the release of the internal emails, Rochester NH Scanner Alerts submitted an additional RSA 91-A request seeking records involving Economic Development Director Michael Scala and any communications or records supporting the claim that Rochester has “existing capacity in the system.”

That request seeks emails, text messages, Microsoft Teams messages, chat messages, memoranda, notes, attachments, reports, presentations, screenshots, or other written/electronic communications involving Scala and topics such as development impacts, public safety capacity, police staffing, fire staffing, EMS coverage, dispatch capacity, infrastructure capacity, impact fees, developer contributions, TIF, 79-E tax incentives, municipal service demand, and taxpayer burden.

Separate requests for comment were also sent to Scala, Wyatt, and Fontneau asking them to clarify their internal statements.

Scala was asked what records, studies, reports, staffing reviews, infrastructure reviews, or development-impact analyses he relied on when referring to public concerns as “uninformed” and stating that Rochester has “existing capacity in the system.”

Wyatt was asked to clarify what he meant by “This is Facebook,” given that the inquiry was submitted through the City’s official website contact form and given that the City itself uses Facebook, online notices, podcasts, and other digital platforms to communicate with residents.

Fontneau was asked to explain why he referred to Rochester NH Scanner Alerts as a “bait page,” why he questioned whether the requester was a resident, New Hampshire citizen, or “even a live person,” and what he meant when he said the City Manager gave the requester “more than I think they deserve.”

As of publication, responses to those requests had not yet been received.

The broader issue remains unresolved.

If Rochester officials believe the City has sufficient capacity to absorb continued growth, residents are asking to see the records that support that conclusion.

If no such consolidated analysis exists, residents are asking why concerns about growth, staffing, EMS, dispatch, infrastructure, and taxpayer impact were dismissed internally before the City provided a clear public answer.

Rochester NH Scanner Alerts says additional Right-to-Know requests will be filed as necessary to better understand how city officials discuss resident concerns, growth impacts, public safety capacity, EMS coverage, dispatch workload, developer contributions, tax incentives, and taxpayer burden.

The question now is no longer only whether Rochester is planning for growth.

It is also whether residents who ask about that planning are being taken seriously.