Appointments & Briefings Committee — July 21, 2026

Okay, colleagues and guests, welcome to the Committee on Appointments and Briefings.

It is July 21st, 2026.

This meeting's at 7:00.

Here in Room 214 at City Hall Chambers.

In the, in the, uh, my colleagues in government that are present: Councilor Abril, Councilor-at-Large, Councilor Ward 2 Scott Pemberton, Councilor Ward 1 Leo Choquette, Councilor Ward 5 Joseph Lopes, Councilor Ward 6 Ryan Pereira, Councilor-at-Large James Roy, Councilor Ward 3 Sean Oliver, and Councilor Ward 4 Derek Baptiste.

Thank you all for coming.

Note, this meeting is being live streamed and recorded.

City Council and committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Bedford's homepage under Quick Links, then Meetings.

Thank you all for coming.

Do we have anything to read in the record?

I have one letter to read into the record from Councilor President— excuse me, I'm sorry, Councilor Shane Burgo, First Vice President.

Sorry, Mr. President, sorry about that.

Hey, I'll, I'll be leaving now.

Um, I am writing to inform you that, uh, regretfully I will be late to the Committee on Appointments and Briefings meeting on Tuesday, July 21st, 2026, due to attending a neighborhood community meeting.

Please read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and the public Aware of the reason for my absence.

Sincerely, Shane Burgo, First Vice President of the New Bedford City Council.

Motion to receive and place on file.

Motion made by Sean Oliver, seconded by Ryan Pereira.

All in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Number 1 is now before us.

Item number 1 is citizens input time.

And I've got a text from Mr. Lamontagne today who said that he will not be coming this evening.

So we're on to, on to number 2.

You can table or refer.

No further action.

If I get a motion— motion made for no further action, made by Councilor Baptiste, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

All in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 2 is a public hearing on a communication, demolition, New Bedford Historical Commission to the City Council, read, building demolition review of 535 Brock Avenue, Map 11, Lot 56, a circa 1840-1854 carriage barn later converted to a 2-story residence.

The Coffin Howland is a contributing resource to the Hazelwood Park National Register.

The building is significant in its association with the Joseph Howland estate, which later became Hazelwood Park.

The building experienced a significant fire decades ago and was boarded up and fenced off to deter ongoing vandalism and long-term deferred maintenance.

In addition to the fire damage and the collapsed roof, it does not make the building a good candidate for restoration.

The demolition of the Coffin-Holland House removes a dangerous safety hazard from a public park, and the planning for the reconstruction of a similarly scaled and architecturally sensitive building on the footprint of the house has been ongoing.

In light of these findings, the New Bedford Historical Commission has determined that the building at 535 Brock Avenue, known as the Coffin Howland House, is historically significant but not preferably preserved building.

It was referred to the council on June 11, 2026.

It was advertised in the Standard Times on Thursday, June 7, 2026, and the public hearing is now before you to be opened.

Motion to open the public hearing.

Motion's been made to receive and place on file the communication and open the public hearing, made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Roy.

All in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

The public hearing is now open.

And you're on.

Good evening, Madam Chair, honorable councillors.

Um, you should have a copy of the Historical Commission staff report which lays out the condition of the property, the subject property, as well as the charac— the characterization of finding it historically significant but not preferably preserved, which is part of our ordinance.

Um, that portion of the ordinance does call for a public hearing, which is why we're here today to discuss the property, and I am here to answer any questions that you may have.

Yes, motion receiving place on file made by Councilor Lopes, second by Councilor Pereira.

All in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Councillor April.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good evening, Anne.

Thanks for, uh, coming in.

Just a couple of questions.

Um, before recommending the demolition— and someone who's been a lifelong Southender, obviously this, this property, this house is near and dear to me, and I'm sure many others in this room— um, before recommending the demolition, uh, were there any type of, um, restoration or, uh, maybe stabilization alternatives evaluated in this process?

Yes.

So let me give you some background, some context.

I have been the preservation planner for 20 years.

And one of the first things that we did when I came in under the last administration was to nominate the park to be a National Register site so that we could then be eligible for funding, for grant funding.

We're a city with limited financial resources to restore buildings of this magnitude.

I can tell you 20 years ago this building was in very poor shape at the time.

It is continuously deteriorated.

I would say even 20 years ago, with, with very little grant funding that we had, we would not have been able to restore the building.

We would probably have to rebuild it even 20 years ago.

It was in that, that poor of shape.

I can tell you, again, because of limited resources and limited grant funding available, we have allocated those resources towards what is referred to as the stone house because that property structurally was in very good shape and it is buttoned— what we would call buttoned up right now.

Okay.

Thank you for that detailed response.

The report that I've read and you alluded to, it does mention to reconstruct a similarly scaled or architecturally sensitive replacement building, if you will.

Can you just describe again at 30,000 feet kind of what that reconstruction would look like, given the fact that it is a sensitive topic for a lot of South Enders and folks who live on the peninsula who grew up, you know, admiring this structure and being in and around it?

So just wondering what the conversations have been surrounding that issue.

Yeah.

So when we say we have plans, they're very general plans.

Schematic in scale.

You know, we're looking at— we do not want to recreate the building.

Typically in historic preservation, that's not something that's generally looked at favorably.

It's kind of— we call it Disneyland.

So again, any type of building that would be replaced would obviously be of similar scale because you don't— you want to fit the context of what was there and what currently exists in the park and not have anything overpowering.

But it would generally, again, fit the same footprint, mass, scale, size, architectural stylistics of the historic building, but not an exact replica.

Okay.

As this process kind of evolves, I'd recommend maybe— maybe you already have, but I don't think so— maybe consulting or engaging the neighborhood residents through the— not the Clark's Point Neighborhood Association anymore, it's the Peninsula Neighborhood Association now.

Not to have them at the table as far as construction and design, but maybe just to solicit some feedback and see what their thoughts are from the neighborhood and the community down there who has to live and look at it every day and walk by it and congregate.

Is that something that you'd be willing to do with your team?

I do want to state that I am not the lead on this project.

I am obviously here in the role of representing the Historical Commission.

This is a park property, so the Parks Department and Department of Facilities and Fleet Management are the leads on, on the project.

No, I understand, but respectfully, you're the representative here, so you're the only one I can ask.

So you understand, I will pass that on.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

And now I can follow up with you as this problem— this not problem, but this process goes through.

Um, yeah, no, I think that's all I have.

Um, oh, um, the reconstruction plans, um, uh, they would return to the Historical Commission, correct?

Or to the City Council for additional review?

I'm sorry, the, the reconstruction plans, would they come back before this body or the Historical Commission?

No, that would— that's, that's not required.

I didn't think so.

Okay.

I've never dealt with this before, so— yeah, and I do want to state there is no identified funding for reconstruction.

There's only been preliminary schematic plans.

So, um, but the building, we're seeking demolition now because the funding for that does exist and it is a health and safety hazard.

No, I get it.

Okay, I get it's got to come down.

I'm not fighting for it to stay up.

It's eyesore.

It needs to come down.

I just, you know, we're big on history in the city, in particular on the peninsula and everywhere— the downtown, the North End, the West End.

But just let's all be cognizant and respectful and mindful of that.

I know you are in your role.

You've always been so.

So thank you for your time, Anne.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll yield at this time.

Thank you, Councilor Abreu.

Next we have Councilor Oliver.

Thank you, um, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here.

Although not in my ward, I grew up down in the South End.

I still have a lot of family down there.

So I spent a lot of summers in that park.

My questions are cost for the demo and what funding— what is the funding mechanism?

Again, I don't— I don't have that information readily available.

That's came from DFFM.

They're handling that.

So I know it's— I know obviously it's, it's available because that's why we're going forward, but I don't know the source or the, the full amount.

I know that the property requires certain abatement, so those costs are associated with it as well.

So it's not just the demolition, it's demolition and abatement.

Do you know if the city will be handling the demo, or are Is this something that we're looking to sub out?

I think they're exploring both at this point in time.

Okay.

And did anybody tell you— talk to you about a timeline if the demolition is granted?

I think it's relatively soon because I'm being badgered as to when this approval is going to take place.

So I think— okay.

Yes.

And then I know that it was said there was kind of primitive talks about some sort of structure there.

To kind of highlight what once was.

Do you know of any other conversations that were had, or of maybe even if it's just something, a, you know, some sort of plaque or something like that?

Because funding is difficult for larger-scale projects like this.

So you're saying not— instead of replacing it with some sort of structure, we don't have to.

Oh yeah, no.

That's absolutely correct.

So if, if, if the budget— there's no budget, obviously, to, to reconstruct a building on that site, then I think having some type of historical interpretation through, like, a wayside panel that you see often on sidewalks is something that the city could do.

And I think that's a great idea.

Yeah.

Okay.

Long and the short of it, the building is in absolute terrible condition.

A safety hazard, it's a fire hazard, it's all, all the hazards.

Sadly, it's got to come down.

Sadly, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Very hard for me to say that.

Yeah, thank you, uh, for, for all that.

Thank you, Mr.— Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Hi, Anna, how you doing?

Uh, just a little curious is why have we waited so long?

Why all this time and we decided to take it down?

Especially if it had such, uh, you know, historical value and stuff, why didn't we do anything in the beginning?

And, you know, why do we wait all those years?

So I, I want to be clear that we did, we, we did look into throughout the years— this is going back in, at least for me, 20 years— um, for, for the park and both buildings, not just the efforts into the stone building, but both buildings.

We did structural assessments of the building, of the cottage.

We actually tore down, I think about 2015, one section that was very, very badly damaged.

I think, to be honest with you, there was always the hope that we would find some source of funding to rehabilitate that building.

I think once we started working on the stone building, because the stone building we've also done, have completed planning for its reuse, that's in much better shape.

At the same time, we're looking at the cottage and realized very quickly that it was beyond repair.

So I think it was a lot of, as Councilor Abrams was saying, um, feeling and, and understanding that we really, um, take care or have a lot of care and feelings for our historic buildings.

And there was always a hope that we could restore it and just realized we couldn't.

Thank you.

I just, like I said, I was just curious of why we waited so long.

By now.

But thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor Pemberton.

Council President Pereira.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I'm sure you're gonna share many of the sentiments I have about this house, so I'm not gonna— I'll get off my soapbox pretty quickly.

But I— this is a tough vote for me to vote yes on this.

This is a very important piece of of pride for many folks who grew up on the peninsula or in the South End who frequented Hazelwood Park.

Many of our city residents who frequent Hazelwood Park and look at those beautiful homes, and it's a very, very large point of pride for a lot of us who live down there.

In a little bit, when the pub— as the public hearing continues, I'm going to submit testimony that the council received via email from Mr. Mirage that lives on Valentine Street.

And, um, what, what I will state is I share a lot of his anger and frustration.

Um, I believe it was less than a year ago there was discussions that I was included in with the administration to still save this building, trying to get grants, because it is going to be— it would be a costly, uh, process to save the building.

Abatements still need to occur, obviously, with health issues and hazards, and then obviously extensive repair.

But walking through the park just last Saturday, uh, Saturday, um, the, the building is just in deplorable condition.

It, it's, it's disgraceful.

I know you probably agree, um, and, and it's sad to see such a beautiful building have to come down.

But when you do these reports on behalf of the Historical Commission, when you, when you give them recommendations, when you put these forward, as you do for many buildings in the city, you— how much does condition go into the thought process of making your recommendation?

Oh, it weighs heavily.

For example, I will be clear, If, if this demolition was denied today and you folks came up with a pot of money to restore it, guess what?

We're, we're knocking it down to restore it.

There's no way around it.

The assessment that we've done just for abatement purposes demonstrates that we would have to knock all— the roof has collapsed into itself.

Itself.

You can't, you can't even enter into the building.

But between the existing windows and the, the materials that are hazardous, hazardous, that we would have to knock the building down and rebuild it.

Yeah, I'm gonna— that's, that's the honest answer at this point in time.

Yeah, I, I— the, the— especially on the west side, I think is the worst side, right?

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, the whole building, but the west side I think side the roof collapsed in on.

It's, it's tough.

It's tough because it's such a beautiful— yeah, part of that park.

And, and, um, but at this point, to y'all, to your point, um, I, I'm in agreeance that at this point there is no way to salvage that building.

And it's, it's a shame it got this far.

Um, but, uh, thank you.

I appreciate your, uh, answering my question.

Just, uh, one last request.

Could you— I, I know you're not handling it, but Uh, to, to the councilor from Ward 3's question.

Could you inquire with the various parties and provide at some point the costs associated with this?

I will coordinate that with them first thing tomorrow.

Provide it with the clerk's office and absolutely— okay, thanks, Anne.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Pereira, did you— were you going to read that receiving place on file?

I was gonna— yeah, that's fine.

I was just gonna— I can have the clerk do it.

Yeah, that's Okay, I was just gonna wait till if any of my colleagues had any other questions and then allow that.

Okay, Councilor Abram.

Just on my second, if that's okay.

Just based on what we heard my colleague, my fellow South End colleague say, he's correct.

And I just want to drive home again, please, please, can you pass the message along?

The South End residents have to be involved in this process.

I'm not saying that they're the ones to make the final arbiters of what we do and how we do it, But they have to be heard.

That's all.

Yeah.

And he's dead on.

And we live down there.

We know these people.

They're amongst— we go to these meetings.

You know how it is.

I go to those meetings.

I haven't seen you in a while.

I have not been in a while.

But, well, there's a new group.

I enjoy the South End meetings.

Yeah, well, there's a new group now.

They're great.

So Judy Christopher will get you on her list.

Invite me.

I'll tell her to reach out to you.

Thanks, Anne.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Abreu.

Councilor Lopes.

So, and thank you.

Me and you have spent countless summer days there, and I remember sharing the story when I was in middle school, junior high, I went to school with the last park caretaker's daughter.

I went to a party in that house.

So, and we said this on a, on an August Sunday, this was at the time 30 years of every mayor's neglect.

And if we had historical— the, the money that we have today 30 years ago, something like this potentially could have been saved.

Because I remember we looked at how do we replicate the, the boarding on the outside in case we are able to get the money.

And then it was there's lead paint, there's this, there's that.

And then we looked at— and I think it was 2013 we took off the nonhistorical component and we got money from Pat Sullivan.

And, and in 2015, we had applied for a park grant that was denied.

So your office, I will tell you, previously when I was the Ward 6 councilor, you worked tirelessly to put every possibility to save that building.

And I, I just want to commend you for the work that you did during my tenure to try to save that building because you knew that there was nothing else in the area that could replicate the history that that building had.

But, you know, neglect from every administration prior let it, let it get to where it is today.

But I just want to thank you for all that you did for all the years before to try to get every dime possible to, to save it before it got to the condition where the roof imploded.

So thank you, Laura.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Lopes.

Does anybody else have any more questions for Miss Laurel?

Okay, I would— Comish, I know you're here.

Would you like to give us a little insight on your evaluation of this?

Do you have a little background you want to give to us on the building?

Well, everything that Anne said to you is right on.

I've been here as long as she has.

Used to house, I believe his name was Mr. Lowney.

Yeah, and, um, it's a great building, but unfortunately, should have, would have, could have, but it hasn't been done.

And it, it's at a state of disrepair now that it's a safety hazard for anybody that gets there, and, and we don't want anybody getting hurt.

So it just has to come down.

It's a shame, but, um, well, we tried our best to get it back to what it was at one time.

We used to say it was like the House of Seven Gables.

But it, uh, it didn't, didn't work out for the city, unfortunately.

Yeah.

Okay, Ian.

Thank you, Naomi.

Oh, Councilor Abrams, I'm sorry, teasing you.

It's a committee.

Anyway, thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, you're welcome, Councilor.

Thank you, Madam.

Danny, I know that you had mentioned to me, not on the record, but over here, that there were several times you had to board the place up.

And obviously it's in very disrepair.

I know you're not in law enforcement, but have there been any homeless issues there where folks have snuck in and maybe made a fire or were living, congregating?

And that's obviously a hazard, and it's dangerous for anyone who could be trying to sneak in there, but maybe to get away from the rain, the snow, the cold.

Has there been any problems as it relates to that issue?

Well, at one time we did board it up, um, because somebody did break in.

We were afraid that they were going to torch it.

So that was many, many moons ago.

Um, but the past few years there hasn't been any complaints from the neighborhood.

The, the neighbors watch it diligently.

So if somebody was inside there, we would know the next morning or that night.

Okay.

That was all I wanted to be clear because I, I can't speak to anyone else, but I haven't heard of anything.

But I didn't know if you, you know.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

That's it.

Thank you, Councilor Abreu.

Anybody else have any, um, questions for the commissioner?

Thank you, Commissioner, for your input.

Everybody have a good night.

Okay, this is a public hearing.

Um, Madam Chair, I'd like to— I'd like to receive and place on file the testimony received from, uh, Gary Mirage on Valentine Street.

Okay, made it— made by Councilor Perez, second by Councilor Lopes.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Would you like to read it?

Could the clerk read it if that's okay?

Yes.

Thank you.

No, this is an email from, uh, G— Gary Moraes.

For many decades, it seems the Coffin-Holland House has been the victim of short-term planning by some and long-term planned obsolescence by others.

That is how it appears given the constant lack of executing building stabilization in the face of continued decay and neglect.

Unfortunately, this is not the only city historic site that has fallen by the wayside.

It seems there has often been an unrealistic presentation of narrow choices to save meaningful sites.

When the need presents itself, stabilization first, then alternative recovery use makes more sense than simple abandonment to decay.

Once the site, due to systematic neglect, becomes unsavable, given cost issues, the innovative city reuse is much more beneficial.

Official project.

To be sure, we need not to be in the situation we are today, but we are here nevertheless.

Going forward, a new life for the site to bring essential stable restrooms and a visitor center is a meaningful and a badly needed improvement to Hazelwood Park, whose park guests frequently now use trees for their restroom relief.

Hopefully a new building will be simple and evoke the style of the original building without the need for insisted historical minutiae used many times to just to prolong the decay of the building until the only choice was to tear it down.

So tear it down, but rebuild a simple restroom building in a simple cottage style in its place.

You can look to Bristol, Rhode Island for an example.

Of purposeful building reuse.

Their Waterside Park restrooms made from an old utility building can serve as an inspiration for Hazelwood Park.

What appears as purposeful City Park Department neglect and the absurd, unrealistic, and unnecessary binary choice that discredits an Historic Commission excuse, cover story used for these past several years has been infuriating.

Gary Amorez, Valentine Street, New Bedford, Mass.

Thank you.

Okay, this is a public hearing and we allow the people in the audience to speak, so I'm looking if anybody's willing to speak in favor.

Good evening, Mr. McCoy.

Would you give your name and address for the record?

My name is John McCoy.

I live on Lucas Street, and I've been there for 25 years.

And I've been to at least 4 public meetings about that house.

Of the historic part of it, that's the least historic.

It was a barn.

When some family member died, I built— the Conklin who owned the stone mansion or stone house built it up for his, I think it was his sister-in-law.

But it went from a barn to a domicile.

And then later it was used for the park superintendent.

The Stone House is the historic one.

That one, the president or head of the Mechanics Bank building in New Bedford in the 1840s was the bank that was making all the loans to the whaling industry, and he was the head of it.

That's the historic part, and it's architecturally so much better.

Just east of the barn is where the gazebo is located.

From the gazebo without the barn there, you have this fantastic view of Clark's Cove.

I mean, really beautiful.

There's a lot of things that go on at that gazebo, including weddings.

I think it would be a travesty to build another building in that spot.

You'd spoil the view.

There's lots of room in the park if you have to build another building, but please don't spoil the view.

I think you could build up the gazebo in some way and maybe get some income for the city.

I don't know.

But certainly it would be an attraction.

It is now, but it would be a better one.

I mean, the view is unbelievable.

So please don't put anything else on that spot.

Don't waste a dime on that.

We voted many years ago, citizens.

I'm the only citizen here apparently that showed up.

So I think most people in the South End have lost interest in that building.

I for one totally concur that it should be knocked down, and that's all I have to say.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Anybody else would like to speak in favor?

Speak in favor.

Be recorded in favor.

Be recorded in favor.

Speak in opposition.

Anybody want to speak in opposition?

Be recorded in opposition.

At this point, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Motion made by Councilor April to close the public hearing, seconded by Councilor Roy.

All in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Your pleasure.

Demolition.

Excuse me, motion to approve the demolition.

Motion been made to approve the demolition by Councilor Roy, seconded by Councilor Loy— Lopes, and refer to the full city council.

And refer the— refer to the full city council.

Thank you.

All in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Number 2 is now before us.

I mean, number 3.

Number 3 is a public— excuse me, a communication, Mayor Mitchell, to the City Council submitting the appointment of Justin Olson, New Bedford, Mass., to the Water Board.

Mr. Olson will be replacing the late Patrick E. Rogers, who resigned in January 2025.

This term will expire in April 2027.

It was referred here on May 28th, 2026.

Um, it was read and tabled on June 23rd, 2026, and is now before you, and it remains on the table.

Second motion made by Councilor Lope, second by Councilor Roy.

All in favor say aye for moving from the table.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr. Olson, welcome.

Good evening.

State your name and address for the record.

Yep, Justin Olson, 27 Plant Street, New Bedford, Mass.

Okay, do you want to give us a little background why you would like to be on the Water Board?

Sure, not a problem.

Um, so as most of you know, I've spent almost 10 years with the Public Works DPI.

I worked out of that facility for most of that time and side by side with the Water Department, so I've gained a lot of knowledge working shoulder to shoulder.

My expertise was park maintenance, forestry, cemetery, and actually maintenance of the watershed areas around Quiddicus and Lakeville.

So I spent a lot of time at pump stations, the water tower on Hathaway Road, the plant itself.

I've worked with the superintendent, assistant superintendent, and the commissioner many times on projects.

So I recognized the opportunity to join the board.

So I put in my— I put my hat in the ring for it, if you will.

So anybody have any questions?

Councilor Lopes.

More of a statement, Justin.

I worked at you before, so I know how, how much you care about the city, how much you care about the water quality for the city.

And I know as somebody that pays taxes and water bill that you're going to be mindful of all of that when you're serving on the water board.

So I just want to thank you for stepping up, and I know that what you did before, you'll bring to to the, the Water Board in that same capacity and determination.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Lopes.

Anybody else?

Councilor Abril.

Just a statement.

You're a total class act.

You're always there for me and the council and, and us for years.

You're a true professional, and this is probably one of the easiest votes to a board or commission I've ever had.

So you'll have my support tonight.

You belong on that board.

Congratulations and best of luck.

Thanks, Justin.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Abril.

Anybody else?

Councillor Choquette.

What he said.

Thank you.

Ditto.

Yeah, ditto, ditto, ditto.

Okay, your pleasure, councillors.

Motion made by Councillor Lopes, seconded by Councillor Abel, for a positive recommendation to the full city council.

All in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

So our next council meeting is on on August 20th.

So you can either come on August 20th and get sworn in, or you can wait and get sworn in by the clerk.

Okay, it's up to you.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, I'll try to make that meeting.

And thank, thank you so much.

Have a great night.

Thank you, everyone.

All righty.

Number 4 is a written motion.

Councilors Lopes, Combs, Abu, Connie, Choquette, Pemberton, and Pereira requesting that representatives from Republic Waste Services, E.L. Harvey, and Waste Management attend a meeting of the New Bedford City Council's Committee on Appointments and Briefings to discuss their ongoing violations of the City of New Bedford ordinance governing waste collection and disposal operations within the city, was referred here on May 28, 2026.

Number 4 is now before you.

Motion made to receive and place on file, made by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Sockett.

All in favor say aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Councilor Lopes, um, did we receive any communication?

Now, I've, I've spoken to Republic Waste at length since this was filed, did we receive any communications from E.L. Harvey?

No, nothing.

So I will tell you, and I want to thank, you know, Commissioner Romanowicz, we have worked tirelessly with Republic Waste Services, um, until we actually filed this motion and the commissioner was actually citing them for picking up dumpsters at 4:45 in the morning, 5 o'clock in the morning, and 5:15.

There was no action.

I spoke to the resident— sorry, I spoke to the representative from Republic Waste.

She gave me her personal cell phone number.

The problem is, and they're going to fix it, is they actually go into the industrial park at 3 o'clock in the morning and start picking up dumpsters.

And when they leave the industrial park, they thought it was okay to go into the residential neighborhoods.

And pick up dumpsters.

And I explained to the lady that we had a city ordinance that said you can't pick up a dumpster in a residential neighborhood until 7:00 a.m. And she said, we had no knowledge of that.

I said, that's a farce because I've spoken to your regional representative.

I know the building commissioner has spoken to him.

I know Solicitor Eric Jakes did.

It wasn't until they started getting whatever the amount of the fine is that the commissioner's office was sending to their corporate office that they realized between the motion and that they needed to actually call the ward councilor that has had the most complaints in the area.

The driver basically said, what do you want me to do for 45 minutes while I'm doing other— picking up dumps?

And I said, well, if you get to the house before 7 o'clock in the morning, we're going to continue to fine you.

The lady has spoken to the driver.

This was over a week ago.

We had our first Monday, Danny.

We had nothing.

We had nothing.

This was the first Monday because it was picked up on Monday mornings between 5:45 and 6:15 in the morning.

This is the first Monday that we've had no issues.

I would like to leave this item on the table in case the occurrence happens again.

We've worked with the facility that has the dumpster.

Part of the problem was there was cars parking that made it difficult for the driver to get there when employees were there.

So at least with Republic Waste is they have worked with the company that owns the property to make sure that on Monday mornings there will be a clear path to the dumpster to allow for the pickup.

I now have the regional representative's number as well as the lady that handles the local area, the drivers.

So first Monday, we've had no issues, but I would like to leave the item tabled.

Yes, um, if nobody minds from the chair, I would like to see this stay on the table too because Waste Management is notorious for this.

And still is.

Commissioners find them numerous times.

I don't know how many times they call them, takes pictures when I go to work in the morning and leave the house at 6:30 and they're there.

Neighbors complaining all the time and they're still continuing to do so.

So, um, yes, let's leave it on the table, but I would like to at some point get these representatives in here and talk to them directly so that way they know that we're not going to tolerate this anymore because it is disturbing the neighborhoods.

Okay.

So can I get a motion to table?

Motion to table made by Councilor Roy, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

All in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Seeing no further business before us, motion to adjourn made by Councilor Roy, seconded by Councilor Pemberton.

All in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you for being— we are adjourned at 7:40 PM.