Okay, good evening. I'm Richard Mancini, chairman of the historical commission for the city of Fall River. It is Tuesday, June the 16th, and we are meeting at one government center on the first floor in the hearing room. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any
person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unpersceived, by those present, and are
deemed acknowledged and permissible. Our recording clerk this evening is Felicia. She's sitting here on my left and the meeting is being televised and recorded by Alex Melo of the Four River Government TV.
Present this evening are Welcome aboard, Ken. We have a new commissioner on board this evening. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. >> So, Ken Shake Deck is our new commissioner. And we have our co-chair Jonathan Lemur and Commissioner Connie Lemur, uh, Connie Soul,
>> Commissioner Joyce Rodri, Connie Orin, and Commissioner Ryan Klene. And I'm the chair, and we have Felicia Parker here as our clerk. >> It's Carolyn. >> Did I miss Carolyn, too? >> No, you called me Connie. Oh, see that's
I'm telling you I'm it's been I should read, right? Yeah, Felicia, have all of the uh petitions been properly advertised and all interested parties been notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the historic commission for the city of Fall River? >> Yes.
>> Okay. I hereby declare Tuesday, June the 16th, the regularly scheduled meeting of the historical commission for the city of Fall River open for such business and resume before us. Okay, let us begin. We're set.
Okay, we have no uh open meeting law violations and we're going to go through the following agenda. We have a roll call. Ken, would you start? >> Ken Chhattiger. >> Jonathan Lima, present. >> Connie Sully, present. >> Joyce Rogers, present.
>> Caroline Alvin, present. >> Ryan Klein, present. >> Rick Mancini, present. Has everyone reviewed and looking for an motion to approve the minutes of the meeting? >> Oh, go ahead. >> I'll make a motion to approve uh June
16th minutes. >> Second. >> Okay. Take an vote. I'm sorry. >> Um can I just say that there there is um an issue with the May 19th minutes. Um Ashley was no longer on the board. >> Okay.
>> And she's listed as as being present. I will fix that error. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Other than that, are the minutes approved? >> Okay. Ryan, >> yes. >> Caroline, yes. >> Joyce, >> yes.
>> Connie, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Abstain. >> And Rick, yes. All right. Do we have any citizens input uh today? State your name, address, please.
Hello, Alexander Silva, 148 Purchase Street. I'm the president of the board of directors of the Preservation Society of Fall River, which is the nonprofit in the city. Uh, members of the Fall River Historical Commission. The Preservation Society of Fall River opposes the commission's decision to deem the
12-month demolition delay bylaw non-applicable for the circa 1915 Central Police Station at 158 Bedford Street. As you know, all city-owned historic buildings on the Fall River register of significant structures are required to adhere to the 12-month demolition delay bylaw. The purpose of
this bylaw is not merely procedural. It exists to provide the community, municipal officials, and other stakeholders with an opportunity to explore alternatives to demolition, possibly pursue stabilization efforts, identify redevelopment opportunities, and if demolition proves unavoidable,
develop a plan for the documentation and salvage of historically significant materials and architectural features. To date, the evidence presented by the building department has failed to demonstrate that conditions at 158 Bedford Street have deteriorated to the point of constituting an immediate
public emergency, requiring the extraordinary step of bypassing the demolition delay process. The rationale offered instead appears to center primarily on the project scheduling concerns and the approximately 1.4 million allocated for the demolition. While these may be legitimate
administrative and financial considerations, neither actually constitutes an emergency under the intent or spirit of the demolition delay bylaw. The Preservation Society believes that the Historical Commission should have the opportunity to follow standard procedure and wave the demolition delay
bylaw if it deems warranted, but only after sufficient evidence is provided to the community. The city began soliciting demolition proposals months ago, demonstrating that demolition has been contemplated for some time. Had the demolition delay process been initiated when those efforts commenced, the city
would would not find itself now seeking relief from a requirement that has long been applicable to this property. The demolition delay bylaw was not even referenced in the demolition solicitation documents despite its clear uh relevance to the project. If the demolition delay bylaw is not waved, the
community would then have the chance to contemplate whether perhaps the 1.4 4 million allocated for the demolition of the police station uh with no future reuse or remediation plans would not maybe be better used to stabilize the roof of the building and set it up for
future redevelopment. The Preservation Society has formally requested copies of any recent inspections, engineering reports, or structural assessments demonstrating how the condition of the former police station has allegedly deteriorated to create such an immediate threat to public safety. And we request that the historical commission do the
same. The Preservation Society reached out to the administration this past February with a request to salvage certain elements if demolition was necessary. We are hoping to receive commitments from the city that items valuable to the community and its public safety history are salvaged and preserved for future generations. But we
need the time afforded by the delay to guarantee that despite years of neglect, the former central police Alex, would somebody put a motion in to extend the time? Three minutes of >> I move that we extend the time. >> I second that.
>> Second. Take a vote. >> Ryan Klein, yes. >> Caroline Aubin, yes. >> Joyce Rogers, yes. >> Connie Sol, yes. >> Jonathan Lima, yes. >> Ken Chhattic, yes. >> Okay, carry on. >> Thank you. Despite years of neglect, the former central police station remains a commanding presence within the downtown
streetscape. To the casual observer standing on Bedford Street, the building still presents itself as a remarkably intact and architecturally distinguished structure with clear potential for adaptive reuse. Its demolition would represent the permanent loss of a significant civic landmark and another chapter of Fall River's architectural
history. The historical significance of the building extends well beyond its former use. Designed by Farra architect Edward M. Corvett, a member of the BMC Dery High School class of 1899. The police station was among the earliest works of a designer who never actually
received any former formal architectural training, but nevertheless became one of the city's most notable architects. By 1928, Corbett's talents had matured to the point where he was entrusted with designing the Farra Technical High School on Rock Street, formerly CUS, now Resiliently Preparatory School, and his
body of work also included the second granite block. Historically, the central police station formed part of a cohesive governmental center that included the federal post office and customhouse, the central fire station, the second district court, and the original city hall. With the loss of many of those
historic and civic structures over the past few decades, the former police station has assumed an even greater importance as one of the last surviving anchor buildings of that governmental complex. Its contribution to Farber's skyline is equally significant. Situated at the foot of the Highlands, the
building's distinctive roof line serves as a visual landmark that immediately captures the attention of those viewing the city's historic core from a distance. That removal the removal of this structure would leave a noticeable void in the skyline and diminish the architectural character and visual continuity of one of's most historic
districts. For for all these reasons, the preservation society respectfully urges the historical commission to reject any effort to bypass the demolition delay bylaw absent clear and compelling evidence of a genuine emergency. The public deserves transparency regarding the condition of
this historic building and the community should be afforded the opportunity envisioned by the bylaw to explore alternatives and if not document the structure and preserve elements of its history before irreversible action is taken. Thank you.
Thank you. >> Anyone else with citizens input? Do we have any questions of Alexander Silva? >> I don't think so. >> Okay. Thank you, Alex.
All righty. Uh let's uh continue. We're going to go to notice of intent to demolish uh 190 Kempton Street. That was an older building not on the significant structures list. So a letter of non-applicability was issued to demolish
uh and no delay required. Uh and then uh this I guess would pertain to the subject matter that was just brought up by uh Mr. Soviet. It says here uh and I'm I'm sort of quote my notes. Uh the
director of inspectional services informed the historic commission of the intent to demolish the building. That would be the old police station located at 158 Bedford Street. the property has officially been condemned and in the letter and the letter is in your packet
this evening uh citing uh the bylaws Massachusetts general laws which specify that if the uh the building commissioner designates a building as being a public safety hazard uh and needs to be taken
out of service that automatically removes us from the loop. So, we no longer uh are I guess contained within our requirements to impose the one near on city property. Um so that letter was
responded to. We have to get these letters or these notifications responded within 10 days. And uh so I was communicating back and forth and you were constantly kept in the loop via the emails. Uh, any questions?
>> Have you seen any reports? Because I didn't see any. You didn't include any. I understand about the bylaw, but the reports to substantiate the um >> No, I I did not. >> Do we have any evidence of an emergency? >> Only that the building commissioner
designated the property as being condemned and being a public safety hazard. And once that's put into effect, here's the authority having jurisdiction, then that relieves us of any responsibilities. The bylaw or the bylaw that's in fact
enforced for the one-year moratorum on removal of the property, we're we're no longer responsible to >> So, we require no evidence beyond that. Uh that's
>> Was there a date that that was issued? >> Pardon? >> Was there a date where the building was condemned labeled with that or is that >> Yes, there's been a Well, there's been a lot of uh news articles and reports from the mayor and others. And there's been discussions at the city
councils regarding that on a pretty regular basis. >> That's been documented. >> Well, sure. It's on video and things of that nature, minutes of meetings. So do we we there's no action that we can take beyond this puts us out of the loop responsibility
>> as as far as uh the historical commission. Yes. Are we being uh vocal? Uh yes we have made requests. There are certain portions of the building that we would like to retain along with the preservation society. Uh and we have
made those requests. uh the eagle, some of the granite columns, uh uh they for insignia up on the top of the building. Uh there's also work that's going to be done on the central fire station. Uh and the brick
on the police station is similar brick as was you as being used on the uh fire central fire station. So, we requested also that uh some of that brick be salvaged so that it would match up perfectly because it's been aged.
>> So, we don't have the ability to reject the delay. >> Not at this point. We're overridden by uh Mass General Law 140. >> Why Why do we have the bylaw in place then? I mean, the bylaw in that was created for the city for the city
buildings of Fall River the one year. like why do we have that in place if if um a statement regarding a building being condemned and we're taking it at face value not by documentation.
How does that like override like I I'm having a hard time understanding that I guess. >> Yeah. Well, I'm not an attorney so you know I I can't answer that other than we're out of the loop when in there are
many properties that come through that want to be demolished uh that are not in uh deteriorating condition. So, at that point, we would say no or or vote on it and and put a one-year moratorium on it. But with this being overridden by the
the building commissioner, it takes it out of our hands. And >> I guess I want to see documentation showing where this conclusion came from. Okay. >> And do we not have the right to see that? like whatever the the reports were.
>> I'm looking in the background. We have the building commissioner here. Would you like uh to request he come forward and maybe speak to us on the subject? >> Of course. >> Mr. Haway, would you like to come forward and speak to us on this matter? >> No.
Glenn Hathaway, building commissioner, inspector of buildings, city of for river. Good evening. >> Good evening. >> So, I understand your concerns, all of you. This building
has been sitting idle, I'm going to guess 25, maybe 30 years. It's been in, to my knowledge, four developers hands and handed back to the city for one reason or another.
People have tried, administrations have tried, this mayor has tried, and with that said, everybody has tried, but nobody has put any money into the building. Therefore, the roof is leaking. It's been leaking for probably
20 years. water takes its toll. Um, you're asking for reports. There is not many. The last developer I requested before he restarted again that
he get a report from an engineer. Um, he chose not to do that based on the walk that him and I took through the building. And from the day he walked out originally or I stopped him from working
originally to the day he decided to come back, there was considerable change within the building and that's due to water damage. Why he didn't go for the engineering review? Probably because he needed
another $2 million to fix the damage in a six-month time frame beyond when he started. That doesn't include all the other things that's going on in the building. Each and every one of you,
I'll give you engineering report. The best report I can give you. I'll take you there personally. I'll let you stick your head in the door and it'll answer all your questions to see a building in the condition that it's in
right now. and it'll be self self-explaining to you what's going on in that building. Not our fault that the building is sat the other I believe the city has tried. Uh it's a complicated building. It's in
design it's a complicated building. not an easy building to remodel. And at today's prices, it's not very cost-effective and it's really not cost-effective without parking.
Parking becomes an issue. Everybody knows about parking just like they know about Derek Derick buildings that we have in the city. So, I I hope I've answered your questions. Um, but you're all welcome. in the next few days. I have we're off
Friday. Um, if you'd like to stick your head in the building, I'll be more than happy to stick your head in. You're not going to walk. I'll show I'll take you to two places and it's self-explaining and um I don't see why you would ask any
more questions after you seen the conditions. Um, it's in deplorable condition. >> So, Mr. Haway, you know, I I have to say something. So, the um smoke stack at the
King Phillip before your time, the smoke stack was deemed as unsafe and that it was collapsing. It cost this it cost the taxpayers and the preservation society 90s something thousand to hire a civil engineer to prove that wasn't the fact.
They were claiming it had a hole in it and that it was collapsing and in fact that wasn't the fact. Um the same thing happened with the Abbeby Grill or the church on Rock Street uh where they said that the tower needed to come down
because it was falling apart and it was a danger a safety concern and um a civil engineer went in and again showed that it was the laminate that was falling off, not actual structural damage. So
when I look at the police station, I'm not a civil engineer, but when I look at it, those walls are straight. The exterior of that building still looks amazing. I understand what's happening on the inside from neglect. Clearly, the elements are are getting in. Um, but I
don't see the structure itself as falling apart and needing like to emergently come down. And I guess that's why I'm asking about reports because I know how much it cost to prove that the abbey wasn't falling
or that the smoke stack at the King Phillip Mill wasn't falling. >> Well, again, I'll be more than happy to take you for a walk and point out everything that I'm concerned about. Um, >> but I I I guess
>> to put more money, taxpayers money, your money, everybody's here money into a building that is been tried to be rehabilitated uh by at least four independent people, contractors
um and unsuccessfully completed. I think it's time that uh the building come down. It's it's in deplorable condition. And you're right, some of the walls do look nice to you, but get up close and start looking around. Um,
it's not so much that the concrete walls on the outside exterior are they're decayed in several areas. I'm not going to deny that. Severely decayed in some areas. I've gone up in a fire truck in a ladder truck and I've taken some of the
corn stone that's in the front of the building to stop it from falling on people's heads. That's why the fence is there. Uh, and it's been there for some time. I maybe four months ago I went up again uh and took four more pieces down. The fire department brings me up as a
courtesy. Um, so there is numerous things here and there in deterioration on the exterior. The walls look good. Go inside, you look at a different animal, a different animal altogether. It's completely collapsing.
So, is it going to collapse on the outside? No. Pieces are going to fall. Concrete's going to fall. The floors are collapsing within, and they're going to continue to collapse until they're done. Uh I I you know, you can't replace some
of the beams in that place and do it economically and save the building. I there's not enough of money around to do that. Contractors, uh developers have tried. They're restricted to space. They're restricted to structural
integrity. When they put the building back together again, it's too costly. >> I know you haven't been here for the entire time that they >> And going back to the towers for one second. >> So, the smoke stack, I reviewed the stack. The stack had straps around it.
The stack strap the uh chimney was reviewed by a structural engineer and an architect. >> Um, and they deemed it also unsafe. >> Which one are you referring to? >> The one at the Pleasant Street. I forget the name of the mill.
>> Oh, I'm talking about the King Phillip Mill. That's the one I was talking about. >> Uh the King Phillip Mill had a couple of compromises in it. Not to what? Not to >> Yes, they had compromises in it that were done by >> intentional. They were asked to remove
>> for people for people to evaluate the the structure and then they left it like that. I can remember my former boss putting a uh a uh drone around it up high enough. Um would it have fallen
anytime soon? No. But sooner or later, the maintenance of these things, even though we'd like to preserve them, becomes far more extensive than what appears to be. And the cost of
maintaining it. We have one down north I believe that is maintained um and and it's going to stand up for many years. They put quite a bit of work into the bottom half of that. Uh the acid and the uh fumes or the acid so to speak from
the coal back in the day eats at the brick and it just continues to eat and then mother nature takes its course. >> They can be rented too, you know, and they and they earn money. That's that's for the historical commission to deal with the the developers, you know, at at
a time when when it's being revitalized. And I think some of that was done. But again, we I'd like to save a lot of things. There's a ton of things that I'd like to save. I I like old buildings and so on.
Unfortunately, it's too costly to save some items that have gone uh by the wayside due to the uh >> neglect >> unfortunate neglect that they're experiencing. And and I don't know,
I'd be more than happy to walk you to the police station. I I think you'd get your eyes really opened up. >> I've been in there before. >> No, you haven't been in there in the last year, year and a half. last year >> or two years. Um it's it's deplorable.
Really is. Um >> any other questions? >> I guess my question would be why are we um not uh why are we over overriding the delay process? >> How much longer you want to wait?
>> Well, I don't know. just the delay once once the delay process is >> what's the delay going to accomplish in a building that's been sitting there for 30 years with nothing happening? >> Well, I don't know, but I'm just talking that's my point. >> It's a delay process. I mean,
>> well, I have the I I I I am granted a job that requires me to ensure public safety. And that's what I'm trying to do, ensure public safety. uh you have a building adjacent to it and you have a street
adjacent to it and you have another street adjacent to it and Connie may be right. The building is not going to collapse so to speak into the roadway. Not that one. There is others that we have to be concerned about but not that one.
But we do have chunks of concrete, chunks of cornice material that is structurally unsound currently. Right now there's none that I can see, but I watch it daily. Not daily, but weekly. I check it, especially during the cold
season when the frost hits and the water, rain, freeze, thaw cycle. Um, like I said, I think it was three months ago, I took down three more pieces with the help of the fire department. On the uh it would be the south
west corner facing Befford Street. There's three more pieces of corn east or four more pieces missing from there. So to delay it for another another six months, um you're just delaying the inevitable and you're putting public safety at
risk. Uh I've had probably 10 accidents. 10 accidents that um I've replaced the fence at least probably eight times of the 10 accidents over there. Uh at a at
a cost to the city because it's the city fence. I own the fence. My department owns the fence. Um, it keeps getting blown over, hit by cars, or people knocking it over, children, kids playing, and it's just a maintenance.
Uh, it it's time for that building to come down. And it's had, we've had, the community has had 30 years to do it or 25 years to do it or wherever it's been sitting vacant. And it hasn't been accomplished. delaying it another six
months or seven months. Um, I don't see anything changing. I really don't. >> What about the thought of putting the money that's being used because it's a lot of money to take that building down? Um, what about using that money to um
weathertight it so that it doesn't continue? >> What are you going to do with the building after it's weathertight? >> I don't know. I mean, we >> we have an armory. We have a Bank Street Armory that could use that money to make it weathertight and preserve it for the future. >> I think they would. >> Okay. Versus the police station.
>> Well, >> you know, the the police station is beyond >> and you have other buildings that should be a concern of the city and preserve them and move on. Uh I don't like to tear the building I don't like tear buildings out.
>> I don't like to spend taxpayer money. Do >> you do you understand the purpose of the delay? the the actual reason for the delay, the one-year delay, was to allow the city to um you know, secure the building and to
um advertise it so that potentially somebody could come in. If the city put money into repairing the roof, someone else may if that money was was used for that, somebody else would come along and say, "Well, at least I don't have to put
that million dollars into a roof and secure the windows and that sort of thing." So maybe a developer would would come out of the woodwork somehow. >> So I'm not here to debate you. That's that's I'm not here because of the delay.
>> Okay. Um, and I'm not here to debate. So, if you if that's the action you feel as though you'd like to take, you can take that action. Um, in this particular case, I have ruled the building a danger, a public safety hazard. Um, if you'd like
proof, I'll be more than happy to let you stick your head in the door. Other than that, we're going to continue with the demolition because it is a public safety hazard. I don't just go around ruling buildings, public safety hazards for nothing. And I'm adamant now that
this building needs to come down. And I respect your decision for the one-year delay and and trying to revitalize buildings. The one thing you need to understand, this building has had at minimum four developers already, and they have not succeeded and the city has gotten it back. It's time to move on
with this building. And there's no other way for it to move on other than demo. And perhaps years ago, you talk about 1.4 million. But let's say 25 years ago, had the city invested the money into the building and
removed the asbestous, we wouldn't be paying the amount we're paying for demo today. Okay? So, there's a lot of things in play here. And it's costing that much money because there's still asbestous in it and it's
not airborne. It's not going to be airborne when they tear it down. There's a there's a protocol. But the fact of the matter is that if these things were remove were removed years ago when you could walk in the building and do things semicomfortably. Some of the asbestous has been removed
by one of the contractors and he was move removing it illegally and that's how I stopped him because he couldn't afford to do it legally. He was doing it illegally and that's why he got stopped by me and I called D in and the building was the the renovation was stopped. Um
it's a complicated building to revitalize and if it wasn't somebody would have done it a long time ago. one of the four developers. I maybe five developers. I I don't know exactly over the years how many developers, but there was at least four. So, I think the
building's had its ample tries of people trying to revitalize the building and they haven't succeeded. Now, it's time to tear it down. And it's been one nightmare after another. To be honest with you, I can't There's more ghost in that building to stopping me from tearing this building down than I
than you can imagine. Obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. Someday I'm going to have a dance in the middle of Beford Street when that building comes down. But it's coming down. I can guarantee you it's coming down with or without your your help. It's coming down. I've had it with the
building. The building is a public safety hazard. I don't know what it takes to make anybody understand that, but it is. Kids go in there. I keep them out. I can't afford to have a child get fall through that floor in there and become death. I can't afford to have a
fireman go in there trying to save kids or police officers trying to save kids. This is a public safety hazard. I can't keep the people out of the building long enough. The homeless have become a problem. The kids have become a problem.
Everybody, it's a public safety hazard. I'm done. The building, the mayor, the city council has granted me the money to tear this building down. It's coming down. And I'm going to get it down one way or the other. If I have to chisel it down myself, it's coming down. I can
guarantee you I finish. I'm done. >> Any other questions? >> Questions? >> Thank you. >> It's not like a question. I guess just an observation. >> All right. Comment. >> Yeah, comment. You know,
I don't necessarily disagree with you. I I really don't. Uh the city has had a long time. I I guess maybe more of a a point of order than anything else is that I sit here and and I feel convinced that
this was placed into this status specifically and intentionally to bypass a 12-month delay. Right? That this just the feeling I get and and your your smile speaks volumes. And this is like Ahab's whale for some
reason. And that's fine. We're not here for that. up. Um, >> let me ask you, let me let me ask you a question. How long ago was the rule put into place for the one-year demo >> in put into ordinance? How how many years ago? >> Three or four, maybe even longer than
that. >> No, it wasn't. >> Oh, no, it wasn't. It was instituted into law, into ordinance, I believe, due to a building that was in another part of the city and was demolished >> at a without a six-month even delay.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> But now the law is there. >> What pardon? >> But now the law is there. >> Now the law is there. The this particular building has been there far longer than that and should have come down. Nobody Nobody stepped forward to develop it. Sure.
>> I I I don't I don't disagree with that. I'm just saying it feels like there's an intentional >> there's nothing intentional on my part other than me doing my job. >> Well, I I you know, we keep coming back to the the justification for condemning
the building as being its eminent threat to public safety. It sounds like hearing you speak and and hearing others speak that we all agree the building is in is not likely at all
in the next 12 months to collapse onto any of the adjacent streets. Right. So, so negating it seems convenient that we would negate the 12-month delay. And granted, the city's had 30 years of delay. I I don't dispute
that. It just seems uh like there's an intention to skirt the rule. >> That's all. >> I have no comment. Thank you. >> Okay. No further comments, questions. >> Well, I would have a question not not to
you, >> but could the commission go on record at least to to prohibit maybe to discourage this from happening in the future this >> putting aside It's already on the record. >> We are on the recording. We're on the
record opposing that the uh >> not official. >> Not a vote. >> Not an official vote for >> Yeah. Just going on record. So So in the future that they can say that this this we oppose this >> if if that's the case. If that's the commission's will. >> Okay.
>> Uh just just to have us not be compliant. >> I mean my concern I'm new here. Yeah, >> but I'm concerned this might going to be compliant in not speaking up or not having taking some kind of action even though it's it's obviously this isn't
going to it's not going to make any difference. >> Yeah. And you know, uh that's our that's our position. We're a historic commission. So I agree. There is an ordinance in the city with an automatic one-year delay. So that is in place.
That's >> for city buildings. for city buildings. Sixmon delay on public buildings. That's in effect. Let me just read some of this. >> Just a quick but we mass general law requires takes that us out of the loop.
So really we have no say in this. I think that's where we have to look at the bigger picture. >> Mass general law once it's deemed unsafe, we have there's really no discussion for us. >> Correct. Let let me just we've all received all of these communications that have been
going on. I try and keep you a breast. Uh we have originally and that particular short synopsis I do not have here. it's not here, but that you all have a copy of the correspondence that went back and forth and more for the
general public at this point so they can be aware that we have been contributing and and working well with this. Uh what we did is we got a request to to submit a a letter of non-applicability for the
demolition of that building and wave the one-year delay. And uh excuse me for reading, but I'll read right out of here. Uh and it says uh hello Glenn, this is myself writing back and we have to respond with these things even though
we have to take a formal vote at certain uh I at certain times we do have to get back to comments and requests within a certain amount of time. It says thank you for your request. The historic commission board has always and it has
been reaffirmed recently that the chair may issue a letter of non-complibility to any property not listed on the register of significant structures list. The historical commission board, however, has always required any significant historic property listed on
the register of significant structures to be presented to the board by a representative of the project or property at a regularly scheduled meeting to explain the situation and reason for the demolition request. The board would then vote on the request. A
letter of the result would be sent out the next day. A yes majority vote would allow the chair to remove the delay and authorize building department to issue a permit if and when the building department requirements are met. The city ordinance states that a one-year
delay in demolition from the date the request was received be imposed for any city property listed as a significantly historic property. This property was officially listed on the register of significant structures in April 28th of
2015. Without going into details, your request, your interest is or in presenting to the board is greatly appreciated. When requested and then I put down in parentheses needed by the 9th of June for the agenda submission to
the city clerk. So, it's when requested, your request will be placed for discussion under new business. The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June the 16th at 6 PM in the lower chambers. Thank you for your request. See you soon. Hoping all works for you. So, I'm
sure that's why Mr. Hathaway is here. But then the response back was, and this was from Mr. Haway responding back to my email. I am sure you are aware the building located at 158 Bedford Street,
former police station, has been a staple in the community, noted to be demolished for well over 10 years now. This building due to neglected failure to maintain is collapsing within itself and must be de demolished ASAP. While I
respect your concerns and passion for existing city buildings, the demolition of this particular building should not be a surprise to anyone in the community. Under Mass State law along with Mass General Building Codes, I have declared this building unsafe under
chapter 143 section 6-12 along with the Mass State Building Code 780 CMR section 116 unsafe structures and equipment. Due to what seems to be a neverending battle to obtain the necessary funds to
demolish such structures, the city has finally allocated the funds necessary to complete the demolition. And then then there was just a response back uh from myself. Good morning, Glenn. Thank
you for your quick response. Thank you always for citing the Mass General Law and building codes with reference to this project. This written information is ideal for relieving the board of its responsibilities for maintaining chapter 35-38
section AB and section 38-36. The historic commission board is fully aware of the Mass General law and building codes with reference to demolition and acknowledges that with this official written conveyance of information, the historical commission
no longer is no longer responsible for maintaining chapter 38 historic preservation of the city of Forever Ordinance 38. Chapter 38-68 identifies that the demolition de delay
in quotes shall not apply in the case of eminent and serious danger to the safety of the public and again we thank and so on. So we received from Mr. pathway
bylaws in our own bylaws and our own uh chapter 38 specifically states that if we have a a request or a statement that shows that it's an eminent danger and that the building commissioner has
acknowledged that and dictated that it is such and we are no longer not that we're not participating. There's plenty of documentation here. Glenn and I have had chitchats on the side. U
you know, so uh it's guess we're in a quandry. Yes. >> Yes, you may. >> Yes. >> Hello. Alexander Silva, 148 Purchase Street, uh president of the preservation society board of directors. I would
maybe suggest slash recommend that Historic Commission get an opinion from corporation council before uh it takes any immediate action. Um just responding to some of the things that have been said just to clear some confusion. Uh general maintenance of these buildings
such as removing cornises so they aren't uh falling on people if if a building is in this state is actually a requirement um and something that the building inspector is supposed to be enforcing. Uh the cost of maintenance I think is pretty clearly not an emergency. Um, and
I'm still haven't seen or heard any proof of the risk to public safety. I mean, truly, if all it takes is the building inspector sticking his head in a door to deem something unsafe and knock start knocking buildings down, I think that's quite a scary thought. Um, accidents and problems with the fence
outside of it, while tragic, are not relevant to the demolition delay. Uh, the opinion of the building inspector of the use of the building does not constitute an emergency. Also, um I don't think there's been any actual
assessments, cost estimates done. Um and uh it's just something I think that the commission should actually have some information on before acting uh at least proof of a threat to public safety. Um but the preservation society has requested these types of documents and
once again I ask that you request them as well. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Would the board like to make a motion for that? And I could uh research
we interested in getting corporate council uh response. I I mean I think it makes sense in the in the way I I'm just not what you read the responses that you read from the U building inspector
actually um justifies your concern >> John's concern it actually you know so I I do think we need clarification
and I still feel like this imminent danger that is being discussed in there. Where's the proof of that? And I'm not he's he's you know asking me to go look inside. I'm not
licensed for that. I don't I I that's not for me to make that decision. Um I've walked through some horrible looking buildings that I didn't think would be revitalized and were. Um, so
I don't know. I think I think it's um we would do ourselves it would be an injustice not to at least have some kind of uh documentation to prove what is being told to us
>> and getting counsel I think is an excellent idea. Okay. I mean, I think that that at least at least that we're not absolutely complicit in something that we have questions about. >> Okay. >> And I I mean, and I have questions about don't tell me to stick my head in in the
doorway and that's going to somehow be relevatory to I just I just it doesn't it's not it not conclusive. >> I I certainly would not be a proponent if a building was unsafe for it to
remain. That's not I'm not all about like tying myself to a building or you know so it doesn't come down. That's not what this is about. But I do feel that this is this building has been neglected for far too long and
like an intentional neglect >> and now it's being presented to us as an emergency and I don't like to be put in that kind of position. >> Sure. >> I understand that. Just to clarify, they
haven't produced a report or physical documentation, a video or anything, pictures of the interior damage. Correct. They haven't done that. >> No, not that I've seen.
>> So, the I I also share your concerns of I I understand that obviously if a building is, you know, said to be an an imminent threat. Um, but
you know, are following our our guidelines, are we just going off of the written word without any documentation whatsoever? I know our hands are tied by the time it gets to that, but
>> and to piggyback on your concern, my concern is justified because of the history that I've had with this being told to us. And then we had, you know, an engineer go in and prove otherwise, >> right?
>> And the smoke stack still stands in the south end. The Abbey Grill is still standing. You see? So like and it cost private people money to prove that it was safe.
>> Yeah. >> And and so that >> I would just feel better seeing physical documentation because I'm sure that it is in horrible condition. I mean the windows are open and and >> um >> and that's another thing. The Bank
Street Armory when we walked through it the windows were open. We were literally physically closing the windows ourselves. So the elements were coming into the Bank Street Armory, >> right? >> So, you know, the neglect is real,
>> right? And and I'm sure that if it if it is a danger, you know, obviously nobody wants anyone to be >> injured or maimed, but >> I would also like actual documentation of more than just, you know, sticking
your head through a doorway. >> I have one question. Um, in Mr. Hathaway's letter of June the 2nd, the statement is the city has finally allocated the funds necessary to
complete the demolition. Who did that? The city council did that. Who who allocated the funds? >> I mean, I I assume the city council did that. Has that been >> documented?
>> I you know, I don't know where that statement came from and who who authorized the demolition and had the money to do it. >> Yeah. This is Could you find that out? I mean, does anybody know that? >> Well, >> it is the city council
>> and and >> it is the city council that approved that goes before them for approval. My concern is for the rec for the for the record of the commission and as the as it as we're looking at this in
history how it's going to look at how we handled this very important demolition and what did we do and what did we require and what did we go on record of doing. So, so people down in the down the road will say, "Gee, they this is they didn't accept necessarily accept
something about sticking your head in their door as proof that that the building needed to come down." A very important building in this city. And the person that's requesting this is the the person that's require responsible for the neglect. Certainly not these staff people here, but the but
the entity require responsible for the neglect of this important building. and we just not going to roll over necessarily and and without requiring more information. >> That's that's my issue. >> Well, does someone I we could uh
it's a very broad approach here. Uh are we demanding that they that the city get an engineering firm or we asking that's you know that that's not within our purview, >> right? Uh can can we take a vote to have
myself or one of you present to Alan Ramsey our corporate council to get an opinion? Absolutely have no quarrel with that and I think that's within our jurisdiction and within our realm of authority. Uh
but we also have to bear in mind that there are given mass general laws and There are also laws in our own chapter 38 historic preservation that specifically states that if some
authority i.e. the building commissioner states that this building's in eminent danger who are we to say no it's not we're being told by the authority enforcing code that it is in eminent danger.
Uh what kind of danger? We heard today children and the homeless are taking residents in there. Okay, there's a public safety there and and if that's the stand that the building department is taking and they're issuing eminent danger and it's got to come down, we
have to accept that and that's that's the extent of our authorization. It's it's gone. But do would you put a motion into play? And I will definitely uh go to uh the corporate council and bring
that to his attention and ask for a legal uh definition. I certainly will. Would someone like to make that motion and second? >> So the >> Would you state that again? Would you
please state that again? It it appears that the board is requesting that we get more representation. >> Again, >> the the uh next step would probably be
go to legal our corporate council and ask our corporate council for an opinion. Where are we, the historical commission? What position do we have at this point once this authorization to rule on that building
as being unsafe for public safety? Where do we stand? I I guess that's what we would be looking for. >> So, if someone wants to make that motion and it's seconded, I will definitely take that or anyone else here or we can go with a few members uh and speak to
corporate counsel. And I think I know what the result will be. >> But I think it's important again for the record that we had question that we that we went to that step to question that as a as a as a as a body responsible for the historic preservation of the city.
So I mean it's not that I doubt what the qu what the answer is going to be, >> but I think I'm just for the record I think it's good that we would do that. >> Okay. Is that in the form of a motion? I would move that. >> You're going to move it in as a motion.
So, let's uh Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> You'll second. All right. Shall we take a a vote? >> Ryan Klein, no. >> Um Caroline Oman, yes.
>> Joyce Rodri, yes. >> Connie Soul, yes. Jonathan Lima. No. >> Ken Shadig. Yes. >> Okay. And uh
All right. We I'll uh I'll vote um I'm I'm going to vote no on it myself, but the yes carries. So I will within the next I will tomorrow make a phone call to Mr. Ramsey and set up an appointment. Is there anyone else that
would like to accompany me? >> Is it I know in the motion um that we just had we didn't talk about reports getting that. I mean I'd like to see reports accompanying
you know. >> Well, I'm open to that amendment if you want to amend it. >> Okay. We'll we'll look for reports also if they're available. We don't know if there are any. We were pretty much told There were no official reports. So, but >> but that we're asking for them is
important. >> We'll ask. Correct. >> Or even the guidelines used to declare an intimate danger. >> Well, we got that. But I I'll have I'll
have I'll ask the corporate council to clarify all of those particular steps. Correct. >> Good. >> Anything you want to add? Any other comments? >> I don't think so.
>> Okay, move on. Thank you. Uh, all right. Uh, let's see. Correspondence. Let's go through that and then we'll get on to new business.
Uh, correspondence. Uh, there was a, uh, property owner at 710 Rock Street. There's a a garage there. It's a actually it's a a nice small bond. It's part of the structure. It's in the 40C district. Uh the owner
asked to allow that to be taken down. I know you cannot do that. You've got to get it assessed properly. Uh get an engineer to look at it. Get some the building department. get a good qualified uh representative to to to
give us a judgment on the building. I have not heard anything as of yet. And it's a shame to take this little It's a little >> very unique. Very unique. Very with a loft with a loft on top of it. I thought it was an enormous I was very impressed with that structure.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, this is a small garage. >> Yeah. Um, I I I might have to go back to Mr. Hathaway as a building inspector to assess the situation and give us the
results. >> Okay. Uh, actually you any other comments? >> No. >> All right. Uh actually it was an email that we received from the Mass Historical Commission regarding the academy building that they that has a
preservation restriction on it. Uh I haven't got a response back. I I spoke or I left a message with the individual who sent this through uh Mr. Ross and he has not gotten back to me yet. Uh I
guess the the The preservation restriction might be in perpetuity on that building. I'm trying to find get to the bottom of it. Um, but the work is not being done on the exterior of the structure except for some repairs, a
little bit of masonry around one of the doors. It's upgrading the kitchens, doing some additional electrical work, things of that nature. and the Mass Historical Commission uh is sent them a letter allowing them
to do that. But it almost seems like you're superseding the local authority also. And that was my question and that was posed to them last week and I have not gotten an answer yet. So they're probably not quite sure themselves but I
will be pursuing this. Any questions? No. On to new business. >> On to new business. All right. Hallelujah. Okay. Uh let's see. New business. Item number one. The property and business owners of
the Eagles Event Center is uh wants to present on the exterior of uh the building placing an elevator. Am I correct? >> I'm exhausted. >> Crew over to 15. >> Okay. Okay, thank you for that.
>> You're welcome. You're welcome. They had the utmost respect for this board prior to walking in here. Now, respect has come. It's There's no words. Well done, man. >> Thank you.
>> So, first and foremost, I personally would like to apologize to this board. >> Could you give us your name and your addresses and get going on that? >> My name is Jerry Donovan. my son Chris Donovan. We are co-owners of the Eagle Event Center in Fall River uh building
that's been up since 1929 and been taken care of by caretakers before us and us as well. Um and now again I made a big overstep by not coming to
this commission prior to um starting work on ADA elevator for this building and I apologize once again for that. So we are here tonight just to present what we're going to do and hopefully garner
your support and accept our sincerest apologies. Um, so the Eagle obviously I gave you folks Christopher put together a great history of the building from its
inception and uh we've owned it for 15 years and uh it changed hands many times probably maybe 10 to 12 through the years um after the Asian folk that built in 1929
um left. Uh so with that being said, uh a bar was built, a restaurant was there, a nightclub was there. Um failed. Everything failed. We are actually the
longest owners of the property since um the Asian folk and we repurposed it. As the building inspector said, some of these buildings just don't work in 2026 as they did in 1926.
Uh we moved toward special events doesn't have to be open or staffed 247 and we've done well. We're approaching 1,000 events in 15 years and we finally were able to garner up the money to put
an elevator. Um, we had a study done, um, the CPC folks, we went to them, uh, several years back, 2014, and we wanted to do some windows and some other things, and they suggested with all the plans that
we had, we take some of their money and go do a study. We did the study. Um, I think you folks got the package. Uh, stock architect did it and there was no way to put an elevator inside that
building without um intruding on the original structure. There was only one location that it could have gone, but that would have destroyed the front of the building.
>> Yeah, >> that was the the front. Um, So, so they came up with a plan. They did an artist rendering and it was the back of the building that was to be done. Um,
they originally their design showed a carport that was built in the 70s or 80s by a bank which kind of made a mess of the back of the building as well. We didn't like that. So, we took it down
and proceeded with the new drawings and new plans. I think you all got a package of what the back of the building did look like originally. And they put that big sign up there when uh folks came in
in mid 80s to open it up again. Was dormant for how long, Chris? >> 67 to 87. >> 20 years. It was just used as storage. >> And then this is this is basically have it in the packets the plan for the back
of the building. Um we chairman Nanci said to me, "If you're going to do this, you have to use old brick." He says, "They make old brick." >> So we sent our mason on a mission for old brick. >> Do you need yellow brick?
>> No, no, no. And I don't think you'd want us to paint it red either. Um, so this is this is the actual old brick from the building. It's uh colored through the 100 years. And this is the the brick that we got
closest to it. >> Mhm. >> We can come back in another hundred years and prove to you it's the same brick because it'll look just like that >> if we're invited. >> But uh with that being said, just wanted
to present our project to you and try to garner your support and again our sincerest apologies for not stopping here first. It's our intent to bring the building back to this way. They put granite slabs and believe me first stop
will be here with reports with documentation with whatever you should have. I think that's about it. office. Go ahead. Great.
>> Any questions of Mr. Donovan? >> I'm really excited about this project and I know that you need to come into this century in order to have people be able to get in there and um I think going on the back of the building is a smart move and the best choice.
>> Okay. Thank you. I'm kind of dressing it up. We we it we're quiet. Nobody. You know, people ask us all the time, you ever going to do anything with the eagle? Well, a lot of people that come there are out of town. >> Yeah. >> And you know, then they they come down because they don't have this. This is
not everywhere. Um a place like this. And you know, >> Well, it's a beautiful building. >> I recall a great cheret being held there once upon a time. Not that. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thanks for the Chinese men that did this for us. >> Yes. from a great person that hosted it.
>> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Yeah. Well, actually the the rear of the Any comments? Any other comments? Questions? Caroline? >> I do have one question. Um, so I know that in the report from the architects, it uh talked about um you know, and
building the entrance in the rear, which I I think is a great idea, but how will that what will that enter into um as terms of the interior into the building? like what's back there now to what it will it will be.
>> Okay. So, um I'm sorry. I don't understand the question. >> We're going to be walking into >> Yeah. So, like right now I I know it's showing some some windows in the back. >> Yes. So, that that's the shaft. So, basically what's going to happen um
because we don't have a first floor on the building, we have to create one. So, we're creating uh on this lower level, we're actually creating a first floor >> and you will go into a foyer and then you will turn and go into the elevator.
There's >> this shaft is actually going to go straight up on the side of the building and once the elevator door opens, then you will have sort of a walkway and then you will enter the building. >> Oh, okay. >> Yes. So that that bottom level of that
shaft will actually be a foyer. >> Okay. >> Is there a set of stairs going in there also? >> There there is a set of stairs on the side of it. >> Okay. So inside of this >> it currently exists though right those stairs.
>> Yes. Inside not on the outside. >> Yeah. >> How many people will the elevator hold? Um the elevator will be a 2500 pound elevator and it'll be hold as many as government center holds the ones that work. >> I I would say 8 to 10.
>> 8 to 10. >> Yes. >> And actually the choice is really good because if you read the interior secretary of interior standards, it does say that if you're going to install an elevator, try and get it in the back of
the building, which you did. It's I know the building is not really doesn't really have a back because there are streets surrounding that pretty much but nevertheless it is the rear of the building. >> Uh and it does ask that you place this elevator or whatever you're putting a
tower of sorts in such a fashion that at some future date it can be removed without affecting the building which you're doing. So you you seem to be going about it correctly and unfortunately we just weren't made aware ahead of time. So that's not the issue
here. The issue is got a system. >> Let's make it work. Well, >> good. >> Thank you. >> So is it a letter of support? Is that what you need or >> It would be a letter. This would be a letter of appropriate
>> continue. Yeah. To continue. >> Correct. >> Okay. Not a letter of non-applicability, but maybe a letter of appropriateness would be sent or a letter of hardship. One or the other, but it's what it is. It's it's permission to go.
>> Rick, are those called certificate? Those called certificates. >> They're called certificates. Correct. Okay. >> Yeah. The technical term is >> Okay. I just wondered if it was the same. >> Well, not technical. >> So, how would it be? >> How would it be worded into a motion for
a vote then? Is it called a certificate? Like >> yes, we have to vote on this, >> right? So, how do we put it in a like what is the wording? I guess >> I would just I would just put that there was a motion made to da and you know it
was voted upon and unanimously approved or 7 to two or whatever whatever the outcome is and it would be then given to them but it would be an approval from the historical commission. I don't know exactly how it would be
worded. >> That's what I'm saying. Like >> so >> we can contribute to that the signal work. >> Is it any different than any other approval that would the same the same thing? So just just moving to issue a
certificate of appropriateness appropriateness or or of >> the design the appropriateness of the design in the material. Right. >> We will we would put in there about the skin being brick or matching a matching
brick uh you know the new skin that would be mentioned in there. >> Okay. >> But other than that, it's it's sort of a standard. >> Can I be one of the first eight to 10 people that ride it? >> Absolutely. Absolutely.
>> Yes. You're gonna get a special tour. >> Yes. Special historic tour. >> All right. I I'll make a motion to provide a letter of appropriateness with regards to the currently presented scope of the project in both design and material. >> I second that.
>> All right. Shall we take a vote on that? >> Yes. Ryan Klein, yes. >> Caroline Aubin, yes. >> Joyce Rogers, yes. >> Connie Soul, yes. >> Jonathan Le, yes. >> Ken Chhattic, yes. >> And Rick Mancini, yes. >> Thank you. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. Great. Thank you. My family.
Thank you. >> Thank you family. Thank you. >> We thank you. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> All right. there. This is this is surprising, but under
new business, there's a total at this point, as of yesterday, there are now five pieces of property in the 40C district that are up for sale. So, so or or in um I'm I'm putting in
the uh old convent and the daycare center as part of this, but there are five buildings now, five pieces of property. So, uh I'm what I'm doing is I'm asking uh it would it be amanable to
this board and I'd like to see a vote on that that I send the real estate agents letters making sure that they're well informed that it is a 40C district from the past experiences that we've had. >> Sure.
>> Does that make sense? >> So, does someone want to make that into a form of a motion? We'll take a vote and I'll get those letters out. >> Well, I'll move that we authorize you to send out letters of uh information to realtors to just the realtor to these
five properties or Okay. to the five properties for sale. um regarding the commission. >> Okay. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Take a vote. >> Ryan Klein, yes. >> Caroline Aubin, yes.
>> Jo Rodri, yes. >> Connie Soul, yes. >> Lei, yes. >> Ken Shanny, yes. >> Henrik Mancini, yes. Okay. I should have asked if there was any further discussion on that one. I'm sorry. Not. Okay. Uh let's see. Oh, this
is uh very interesting, but uh there was a there was a request by the building department to have us look at a situation over at the Dery Mill complex. And uh come to find out that Dery Mill complex
uh many many years ago uh back in around 18 uh about 1980 I'm sorry 1981 that building was that property was put
under the guise of uh well I I I should have marked the name down. I I forgot at this point, but it's been turned over to what's called Massachusetts Preservation Society, and it's they're really the same
organization, and they're out of uh up in the Plymouth, Mass area, and they're pretty much as York Preservation Society here in in the city, but they have, I don't know, four or five pieces of
property like that that they overlook and and and watch. And I said, "Gee, that's kind of strange. Here's all this historic property, all these mills, this beautiful complex, and our historical commission has no involvement." I
thought that was kind of strange. So I called the state, and guess what? In 2020, this piece of property, that whole Dury complex, the the deed
restriction authorities to oversee the historic portion of that that property was signed over to the Mass Historical Commission and the city of Fall River. Well, at that point there was no historical commission. So, I'm saying
now we are the city of Fall River in reality. And that was done in year 2000. So for the last 27 years, some mystery company out there in Plymouth, Mass has been overseeing any historic renovations
done to the exterior of that building. So it's now under our domain. >> Wow. >> To oversee incredible. Yeah. And that's quite a large complex. So if you're riding around and you see anything happening, so that's been uh
That That was a good find. We were kind of lucky there. Any questions, comments? None. No. Okay. Old business. Uh let's see. Oh. Status of the historical commission's annual report. Putting you on the spot, Miss
Felicia. How we doing with that? >> I spoke with you about that the other day. I think I have to email you the draft for you to finalize. Okay. However you see fit. >> All right. Just send send it through. I think Yeah. send it all through. It It was fine the last reading. It was fine
for what we can go through. I I do want to get that over to the state. >> We don't All righty. Uh Little Theater, just a little update. They've put up all of the staging and they're ready to start tiling uh the roof. Uh still have
not seen the the tile installer uh there yet. I was there today. Still nothing going on, but the staging looks nice. Uh, no new information on the central fire station. I guess the front Dery
Street portion went out for bid. Uh, and the uh the it's another architect working on the remaining portion of the building, the sides and the back and the interior. And that has they've had no meetings or anything else since on that.
It's on hold. Um, the exterior windows on the Anowan 6 Fire Museum are due this month. They've all been set. There's plywood in there. You notice all the casings been done, but no windows have been have arrived
yet. They're due in they were due in June, >> pretty much the end of June. So, >> maybe they're here and we just don't know it yet. Um, and the uh any questions on the
the MPPPF, which is the Massachusetts um uh funding form. It's preservation form. Um what's happened is that we got approval. There's an there's a letter somewhere
floating around. It was sent here uh to the historical commission. Uh and Felicia has not seen it yet. It was sent out on the 10th of June. Uh it was approved the 30k 30,000 and that's going to be added to the sum we already have
to start doing between the preservation society and the historical commission. We were charged by the city council as a team to uh evaluate and look at the armory and evaluate what needs to be
done, you know, and then get a an assessment on the damages, get an assessment on cost, also get a best use assessment on that property. And we're kind of working on that. Would you like to comment on that,
Alex? was happy to see it get approved second try. >> Okay. So, yes. Right. That was uh the the city attempted to apply for this money last year and it failed and with Alex did a tremendous amount of work,
made an excellent brochure and we sent it in from the historical >> the grant writer. >> He was the grant writer. Yeah. Yeah. The grant writer wrote a grant. Yeah. >> Supplement. Uh and again we're working very closely
with Al Avera, the city director, facilities director. And so between the three of us right now, we're we're sort of pulling that together. Uh and now that we officially we're having a meeting on Tuesday uh afternoon, uh the three of us to sort of pull this
together and get some direction. >> Okay. >> So that's a great win for the city. >> Yeah. >> And for the array. >> Good. Looking good. Any questions? No. All right. Uh, just wanted to let you
know that not that it's important, but I'm going away for a few weeks. I'll be leaving Sunday. I'm coming back around the 4th of July. So, I'll be out of country. >> Good. >> So, I'll still be on if someone has to reach or Jonathan's around. So,
>> we'll call you >> and Felicia is here. >> And I just found out that my phone is an international phone. I used it today. I called a friend in uh in the >> Thank God. >> Yeah. And it worked. Nice.
Okay. The next meeting is uh Tuesday, July the 21st. All right. And do we have a motion to adjourn? >> Move to adjourn at 7:21. >> I second that.
>> Motion vote. Roll. Yes. >> Caroline Aubin. Yes. >> Joyce Rodri. Yes. Connie Soul, yes. >> John Leman, yes. >> Ken Chhattic, yes. >> Rick Mancini, yes. And we'll adjourn our meeting of June
16th. Thank you very much for attendance. >> Thank you, Alex, for your presentation.