At its last meeting, Cambridge City Commissioners approved an amendment extending the city’s solid waste agreement with Chesapeake Waste Industries, LLC, and adopted a related rate increase that will take effect Jan. 1, 2026.

City Manager Glenn Steckman told the Commissioners that Chesapeake’s charge to the city is increasing from $17.99 per customer to $19.09, and the city’s monthly bill to residents will rise from roughly $18.25 to $19.35 when the city’s existing 26-cent administrative fee is included. The new monthly charge for an additional garbage can will be $1.75, and the 26-cent administrative fee will remain in place.

Commissioner Shay Lewis-Sisco asked why the city chose to exercise the extension option rather than seek bids earlier. Steckman said the city had a three-year agreement with one-year renewal options, and he believed there was not enough time to issue a full bid for a more extended contract. He also noted that the last time the city bid out the service, it received only one bidder, and county dumping fees have risen.

Lewis-Sisco said she has received complaints from constituents about interactions with Chesapeake Waste and argued the city should be more strategic about contracting so residents are not paying more without improved service. She also objected to the immediacy of the rate hike, suggesting a later start date, such as March 2026, to give residents, especially those on fixed incomes, time to adjust household budgets.

Steckman acknowledged service concerns and said the city has not always been following contract practices, including expectations about how complaints were routed and shared back with the city. 

He added that the city also discovered a long-running discrepancy in billing for second trash cans that, over time, amounted to lost revenue. He said the administration intends to bid out a longer, five-year contract with higher expectations, but emphasized that bringing the service in-house would cost more. “Right now, Chesapeake can do it cheaper than we can,” he said.

The council approved the contract amendment. The rate resolution also passed, with Lewis-Sisco casting the lone no vote.

Mayor Lajan Cephas-Bey and Commissioners present Groove City Black Culture and Heritage Group with a plaque honoring its work elevating Cambridge’s cultural identity.

At last week’s special meeting of the Cambridge City Commissioners,  Mayor Lajan Cephas-Bey presented citations and keys to the city to Cambridge – Dorchester County Christmas Parade Inc., Groove City Black Heritage and Culture Group Inc., and Alpha Genesis Community Development Corporation. 

The mayor read each citation and invited representatives forward for photos with the commissioners.

In presenting the key to the city to the Christmas Parade organization, Cephas-Bey pointed to the group’s role in drawing visitors and supporting local economic activity. She also reflected on the event’s personal meaning for residents and families, describing it as a tradition people look forward to each year.

She highlighted Groove City Black Heritage and Culture Group’s role in elevating Cambridge’s cultural identity, noting the city’s association with the nickname Groove City and telling the group their work is seen and appreciated.

Cephas-Bey’s remarks to Alpha Genesis focused on the organization’s community development efforts and the way its projects showcase Cambridge’s history to visitors. She also pointed to future opportunities for public art tied to street improvements and praised the organization’s emphasis on community-driven planning.

After extended debate, the Cambridge City Commissioners used a late agenda addition at their Dec. 22, 2025, special meeting to weigh in on a sensitive question about the redevelopment of the downtown: how much of Race Street’s historic fabric can be removed and still be considered preservation?

The discussion was prompted by the possibility of partially demolishing the Hearn and Skinner buildings along the 500 block of Race Street as part of a redevelopment effort by Green Street Housing. Ward 5 Commissioner Brian Roche introduced a resolution intended as a statement of principle and a show of support for the city’s Historic Preservation Commission, the volunteer body that will ultimately decide demolition and design approvals.

“This resolution addresses the proposed partial demolition of historic buildings on the 500 block of Race Street,” Roche said, stressing that it was not meant “to oppose redevelopment or any particular applicant,” but to reinforce historic district standards and ensure demolition is treated “as a last resort.”

In considering the measure, commissioners found themselves in a difficult position: wanting to speak early without appearing to pressure a process designed to operate independently of the council.

Roche said a recent presentation to the Historic Preservation Commission proposed “further demolition” than had been previously discussed, involving both the Hearn and Skinner buildings. He reminded colleagues that the structures had already received significant state investment for stabilization. Public money, he said, had been spent to preserve the buildings, not clear the site.

Ward 1 Commissioner Brett Summers, a real estate developer working on his own Race Street project, argued that adaptive reuse is both feasible and consistent with successful historic tax credit projects. He said his redevelopment retained “the existing walls on all four sides,” both to strengthen a Maryland Historical Trust tax credit application and because “it’s kind of like recycling a building.”

Summers said he was “disappointed” that Green Street had concluded the existing building envelope would not work for its plans. He also questioned claims that demolition is structurally necessary, suggesting engineering conclusions often reflect the outcome a client seeks. 

While he said he supports Green Street as a developer. He wants the buildings activated, Summers argued redevelopment should work within existing envelopes and said denial of demolition could “force everyone back to the table,” including Green Street, state housing officials, and the city.

Ward 2 Commissioner Shay Lewis-Sisco shifted the conversation toward process. While supporting preservation in principle, she said she lacked sufficient context to vote comfortably. 

“I clearly am missing some of the context to the resolution,” she said, citing the absence of a staff recommendation and formal Historic Preservation Commission action on demolition. Her concern, she said, was not opposition to preservation but acting without a clear record.

City Manager Glenn Steckman acknowledged procedural problems regarding the measure, noting the resolution reached the agenda without the usual legal review. He also made “crystal clear” where the administration stood. “The staff would like to see this building preserved,” Steckman said, adding that the city had discussed hiring an outside expert so the Historic Preservation Commission would have information beyond the applicant’s submissions.

Planning and Zoning Director Brian Herrmann explained that Green Street requested an informal review, allowed under the Historic Preservation Commission’s guidelines, a pre-application step intended to gather feedback before filing. “There has been no application to date,” Herrmann said.

He added that the Maryland Historical Trust had indicated it would be “reluctantly supportive” of demolition while still preferring conservation. In response, Herrmann said, the Historic Preservation Commission acknowledged practical constraints but asked Green Street to “sharpen their pencil” and return with alternatives that would preserve more of the street wall and avoid a patchwork outcome.

Herrmann said adaptive reuse projects often hinge on balancing preservation standards with construction economics and financing needs. He noted that limited density can drive up per-unit costs and said the commissioners discussed whether increased density could enable greater conservation.

As the conversation turned to structural claims, Herrmann suggested commissioning an independent structural assessment paid for by the city. While the Historic Preservation Commission includes architects and engineers, he said an outside review could help avoid a decision based solely on competing reports prepared for the applicant.

Roche returned to what he described as the core concern: timing. He said he had been involved in the Hearn Building project since early stabilization efforts and argued its original purpose was preservation, not clearance, reframed as redevelopment.

“It is not an urban renewal project,” Roche said. “It is a preservation project.” He added that waiting for a formal decision before expressing support could leave the council’s views irrelevant. “We can’t wait until [HPC] makes their decision to express our support of them,” he said.

Council President Sputty Cephas urged caution. While acknowledging the desire to be proactive, he stressed the importance of trusting appointed boards and staff. “At some point, we really have to trust the people that we put in place to make the decisions,” he said, warning against undermining confidence in the process.

As the debate unfolded, it became clear that the disagreement was not simply preservation versus development, but also about governance. Commissioners wrestled with how much guidance becomes pressure, whether early statements empower or bias a commission, and whether restraint or urgency best serves the city. Lewis-Sisco framed that tension directly, saying she wanted the Historic Preservation Commission “to feel empowered” and not deliver a recommendation influenced by council opinion.

Ultimately, the council chose a middle course. It moved forward, but revised its approach.

Ward 3 Commissioner Frank Stout moved to amend the resolution to preserve its intent while correcting procedural issues identified during discussion. Lewis-Sisco pressed for changes to remove language suggesting an application had been submitted and to avoid singling out a specific applicant, instead articulating a district-wide principle.

One change was both personal and procedural. During the amendment discussion, the mayor asked to have her title removed from a section of the resolution, saying she did not have enough information to object formally. That request was incorporated into the revised language.

Stout then moved to send the resolution to City Attorney Patrick Thomas for proper formatting and incorporation of the council’s feedback. The amendment passed with Lewis-Sisco opposed. A subsequent vote adopted the amended resolution, again with Lewis-Sisco voting no.

What the council approved was not the original draft introduced late in the week, but a revised statement shaped by the meeting’s own uncertainties and designed to avoid claims the record could not support.

The episode highlighted a broader challenge for Cambridge as it seeks to revive long-troubled downtown properties. Projects like the Hearn Building present both housing opportunities and tests of whether preservation standards hold when costs rise and timelines tighten. Even among commissioners inclined toward preservation, differences emerged over how elected officials should engage before the Historic Preservation Commission has a complete application, staff analysis, and formal vote.

 For a council aware of how quickly redevelopment proposals can harden into fait accompli, the Race Street debate highlighted a familiar challenge in downtown projects: ensuring clarity and proper sequencing as preservation questions move from early discussion to formal review.