 But I guess we can still be recording in the practice session. Are we out of the practice session? I can't see. It looks like, well, Guildford's muted. It looks like we're now recording and out of the practice session. Okay. Because I know sometimes meetings are being recorded in the practice session. So yeah, ours doesn't record in the practice session. Okay. That's good. All right. Go ahead, many. Okay. You know, I don't, we don't have another presentation prepared. But we are, we did go over some of the questions. And I think, as I said in an email to Tracy, we don't have a new draft yet. We're set to attend DAAC or at least I'm set to attend DAAC next week. And, you know, Guildford has sent us some comments. I'm going to try and talk to him tomorrow about some of those comments and some more information and we're kind of waiting to gather everything before we create a new draft. And so we're not sending too many drafts out to too many people and getting things confused. But, but, you know, most of the questions that came from DAAC, we felt were related to where street lights go. Not necessarily how bright are they or what's the shielding about them or things like that sort of the more technical aspects of our proposal. And so we don't have answers for the placement because we've put that on hold. What we did want to offer is we recognize that placement and where they go is not just a concern of a whole lot of people. It's also very technical and very specific. And we took our attempt when we created our proposal to do something based on the dark sky associations recommendations on lighting zones and all of that. But we are not by far the only people that should weigh into that. Certainly it's clear that all of you are very interested in that. And so one thing we wanted to do was potentially offer. We can't as a town council, even if we propose this to the town council because the town council can't tell you what to do. You know, we could maybe do something formally through the town manager but one of the thoughts we had was this seems right up tax alley of something that they might be interested in working on. And so we would be curious to see if this is something that tack might be in terms of the placement of where street lights should be. Irrespective of our proposal and the rest of the proposal but where do we want street lights in town we were curious whether this is something that tack might be interested in doing over, you know, not necessarily but over a long term and things like that and if so we would be happy to work with you, at least a little bit on that, but sort of seed some of that to you, recognizing that you guys are the ones that have been advising everyone on things like transportation and pedestrians and bikes and streets and all. And so we wanted to put that out there. I'm happy to hear from that before I go into some of the stuff that is not placement related if people want to discuss that or respond to that before we talk about the sort of non placement related questions that were out there. So I'll just respond briefly. You are correct to that. And, and really the tack is only seen the proposal we only saw the proposal for the first time. You know a few weeks ago. I mean I've been following the proposal personally since the summer when you first had the draft. But in terms of, you know, speaking in terms of the location of street lights. But it is true that you have removed the second part of the proposal where that is the focus for now. And I think that's a good idea because there are so many important factors to consider with that and I think using the zoning districts. The basis for that is pretty rough. And there's a lot of reasons why that might not be the best way to go. But in our comments and in the comments that we sense to you before the meeting. I mean we were looking at the parts. I feel like we were primarily looking at the parts of the first section that do deal with location. And so, like you've said that the second part has gone for now. And within the first part, there's certain things about some of the language and so on about where street lights are and where they are not. And so, if that part is still moving forward. Yes, I mean tech does care about that part and that's where we want to weigh in. We didn't have discussions at the last meeting about the specific streetlight design. But I think in general, you know, we do recognize that some street lights are better than others. And, you know, some street lights contribute unnecessarily to glare, and they're not ideal. And I mean, just speaking for myself but also the committee is welcome to speak as well but I mean we do want to see good street lights design right so that my tendency would be to say don't take away street lights. Not unless it's needed, but that to have better street like design design that is meeting the safety needs and the other needs of people, as well as goals, such as the ones that you're putting forth with this new proposal in terms of like darker skies and things like that and there are some models around Amish that work pretty well, you know in terms of where street lights aren't unnecessarily bright and glaring and projecting the light everywhere and then there are examples that are so. I mean we do care about the location but that is still part of part one. Yeah, let me clarify one of the things we've thought about that that Anna and I discussed about how to modify part one is, we were actually thinking of proposing updates to the current policy that might update the purpose. So the next proposal let me say the next draft, our current draft is a rescindent replace the next draft might not be that it might be changing select board to town council to recognize that update updating maybe the purpose and then removing section Part A that we're talking about sort of the technical standards which is the placement standards because it's in the current thing adding a sentence that sort of talks about place the technical specifications in an appendix and then making our part a more of an appendix to the current policy so it's probably not changing or proposing changes to the current policy which is the placement standards and then adding our part a as sort of the technical parts of part a as a sort of appendix to the current policy while updating the policy to reflect the change in government was sort of the approach I think we're going to take the second this next draft. Now that doesn't mean we can talk about the placement standards that are in the current policy but that would that would not at this point that sort of the idea we're going with potentially the next draft. Okay, thank you for that. I guess if we are going to talk about different parts and detail it is helpful maybe to pull them up on our screen. In case not everybody has them and doesn't know which section is which as well as you do. So, does anybody else on the committee have any comments at this time. If not, I'll talk about some of the other specific comments. I have one comment. I think that, you know, we've thought we've thought a lot about and probably I've been on the committee the longest of anyone here. We've thought a lot about placement of street lights and how it has to do with you know public safety as streets so on crosswalks at intersections less so about about like, you know, absolutely where street light should go and I mean that seems, you know, on long stretches of road that seems kind of arbitrary. And I feel like we have no expertise and that's probably the expertise of, you know, our public works director. But as it particularly has to do with sidewalks, crosswalks, and intersections, I feel like that's something more in our purview. Tracy, what do you think about that. Because I'm uncomfortable like making a plan because I feel like it's not something we've really like, you know, guidelines for the whole town because I feel like that's not necessarily something that we've really we have expertise in or have we really thought too much about that per se. So I think I agree with you on it. I think that I do like the idea that Mandy suggests me now about, you know, putting some of the technical aspects and appendix to section one, and maybe just updating the current street lights policy, the one from 2001, which actually Guilford I didn't meet in the other day, he actually said it's the 1991 policy, more or less, and it was just very literally tweets a little bit in 2001. So it was originally introduced in 1991 when the town decided to turn off a number of the street lights and there were questions about where street lights would be located. So, I mean I like that idea in general but I mean one of the things that one of my takes on that would be that I think, you know, if we're basically using a 30 year old policy that I would hope that we could look more at the purpose of it, and how it's structured and you know, some of the ideas and one of the things, one of the parts that we were most concerned with. When we had the discussion at the last tech meeting was just that discussion that section that was in section G in this new proposed policy but just about how, you know street lights will not be provided by the town for pedestrians and residential neighborhoods unless at least one of the above criteria is mad or the select board otherwise deems the situation to require a street light. Just that, I mean I feel I would hope that as a society we've changed a lot, you know in the last 30 years that we want to be more supportive of pedestrians in nighttime environments, and I would actually really like to see some language and I had sent a model, you know the model from Flagstaff, Arizona, which is both like a dark skies, you know, community but also one that has some language just about all the different goals and needs reflected in the street lights policy and I would really like ours to have some similar language and there are a number of models for that just to recognize that you know in the last 30 years, I mean, currently pedestrian deaths in this country are at their highest level in over 40 years and the last, I think since like 2014, the number of traffic pedestrian deaths at night has increased by 40% and things and so these are some real risks. I mean we don't need to have all those kind of statistics in there but just to sort of reflect and we want to be, you know a community that we encourage modes besides private vehicles. We also want to be an age friendly community and so maybe have some language in there about how we really do want to support other modes and we realize, you know that we want to, you know, preserve the national environment as well we want so we want to do it in an intentional way. And I would like to see language like that and if you're interested I can provide like a number of models for that but, but the safety impacts I mean I have been, you know since I originally saw this proposal I have read so much about safety impacts of like the end safety risks of nighttime driving and nighttime pedestrian activities and even you know the perception of safety like that can really affect whether people choose to walk or whether they get in their cars or whether they stay home and things like that too so all those things really matter and so I'm hoping that I mean maybe you would consider shifting in that direction. So, so I'll get into some of the questions that didn't deal with placement and one of them was sort of that purpose thing that Tracy just talked about and we will revisit the purpose. Tracy did provide some language from Flagstaff we will look at that will revisit it, especially it with the new thinking we're going about how to present the next draft, we're going to relook at the purpose that's in the current policy and, you know, because our draft has it as a separate section if it's in the, we have to figure out how that that new thinking works but we're going to relook at the purpose. So that was one of the questions we don't have language now that will do but we've heard that the pedestrian and biking and all is a concern in terms of addressing some of that safety, the safety issues surrounding that with things at night. There was a question about one streetlight per intersection and we said one. I think Marcus you said maybe we could have at least one or something like that. Yeah, make a change to the language. We're not sure what will have it at we agree that some of the larger intersections might need more than one. I'm concerned that if we just had a language that said at least one some of the smaller intersections that only need one we might be adding lights where we don't necessarily need them so we just want to think a little more carefully about how to address the larger intersections that need one without creating a method or a potentiality where they might be where we might be over lighting and over providing lights at intersections that don't necessarily need more than one. So, but but we will address the concern of it just being right now written as you can only have one at every intersection. Yeah, Tracy actually if you're going back to the language from the 2001 policy it just says that street lights will generally provided be provided by the town as follows at intersections. Right and so it's left to the discretion of the DPW on where those go so yeah I mean that you can just go back to that original language instead of saying one. Yep. Let's see some of the other ones. We're working on the cost to maintain and how are they maintained will will get some better answers from Gelford on that one. Oh, Joseph's got a hand up to just a quick question. I'm going to read to the proposal in terms of the light spectrum. The color is it is it assumed to be either amber or white or is that something that's left up to the discretion later on. So the color spectrum is listed in the policy is no more than 2200 Kelvin, which is a very is yellow is, you know, right now I think most of our street lights are 4000 Kelvin very blue very white. And the policy brings it back much closer to a very yellow spectrum. Thanks. Let's see there were. Oh, there was questions about what happens when we don't own the utility polls the current definition of, I think light pole is those owned by us. We need to go back to this light pole or street light. One of the definitions indicates that it has to be owned by the town. We need to go back to Guilford to figure out whether we can expand it to all street lights whether or not owned by the town and how that would actually work, particularly with the ever source ones but also with others as I think sometimes there are planning department or or permits. There are some reviews that have developers put street lights in on the public way as part of the sort of permitting process and I'm not sure who actually owns some of them and things like that. So we just have to go back to Guilford and figure that out and clarify what we can do under the policy what is the best option to do under that policy. We also have to figure out the issue with the 50 foot, the large, the much higher polls we definitely don't want them installed higher that presents a lot more problems with controlling the light, you know, the light trespass and the glare and all of it and you're now 20 extra feet high, right, and you're above much many more stories and also we have we just need to get more information about all of that, and figure out how to address that or whether we can in the policy. We might be able to get rid of the definition of light pollution that was in the policy completely because it's generally only used in sort of the pref, the sort of purpose statements it's not really used as a term when you get to the specifications so I think that would take care of Tracy's your concern about the ambiguity that is that definition. When it's not really used in the spec so I think we can get rid of that definition. And the dimming questions 70% is typically the, the choice it's what all has chosen. All right, which part of the, which part of the response are you on I'm just trying to follow you. So, so these were the questions that on a typed up from last. Okay. So we haven't, we, we don't have access to what on a hit right now so I just, yeah, my own copy. Yeah, but, so I guess we if you have a minutes from the last meeting maybe I was just taking rough notes for myself and Mandy. I was not anticipating sharing them with the committee I was trying to note the questions that y'all asked from the meeting. All right, so, so that's what I would try to do to on it like I had listened to the meeting again and written up sort of the summary of our questions that's what I sent yesterday I think I called it like tech comments based on the February 16 proposal. And that's what Mandy Joe was quoting in terms of the flag staff language and so on. Okay, but which part is that Tracy, which part are we on. So, we're now on page two section E. Yeah, section of the document of my comments. Yeah. Okay, but I'm sorry just just going back to what Mandy what you were just saying about the light the polls is that Guilford at a previous meeting Guilford mentioned that he probably threw out town that ever source owns about 8590% of the polls. And he also said that some of the ever source polls now are up to 60 feet high. Yeah, and then he explained you know how, which I was not familiar with but like how there's all the different uses on the polls and they have to start a certain straight and be separated, you know by at least a foot each and so on like that I mean I did have some questions about that in terms of why, why do the street lights, you know have to be like why can they be in a different order I mean maybe that's a public department of public utility question or something because it is unfortunate that as the polls have been replaced like all those street lights are being moved up. They're just fine for pedestrians and other traffic at their original level when the poll wasn't 5060 feet so I noticed I after he explained to us the last time. It's between like the third and the third and the final line is where the the street lights go and that's the part that we own. So any of it that we have, we have access to we have that's where the street lights go so because they have to be hooked up to the power line which is the final line on the top right, Gilbert. On the polls that have three wires across the top. The wires are primaries. So we're not hooked to those three wires. We're hooked to the next set of wires down which are secondaries for some streets you only have secondary you don't have primaries. So, we're at the top of the poll because we do have to be attached to the secondary power source, and they don't want the secondary power source lines to cross the fiber for TV and the telephone and so forth so that's why we're in that top part of the poll. And they don't want the connecting line from the light post across the fiber either is that right because it is kind of loose and the wind can blow them and they could touch the other wires as well. Every wire has a spacing so they're not touching and they have a safety clearance. It's all geeky engineering stuff. Yeah. But enlightening. And now I know lightning. Okay. All right, so many have to rethink that certainly with within the policy and all because because the higher you go the harder it is to shield. Yeah, proper angle and all. Is there actually one thing. Sorry. Is there a particular reason why they have increased the height of the polls. I think Guilford could answer that. Yeah, sorry, Guilford. Basically because we pretty much unregulated everything. So it used to be you had a power company that had a franchise in your community. A telephone company and a com cat cable company. Now they've kind of deregulated it. So you can have multiple telephone multiple cable companies are not just a cable company but internet company we have another internet company who just does internet coming to Amherst. So the poll work that's being done now is to make the polls ready for that internet company so it actually be Comcast Verizon and go go tell their name is go tell, are they going to be fiber, or are they going to be the go tells all fiber. Oh, sweet. So because more people want to be on the polls. That is why they're making the polls bigger because of the safety requirements between. Yeah. Oh, you also don't want the electric or magnetic interference either right. So yeah, sorry, I've been ordered to stay on task. Okay, so dimming was another question. The policy as it is written right now dims all street lights the. I don't know the language we saw. I think it's only dimming the streetscape funds. Oh, maybe I'm wrong. No, I think, think it's written to dim everything but the ones with the but the street the ones near the village centers. Let me find that. So in your, in your current bylaw, the draft, I mean sorry the policy like for right so it says streetscape lighting. Oh, and the other one right that's correct. Yes. All other street lights shall be dim to no more than 70% by 11pm so the streetscape lighting which was defined sort of for the village centers and all was was based on the bar or live music venue closure. Sure. And all of the other street lights that sort of aren't in those, those areas were based on 11pm. So the conversation you sent us about sort of the accident data, pretty much so is that most of the year 6pm to 12am is the highest accident data so maybe it would be wise for us to move that to midnight instead of 11pm across town. Well, yeah, and I was also just thinking I mean one we're in a college town right so the data I sent you is national data. And I have been downtown many times at midnight or after midnight and there is a lot of activity there. And there's a lot of activity, you know, to and from the downtown as students walk hopefully like I did the data I sent you it also talks about how, you know, over, I think it was like 20 or 30% of the pedestrian deaths involve pedestrians who are above the legal limit for alcohol. And so the thing about that is, and, you know, we can have that in this town sometimes. So the thing to, when I think about that I'm thinking about like trying to protect people like I'm very glad that people who are intoxicated are not driving. But at the same time, you know, I want to hopefully, I want us to have policies that would help make them safer if they're choosing to walk streets late at night. So, and the buses and as I pointed out to like the PBTA buses there are some routes and they run to 1am. So everything in this town doesn't shut down at midnight. Right. And one of the things, you know, that the original placement standards we proposed that like I said we're going to revisit and, and, you know, offer that to you to talk about connector roads. Residential roads, connector roads, arterial roads and, and when you look at what a connector and arterial road is maybe we can talk about dimming on non connector and arterial roads and keeping the connector and arterial road sort of the main byways not dimmed like there might be another way beyond sort of, and then also talk about the village centers and stuff like that. But once you get rid of the placement standards it becomes harder to differentiate between different parts of town in terms of dimming, but dimming does save money. And one of the other reasons we were proposing this was to try and darken and eliminate the light trespass within residences while people are sleeping in particular right and so dimming has the benefit of if it if we can't solve the trespass issue, then some of these lights might be 50 feet up and be really hard to dimming at least makes it less bright. So there might be other ways we can address that. Yeah, I mean, a number of the policies I looked at use like road classification as a basis for helping decide like different types of lighting. So that could be appropriate. I mean, and we did that in the original policy but we also had that road classification based on zones to for placement purposes to but but it was based on zoning districts right. It was it was both actually right now it. Much of it, but much of it was was zoning district but then within that district was the road classified as collector or arterial or not and then there were different things there so. I'm definitely familiar with using that system. And then and then some towns to, I mean, like for example, the city of Portland in Oregon, you know, when, when they're looking at street lights policy and placement they also do like an equity analysis. They use their equity tool just to make sure that and, you know, no neighborhoods are being disadvantaged. We're not talking about placement right. We're not talking about placement. So placement is something we might do later to do. Yeah. So well so dimming relates to sort of some of that though and so we have to find a way without the placement issue, another way to talk about dimming. Right, because you can't relate it to what we would have originally related it to where they are, those sort of lighting zones probably. So we have to work on finding a way to address the concerns regarding dimming and particularly pedestrian pathways that aren't in sort of our downtown and village centers. A useful resource for that could be the bicycle and pedestrian plan that we have that also that did identify, you know, priority networks that plan was finalized in 2019. Except for the GIS maps, and we're still tack updated the maps but the GIS has not yet been updated, but we will get that information as soon as we have it. Yep, we've been using and referencing it and we'll continue to do so. And the version you have is out of date, but we will do our best. As far as dimming goes, I thought. Guilford said that, like, doing that kind of fine tuning of individual lighting lights is very expensive and kind of complicated. But I appreciate the fact because I literally have a light in front of our house that goes right into my bedroom and my daughter's bedroom. I appreciate the idea of doing that. I mean it's the worst light ever, we can't see the stars, like, it goes right in our bedrooms. The practicality of it just seems like outside of real real scope at the moment. So, I'm interested in what you have, you have to say Mandy, Joe. Yeah, so we know that from Guilford's comments that that cost might be an issue and so we have not been able to have that conversation with Guilford about do we put it in the policy, you know, you'd need to buy the controls and the controls and more costly than lights without controls, right. And so we have not had the conversation to make the final decision as to whether we would require the controls or whether we would just require the ability to buy the controls later. And that would certainly then reflect on whether our policy requires dimming or, you know, sort of proactively says if the controls are there, this is the dimming policy versus it must be dimmed. We haven't gotten there yet. So, in the end, the dimming might look a little different because of those conversations that we're still working on having with Guilford. Well, one thing that Guilford mentioned at one of the meetings I attended is that if you are going to be dimming lights, you know, one of the ways it can be done is basically, it's almost like through an app type thing where you have that control but then you also need to have a monthly subscription. And the town manager was talking to the District 4 meeting about just how many types of services now are changing to that monthly subscription model and how expensive that can be. So, now one thing I was curious about and I know you consulted quite a bit with James Lowenthal. But when you look at the Northampton Street Lights policy, like there are things, they're on their web page, they do allow people to request like right on the page. For example, if they want to add a streetlight or remove the streetlight or shield a streetlight. And so, I mean, is that something and the town manager was saying that he does get a number of requests, you know, to remove a streetlight or add a streetlight or. So, is that something that it might make sense for the town to have something similar here, like some procedure that people could request, you know, if, if there are certain circumstances that the local residents are aware of more than just like the town broad policy. To formalize it. And so, I mean, I know that, you know, one reason you came forward with this policy was that there had been specific resident concerns about specific street lights. And so, like in that vein. Yeah, maybe that would make sense. So some policies have that Northampton certainly does some other ones we looked at have specifically ways to get street lights added that don't comply with a policy this is where the placement standards really come into effect right yeah. One concern we have with that though is similar to how we've started doing road repairs, where we take an objective measure of how bad a road is and then create a list of what needs repaired first, that doesn't necessarily sort of creates a more equitable distribution of how to get a road on the road to make those decisions they're done based on data and not necessarily based on resident complaint and the need to know who to complain to and, and the need to know that you know how to work the system basically and so one concern we have with adding sort of a request to add street lights to a policy like this from residents is that it in some sense we fear that it privileges those that know how to operate within the system versus those that might not know how to do that and we would much rather set a policy and say this is the policy and that's what we're going to follow across town then have a policy that says well if you complain enough or if you get enough people to say you want one. You'll get one because the reverse of that is as Kimberly was just saying she doesn't want one well what if she doesn't want one but her neighbor does want one. What do you do, right, you know, I have Kimberly situation right in front of me we don't want it. But maybe our neighbor does and how do you then make that decision as to which ones there and so we would much rather set a uniform policy, then and then stick to that policy which is why those placement plans become very complicated and very involved and in depth in terms of getting it right, then the essentially the current policy we have that isn't hugely specific as to where you want them and therefore invites sort of inequitable placement potential inequitable placement of street lights throughout town. I think, I mean I do appreciate, you know, trying to have a uniform policy and not just listening to people who complain the loudest I do think it is can be helpful to have options such as a North Hampton where you can go to the website and request it. And certainly we don't have that but as a town manager was saying the district for meeting yesterday like he does get a lot of requests right and so if you have a form and if you have something out there it's different than having to contact the right people and do the right things. And I do think to, I mean one thing to just to. The policies are good but there's always going to be like exceptions or special circumstances or something so having as part of the formal policy like some allowance for that. You know, similar to like the ZBA that the ZBA allows you to consider when you don't want to follow the zoning bylaw. Completely and so, I mean, I think can that was just an option, you know, for like certain special circumstances. It can be hard to have. Go ahead. So, okay. What's the next point Mandy. Um, it looks like I've covered most of them from the list, having paid through it. Is there anything that I particularly missed. I think so 1 thing is it sounds like you you're looking you in honor looking at. Um, you know, kind of overhauling this approach and maybe putting a lot of the details on the technical aspects and appendix and things and so. Um, could you tell us a little bit about when you see this coming back. Um, to TSO and then, you know, TAC could look at it again. Um, we, you know, and if you would extend to like tax involvement. And also what, what is the most helpful? I mean, I could go ahead and I mean, I've written up some comments already. Like, we could go ahead and submit this to TSO. But if you're going to overhaul what you have currently, it probably doesn't make sense for tactics spend much time commenting on something that's going to change a lot. I think Anna could probably answer what TSO might want. If we're going to overhaul it, you know, we'll have DAAC's thoughts on the current proposal next week. It sounds like we're going to be able to touch base tomorrow. For Anna's purpose, he asked to call and said he has more information for us and I happen to have time tomorrow. So I'm just going to give him a call and then I'll update Anna on what he said. And so once we get all of that information, we'll start revising it what I don't know is whether it be wise to take that revision back to TAC and DAAC before TSO or not. So I think that TSO has a lot on our plate right now. And so I think what would be most helpful in terms of TAC engagement is to really work with Mandy and I as sponsors on in terms of what things you'd like to see. So the other thing I apologize and I have TSO at 7 so I'm trying to multitask and eat dinner at the same time but the other thing that had been brought up was including something about revisions at certain time intervals and so, you know, that was really helpful because Mandy and I missed it and so it was that's something that we'll put in whether it's five years or seven years we're figuring that out but I think that's the kind of feedback that's very very helpful from TAC is specific things that you see missing and you know there may be some points where we as sponsors don't agree with what TAC recommends and I would absolutely ultimately if you wanted to include that in a memo to TSO that would make sense but I think that my thought and I will leave Mandy to agree or disagree is that what's more helpful is us working with TAC to continue to edit the policy versus kind of writing our own policy having gotten the input so far and then having you write a memo that's totally separate so yeah it's down the road a ways I think to come back to TSO but we're hopeful to keep working with you all and then we also have a lot of other groups that we're still working to meet with so Disability Access Advisory Committee and as well as continuing to meet with Guilford as well as meeting with members of the APD so we have plenty on our plate that'll continue to shift this as we go. And I may suggest to that you may want to reach out to the people who've been working on the age friendly and dementia friendly work as as Amherst wanted to be named an age friendly and dementia friendly community I think it's through the planning department. Maureen was leaving that work. I'm not sure and maybe the council on aging. They've been the most involved as well as the planner from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, Becky Bash but just to see I know that they do have in their draft final report. You know some things related to transportation. For full disclosure we've, we've got an email. I received an email from Chris Prestrup today. Thinking about looping in the planning board to this process that I have responded to and CC to Anna on particularly since what we didn't realize until this morning when we were. We didn't register not every every time you read a policy doesn't always register that that sometimes there are proposals from applicants that own private land where the request and the approval has the addition of public way street lights on it and so what we do here would affect that but but the ultimate you know part two or what might now be part three of what our original proposal was was to get dark sky compliant technical things into the zoning bylaw and so we might be bringing in the planning board into some of these conversations to to make sure that whatever we do sort of conforms with that and and work with them before we even potentially bring any type of zoning revision changes. And so that's another body we're going to have to potentially if the planning board is receptive to to be interfacing with to. That's, that sounds good. So, I mean there, I do have one question about. So when James Sloan thought made one of his presentations to TSO right and he was showing the light pollution around town. You know, obviously the biggest creator of light pollution in Amherst is UMass campus. And, and I've had friends even who live in Hatfield and all over the valley who say hey we can see the UMass campus right so. I mean I realized that this wouldn't be part of the street lights policy but I mean have the people who are concerned about light pollution, such as yourself like in terms of interfacing with UMass on that because there's just such a contrast between the UMass campus and the Amherst college for example. Right. I've talked to some UMass people about it mainly Tony Maroulas and Nancy Buffon about their concerns with it and the campus stuff. James has talked to the astronomy folks and some of the other folks in at UMass is in UMass, you know as professors and all. We obviously can't force UMass to do anything right. But though some of the sort of peer pressure type things are Amherst adopting its own standards Amherst adopting bylaws. And then the sort of advocacy from UMass professors and others that say hey Amherst did this UMass get on board sort of thing. So that's much harder to do if we don't have a policy right and so we know we can't affect them directly by regulating them but we're hopeful that some of the stuff we're working on here will result eventually in a change of policy at UMass to at least the dark sky sort of shielding no uplighting things like that and color temperatures that they might adopt some of that if we start doing it as a town. Sorry, I would just be curious because to me UMass is pretty much in line with a lot of you know with most state colleges around the country. Having gone through a similar exercise Georgia Tech, where you know lighting, the aim was to get lighting to where UMass is just because Amherst colleges less does not mean that UMass is not following you know a guideline. UMass colleges that private university private college can pretty much do what it wants. I would, you know, as you're going into that, I think you probably need to be aware of standards at other public institutions around the country. Yeah, thank you. And a little bit in a similar vein just in terms of like I know one thing that Flagstaff has done is that they also have design guidelines and restrictions on commercial lighting and things on private lighting. And I know for example, on my own street that right a lot of the lighting at night is not streetlight lighting. It's a combination of the streetlights and people's homes and things and. Yes. Yeah, and that's where the second, what was originally the second part of our proposal that was the zoning tackling the zoning issues which would then apply to everything but the public way, right. And all of those. We had made the decision to start with streetlights because we did not know how receptive the town council would be to the technical specifications and drafting a streetlight policy seemed a little easier and less less technical, although it's still quite technical to figure out how to get that into a zoning bylaw. And then with all the requirements that is owning bylaw comes with in terms of hearings and all of that and time deadlines, starting with a streetlight policy seemed the more logical way to go. If it didn't get support we won't have had to have we wouldn't be applying for any zoning changes if if a streetlight policy that only needs seven votes doesn't get support right and so. So that's why I said it seems like there is support for this on the council, whether or not it passes we obviously don't know to a vote but it has been generally well received such that it is probably time to at least start involving the planning board in looking at these, because you don't want to pass the other thing is you don't want to pass a streetlight policy that has different specifications, potentially then the zoning bylaw, you probably want them to agree. And so we want to make sure that whatever we're doing can be done. The ultimate goal is townwide, not just on streetlights. That sounds good. All right, well thank you thank you both for coming and for these updates these are some big updates so I guess we look forward you know we typically tack typically meets twice a month sometimes we months month and when you feel ready. I think Myra wants to speak but but when you feel ready and come back to us but Myra do you have any comments you're currently on me Myra. Yeah, I thank you for letting me speak Tracy. I, I'm not going to say very much except this conversation has been really enlightening and I don't mean the pun. I, I have heard at the tack meetings in the past. And I know that it is very important to the tack, the pedestrian safety bicycle safety. But I'm not hearing that so much in the bylaw presentation. And I'm hearing about astronomy and I'm hearing about the way that things are supposed to be constructed and I totally support doing as much as we can. But I also want you to think about as presenters. There are some very dark streets for example Hills Road. It's a little road goes almost nowhere. It's in neighborhood residents has very few lights. It is so dangerous because of potholes that if you don't have any lighting on that street. If anyone riding a bike, anyone walking is imperiled. If they, you know, you, you have to put the conditions of the, of the roads and the sidewalk into consideration here if everything were perfect. It's a little bit different from the safety point of view, but it wouldn't be safer for women alone, and it wouldn't be safer for people who don't see as well as they used to, and it wouldn't be safer for a lot of people who really do need to walk and as far as parity for people in different income groups. It's actually, I think people in lower income groups who need the street lights more because fewer of them by percentage own cars. And so they are walking, and they are riding bikes, and they need protection as much as people, you know, as other people and I just, I haven't heard enough of that from the presentation. So that's what I want you to keep in mind when you speak to Ylford or on a tomorrow, because I think I think that this is not a perfect world. And there are some real dangers out there as far as, you know, encountered with other people and encounters with extremely bad roads and sidewalks in some places. That's, that's really all I want to say. Thank you, Marna. And Andy, I completely agree with you and Andy. Yeah. Mark, Mara just raised an interesting question. And I'll, I think I can say this consistent with my role as the ASI. I'm just citing a private way I believe that's not an accepted public way. And it raises a question that the cosponsors may need to talk with Gilford about and consider for other perspectives and that is, how does this proposed policy apply to public ways and private in roads that are not public ways. There's no idea that Hills Road is not a public way. I think it is a public way. It goes from Strong Street to Redgate Lane. It's like a real road. Yeah, you're probably right. I was thinking of some of the roads like the hollows and some of those areas are definitely not public ways. You know, and also, I think that having no exceptions is very dangerous. I think that no, nothing should be written without a North Hampton type. It doesn't have to be that one, but possibility for people to make requests based on things that couldn't be foreseen in a blanket policy that has no exception. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. So I think, does anybody else on the committee have any other comments for our counselors at this time? I just want to add that I completely agree with Myra's exception and really thinking more critically about this policy. And I also just want to add that I'm headed to the high school where to help out with the musical tonight, because no, the teachers, you know, they're not helping out at all. And there are no ushers. There's no ticketing. I'm going to help. I'm part of the friends of the performing arts. I'm going to go help there tonight. If anyone else is going to the musical or thinking about it, help out because none of the teachers are rightly, I believe, helping and we are in critical need. Good night. Thank you. Thank you, Kim. Okay. Well, thank you so Anna and Mandy. So this, you know, keep us in the loop as this evolves and we'd be happy to have you back and have other conversations. Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you. Okay. All right, so we still have a quorum and we'd like to wrap up by seven. I did just before we move on to other items. I did just have a comment just on lighting that it didn't seem necessary. So relevant to have with the counselors, but. But the question that has come up that I'm Stefan brought up last time. I'm just going to talk about just lighting at the PVTA bus stops. And I know when I had done the district for a walk around the neighborhood, there, there was a bus stop on East pleasant street with a bus shelter and you really could not see it at all at night. Whether there are plans to improve the lighting at some of the bus stops or flexibility or funding to do so. But, you know, just in terms of accessibility and things that seems like that could be really important. If I do have any comments, you said you're back working at you mess transit. Yeah, I don't know. I know what we talked about. I think it's the bus stop on the corner of chest that street. Right. That was the one. Yeah. So that one. Yeah, it is pretty dark, especially from a driver's perspective, you really got to slow down to your high beams on, which can obviously be not. You know, you sometimes you can't turn your high beams on if there's obviously cars approaching, but you also just mentioned like around town, right, that they're the LED like flashers that people can. But just correct. I don't know if I don't think that one has a chest, but some definitely do have it. Okay. I think more of us do have it, which is definitely helpful. It is a flasher kind of turns on even on campus. There's so much, honestly, I think are less, less necessary just because campus like we said is well lit. But I saw that I'm just going to point out maybe I should have said this when the counselor was wrong, but I guess I'll just hurt it now. I did notice the, the one of the things one of the files you send to forget which one it was. I think it was the memo that was sent out by. Counselors originally. Yeah. Yeah, it was August 2022. So last year, and it doesn't really, I know you really touched on this. So not sound like a broken record, but I know it doesn't really touch on a lot of impacts of safety, whether positive or negative of their proposed policy. So I just want to like, I don't know, I was hoping they could also, I know you already mentioned this, but they go further into that. No, definitely. I mean, that's why I wanted them to revisit the purpose. So I, as I said at the start of the meeting, this wasn't referred to tack until recently, but I myself have been following the policy along and in their initial presentation. They sit, they say very little about they talk a lot about the safe, the health, the human health impacts of like too much lighting and the environmental impacts but there was very little attention paid to the transportation safety implications. And, and from the very beginning, I had suggested to them that they balance some of the dark sky goals with other town goals, you know, such as better transportation safety, better transportation access, each friendly community and things like that. But what I'm hearing from them when they came today is that they are, I mean, they, they may be looking at some of that. So I appreciate that. And there are a number of models of communities that have more language to that. I would love to see that added to the proposed. Right. Yeah, and I think I think they had some images in that memo the August 2022 memo to the town council that show that talked about like he selected before and after images, and obviously have like a soft cut off in the before image of the lighting, and then a hard cut off with the after. And I noticed in some of them, again, it could be exaggerated so I guess take with an assault could just be pure an example and not representative what would happen here in our town. But you don't really see beyond that cut off which I know is kind of the point but at the same time like it's totally pitch black so it's like, like in one of them it's like a parking lot I think and the street lighting is alongside where the front of the car would be I guess in the And you don't see and there's like shrubbery or bushes in the back. You don't really see anything there. So I think it's important to not just like kind of paint out the brush and say okay well this lighting this neighborhood or this section of town has a lot of light pollution. Let's just put this one type of lighting it's like well okay well what about other aspects around like like you said like crosswalks, you know if it's if it's street where people are allowed to parallel park on street parking. I mean, there is some quote unquote I don't recall the spillage. So you can see what's coming between the cars people walking out even they're not supposed to it's going to happen so I just I what I'm saying I guess is, I don't think we should have a kind of one size fits all. And in the bus stops to like I had mentioned to them because the dimming idea has been in the proposal since the beginning way to dim lights, everything at 11 but again, we are a college town and I was concerned about people who are still in the bus buses and you mentioned how bus stops aren't always well lit but then you have the people get off the bus. You have the last mile when they have to get home from the bus. Right and and some of the guidance is I mean federal highway and is spending a lot of energy on this just because of all the crashes that do happen at night. I think a quarter of all driving is done at night, but 50% of the crashes like the fatal fatalities happen at night. And so I was at a, you know, a virtual summit a few weeks ago, and over and over again they said, you know, 75% of pedestrian deaths happen at night and you know 50% of fatal crashes happen. I mean there's, they're just they're really focused on that and how do you design better intersections and better crosswalks and just to, you know, cut down on those deaths. So, I mean I'm hoping that they can pull in like some of those that information, because there's a lot of it out there. Yeah, and I think with Amherst being unique in that it being a college town with not just not just a college town, but a college town with the university is a very large population. Obviously not everyone lives in Amherst and you have Belch Town, Sunderland, what have you. But like still a lot of people live on campus and off campus and those on campus people I know we're not concerned with on campus. That's the mass but at the same time those people spill into town. And I think so look at the statistics that you're talking about that obviously applies to Amherst. But honestly I would argue even more so because there are people and there are a lot of drunk people and going to parties and whatnot, leaving campus coming to campus, living here. So I think with that influx, you know it's obviously the majority of the year obviously summers, a different kind of animal everyone, most people go home but still I think that's also kind of we should weigh it more that way as well I think. Well, and that's why I mentioned to write that a large, I mean, a sizable percentage of the people who are killed, the pedestrians who are killed each year as a nationally are pedestrians who are intoxicated. Right. So again, you want them to be getting home safely. You're glad they're not driving but you don't want anything to happen to them and and actually in some communities to. I've been looking at some of the crash data statewide. The walk Boston works with which is from the mass to like crash database. But in some places some cities are reporting actually that there are quite a few of the people who are killed in pedestrian crashes with cars and pedestrian are people who don't have homes. And so again, that's another vulnerable population. I mean, it. It makes sense that their numbers would be higher because they're out on the streets the most are walking around late at night and things like that. But again, you want to protect you want to protect the populations who that can happen to or people like of them. In the in recent years in Amherst there have been five fatal pedestrian crashes, and four of them have been at night. And most of those have been in places that don't have much light. Or and don't have sidewalks. So, like, right, I mean it came up at the last meeting that there was the one on Northeast Street, where the U mass student was walking late at night and was killed. And there was the one at the bus stop on North Pleasant Street north of campus, where that person wasn't seen and that was at night. And there was a one at UMass, you know, when the sidewalk was closed, conditions were, you know, rainy and so on. And again, I mean those are lighting issues and lack of sidewalk issues and things like that. So, you have to think about it, you know, from the broader perspective. Right. And bicycles too because bicycles are kind of bull. And then I mean Hadley has had pedestrian deaths to have people walking late at night along Bay Road, for example, again, very little lighting, no sidewalks and so on. So it happens. It happens for people who work these late shifts. Right. And there's a lot of streets in Amherst that don't have sidewalks. So, yeah, yeah, definitely. So, I'm just thinking a lot about what you're saying is a student debt. I'm often leaving the library at 1am. And there's like a large group of students that are walking into town at that time and they're not intoxicated but there are plenty of intoxicated students. So yeah, the timing wise the dimming. I don't know how effective that would be for the costs of what it would cost. But then also like the actual, there's so many other factors of why pedestrians get killed. And a lot of it has to do with what you're just saying like the flow of traffic is can be kind of poor in town and there's lack of like reflection and whatnot. So, but Amherst College is doing their walkthrough. I think after break about the lighting. So if you know that's great. Yeah. Yeah, I do. I did have a comment about Amherst College. I'll send you an email. Well, actually. So one thing is, I'll just say it right here. But I mean, I have been really impressed at how Amherst College is doing the lighting. But one thing I've noticed because at the end of my street, there's the big Amherst College fields on route nine. And that sometimes those lights seem to be like they're on all night or they're on much later than there's any teams using them. And so I was just wondering, you know, sort of how that works. They've been responding recently to, especially a lot of women students walking home late at night, requesting that and I think that's for lack of appropriate lighting to make up for having like the stadium light on there just some very dark areas of campus. We're a lot of students feel unsafe walking to their dorms. And I think that probably goes for UMass as well. So I think that I think you don't, you know, I think their emergency response is to what a pool, whatever lights they have on. But I just meant like, I mean, the UMass fields on route nine, right? They're not in the center of campus. And they do, they are very tall. And there is a, they do have a lot of light. And so I'm not sure they all need to be on all night. Oh, UMass, yeah. No, I mean, sorry, I'm sorry, the Amherst College fields on route nine. I mean, just because it seems like, I mean, there are nights where it's darker there, but then there's just nights where it's definitely not. So, yeah. And I think, you know, the safety role that could be too, but I wonder if they could be sort of sound like some automatic time. That's not an intentional thing. I mean, only of those stadium lights, you've got to turn the key to turn them on and someone's just gone ahead and turn them on and forgotten to turn them off. Right. But I think it's interesting, Joe, that you're saying that there are concerns from students about the level of lighting at MS college or the lack thereof. So we could potentially see the level of lighting increasing. Right. I mean, that's that. I mean, that's what we, you know, go back to 15, whenever the millions of years ago it was as a Georgia Tech, we went through that whole exercise of identifying the dark spots, you know, lighting it up like it was. You know, sunlight outside sort of thing because of the very issue people don't feel safe walking back to their dorms or to wherever at the hours that you're talking about, you know, one to wherever they get out of the library. So that's, you know, almost college might be dark now, but it's unlikely to stay that way. So we'll see. Well, and I think so during the presentation that Anna and Mandy made in August. They did, you know, site research that shows that having increased lighting actually does not have a does not reduce nighttime crime, but the thing is there's actually studies that do show that it can have. I mean, there is a situation where if you have something very well lit, like for example, say a very large parking lot. And your car, you know, happens to be in the middle of it late at night and there's no other cars around right having all that lighting in some ways sort of exposes you more because everybody can see you're there. And so on and you can see that you're all alone. Yeah, but it's not about the research. It's about how you feel. No, but that's what I was going to say too. I mean, one of the things that they found is that I mean right if you're if you have, if you have areas with much less night lighting. You know, for example, and we are as a town right trying to encourage more alternative modes. The question is if the street lights are turned off in your neighborhood or in your neighborhood like will people still go out and walk for an errand or will they feel like they have to get in their car and the same with some older people. I mean, one of the things from the older, the age friendly study is that some people just say certain areas are too dark at night right so is that going to encourage them to. I mean, there's, you know, there's all these other impacts to but I mean the fact is that regardless and the research again is mixed with some saying that lighting is a positive impact on reducing crime and some saying it doesn't but there's also the impact about how people feel and what decisions they make and are these friendly places and I mean that's why I included that Flagstaff bylaw. For one example just because it's showing right that you want to create like a friendly environment you want to create a place where people want to be particularly in the downtown like as Joe says right he sees people walking downtown at like 1am and so like if you dim all the lights are you not going to have anybody coming downtown then or whatever. Some of the other examples like Lewiston main I know they receive a lot of secondary migration for the intent purpose of safety. So I'd be curious if there is information about the transition to these dark skies kind of thing that. So wait can you say can you say what you mean about that. For example, Lewiston main is, you know, where Bates is but there's also a large Somali community. And they receive a lot of secondary migration from from Portland and other places where people feel unsafe. Okay. So the number one prime reason for a lot of these towns in Maine that they were citing for people moving in is safety so I'd be curious and I'm happy to look around for data as well if there's any data to support the effect of the dark dark sky kind of initiatives that they were citing for that. I think that I think to be useful for the counselors to talk about in in Amherst. Yeah, no, I'd be happy to look at some of that. I might have some of that information already. Okay. So it is now 644 and So one of the things I had wanted to do is talk about what's happening in terms of like the road projects and the sidewalk projects for this year coming up. There was a preliminary list that the town manager was sharing at the district for meeting that came from. I don't know if you if everybody was on our committee then but back in the spring. The the the DPW had had like a vehicle that went around and assessed all the road conditions. You know, using some like automation and an automated evaluate and they use the those those findings to decide which streets to prioritize for. For pavement improvements first and pavement maintenance first. And what the what the town manager was presenting was suggesting that that's sort of like the main list so and then go for it if can you just chime in and is that still your sort of main list. The projects, the basis, the baseless for doing. So I just went around I wasn't sure how in data was so there was one slide that showed like 2022 and then there was one side that showed 2023. And so is that still. Did you do all the 2022 ones in 2022 or actually, and he was talking to just about how the money runs out much faster than he would hope so it sounds like you may still be doing the 2022 list. That'd be accurate. I have to see what this year actually hold. Okay. I can. I can, I can pull up the one that he was sharing yesterday. And you can tell me if it looks right. And then the other quick update I had was just on the snow and ice bylaw, which is being reviewed by GOL and it went to the council and it came back. And it's going to be the names going to be changed. So it's not just about snow and ice, but that it's also about other types of obstructions in the public way, including when there's like hedges and bushes and trees that get into the public way. And I know in the areas that I walk there are certain properties that their bushes go way, way into the sidewalk. So I think that those are all great changes. It was reviewed preliminary already by the council and they got some feedback and I know the tree warden requested some changes and there's some other tweaks are making it's going to come back to so we could I can send that around but actually I guess we should wait until a Mandy Johanna key is working on that as well. So once they have the latest draft I can share that with everyone. And okay let me just pull up this other slide. And if anybody has anything else that they wanted to bring up. Feel free. Oh, very nice. Very nice. Yeah, so I attended a webinar today. I mean a seminar today at the UMass campus and the speaker spouse brought their infant. And I thought and this is maybe true with your child to Joe. It's the first of many webinars and seminars that your child will be going to in their young life. She's already very familiar with the technology and she can turn the TV on on her own. She figured that out. Wow. We're like, oh, let's hide the cell phone because I too subjected my kid to too many webinars and seminars and stuff. Let's see, let me just look at this. Just trying to pull this up. Share. All right, so can you guys see this. So this is, you can just see my PDF right now my whole screen. So this is what Guilford had gone over this with us previously. It was a great presentation and the town manager was showing so this is how they had this vehicle that went around and collected all the pavement condition data. And, you know, which ones are good and which ones are not good. And then they used it. You know, they had the worst the worst streets based on that evaluation and summary of which streets have been resurfaced. And then there were these this list of projects about for the projects that would be rehabbed and reconstructed. So I don't know Guilford of how accurate this is compared to what happened in 2022. And that's like, that was what was done in 2022 except for Pomeroy Lane and Kellogg Avenue. Okay. But now Kellogg is happening this year. Is that right? Yeah, it moved to this year. Okay. So you did all these other projects though. Yep. Great. And then the one and then he showed and they did some crack ceiling and the sidewalk replacement. I think all of these were done. Is that right? Taylor Gray and McClellan. McClellan looks great by the way. It's right near Joe's house, right? And the Amity work looks great too. And then here was the list for 2023. And that he shared. So again, I didn't know how accurate this was. Well, college streets coming off. Okay. Think old farms coming off. College streets coming off because it's state or because it's ours or what college streets coming off because we actually may have this really huge project in the next two years, three years. Oh, interesting. We may do the part. May do part of it, but from the substation on college street back up to South Plaza Street is probably definitely not getting done this year. There's a couple more. I mean, I may be off. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you. So I'm one of the things we have wanted to talk about for a few meetings. A few of which. Guilford wasn't able to attend and Jason was here instead is just that overall. You know, ongoing list about tech priority projects and so on and Guilford's spreadsheet of the request that he's been receiving. So I'm hoping that we can review that at our next meeting and then just talk about that. I mean, it was good to see we did when we talked about it. When Jason was at our meeting is that in the town has made progress on a lot of the projects that were the most important attack. So it's nice to be able to check some things off or at least see that they're in progress. And so that that seems like a good topic for next time. I mean, does anybody have any other. And I sort of key agenda items. I also do want to get back to the bicycle and pedestrian. Priority networks. Plan. There were a few people who've been asking about that and the planning board has been interested in that too. And Anna mentioned to tonight, right, that they have been using the older version of the map as a basis for there. Some of their thinking on where lighting should be. Okay, so I think so we had agreed at our last meeting that we'd have our next meeting in 2 weeks. So right next week is the U mass spring break and then we'll be back. So I'm hoping everybody can make it then and I'm not sure what happened with Christine one storm because I wasn't aware that she wasn't able to attend tonight. And does anybody have any announcements or anything. You're going to do minutes. Oh, minutes. I don't know. I, we do want to end on time, not to bother. I move that we accept the minutes as presented. As, as email to us. Sorry, I'm really giving my other computer. Yeah. Has everybody read them. Yeah, twice. Okay. Well, I don't, I don't know. I haven't looked at them yet. So I guess I'd prefer that we wait and then hopefully we'll have her meetings from last meeting and this mean to we can just do them. We'll put that first on the agenda. We'll just do all the meetings. Okay. All the minutes I would that would be my professional withdrawal my motion then. No, thank you Marcus. So I did have two things I was just going to share the email after the meeting so that we could call these announcements, but one that was a really nice piece that I saw online about the work that Tate's class has been doing with the PTA. And the progress of some of those plans, you know, and looking at the overall transit plans. So I'll show that and then I also just want to share I, I don't know whether we've talked about the, I don't think we've talked about this yet as a committee. But there was that one of the last things that governor Baker did before leaving office was he signed the act to reduce traffic fatalities. Which, you know, has a number of changes designed to make roads safer make roads safer for everyone. Particularly vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians bicyclists and tractors and so on. Anyway, so there is mass bike is having a webinar next week about the law. And there's also Joe Comifer and our senator has also sent around some basic information about it. Some of which her comments she also refers people to. I'm Senator will Brownsburger who was instrumental and putting a lot together and making it happen. I knew for some of the advocates and safety professionals who've been working on the act to reduce traffic fatalities it's been in the work for at least like 10 or 15 years. So they were glad to see it passed and so I'm going to send it around that I'll send around the information on that and I hope that we can talk about it more in another time to some members of the town council are asking me about it. And I'm planning to go to the mass bike webinar just to get an update on the law. It's next. It's on March 13. So, anyway, so those are, there's aren't really announcements that I will be hitting you up with one more email with some of these links. And also I know too that the sorry one more and I know too that the Western mass rail proposal is moving forward as well and when Joe Comifer was speaking with the town council on Monday night. She mentioned that and like an upcoming meeting on that to to try to make it, you know, try to continue to advance that project so maybe in this email I send also send a link to that. So, okay. Okay. I think we're all. Good. We're all good. All right. Okay, thank you all and we will see you on the 30 on the 23rd. Thank you. Thank you. Take care. Thanks.