 Okay, everybody. Welcome to the TSO meeting. Was that Andy? Okay, we are, I'm now going to call to order the TSO committee of the town council and then we will have our, and Lynn will call together the town council members who are here. And then we'll have our public hearing. Okay. Hello. Who is here? Dorothy Pam is here. Anika Lopes. Present. Andy Steinberg. Present. Anna Devlin-Gothier. Present. Okay. And did I forget somebody and Shalini Balmilne, I believe is absent. Okay. You want to call yours together. So let me just say pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021, this meeting is being held via remote means. We also have a quorum of the council present at this TSO meeting on March 10th. I'm going to call on those council members that are not on TSO and make sure that they can hear us and we can hear them. Pat D'Angeles. Present. Lynn Griezmer is present. Pam Rooney. Present. Kathy Shane. Here. Jennifer Taub. Present. Very nice. Thank you. Thank you. I don't know if anybody is interested in hearing or not. I don't know if it's anybody. Speak up now. Okay. We're here and Dorothy. Please continue. Well, I thought I'd read you that a public hearing and opportunity for residents to address the council on specific issues. These comments may be presented orally or in writing. Let's see. And the town council can, in fact, choose to hold a public hearing and any topic it chooses. public hearings cannot be more than three hours in any one session, unless the council votes to waive this limitation. And then they have to give a date and a time and place certain for continuance should that be required for any uncompleted hearing. Okay, so the format for a public hearing is the petitioners presentation. And then questions from counselors. Public asking a question public speaking in favor public speaking in opposition and questions from counselors. And so that is what we are going to do now. And I believe that I can say that the public hearing will start now unless there's something else I'm supposed to do. Okay, so we're going to start now until we open until I invite the presenters to state the issue. Okay, and the presenters are Sean mangano and Paul Bachleman, and Jennifer LaFountain. Is that correct. Okay. Paul would you like me to kick this off. Yeah. Yeah, so thank you. So, in the last year or so we've really taken a hard look at parking and the parking recommendations that came out of the downtown parking working group. That led us to take a look at the parking permit system and doing a pretty thorough update of it. I think the last time it was updated was in the, maybe 2005 was the last time it's been quite a while so we went through the whole thing and tried to update it to do a few things one to reflect higher costs of managing the parking system which I'll share my screen in a second and bring up the fees that have been proposed. I just looked to clean up some of the other language throughout the parking permit system, make it simpler, easier to administer for Jen's office who deal with people on a daily basis. But the major change is to the fees so is it okay if I share my screen, Dorothy. Absolutely. It's a little smaller so the number one area we looked at or the biggest area we looked at were the fees so previously. The fee was $25 per year for both resident permits and employee employer permits. And so those were, we took a look at those that the one change we made was to separate the resident permit between vehicles registered and immersed and vehicles not registered and immersed. The reason we did that was because we do not get motor vehicle excise tax from vehicles that are not registered and immersed, and that tax is a major revenue source it's about one and a half million dollars for the town. It helps support the overall operation and specifically help support improvements the roads and parking lot sidewalks things like that. And so a large number of our resident permits when we did a sample of them were for vehicles not registered in town. So we thought it there was some logic and fairness to charge in a higher rate for vehicles not registered here. And that might encourage those vehicles to register here, register in town in the future. So for the resident permit for vehicles registered in Amherst, we proposed a three year plan to increase those up to $150. Roughly six times six times as much as it is currently. And we did it over three years to try to minimize the impact in any one year to to the resident. And we did that throughout you'll see that throughout all the fees that we did over three years to try to minimize the impact in any one year. The second tier is for resident permits not registered and immersed or for vehicles not registered and immersed. So for those we increased at a greater rate and they're more in line with like the UMass mass lots for example, and what North Hampton charges for their long term lots. The third tier is the employer employee permit. And so we, we wanted to increase that just to reflect that the costs are higher and it hadn't been increased really since the creation of the parking permit system. We also wanted to recognize that some of the people who may buy this, these permits may have limited wages and that we wanted to keep this affordable for people to work in downtown. So it increased from $25 up to a maximum of 50 in three years and 60 if you have two vehicle permit. The last tier that we increased is the lower level of the Bultwood garage the reserved spots so there's 28 of those spots. And one thing I wanted to clarify from a previous, I think, corresponds to a question is that there's about 80 spots in the Bultwood garage 79 or 80 of which 28 of those are permit spots. And correct me feel free to jump in if I misstated that but so we are proposing to increase those reserved spots up to a maximum of 1500. This was increased after discussion with the TSO committee originally was a lower amount in that final year but we did end up increasing it based on feedback from the committee. And so all of this was done with an eye towards making capital improvements to the parking system or not just increasing fees for the sake of increasing fees where we're trying to generate additional revenue to improve lighting, improve signage. Start building up a capital reserve to make some improvements to the parking lots in the future. That's really the major driver of these changes. And I think with that I'll stop and see if Jen or Paul want to add anything else. I think we're good. It's a good presentation. Thank you, Sean. Now do we have counselor questions. Anyone have a question after this presentation. I have one Andy. You're going to have the finance committee make a brief report at this point. You're correct. Andy. Thank you very much. Yes, because we want we felt that it was important that. It was important that the committee and those attending the hearing here, all of these facets. Yes, so please go forward. Yeah. I think that the council, including the committee members but the entire council has the report from the finance committee at the last meeting so this is really just to let the public know that it was. This proposal was referred to two different committees, the other one being the finance committee. In addition to the town services happen to be the member who is on both of those committees and as well as chair of the finance committee. The report is in the meeting of March 7 by including the report from the finance community in the packet for that meeting and is added to the packet for tonight's TSM meeting so that anybody from the public who wants to read the finance committee report and follow it's in packets of both of the meetings. I'm not going to repeat anything that Sean has already reported. That was a lot of the discussion because we did talk about the need for enhancing parking revenues being a significant financial factor. I did note something that wasn't mentioned and that was that we've just been through a long period of time where revenue was substantially decreased for the parking system. And as a result, we're actually farther behind than we would have been had there been no business fall off related to the pandemic but it is what it is and that happened. And as to be noted, the enterprise fund is a transportation enterprise fund and it supports the parking system, but it also supports other parts of the transportation system including part of the cost of running the A system within the town and some other expenses that are related to transportation. So we felt that the revenue was a significant issue that should be considered by the committee, this committee and by council and that was the thrust of the finance committee recommendation. There were several issues that were talked about during that time. One was that was actually our thought that some of these charges could be these new fees really could be implemented much more quickly than has been proposed in the staff proposal that we are as noted substantially behind other communities and the amount that we charge and substantially to the revenue to improve the system and possibly to improve staffing for the system so that we would find this committee had to have a discussion and recommendation about looking to accelerate particularly for the resident permits for people who don't register their cars and possibly doing it over a course of two years instead of doing it over a course of three years. Next we talked about the employee rates and very much appreciated that that a lot of the employees who are not provided parking spaces by their employers and therefore need the system include people who have economic challenges that it's important that we maintain the system within a reasonable rate structure and we think that a reasonable rate structure has been proposed. We also talked about the residents for the question of are we being particularly sensitive to low income residents in the resident parking permits and the suggestion was made that we at least look into the possibility and get staff to comment on whether there's any way to define an appropriate grouping that should be considered for a special rate structure because of qualification for economic means and economic needs. Examples that were given were elderly living in subsidized housing as an example or anybody living in some type of subsidized unit we realize that that puts the staff in a position of having to administer such a system such as why it was our recommendation that staff be invited to comment on that. The last thing that I'll just report on quickly is that there was some discussion about the underground garage spaces that were referenced earlier. They are an important part of the revenue for the town because it's a significant part of the transportation fund comes from those permits and the additional piece that I did that the committee talked about was that because those spaces are a lot used by businesses and they're therefore vacant at night and on weekends when there's the highest demand by others for the spaces is a certain amount of frustration that people report from being going looking for parking spaces and seeing these reserved spaces that they can't use in there, but they're available spaces and whether there was a way to reduce the hours we recognized that there were complications with that but it was an aspect of it that we noted and thought that there was at least some possibility to consider various options including having some spaces that are rented at a slightly lower rate but don't but have time limits so that they can be used by members of the public at other times. So that summarizes the finance committee discussion and recommendations which are as I said in the report. So thank you. Thank you and back to you Dorothy. Thank you. So I think Kathy had her hand up before Pam Rooney did. So I'll call on Kathy, but you're you're mute. We can't hear you. Thank you. I took it down because I knew Andy was going to give a report so I'll just he said most of what we talked about the finance committee so I'll frame it as a question. I see no reason why on the resident permit for people who have not registered their car in Amherst why we don't immediately go to $400 and I don't know what the thinking was because the alternative they're almost by definition short term residents because they haven't registered their car and the alternate place they might be able to park if there were a place available as UMass and $400 is where those rates are also. So I think that one of the goals of this should be we don't we don't want to encourage parking on our street if there's another place to park so we are trying to raise revenue but we're also trying to free up parking downtown so that's a question and why not just go immediately up. And then the other question I had was do we ever look at where the permitted parking signs are right now and are there some locations that would be better to have a meter because they are really prime locations that someone coming downtown and wanting to put a quarter in the meter would park and a couple of those were identified so I don't know whether there's a walk around to say there are a few of these that we should convert back to meters to make sure that the space is available if you're coming downtown to buy a book to go to a movie to do some thing that there's not a long term piece so I will stop there because Andy raise the questions and comments the other ones we had during our finance committee discussion. Okay, so now I think when I see Sean's hand raised it means that he wants to answer the question that Kathy just gave. Okay, so I'll call on. I was just going to comment that we don't know the behavior of the permit holders if we raise the rates all at once to to the highest rate. We're not necessarily opposed to it but I'm saying we don't know the behavior. And right now the we know that the rate being low encourages them to park at the periphery of downtown and not in the center of downtown where we're trying to make sure there's parking available. One behavior if we raise the rates very sharply very suddenly as there could be more people trying to park downtown outside of enforcement hours. We see it in town hall the town hall all the time we come here in the morning and there's you know three or four cars there that were there overnight. So all I'm saying is if we increase the rate sharply all at once we don't know what the resulting behavior will be. It could be fine and they continue to pay the fee or they park in the mass lot, or they could find alternative locations to try to park. Okay, I'm going to call on Pam Rooney now. Was this the presentation was great. I, it seems like the the topic though is is strictly talking about fees are you going to open up the conversation about the, the, the text that you all have worked on as well. Or is it primarily fees at this point. Okay, well, this is my feeling and you can contradict me. The advanced committee meeting did focus on fees their particular report. So that's why you've been hearing a lot about fees there. There are other aspects to this permit parking discussion, I believe, which we will get to. So, I would say raise your question. Now, about whatever. Okay, so, so if there's a presentation maybe it's already going to be covered so I don't want to be done. Just so people listening understand the permit that you're talking about our are just on street parking for the most part anyone who has a home fronting any of the permitted streets, and they have a driveway, if they're parking in the driveway that does, you do not need a permit for your own driveway. So I just wanted people listening to understand that. When I looked at the list of the permit areas, I, I actually didn't find the map to describe areas were where so that's my, that's my problem. The praise street parking lot showed only 20, 20 spaces, and I know half of the half of the spaces in that lot are metered and then the 20, the 20 spaces that I think we're talking here are the ones that are already allocated to residents of Kendrick place. And I think obligated to them. No one else can park in those spaces so it's not really an open ended permit for anyone else. That's just sort of a comment. I don't know what the signage for any of these areas. It seems to me that it would make sense that it's that the signs are a little more complicated but they state that that parking permits are required between September one and May 3031 because in fact we, you know, we don't want to obligate those spaces when many of the temporary residents aren't using them, and that would free them up for the public or for visitors. At some point, I'm going to hold this question but I have, I have several questions about visitor passes and the, I think there's a lot of wiggle room if I were, if I were a temporary resident and I thought I could get a visitor pass. It's a really kind of cool loophole to not have to buy a, a on street parking pass for everybody in the household. So we'll come if we could come back to that that was good. I'll stop for now. Thank you. At this point. I would, I would like to ask Sean if she made a statement which I guess seemed more like a question to me. Is it in fact true that pray street parking lot. The most of those spaces are already obligated either to residents of Kendrick place, or how many of the spaces are, if they're metered they're open to the public. So that's the first. Yeah, so I would look to Jen, Jen, if you want to weigh in on that one you've got a better handle on those specific spots. So the spaces that are labeled for town center permit down in the pray street lot. Anyone that holds a town center parking permit is eligible to park there. Because there's so many people that hold permits within those East pleasant street buildings. I think that's the closest spot for them so they don't free up easy probably. But anyone I with me having a town center permit, I could go and park down there with my permit and be okay. So they're not dedicated to Kendrick. No, no, not entirely. Right. I have a question that may relate to this which is there's a section near the inner boltwood which is both metered and permitted. And I haven't quite figured out what that means I unless it's because if you've got a permit, you can park there anytime you want. If the person with a permit is not parking there, then somebody in the public comes and use parks and uses the meter. Then it is not available to the person with a parking permit is that what the that is supposed to mean, or is the, or is the meter only for after five o'clock or at the evening. So that's a section of spring street between Churchill and boltwood Avenue that is has post meters and is also posted as town center parking permit. And so you're correct if you have a, if you hold a permit, you're eligible to park there. If you come into town, and one of those spots is free and you do not have a permit you would need to pay for parking during the enforcement hours. So the question is, then that seems to be kind of flexible. And that came to mind when Pam Rooney was talking about pray street lot. Is that something that could be done there, or is that really not a good idea. I think that's something maybe we could look into I don't know the answer to that. And I see Paul Backelman's hand raised. I'm going to call him and then I'll call on you. Yeah, so that is certainly possible. Dorothy. The idea of having dedicated spaces for people with permit parking is to provide a place for them to park in the center of town so that people can are buying the permits and utilizing them. I mean, if it doesn't entitle you to a place that allows you to park someplace. So if we take away parking locations that people might not find permit very useful. So one of the only other consideration in that is the meters are not free. We have to when we put in a meter we have to purchase them. Or we have to buy a kiosk system for pray street. Okay, thank you. And Jennifer. Thank you. So I have a comment and a question regarding boatwood where there's 28 spots that are reserved. I know it would be more, you know, work detailed work for staff but since it's not it's a couple of dozen little more couple of dozen spaces. Is there any way of determining if in fact those are only that those are taken out by drivers who are only here during the academic year, and that, you know, they might be reimbursed or have a different, you know, a nine month fee 12 month fee is it seems like if some of those spaces are not being used in the summer months. You know why not, will we be those who have purchased the permits from the three months and give them back to short term partners. I mean I don't know it may be cumbersome but there's one question that my other just observation is that I've noticed it more this academic year than other years but the parking lot by what was cousins market is always full. I'm assuming with residents of one East pleasant and Kendrick place primarily when they begin construction on 11 to 13 East pleasant and that's the staging area. There's I guess will be just placed. So that's going to put more pressure, just as an observation on downtown. I don't know if there's any. And again I don't think they're paying to park there. They're they just park there. So I don't know what the, the impact will be once the lot is not available because they're doing construction the new apartment building so that was an observation and then I'm just wondering again about the 28 reserve spots about what if we have any sense, or could we have insight into how many of them are maybe available and not being used during the summer weekends. Thank you. I see Sean Sean's hand up. Yeah. So on the parking permits if those vehicle owners are displaced. As of right now, we don't. There's no sign that we have a shortage of parking permit spots. We don't get a lot of complaints that people are unable to find spots so I think that's one thing we will monitor is if we start hearing complaints that the people are unable to find a spot with the permit. That would be a sign that maybe we're starting to approach our limit because we had a previous question about whether we have a limit for permits and we don't have a fixed limit because we haven't, we haven't experienced that yet. So in terms of the garage, I think Jen I mean there's there's only 28 of them so Jen I might be able to do some some light work and reach out to them. I do think that the reason people are willing to pay a premium for those spots is because they have them whenever they want to you know they're paying a convenience fee for location and for also flexibility, which is why they're willing to pay so much for those for those spots and so I do worry the more restrictions we put in put on those spots that you know we sort of decrease their value. But that is that has been a stable block of revenue for many years for the transportation fund. Guess if I could ask if this is maybe a little self interested for my district but I guess one concern I have is when those cars by the cousin's market are being displaced. Will they park on the residential streets and the surrounding, you know, kind of on a 24 seven basis. There's no parking districts and surrounding streets. I mean that's something that's something we can certainly alert park enforcement to when that does happen we you know that that'll be a high priority thing that we can let them will make them aware of. Okay. I had one question about employer employee cars. I guess I was surprised when I looked at the today and saw that it was for two cars. Why would you give a cut rate for two cars. Why would your employer employee need two cars. Some people drive multiple vehicles. And so I think it's just to reflect that some people drive multiple vehicles they may drive a spouse's car or maybe they have two cars. So instead of having them by two permits for the same person that they have that flexibility to buy a little bit a little bit of a discount. We have the same issue so employees of the town also have to do this as well so we've heard that concern from employees as well about if they had to pay full price for a second permit that there's challenges that go along with that. Okay, so they can't do two cars at the on the same day that you're saying, but how would you know that. I guess Jen might be that that's a good question Jen do you have any thoughts on that. I think the two car permit was designed only for the employer employee with the thought that if I have two vehicles I can only drive one to work at a time where the resident permit, if you were allowed to have two permits that would mean two cars parked on the street. Okay, so I guess I was thinking married couples who work in town but maybe they maybe there aren't that many. Yeah, there may be some, there may be some abuse of it, but I don't think it's widespread. We have them apply separately. Also, if we know. Okay, good. So, Kathy. I had a question actually prompted by a comment you made, Sean if we raise the rate too high the cars are going to show up someplace else. Do, do we have any provisions like behind town hall, no overnight parking, do, do we have. So, I don't know what we do on our streets. You know, and I know CVS slot, the free part of CVS not art lot, but students will, or I shouldn't say just students but people can just park their car there and leave it there all day long and then come back and get it that CBS doesn't police it so I don't know what our current policy is on just parking your car on the street. That's it. My question. Okay, Paul. Jen Jen can fix correct this is the strong but a few years ago we did have no overnight parking on the street and the select board at that point chain eliminated that and said you could park on the street overnight. And that's when we introduced the blue light snow emergency parking, not just open any kind of emergency parking, because it seemed to be onerous on people who we had a lot of people in town who felt like why can I park in front of my house. And so, I think the select board at that point chose to eliminate that option. So you, so previously no one was parked on the street overnight. And now they can park on the street, unless there is a snow emergency. In terms of parking lots, we're fine with them parking in the lots overnight is we, we set enforcement hours just specifically to increase to encourage turnover. So there's not a problem with people parking we prefer we like them parking in the parking lot that's good, but they just we just want them to be out whenever the enforcement starts which is normally 8am. So just to sum that up, people can park on the streets overnight. Unless there's a blue light flashing saying snow emergency all cars off the street so we can do snow clearance. But the last part got a little bit condensed for me. Parking enforcement is to ensure turnover, but if somebody who's parking overnight is not turning over. So it's a little. If somebody comes by and sees puts a ticket down or it doesn't mark you in your book, get you're there at certain time comes back a number of hours later. There's nothing that says they can't do it as there's a sign right. Right so we only we have certain hours when the when parking is enforced. Some lots are enforced until 8pm other lots are enforced until 6pm. So it just depends on when the enforcement is so after that time, you know, it's parking for as long as you want until the enforcement begins again the next day. Okay, got that, got that. Right. It's to encourage turnover during business hours. Right, right. Right. So, when you've complained about the parking behind town hall. The problem is some of you want to come to work before 8am. Is that right. Yes, can't get in. I got that now. All right, so we've had oh Lynn, please ask your question. I was going to urge that we move to the hearing part for hearing from people who are in the audience. Right. Well, I was, I'm totally in agreement with you. I'm going to then say, do we have any questions from the public and it's just questions of any kind. And I'll let Athena would have to tell us if we do. I mean, I will, I have the list of the panel of the attendees in front of me. I don't see any hands raised. So I will wait a little bit longer to see if I see any hands raised. Okay, so then. What do you have a hand. Oh, I see one. Right. Okay. Sailor Chiquetti. I'm not sure if that's correct, but please. I guess state your address and make your ask your question. The hand went down. Athena is somebody trying to. Okay, the hand went back up again. Okay. Okay, sorry. It didn't work. I wasn't sure what happened. Okay. That's good. I don't know if anyone else is here, but there's a large group of us here today. As UMass Amherst students trying to talk about an issue that came to UMass that we're trying to get help from the town of Amherst for. Is it to do with the, the parking permit increases or is this in a different topic? This would be the mask topic. The mask topic. Okay, I will ask for advice from my. The general public comment. They should do that during general public comment. Okay. And when is general public comment to. Later on in the agenda. Okay. After we complete. It's going to be after we've had. Can we move the general public comment? No. Okay. I don't really need to stick to the hearing. I mean, after the hearing, can we move public? This general public comment after the hearing. As chair, you can always rearrange the agenda. Thank you. I wasn't sure what the schedule there was. Yes. So we will, we have to complete the hearing, which is on permit parking. All right. And when we have completed that, then we will have general public comment, and then we will go into our discussion and deliberation on the, the issue that was before us today. Okay. And is there anyone from the public who wants to make to ask a question about the permit parking issue that is before us now at this hearing. Okay. Then are there any members of the public speaking in favor of the suggested changes of a differential rate for cars that are registered in Amherst and those that are not. And for some of the items that you have heard today, anybody with a statement in favor of updating the on street permit parking regulations. I do not see any hands raised any public members speaking in opposition to raising the fees for on street permit parking. For residents of the downtown area and for employees and employers. And I do not see any comments there. So. I then come back to the rest of the hearing, which is, are there any more questions from counselors. And I am open to a correction from the president of the town council. If there's something else I need to do. Okay. Yes. I'm ready to make a motion. Okay. Do I take that before I call in Pam Rooney, who also has her hand up? Yes. Okay. Okay. So I moved the council adopt the changes to the permit parking regulations as presented in the document titled. Permit. Package regs 222 222. Okay. Hold on. Anna. The only motion now is to move to close the hearing. Oh darn it to heck. I moved to close the hearing. I even wrote this down ahead of time, ready to go. I thought that was true too. So, okay. I'm feeling good. You're good. You're good. All right. I'm moving to the hearing, please. So do I have a second to that motion? Second. Okay. Shane seconds it. So I guess we have to discuss the motion on the table before I can call on somebody else. Or shall I, I, okay. I can call on Pam Rooney. I guess at this point, since if we're discussing the motion, hand is down. Okay. Shall I call the question? No. Pam Rooney can't steal up. This is in reference to the motion before us to close the hearing. Is that correct? Or to say it is not time to close the hearing. Happy to have the hearing closed. I can't vote on it because I'm. You're not on the member. Yes. Thank you. Very good. All right. So I will call the question. All those for closing the hearing. Well, I'll call your names. Okay. We need a roll call. We need a roll call vote. Okay. Let's see if I can. Andy Steinberg. Yes. Okay. Anika Lopes. Yes. Anna Devlin go to. Yes. A Dorothy Pam. Yes. Okay. We have then unanimously and shall any Balmille is absent. We have now closed the hearing. Have I done so correctly? Yes. Great. Okay. Okay. Now. Before I go to public comment, I will call upon Pam Rooney. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yes. So I had a few other questions about the. The whole package. And I wondered if there had been any discussion about. Given the fact that we do want to increase the fees. And I was wondering if there was a discussion about the. The additional parking management. Was there any discussion about reducing the enforcement hours. On the downtown. Meaders. Because one of the. Most annoying things on earth. One of the, one of the most annoying. Is to go to the movies. And you pull up and you realize that. You have to pay for two hours, which is basically the length of the movie. And you have to pay for two hours, which is basically the length of the movie. If the hours of. Enforcement for meters was from say eight a.m. to 6 p.m. That might be something to consider. I did have some questions about the visitor parking fees. And when I, when I did the, the math, it was a little bit confusing on. The actual cost for a visitor parking. In section four point one. It says that. Employers and residents eligible for parking permits may apply for and purchase visitor passes for themselves or for the business. For a period of 30 of 60 days worth. The question, like, if I were. If I were a. Savvy. Temporary resident. If I were a visitor, if I were a resident, if I were a resident, if I were a resident, and my household had didn't really want to pay for. Parking pass for everybody. If I bought a one of those being a visitor pass. And I, and I did it for five days a week. That would be $30 a semester roughly. And if I did that twice, I could, for 60 bucks, I could get my academic year covered instead of paying the 400. I could get my academic year covered otherwise. So I would put my little mind to work and figure out a way to make. That work. So if you could look at the visitor parking section of this, a little bit more section. Four point one, two. Second sentence says any eligible employees and residents who apply for and hold parking permit may obtain free of charge. For a total of 30 days. So there's a discrepancy between the 60 days and the 30 days. And, and one being free in the other not. So if you could just kindly take a look at that before you actually both the central fact that would be probably good. Thank you. Okay. We have talked about this and I think you have a misunderstanding. So I'm calling upon Sean right now. I was just going to say, don't give people any ideas. You know, given, given out this insight information. I was just going to say, Jen can speak to the visitor pass. We haven't had a huge issue with visitor passes on quasi serious. When I say, don't give people any ideas. Cause we haven't given out tons of visitor passes. I was more going to speak to the first part. Around the enforcement hours for meters, which is just to say that. I don't believe this. These permit regulations cover that. That would be a separate. That would be outside of this. This is just for the actual permits. And Jen, do you want to speak to the visitor passes? No, I don't want to speak to the visitor. So any person that holds a. Permit as an employer or a resident is eligible for. A maximum of 60. Of those visitor passes with the first 30 being free. They're supposed to be one day passes. So if you have four, let's say we have four people in a household. We have a total permit to park downtown. The total for that household is the 60. Permits. So the first 30 being free. And then the second 30 are a dollar a piece. We give them out only in increments of five. Whenever possible. That's just an internal rule that we have. So there's not too many of them out there floating around. And we haven't really seen much abuse on it. Okay. Thank you. It would be a kind of complicated maneuver. It seems to me. Kathy. Pam earlier talked about signage and. Making it. Changing the permit sign to talk about it's only from. September to May or whatever it was. But I think in your proposal, you were going to turn the permits into annual permits and not have them be for part of the year. And I wasn't sure why. The rationale seemed to be administrative simplicity, but I think the idea that you get a parking permit. Only for what is an academic year. So to example, we have summer visitors. We have events downtown. We have a permit sign. And people don't see a permit sign saying, I can't park here. So, so the two seem to go together that if, if we increase the permit to all year round, then Pam's parking sign change doesn't work. If we keep it just September to May. Then permit sign could say, I think it says nine to five. And after five, you can park there or whatever, but it would also say, you know, just during these months. You can make it a 12 month permit rather than a nine month permit. So it's, it's a question and a comment. I think the current policy makes sense to me. Yeah, again, it was for sort of administrative simplicity. I don't think that's if the, if the recommendation is to not do that. I don't think it's a huge deal for us. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And. I'm sorry, but just to clarify the sign, the signs do say so made a September to May already. They currently do. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. It may not pull sometimes. Almost no one I know even knows that I know this was one of the parking recommendations. Make it clear to people that you can park at the permit thing after a certain hour. I mean, it's, if we may just need to make sure people understand that you can park there at eight o'clock at night. You can park there on in July or August. You don't have to have a sticker. People can't pass them by thinking, I can't park there. So yeah. If we ever get a phone app. That people, maybe not me, but can use. That could be stated. I just learned in this whole process that people are allowed to park there who don't have permits. I did. I'd never read the small print. You know, Andy. I was actually going to respond on an issue that was raised. Even though it's outside of the proposed changes that. We're made and there is therefore a subject of today's meeting and hearing. And that was about the fact that there's a large number of parking areas that are enforced until eight o'clock. And having been a member of the select board. That. Made the decision to do that. I thought it would be helpful to explain why. The select board did at the time that it did. A lot of people would come in. Before six o'clock. Put a small amount of money just to cover through six o'clock. Into the meters and then leave their cars there all night long. And there was. Two aspects to that one is that there was no turnover in space. Those spaces. So it was actually clogging spaces, not making spaces available, which got into the question of why we're having the. Enforcement system. If the enforcement system was to make sure that there was a turnover of spaces. The. That. The type of parking. Which was perfectly legal. Was making spaces unavailable and made it harder for people to find parking. But there was another factor to it also, and that is a large number of the people who are doing that turned out to be. Employees at restaurants. And so that they were. Taking up spaces that were really intended. And so it was. For patrons of restaurants and patron and people who wanted to go to the cinema or other activities. And. It was after student effort and study by. The downtown parking working group. And its recommendations to the select board. We as a select board made that decision. And if we're. Reopen it, I think that we really need to get back into the questions as to. What are the downsides? As well as what are the upsides, because I think that. There certainly is. As was indicated. A problem that people come. And then they. The amount of time that they want to be there for a movie. And then it becomes problematic. And we need to understand that, but I just wanted to share that with you. Thank you. So just adding a comment here. If we did better publication of. On street parking, parking permits for employees. And the rate is going to be still cheaper. Then that might not be a problem. But I think that we're going to have to figure out. The number of complaints from constituents. About the eight o'clock. Thing on the meter. They wanted to be over the six. So I think that this may be. Into item. Dorothy, that was not the experience. That was not the experience that we had because. The parking permit system was in place already at that time. So I think that. Being able to come to work at five 30, put half an hour's worth and then leave their cars out there. Was it was just a fact of life and. It could recur. Because the parking permit system was already there. Okay. All right. So. I'm, I'm, I'm now kind of confused because we. We have closed the hearing. We have a lot of things that we need to discuss. But I had suggested that we move. Allowing public comment for. I gather where there's a large people from UMass who wanted to make a statement or ask a question about masks. First, first of all, public comment is not a time to ask questions. It's a time for people to make statements, but we don't comment. If unless there is any further discussion that you want to have. With the full council here regarding parking, then I should adjourn the full council. Meeting and those people who would like to stay should indicate by raising your hand. And at that point. Anna can exit you into. The audience. I think it's probably going to do that. Not me. I'm sorry. I don't think. I don't think they came here to speak to TSO. I think they came here to speak to the town council, right? But this ends the period where we're talking about parking and then TSO returns to its regular agenda. And at that point you can do public meeting. Public comment. Okay. Okay. I did hear what you say. I think we just talked past each other. I said that when we are a TSO meeting, I don't think that they came to speak to TSO. I don't think they came to speak to the town because it said joint meeting with town council. The council wasn't the council meeting was not. Published for the purposes of a general meeting. It was published for the purposes of the hearing only. I personally am interested in what they have to say, but I need to go to the audience as does Jennifer and Pam. Okay. And Kathy. Right. Okay. I've got other hands that are up now. So I will call them. No, it's, we all have our hands up because we would like to go to the audience so that we can still listen to TSO. Are you declaring the town council portion of the meeting? I am. I'm declaring the town council portion of the meeting adjourned. So I can't, I don't call on the hands because they're not, they're not wanting to be called upon. That's correct. I know we'll just exit us to the audience. While that's happening, Dorothy, can I just ask, are we done with parking completely for tonight or just the joint conversation? Okay. No, we, we, we, I think we've got a lot more talking to do and questions to do about parking. I just, and perhaps I should not have been, I was just concerned at the thought of a large number of people waiting to discuss something. Yeah, no, we're fine. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't done completely. No, we are not done. We're not done. There's a lot more to go. So, um, I guess what I'm going to say now is that, um, let us have a public comment, which is, um, public comments that matters when the jurisdiction. Well, public comment is generally on the matters of jurisdiction or the TSO committee. And this is not quite that. So Paul, I see your hand raised. Just clarification. Were you going to vote on, I thought Anna was making a motion initially and before closing the public hearing. Oh, we did vote to close the public hearing. I think Anna's waiting for the deliberation portion. Yeah. So wait for that. All right. Thank you. So I do, I do feel, um, you know, perhaps I shouldn't have said this. Um, about public comment, because. If I'm really strict about it. If I'm really strict about it, it says it matters within the jurisdiction of the TSO committee. And I don't think masks is an item in the jurisdiction of the TSO committee. So. If I may, um, we don't normally ask what people are going to talk about when they speak during public comment, they can raise their hands and talk about whatever they want to talk about. We don't ask ahead of time. Very good. Thank you, Athena. And I see Andy has his hand up. No, I just could say the same thing. Oh, good. Okay. Thank you. That is very helpful. Thank you. I will say we're going to have a public comment period now. And then we will get back to the TSO committee's deliberation on parking when the public comment is over. And, um, People who want to make public comment will raise their hand. Dorothy, do you want to give them a time limit? Um, yes. Um, our time limit. Well, Sean and Jennifer here too. Right. Well, they are here, but we do need them for the parking. So, um, So, um, I'm going to give them three minutes max. That would be fine. And, um, because there aren't that many people with their hand up. So I think that should be, should work out. Um, but there would be a time limit. Thank you. Tracy, I see you have your hand up. Am I unmuted? Yes. We can hear you. Um, okay. So my comment is actually related to parking, but it wasn't about the fees. Um, but it was about the parking permit program. Um, and I think it was a good place to both place to make it was during the public comment period. I just wanted to reiterate, um, some of the feedback that tack had provided to the TSO at the last meeting. Um, regarding. The parking permit program. And, um, one thing is specifically that we had been concerned about attack. Is just. The parking permit spaces that are currently on North pleasant street on the West side of Kendrick Park. On the West side of North pleasant street. Um, so as I mentioned at the last TSO meeting. On December 13th, 2021, the council did vote to approve changes on North pleasant street. That's section of North pleasant street to remove the on street parking on the West side of the street and to move it to the East side of the street. Um, at the tack meeting. And there are a number of course other changes as well, including making the street on one way street. North of the McClellan street, um, going, yeah, going north. So one of the things we heard last week, the attack met last week, and I had been under the impression that the changes on that section of North pleasant street were going to be. Um, I mean, I'm not going to go into that. Um, I'm not going to go into that. Um, I'm not going to go into the DPW's schedule for this coming construction season. But the DPW director at that time, he told us that given all the other projects of the DPW is working on and also the lack of funding. To make construction improvements. On that section. Um, those were going to be delayed. At least to a future construction season. Um, I'm not going to go into that. Um, I'm not going to go into it. Um, I'm not going to go into it at all. We will be discussing it at our next tech meeting. But I just just wanted to flag that we, I mean, I personally, and I've talked informally to another tech member is we still do have concerns about continuing to have parking permit. It's allowed on the west side of that street. But the safety issues that attack raised about those do on to the street. Also, when students, most of those apartments are occupied by students and when the students are in town, those parking permit spaces are in very high demands, you know, they're typically, they're typically full, you know, during the day. So I would ask, I mean, again, the check doesn't discuss this formally, but I would hope that even if the larger construction projects on North Pleasant Street are not proceeding at this time, that some minor changes on that section of North Pleasant Street might still be able to proceed, including for safety reasons, moving the parking that's on the west side of the street to the east side of the street and also making the street one way. So the original recommendation was to make angled parking on the park side of the street. That wouldn't be feasible until the street is widened. But it seems like it would be possible to have, I mean, there are meters on the park side of the street currently on the on the south end of the street. And it seemed like that could be extended. It would be more convenient for people who are visiting the park. So and also, we weren't really sure that those parking permit spaces need to be continued to be parking permit only. All those apartments along that section do have their own parking in the back. They have quite a bit of parking. There's only one residential property that has a very small driveway and perhaps they would still need spaces, but we weren't sure if the other ones would as well. So I just wanted to raise that for the Chiezo's consideration. But the safety concerns that existed when we made our recommendations, they still exist. And we're expecting with the great playground there that there is going to be a lot of demand for the playgrounds. There is going to be demand for parking in that area. And we'd like to see the street have some traffic calming and safety added even before the full project proceeds. So thank you. Thank you. And sailor Chiketti. State your name and give me your address, please. Hi, my name is sailor Chiketti. I am a student at UMass Amherst. I live in Northampton. But because UMass Amherst falls within the town of Amherst, I feel that this is the appropriate place to go. So as the town council may be aware, UMass Amherst recently lifted or super recently lifted its mask mandates, including imposing restrictions on departments and teachers, banning them from making stricter mask restrictions within classrooms, threatening disciplinary action to any teacher, student or any teacher, student or department or group that tries to create a stricter mask policy to protect either faculty or students. I, as well as probably a couple other of the UMass students here today are individuals whose health are threatened by this new policy. Those of us here today are disabled, chronically ill, immunocompromised, immunodeficient, etc. And this policy was made without any consideration for our health. As far as I'm aware, the town of Amherst still has a mask mandate in place, meaning that, oh, does it not? Because we were under the impression that the town of Amherst still had a mask mandate in place. And so we're trying to seek help from the town of Amherst to enforce that mandate on UMass to keep those of us who are disabled, immunocompromised, chronically ill, etc. safe. Okay. So I believe the rule is, is that we're not supposed to comment on public comment. However, if someone, if the town manager wants to say something, he certainly may. Or yes, I call upon you. Just as a clarification that the board, the health department did lift the mask mandate. Just so there's full information for everyone. Here's a question, though. That was an interesting detail in what the speaker just said. Lifting the mask mandate is one thing. I'm sorry, Dorothy. This isn't on the agenda. I'm sorry. I'm afraid we can't discuss it tonight. We can't discuss it. Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you very much. Now we have a lot to talk about in terms of the parking permit parking proposals. Somewhere here I have the program. Shall we go through items one by one? For example, I think the first one was to create a, let's see what was it. Can I help, Dorothy? Yes. The next thing on the agenda was post hearing deliberation and recommendation to the proposed changes to the parking permit regulations. We already heard the report from the finance committee, so you can move to the discussion and motion and vote. Right. What I'm looking for is the memo that we had from Sean Paul and Jennifer, which had a number of items that were proposed. I think the first one was to create a parking, okay. Well, if I can. Sean has a hand up. Maybe he can help. Yes. Okay. Sean, there were, it was, there's so many items that we've discussed. I just thought it would be good if we went through them in order. Yeah, I was just going to propose with the innocence of other committees the best way to proceed, maybe just to go page by page, see if there's any questions on each page, address them and then go to the next page. Because there probably are a couple of tweaks we want to make based on the comments. Do you want me to put up the track change version? I have it here, but I've got so many papers here. I can't find it right now. Okay. I'll try to make it a little bigger. Is that legible? Yes. Okay. Do you want me to lead the Yes, please do. Please do. So I guess is there any questions on the first page? So the first sections are just updating the, you know, introducing the parking permits and in the sections of the charter that they relate to. We did have a comment on the parking area and specifically North Pleasant Street, it's saying West Side only. I think that's a good comment. I think it raises an issue that the committee might want to consider, which is when these changes happen throughout the year, things happen, I don't think we want to open up the parking permits every time they happen. And so I don't know if there's any, if there's anything we want to put in here that allows the manager to sort of update this based on what's going on in town. Because you have something like that sort of small, but I don't think we'd want to reopen the whole all the parking permits to change it from West Side to East Side. So is at somewhere in one of these papers, there was a recommendation that the town manager have the authority to make these small changes. Is that something that needs to be discussed and voted on? Or does in fact the town manager have that authority already? Sean, is this about the is this about the North Pleasant Street between Triangle and Hallich? Yeah, yeah. So Dorothy, if I may. Yeah. On December 13th, the council voted to approve changes to that section of North Pleasant Street. And part of that vote was for the town to return to the town council for approval of parking regulation of new spaces, including a public hearing on the mix of metered and permit parking and meter regulation. So in my mind, that's not part of these regulation changes. They should be coming back to the council and Paul, maybe you can correct if that's incorrect. No, that's may go, Dorothy. Yes, I believe it's McClellan. I don't think it's from Hallich. I think it's from. So the the couple in the council vote in December, we are now ready to bring back some recommendations. I think we're scheduled for April 4th at this point in time. And then depending what the council wants to do with it, they could have a public hearing and do whatever is necessary to affect the changes that are being recommended by the town. OK, so you're saying that that particular issue you're going to be making a presentation by April 4th. OK, great. We anticipate April 4th at this point. Yes. Yeah. OK, so that would that would answer that. OK, so I think we could then move forward on this one. Any questions on the second page? Dorothy, I have a question. The lower level boat would there was certainly area and discussion on on that. Yeah, so this was added in because prior, I don't know if it happened. For whatever reason, the reserve parking in the garage wasn't really described in the parking and these regulations. So this was added just to sort of identify it as a location for parking permits. OK, no numbers being given here. No, it doesn't. It says designated spaces, but we don't. We haven't specified an exact number of spaces. Right, but I believe somebody in finance committee. Oh, I see your hand up. Anna had asked whether that number could be reduced and more open to the public. So. OK, Anna. Sure, Sean, I apologize. I'm making it go backwards or I'm asking you to go backwards for a second. I wasn't sure if it was on page two or page one. The adjustment to include Page Street and Beston Street. This is me showing my ignorance of not knowing which streets are where. But is that from the tack? Is that included in these edits? And that is not yet. No, it's not here. That's coming later. Oh, sorry. I was looking at the one where it said McClellan, North Pleasant to Beston. And I wasn't sure if that included. That would be that would be in here, actually, the top of page two. Thank you. Right, because I think that's for area one and area two. Yeah, I was saying area two. Right, McClellan has town permits and then it has resident permits at different places of the street. Right. OK. But did you want to make a comment on that? You're saying that I am in the wrong place, so I'll wait till it gets to the place that I'm talking about, I think. Right. Is that what you're saying? I think we're I think we're there now. It's on page two right here in this section. Then I is is that updated to include the recommendation from TAC to add page street and no, we haven't. We haven't. If the TSO wants to recommend that, we could put it in there, but we haven't added that. I don't I haven't personally had a chance to speak with the DPW director to see if there were any public works or public safety reasons why we wouldn't do it. But I think we'd want to get his input. OK, so this is what you're saying is then this is not an issue that we and TSO would vote on. But this is an issue that DBW would be consulted on. And if you had no problem, you would do it. Is that correct? Right now, I don't think the parking permit regulations give us the flex flexibility in this particular area, just to add spaces if we wanted to add a section that allows a town manager to sort of review periodically. This is a shot. Well, I think it was to add streets to the. It was to say that a resident of of Page Street or a resident of Beston, if they wanted to could apply for one of those residential permits, but it did not say adding any spaces. OK. So it was just to say to allow people in those two streets, which it seems odd that they're not included and tax spent a lot of time on this and making this recommendation. So. If it doesn't involve creating a new space. Is this something that can be. Um, voted on or recommended by TSO? Yeah, that can be part of your recommendation. I think again, the only issue would be is if that if that expanding the area causes spaces not to be available, but we haven't heard that or heard any concern around that. So, yeah, OK, all right. Anna, do you have anything more on that? No, I would like to see those two streets. I'd like to see the eligibility expanded to include those two. But I also don't want to do that. Um, without understanding any possible repercussions. So I think, uh, Sean, if you think it's it's. A safe measured thing to do, then I would encourage that. Edition. OK, I see Paul's hand. So I think the section we're talking about, it's actually eligibility, like who can buy permits, right, Sean? And I think that's why I'm on the wrong page. That's what I'm. But I think we're right there, though. No, that is it. It was it's on eligibility. It's not on making spaces that it's on who can use the spaces, right? There we go. So. So you would want to amend three point one to add whatever you want to add at that moment in time. If you want to add other streets to that, then who can get those permits? You should do that at this point. Yeah, it's in section three. Yeah, yeah, three point. So you should suggest some words that Sean can print in there. Thanks, Paul. So, Sean, are you able to add expanding or not not at this, but are you able to include an area to residents and property owners living on Page Street or I guess residents of Page Street and Vestin Street? Yeah, is it? How do you spell? Is it PAIG? I G. Right. And Vestin Street. Yeah. OK. And Paul, your hand is still up. OK. And Sean, there are very few residents on those two streets, but they're very narrow and I don't think it's going to cause. A problem. Yeah, and we can always between now and when the council actually acts on it, we can confirm that there's no issues. So. I'm sorry, Dorothy, I don't think you can see my hand. Oh, I don't. I'm sorry. That's fine. That's fine. I just had a follow up. Please speak up if you get ignored like that by me again, because it's the colors not showing up. OK, great. Go ahead and thank you. I just had a follow up to honest question or actually clarification. Was this the street where there was just like there was a portion of the street that wasn't included? For parking, was it just maybe half of the street? Oh, no, it's two very short streets, dead end. Well, Page actually curls into Cosby. They're very short and narrow, and they just weren't included. And it and TAC did not thought it was odd. They weren't included. OK. And that they were the residents on that street, if they wanted to get a parking permit, would have to go to Park near Kendrick Park several blocks away. Paul, I see your hand is raised. Yeah, so I think the key note here is that this is not creating any parking. It's allowing people who live on those streets to park in the existing parking. So right now, they can't get a resident parking permit. This would allow them to obtain that. And that's why adding right now, people on Cosby can do it. And this is saying, well, if you live on Page or Beston, you can also obtain a permit. It doesn't create any new parking on any of those streets. Right. That's right. So it's that that is a very good clarification. So do we have to vote on this? I think you'd vote the whole thing at the end. OK, very good. OK, great. So we can move forward and Anika, does that answer your question? It does. Thank you. OK, great. OK, so moving forward. OK. Dorothy, Andy has a hand. Oh, thank you, Andy. I was reading the text. Sorry, Andy, please. Just going back up a little bit earlier to the mention of the under of the lower level garage, the Boltwood garage. You know, I guess that the finance committee is going to revisit and to confirm the issue. Just recognizing that there was no comments on during the public hearing that the question then comes is to whether there should be anything that TSO wants to add about the lower level garage. If it still stays in the finance committee report, it'll be before the council in the finance committee report. But as TSO member, I just want to make sure that TSO has decided to pass on that issue and not discuss it today. You're talking about in speeding up the increase in fees or the increase in fees? When this one, it was actually, I think, and you go back up earlier in the mentioned permits in the in the lower level of the garage, whether there should be any consideration given to limiting the hours allowing some or all of the spaces to have limited hours to make the spaces available at other times. And I think that would we really discuss to the finance committee in a little more detail as if there was a slightly decreased rate that would be offered for the underground garage for people who are willing to allow their spaces to be used for other purposes during evening or weekend times. You know, Andy, I did not get that from your report, but I think it's a fabulous idea. Because when Sean was questioned and Paul, I think they both said that one of the reasons people pay that high permit fee is the availability, but you're saying having two class of permanent pay permits. And if someone says, I, of course, I don't I don't use it evenings and weekends. But somebody else would say, no, I've got to know, I can always park my car there. And that would be a differential rate. So that would be something that you're going to discuss in finance and then you're going to bring back to to to us or. But I don't know. Does anyone on TSO want to comment on that possibility? Whether you're for it or want to wait to for finance lead on that. And it goes ahead. OK, Anika, thank you. Well, first, I really appreciated the finance report. Thank you. And especially adding in mechanism or if a mechanism could be managed for lower income residents. But in regards to the lower boltwood, if I'm not mistaken, was it in the report that there could be an option of shared space or perhaps, you know, providing people with options? But was the concern also that how how could that be managed? Or did I misread? I think from a staff, I think from a staff perspective, there was concern about how we would enforce it, I guess, would be one piece. You know, I don't think we spoke specifically about what the time frame would be in terms of when the reserves reserved element would kick in and when the unreserved element would kick in. So I think how we would enforce it is an open question. And then whether it would continue to be the spot, you know, how much we would reduce the price for the permit in order to accommodate that to or would we keep the permit price the same? OK, Sean, I have a question. I have been thinking of a spot with a number on it and the person always sparked. But you're saying that the boltwood spaces are like the permit parking up on above ground, which you have a permit and you're you can park in any one of those 10 or 15. Jen, do they have a specific number that is their spot down there? They do. They're assigned a specific spot in the lower level when they have the permit. Because if they have a specific spot, what would the enforcement problem be? So we would need to know what are the hours that that spot is dedicated to the permit holder and what are the hours that it can be used by anybody else? I guess I don't know. Is it a during the day that we're going to dedicate it to the permit holder or during the night that we're going to get it to the permit holder? And then when is parking enforcement on duty? OK, so you see you still see it as a problem. And then is what you're saying? I think if this is something that's really interesting, you know, I could see why this would be interesting. We could find a way to explore it and maybe grab a couple spots and pilot something in the next year to see if there's demand for it. We could offer we could offer a couple of these types of spots and see if people buy them. And then then if it's successful, we could look at expanding it. Or if it's not successful, we could go back to what we have. OK, well, that's interesting. And I see Jennifer's hand up. I just also want to put out there that the lower level of the parking garage is one of the safe spots for parking for the emergency bands. So if we reduce the hours of the reserve spaces, that could be problematic for any anybody that is coming in for their eight o'clock workday and somebody's still parked there from the night before from the parking band. I just want to put that out there. OK. And Paul, I see your hand. Yeah. Yeah. So I think it's important as the committee thinks about things as why are we why do we charge a fee and what is our mission on this? So we talked a little bit about influencing behavior, generating revenue, but also ease of administration is really important for the committee to think about. We can slice and dice this a hundred different ways. We're not talking about that big of parking system. The more you the more iterations you put into it, the more it gets more complicated to the public. And that's one of the criticisms we've received from the public is that parking in downtown, you have different rules at different places. And trying to simplify that is one of our missions. And I think that these little nuances, it makes it harder for the staff to to enforce, especially when we get a new parking enforcement officer and you say, well, this person can park here in these hours, but not these hours. I just worry about the complexity of enforcement. And then, you know, people managing managing the front desk and saying, well, what kind of permit you have? No, you've got seven different flavors here. Yeah. It just I just worry about the successful administration of this kind of recommendation. Well, I think you're making very good points. I think what you're seeing is people were asked to think about parking. And so you're getting all these ideas. And I think you're right that we're getting a little bit too complicated because that is the I went to all those Nelson-Nygart meetings and it was the complexity of our parking system that was considered to be. He didn't see the lack of spaces. He just thought that it wasn't clear so that perhaps we do need to keep our focus on clarity and simplicity. Anyone have a comment on that? OK, so let's go forward. OK, now that's been explained. OK, two vehicle. Yeah, so there was a comment that this section wasn't consistent with the section below. And I didn't initially see the inconsistency, but I think if somebody sees it, let me know. And in relation to how many visitor passes somebody can obtain. I did not follow the argument that I didn't see how somebody could get a year of semesters worth of parking out of these visitor passes. But I think that Jennifer's clarification that it was per household. I think that was an important clarification. So it's not that everybody can do this. It's that a household is entitled to a total number. So maybe. Well, it does say OK, it does say household there. Is there anyone? OK, Andy, do you see some way to clarify this more or? Yeah, I just wonder if what we should be considering here is actually limiting visitor passes to people who already have passes for other uses and that if they have a visitor who's also wants to park in the street because they have no place else to park during the time of their visit, they can apply for visitor spaces, but that it not be for anyone who's eligible, but actually anybody who has who's purchased a visitor pass. OK, Anna. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I think, Andy, I understand theoretically how that makes sense, except that when you look at some of these houses in the driveways, they they may not need one themselves, but they can't fit a visitor. And so that and then they're looking at their visitor having to park very far away. So for me, the eligibility components make sense. Unless I'm misunderstood because of how fast Paul's hand went up. Paul. No, independent of you. Sorry. OK. Yes, I was looking at I'm trying to figure out what's the problem we're trying to fix. And when we make changes, you know, we have a system that's in this in operation for many years. And if there is a good opportunity to fix things. And I think we heard from General Fountain was that these aren't if there was abuse happening, it would be time to fix it. But it doesn't sound like there's abuse happening. So I guess that's one of my questions. And as we review this, but I think, you know, I just want to make a side comment there. We've gotten some really good, valuable information because like the signage for the resident only areas, many people didn't realize people could park there. So that's a really strong takeaway for us that the message people get parking by permit only. And that's all they see. They don't see the months or the hours. So we should really think about how to make that better. So we're going to let that stay as it is. It seems as an. Yeah, I guess I have a question to always just said is as I look at it. That was a good explanation of why residents eligible for parking permits should be able to get visitor spaces. What's the theory on employees who are eligible? Being able to get visitor spaces. Because that, that one, I'm not sure I understand what they would have it at all, or whether it's ever been used. Oh, I see. Yeah. So there's that one element of it that I would consider. And the other is, you know, the question was whether somebody could could abuse it. And I was wondering maybe it's possible that the 60 day limit apply to the household, not just to the individual. And that way it addresses the problem, the fear that was discussed. If there's a feeling that we need to do anything at all right now. Right now. It says eligible for parking permits. It doesn't say they have one. Right. So I see Jennifer and I see Anna, but I'm going to call Jennifer because you're making have some clarification on this. So I just wanted to reiterate that the 60 visitor passes are per household, not per permit holder. And there is sometimes a need for the downtown businesses. I'll pick on Coon Riddle for an example. Sometimes they have a group of people that they have coming to town working with them. So they'll ask for their five town center. The visitor passes that we give out so they can have those colleagues parking as close as possible to work with them for the day. Thank you for that clarification. Anna, that's what I was going to say. Great. Okay. So we seem to be okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Paul. My question was and Dorothy, my question was answered as well. Okay, good. So you do see Paul that we, even though it is stated clearly, reading these and understanding them is hard. So I guess you've really worked to make these legally and clear if there's anything else that can clarify it or maybe stressing it out. So that somebody else reading it would get it would be good. Because this is complex. But you can move forward. I think Sean. Yeah, I'm just looking at this one section and whether this was the section that is. Contradictory. Does that. Is that not consistent with up here where it says 30 days and up there says a maximum of 60 days. Okay. So that's what I'm looking for. And here it says, and who apply and have that permit. And this does say, and may purchase additional visitor passes up to the yearly total, which I think maybe it's okay. I'll keep going. Yeah. If anybody sees anything, let me know. Okay. I'm looking at you for your hands, which I haven't done good enough. Okay. We're going forward then. So just for, to summarize these changes were mainly for organization and to make it clear. From what previously existed. Was the subletting information new or has that. Been there before. John. That is something new. We've been seeing over the last few years. Some people applying for a town center permits that are subletting. And one of the requirements we have is to see proof that their name is on the lease. So we're just trying to. Minimize people adding. To make sure that they're. Their friends from college on. Right. As a sub letter without any other information from their landlord. Good. Thank you. Going to the next page. Okay. Now we're getting to the fees and the time stage, which is where we went to discuss. Okay. So Andy. Lynn put forward. A couple of things about the relationship of TSO deliberations and the finance committee. And one was that we. Make our decisions tonight. And then at the finance committee meeting. And she used a phrase that wasn't totally clear, but she said, I guess validate or something. And I didn't, that was, I wasn't sure what she meant by that. Or you had suggested that we discuss this. But that we don't. We don't want to make the final decisions on fees until. Finance committee meet and I. I am. Have no particular. Feeling for one way or for the other. So I would really open it to the. Group. Do you want to. Go ahead with the recommendations from the finance committee to. I think we have specific numbers somewhere. I think we can do it in one year. Do it in two years or do it in the three years. And the compromise position is to do it in two years. So, okay. Andy. You have the floor. The finance committee did have the discussion. And it was coming to two years as being more logical to move. The. Revenue increases up more quickly. Given the fact that we really have not done this in a while. And we're behind on the rates. And. We didn't. See the game to do it. And the. Question then comes as to. Whether you want to just go ahead. And have the committee make. It's recommendation tonight or whether you want to wait to see where the finance committee discussion goes. If, I mean, the worst that's going to happen a few, if we will go ahead. And conclude the matter tonight at TSO is, is that their council will be left with. Two recommendations that could have a variation on this one point. Okay. I leave it to the committee, this committee. To make that decision because I think that either one of them. Is a workable. Outcome for the council. It's a question of what people think it makes more sense. Okay. Anna. I mean, I already kind of spoil or alerted myself that I would really like to make a motion on this, not me personally, but I would really like to wrap this up in TSO tonight. And so I, I do want to go back to the year structure. You know, Andy, I hear what you're saying that. Finance saw the positives of it. And I'm still kind of, it's not that I don't see the positives of it, but I'm still a little bit at a loss as what we gain by pushing it for two years. Like what is the, and I think Sean, we talked about this awhile ago, like way back about kind of what is it that you need right now that. Everything that you think it might be. But you know, the first two years would get you versus three years. And then the trade off of. You know, staff work and potentially angry people. And so I think that's, those are the three things I'm trying to balance because it goes into an enterprise fund. And so how is this. What are you going to do with it in two years that's different than what you do with it in three. I'll give you just a real quick example. If you went $50 the first year and 150 the second or 75 and 150, you're getting more revenue earlier. You're getting to the higher rates more quickly and that will give the enterprise fund that has been so been starved by the pandemic and the loss of parking during the period of the pandemic, a quicker opportunity to start replenishing its balance than if you do it over three years. What Sean pointed out to the finance committee and was saying a little bit tonight was and I think the committee, this committee before was that doing it in increments allows us to test whether there's a huge fall off in the number of stickers or permits that are sought and whether there's a risk of actually losing revenue because people will find other places to go to park and that by facing it in more slowly allows us to see if there's a limit in the fall off and to test it out. I don't think that the finance committee talked about that for a while and the conclusion that we had is given what is being charged to UMass, we didn't think that even the highest rate was going to be necessarily force people onto campus plus UMass has actually capped the number of parking permits it could issue this year and was having a space problem itself on parking which sort of gave us a feeling that it was not gonna have that effect so that that's why we ended up going ahead and recommending that it's just compressing the number of years to get the money into the system more quickly. And I see your hand and then I'll call you back Anna. Okay. And now I had trouble in meeting. Okay. So I also agree that it would be nice to see more revenue quicker. However, I also trust the town staff and I'm not a driver and have more familiarity with how this would roll out. So my question if I'm not mistaken, did we not hear before that if the fees were to roll out as is as proposed that would town manager have the ability to make the change in one year and that that would be somehow noted or would if we went ahead with a three-year rollout would that be set in stone? Paul. You can answer that. I think Sean was gonna answer. I wanna clarify the question. Anika, are you saying could Paul do the whole increase in the first year or are you saying could Paul change that once we get to the end can Paul set the next rate? Could Paul let, okay. So if we went ahead with this rollout where, and I do understand the point of coming into with two increments as well and knocking out middle or but if we went ahead with the three phase and let's just say within the first year it's fine and people are not complaining or happy with it would Paul then be able to say, okay, we're going to just instead of going from 50 to 100 that we would go to 150. So we do have in this section that annual fees for parking permits can be set and adjusted by the town manager. So I think yes, the answer to your question is he could if you wanted to, if it looked like there wasn't any impact. Thank you. Okay, Anna, you had more to say. I just wanted to clarify, I understand that doing it in one year or two year would get us more money in our enterprise funds. I'm clear on that. What I'm not clear on is that, is that need so pressing that it overwhelms the potential risk of doing this quickly? That's the part that I think is more of a judgment, right? And so that's where I wanna hear from Sean about what would you do with the money in the enterprise funds in one year or two years versus three, how would that make a difference to you? Yeah, so that's a great question. So parking revenues are down right now and we're seeing them start to creep back up, but when they fully return, I think as we can't precisely project when they're gonna get all the way back. So in terms of our long range plan of being able to set aside a certain amount for capital, it's probably gonna be a couple of years before we can do that and when revenues are all the way back. We do have some capital needs in the short term that this would help with. I mentioned, I think a couple of them earlier that we are looking at meter replacements coming up soon and that's a pretty big capital item and we are looking at our handhelds that our parking enforcement officers use and that's 40 or 50 grand to replace those. They're on 3G and 3G is being deactivated. So it's hard to predict when we'll get to the model that we're envisioning because of the way the pandemic has impacted parking. So if we wanted to go quicker, I think that's fine. I do worry about going quicker for just one group and just being really clear why we're going quicker for just that one group if we're gonna do that instead of just doing a two step increment for all the groups. I mean, we have a differentiation in price because of the excise tax component between certain Amherst or not, we're not registered in Amherst but I'm not sure why we would single out that one group and make their transition shorter and not just do it for all of them. Okay, so, okay, and Andy, go ahead. Yeah, Sean, if you recall from the finance committee discussion, actually the focus was more on if we were gonna just do it for one group that we would do it for the people who do not have Amherst registration and not the second group, I just used the example because it was on the top. Yeah, no, that's my point. I agree with this. I'm just saying, why would we do it just for the second group and not all the groups? I think that the finance committee probably did wanna do it for all of the groups but I think that we're most focusing on the second group because we would like to encourage people to make that decision to register their cars in Amherst and we wanted to provide the incentive to them more quickly. The other thing that you could explain a little bit because I think the finance committee is probably ahead on this one is that the enterprise funds normally pay a portion of their revenue to the general budget for certain purposes of administering the fund itself and the transportation fund for the past several years has had to suspend those payments and it has a consequence on the general fund budget and that's something that we certainly were considering too. Okay, so to sum up, Andy's pointing out that there are serious shortfalls in certain fund categories due to COVID and that we do need some money. So the compromise position would be to do it in two years and not in three. Anna, your point had really been, let's trust the people that put this together, it seems reasonable, why not do it in three years? Would you be against doing it in two years? I mean, I'm not the one that's, it's hard for me to say I'm against it, right? Because I'm not the one who has to navigate people getting mad, but I would prefer it to be in three as proposed. I'm not gonna tank the whole thing on that though. Okay, so can I do a straw poll or at least ask for comments on this from the other members of the TSO committee who are here? I mean, Anna is saying the proposal is fine on three years. She thinks it'll run smoother that way, as was suggested by Sean, certainly at the previous meeting. Andy is concerned about shortfalls in the funds and has suggested doing it sooner. So we perhaps would use the compromise position of two years. Anika, do you have a position three year, two year, one year, what is your thoughts on this? I trust that it is, that this was thought out well and by people who are on the front lines. And also I must say, do not have the dog in the race in the same way I do not drive it, I walk everywhere, but I also, I do see Andy's point. So I would like to, I don't know, not to sound like I wouldn't have a position on it, but I'd have to if I have to say right now, I would trust the proposal as is. And hope that if there is any incentive to move forward, let's maybe bump this up if the year goes well, then I would be fine with that as well, knowing that we need to generate as much revenue as possible. So you're saying that the first year, 22, 23 fee, that we go ahead with that. And then as the people in town who are administering this and getting feedback, if it seems to be, okay, at some point, we'd give them the authority to go straight to the third year or I'm not trying to, but- I think it already does that Paul would have the authority anyway that he would. So I think that we probably all be on the same page that we want to experience economic recovery as soon as possible. So I trust that if in time, this is rolling out well and it would be appropriate to bump up an increase. And that would be for the benefit of the town. And I would trust that staff would make that decision accordingly. Okay. And I'm just looking at the biggest change, resident permit for non Amherst vehicle registration. There is a big jump from $25 to $150. So that's in the first year. And all right. So any comments from Sean, you've got your hand up here. Yeah, the only thing I just want to remind everybody too is with these updates, it's not going to stop at this upper limit. They're going to be reviewed annually now and they can be increased each year more consistently with how we look at other fees in town. I know everybody wants to sort of make up for the last 20 years and try to get it where it needs to be, but I think- We'll be able to keep these fees more in line with what UMass is doing, with what Northampton is doing. We'll be able to do that on a more regular basis with the updates that are here. Okay. So with this position, Andy, your response to the idea that we would go with the first year and then understand that if the people who are administering it, the town staff sees it going smoothly, they could then do it in two years rather than three. Would that be a satisfactory or at least not terrible to the finance committee? I can't speak for the finance committee because we haven't had that discussion. So it puts me in a position I can't be in. Right, but I'm sorry. I would present it, it would explain it happened tonight to the finance committee and then it has to make its own decision. And I think that the question was I raised earlier, will it be ultimately Optana who's gonna, who's spoken that she intends to make a motion at the end of discussion? And that is whether the TSO wants to hear from the finance committee before just wants to let the council deal with inconsistent recommendations from two committees. Should that happen? I'm not guaranteeing it will because of a known outcome. Okay, so then are we at the level that we're ready for Ana's motion? There's, I think there's one more. There's one more, okay. There's a couple more pages, but they might be quick but I do think we wanna talk about the permit year. Yes. So it seemed like there was general consensus to leave it September through May. Jen, do you have any comments you wanna make on that? I know some of this was about ease of administration. Yeah, I don't know if one of the comment, one of the thoughts was because the price was increasing to make it an annual, make it a year round permit as opposed to the nine month, but I think keeping it nine months as it's pros as well, because people can see the parking areas not filled up as much in the summer and maybe we'll use it to visit downtown, but either way. Thank you. I've heard a lot of people saying that they wanted to stay it as it is. And I, for the first time I understand why you're gonna change it, not just ease, but you thought it might soften the pill of the increased fees, but I don't think it works that much. If you're not gonna be here the full time then it doesn't give you anything anyway. So any other thoughts on the year, the topic of keep the time as it has been September through May or make it year round, anyone else with a thought on that? Okay, so then we kind of keep it as it is, I believe. Is that correct? Jen, the second piece here beginning May 1st, is that still okay? I think I have to fix this piece, but. If we're gonna keep the permit season in September, we don't normally begin selling them until like the second week in August. Okay. So a lot of the leases won't start until September 1st anyway, depending on. Do we just wanna go back to any time throughout the year or do we wanna specify a timeframe? I mean, we really sell them. The only months we don't really sell them is May, June, and July, so. May, June, and July is when you don't sell them. But will you make this August one? So this would mean you just can't buy them in June and July, is that okay? Yes. So these are just swapping out, select board for town manager, gets rid of a section that no longer exists and no longer is relevant. This clarifies that towing is at the owner's expense. And we just got rid of the title parking enforcement supervisor. Could I ask a question? How often do you put one of those wheel restraint devices on? How often do does the town tow a car? Just kind of general number. So the wheel restraint devices the boot is the other name for it. Any vehicle that has five tickets that are older than 21 days are subject to having that device placed on their vehicle, whether it's a mass plate or an out-of-state plate. It really depends on the time of the year. We've had a handful in the last month, but it really just depends of timing when parking enforcement finds the cars. Okay, so you do do it. Okay, I don't see them. I haven't really walked by a car and seen them. I was wondering if you ever did it. We stopped for a little while during the pandemic and then started back up a little while ago. You won't miss one, they're bright orange. How often do you tow a car? They will tow for anybody that's parked where they're not supposed to be during the parking ban. And if the vehicle, if they don't pay their boot fee within 24 hours, they are subject to be towed at that point at their expense. Okay, Anna has her hand up. Oh, Anna. I'm just gonna ask if we think we're ready for a motion because I think 13 is the last one. I didn't remember there being any substantial changes. Sean, we're tired. Okay. I think that again, this is, we don't have a parking commission per se, or at least it's not operational. So I would happily make a motion if that's okay for tonight. I had it written so nicely when it was the wrong time to say it. So hang on one second. All right. Don't tell me Athena, I have it. Okay. I move to recommend the council adopt the changes to the permit parking regulations as presented and amended in the document titled, I lost two documents, Sean. It was called permit parking regs 222, 22 clean. Okay. Is that a second, Anika? Yes, second. Okay. All right. So I call the question and Andy. Going to abstain because I'm in a very awkward position caught between two committees. Yeah. All right, Andy. Anika. Yes. Anna. Yes. Dorothy. Yes. Okay. So it has passed with three yeses, one abstention and one absence. Okay. So it's five after nine. And we have some other business we have to do. We have some appointments. We can thank Sean and Jennifer, right? They can go home. Thank you all for working through that. We appreciate it. Thank you very much. And I got to say you both were wonderfully helpful. Really, really good. I really appreciated it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We have an appointment for the affordable housing trust to appointments for the affordable housing trust. Aye, aye, aye. Do you want me to run through these, Dorothy? Excuse me? Do you want me to run through the appointments? Oh, I would, I would love that. I would love that. Okay, let's do it. We've got two typical committees and we have a brand new committee, which is kind of exciting. So the first is the affordable housing trust. We have two vacancies and I have appointed Risha Hess and Ashley Jensen, both new appointments. And I want to note that the trust requires the appointees to be for two years. The vacancies we have expire on June 30th. So these are just to June 30th, but I will automatically put them back to the council for a two-year renewal when we do all of our renewals in June, probably May or June. So both very, you know, Ms. Hess recently moved back to Amherst and has some personal experience with a friend of hers who has been unhoused and has very passionate and also had experience trying to find affordable housing for herself in this community. Has a child at Crocker Farm, so really invested and brings a new perspective to the committee and Ashley Jensen as a social worker who's been working through the pandemic to helping people and has by, through her own personal experience and seeking support for affordable housing has learned a lot about how to navigate through the system. So both really practical advisors to the trust. Okay, thank you. I will entertain a motion. Anna. I move to recommend the town council approve the town manager appointment of Risha Hess and Ashley Jensen to the affordable, Amherst affordable housing trust effective immediately for a term to expire June 30th, 2022. Okay, and do we have a second? Second. And Anisha, Anika seconds it. Okay, I call the question. Anna. Yes. Andy. I think that's a yes. I didn't quite hear it. Andy's, oh yeah, you muted. Okay. All right, do I read his facial expression or wait till I hear his voice? He nodded his head, yes. And Anika. I did say yes, do you not hear me? We didn't hear you. We saw it, but we didn't hear it. Now I'm talking about it. Now we hear you. Okay. Anika. Yes. Yes, and Dorothy. Yes, okay. So the next one is council on aging and we have again two appointments, Terry Carr and Dennis Vandal. Ms. Carr has been as experienced secretary and she has been volunteering her time to be the secretary to the council and has been attending all the meetings and decided that she was interested in actually serving as a member of the council and it seemed only right that she take on a voting membership. And Dennis Vandal has been volunteering and working as a, he's a photojournalist who's been a photographer. And again, has been supporting the senior center, but also you may know him because he took your photographs at the inauguration. So both are interested in serving on the council. We may have more vacancies coming up, but these are two strong candidates. Okay. Do I have a motion? Can I ask a question first? Yes. Athena, this is a question for you. Can I make a motion for both and say the different dates and then add respectively at the end so that it differentiates them? That's perfect. Thank you. I wrote this down, y'all. I'm not messing these up again. Watch me mess it up immediately. All right. So I moved to recommend the town council approved the town manager appointments of Terry Carr and it lost the other name. Dennis, what was the last name? Vandal. Vandal. Vandal. Vandal. Vandal. Thank you. Randall, Vandal. To the council on Adrian. V-A-N. Thank you, got it. To the council on aging, effective immediately for terms to expire June 30th, 2024 and June 30th, 2022, respectively. Okay. And a second motion? Second. Second, Andy Steinberg. Okay, I call the question. And Dorothy Pam, yes. Anna Devlin-Gautier. Yes. Andrew Steinberg. Yes. Anika Lopes. Yes. Okay, that has passed. Thank you. And our last group of nominations. Yeah, our third committee is the brand new committee safety and social justice committee. This one was handled a little bit differently. As in the past, I've asked Barbara Love, Keisha Dennis, who's on the residence advisory committee and Sid Ferrara to conduct the interviews. They have been doing such a fabulous job, very organized and bring an excellent perspective to what the town needs on these important new committees. So the committee charge calls for two members to be formerly, having been formerly on the community safety working group. And those two members are Deborah Ferrara and Pat Anabaku. And we did not interview those. Those are the only two applicants from the CSWG. So those were just moving forward. The candidates that they did interview, they recommended, and I pointed, Phillip Avila, Allegra Clark, Frickette Ate and Demetrius Shabazz for various terms because the requirement for the new committee and recommendation when the committee was recommended by CSWG was that the initial appointments be staggered. So we get into a three year rhythm right up front. So some will be one, some will be two, some will be three. So I think that this brings a new perspective to, they tried to balance the committee. One of the things they did not find in the balance was a younger person and they said, let's hold that seat. And we did this for the community safety working group also. They said, we would really, really want a younger person to serve on the committee. And there was no, there were no applicants that fit that bill. So they suggested that we hold that seat. And they said, we will continue to recruit and find someone who can fill that seat. So I mean, we'll be out there looking for folks if you have any ideas, but we, this will let this committee get started. Could we entertain a motion and just to approve the candidates and terms as presented by the town manager? Sure. If not, I didn't catch that. Okay, so Anna, go ahead. Yeah, so I moved to recommend the town council approve the town manager appointments. I'm happy to go through it just because I wrote it out of the following individuals to the community safety and social justice committee effective immediately. And for terms that I would just say right now, Deborah Ferrara for a term ending June 30th, 2024. Pat Ananabaku, term ending June 30th, 2023. Phillip Avila, term ending June 30th, 2025. Allegra Clark, term ending June 30th, 2023. Fricka Ette, term ending June 30th, 2024. And Demetria Shabazz, term ending June 30th, 2025. And that is so complex. Is that correct, Athena? I'm not looking at the appointment number. I'm reading it off the letter. Great, so we will assume that that is correct. And we need a second for that motion. Second. Second, thank you. I call the question. Okay, Anika Lopes. Yes. Andrew Steinberg. Yes. Anna Devlin-Gautier. Yes. Dorothy Pam, yes. And Shalani Balmilne is absent. Okay, so we have unanimous of those present and have voted yes. Okay, so we have inaugurating a new committee, which is a great moment. We then have, after this, we have approval of the minutes and we've all had a chance to look them over, I think. Are there any questions or comments about the minutes? No. Okay. So do I have a motion to approve the minutes? I move to approve the minutes as presented. Second. Thank you. And I will call Anna Devlin-Gautier. Yes. Dorothy Pam, yes. Andy Steinberg. Yes. And Anika Lopes. Yes. Okay, the minutes have been approved. Okay, so we're, it's getting late, but there was, we've had public comment and announcements. Do we have any announcements? Okay, and next agenda preview. So I believe we can do that. Finish up the discussion of how to follow what was voted by the town council on North Pleasant Street and parking. I believe we can do that next meeting. Is that correct? And... Yeah, I think that we were going to present that to the council and then it would get referred, but I can check with Lynn on how that was gonna work. All right, so it's just, in other words, it's in the future. That's, yeah, you guys will present it when it's ready. Okay, and Andy has going to make a, write a memo, I believe on lunch carts. Is that still correct, Andy? Yes. Yes. Okay. And we know that water regulations is coming. I'm trying to figure out what's somewhere I had written down the date of our next meeting, but it's, oh, March 24th is our next meeting. So what are regulations you have? Sewer regulations are gonna be presented to the council on the 21st and then that will get referred, most likely get referred to you as well. So you might, you could do them both at the same time to make it more efficient. Okay, so let's see. Oh, yes, we had a memo from CRC wondering if we wanted to discuss our committee charge and to add economic development and there was something else, I don't remember what it is. So I guess the North Pleasant Street thing. So that's something we can talk about, see if we will discuss whether we even wanna discuss it. Okay, is there something, some other item that somebody wants to bring up as a future agenda item? Yes. We might also be seeing the rental permit fees, right? Depending on if that gets referred to us or not. Do we know if it's going to be referred to us? We don't know for sure, I'm guessing it will be and yeah. I can't remember, Paul, I think that's on the agenda for the 21st, but I can't quite remember, sorry. You're muted, but I'm guessing you might also be having 9 p.m. Yeah, they're starting to run together a little bit. Yeah, it's coming up soon, it's a future agenda item. I don't know when. It gets here when it gets here. I'm sure that's gonna be an agenda item, so thank you very much. And I know that we've got a lot of other things to talk about, I know that Anika has some discussion about outreach. I don't know when we're gonna get a chance to do that, but that's definitely on our agenda, okay? All right, Dorothy, I'm now, it was referred, we did refer it. So that we need to put the rental registration fees on our agenda. Okay, great, okay. There was also a referral for outdoor public spaces for summer dining. Right, oh, that was the other thing. From CRC, did we want to vote on closing North Pleasant Street on weekends in the summer? That was the memo. Certainly that's something that I think we would need to discuss. So typically Dorothy and Lynn and Athena and I get together to set the agenda for the TSO committee. So if anybody has other things other than what's already been referred, you think so you, and I got Anika's outreach piece. If there's anything else that we need to put in, please let us know. Okay, is there anything that anyone wants to bring up before we close the meeting? Yeah, I guess there's one thing, I'll just go ahead and do it because it's really quick. And the question of closing North Pleasant Street, I think that we really, if we are going to take that issue up, it's not simple and it needs a lot of input because we really need to hear from the bid and the chamber about their views. I think we need to hear from fire and police departments, the fire department has a facility on that street and we're here, we need to hear from DPW. So I think if we're going to take it up, it's not a simple matter and it is going to require some help to hear from who we need to hear from. Right, I agree with you on that. When you're reading through that, that prompted some other topic, I knew that we were supposed to discuss, I'm trying to think of what it is, totally gone, totally gone. Okay, so Paul, in such a case, you know, we're not starting, this was referred to us. We have to take up something that's referred to us to think about. Andy has pointed out why there's a lot of people involved in even discussing this. What would be the best way to proceed on such an item? So I think this is something we should talk about at agenda setting, but probably the first thing you wanna do is just have a discussion with the committee whether you wanna, if you wanna have a fuller discussion and then we would bring in all the everybody, but I think you have to understand the proposal first and so, well, let's talk about that at agenda setting. Okay, fine, we'll do that, very good. Okay, is there anything else that somebody wants to, anyone wants to bring up at this time? Okay, I know there's some other items we're supposed, oh, and we're supposed to hear about streets and paving, that presentation is supposed to come at some point, we'll talk about that at agenda setting. Okay, great, so I can say the meeting is adjourned, can I do that? Yes. Okay, great, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Everybody, have a good night. Thank you, thank you all, okay.