 All right. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the Act of 2021, this meeting will be conducted by a remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so in the following manner. By emailing stevemccarthy at mccarthys at amherstma.gov. That's m-c-c-a-r-t-h-y-s at amherstma.gov. No in-person attendance of members of the public be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship and despite best efforts, we will post on the town website an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. OK, so next we do the call the Boat of Order, or the attendance. Hallie. Here. Dylan. Here. Doug. Here. And I'm here, but Gaston is not. So we are four here with one accent. And next up on the agenda is public comment. Is there anyone here for public comment? Oh, sorry. We're just doing public comment, but I don't think anyone. No one's here for public comment. So on to the renewals. Is that right? Yes. So the one thing I will note is that I did add university liquor since the liquor license renewal section there. OK. I do not believe they are able to be approved as they did not submit a complete application and are no longer in control of their premises. So I would exclude that one from any vote. The board probably need to take a negative vote on renewal for that one just out of a belt and suspenders approach. OK. And that's that's number seven. Pavan Inc. Doing businesses, university liquors. OK. So why don't we just do some kind of motion to approve all except that one and then how do you want us to do that so that it looks good? Yeah, that could work. Everything else should be renewable. I would just say the usual cabbie had a subject to satisfying all requirements with the town. And that one can be handled separately afterwards. OK, Doug. Just a quick question. Did you send out the agenda for today? I don't know that I've got a copy of it. And if not, you just play it. If I didn't, I did just send one in response to Alyssa's email. So that it should be in your inbox from that. Apologies if I didn't send it earlier. I posted this one on Friday because I realized the posting deadline would be pretty early on Tuesday. So yeah. OK. Yeah, I don't know if I have the one with kaiju in it. Is it that one? Yeah, it's just. Yes. OK. Oh, there's a wrong date there, too. But it was posted correctly on the website. So that should be fine for notice. Whoops. So I guess the question is, again, just seeing this. Do we want to do all four types of license in one fell swoop and just exclude the. No, I'm forgetting which one we need to exclude. But the university. Yeah, let's see. Yeah, yeah, if you like, I don't think I've seen a reason why not. OK, so I'll move to renew all license listed on our agenda with the exception of. You find it here on the ground. But Von Inc doing business as University of Lickers, 6th University Drive. Thank you, Doug. I should say pursuant to all other details of application renewal being completed in order to fully license them. Great, thank you. Is there a second? Actually, I got a question before we second that one there. So just hypothetically, if we, you know, so we had perhaps issues with people and violations, they may or may not have committed in the past. We wanted to do something about that. Do we are hands tied? See, we still have to do just some sort of. We just approve here. There's. Nothing. Is a good question. And one, I am not fully prepared to answer off the cuff. I suspect if there wasn't a renewal, there would probably be some cause for appeal to APCC. And I don't know exactly how that would go. I think that's an interesting question. And that's probably something we can look into. I think there is case law on that. Yeah, I would just suggest it's probably a circumstance where it's difficult to do it during the renewal process because if you're going to revoke somebody's license, you probably want to do it through a more formal hearing process, but it would be my guess what they'll say, just a guess. I mean, technically, yeah, you could not renew anybody, but you kind of have to have reasons for not doing it and give them an opportunity to sort of make their case, I think. Well, I think we've got some stuff to discuss between now and the next time we do the renewals. But let's not mull it over too much. I'm 11 in the morning meeting that we're throwing together. I'm just going to go ahead and second this one for now. All right. Super. Thank you, Dylan. Any further discussion? If not, let's take a vote. Dylan. All right. Hallie. Hi. Doug. Hi. Gaston. Hi. And I vote aye. That is five to zero. All the licenses are renewed. And do we need to vote separately on Pavan, Inc.? Yes. OK, so how does this go? Yeah, Doug. I'll make the motion. OK, great. I'll move to not, to explicitly not renew the application for Pavan, Inc. doing business as University of Likert, 6th University Drive due to them being unable to properly meet the requirements of a license renewal. Thank you, Doug. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Dylan. Any further discussion? Nope. Let's take a vote. Hallie. Hi. Dylan. Hi. Gaston. Hi. Doug. Hi. And I vote aye. That is five to zero. That has been approved. That motion has been approved, which denies the renewal of University Likers. All right, great. So that takes us through. So that covers all of them, CommonVix, Live Entertainment, and auto dealers renewal applications. And we can go on to discussion items, available liquor license application procedure. And I think we'll go through these kind of quick. So was there an update on this one? So I think as we left it last time, we got a good sense of what the board can and can't look at. We got a sense of the different avenues available to the board. There was either just first come, first serve, or just holding one hearing. And just deciding on whatever had come in at that point, I think the board was in consensus to do the latter of those two options. And so I think what remained to be decided was how long of a period to leave the renewal period. What time to hold the hearing, I guess, what the due date would be for any applications to be considered for that. And when do we start accepting them? And how do we get notice? And I mean, I guess to just review my understanding for those who are here, it's OK to say what we're going to accept them and then review them all. What we need to be aware of is that once we approve a license, we can reject all the rest because there isn't a license available. We don't have to give reasons. On the other hand, the question is how would we arrive at knowing which one we want to make a motion to approve? And that becomes an interesting question. One approach would be to just be noting what we like about the different ones so that we're not giving the reasons for rejection. And at the end, we've just somehow reached a consensus about which one we like the most. And we're approving that one because we like it the most, not because we've made a negative judgment about any of the others. And then at that point, we move to approve that. And we don't need to explain any of the denials because there isn't a license available at that point. And so the question then for us, one was did the town attorney draft any language for us to look at, Steve, for an announcement? I think we were going to come up with that. And I think the best way is just to keep it simple. And I know that we identified those ballerin factors from that appeals court case in 2000. And maybe we can touch on that a little bit. I mean, I did think we'd run it by the town attorney before we sent it out. But I think it would just be simple. There is this type of liquor license available. The board will be considering all applications submitted by X-Date looking at location and public need, or maybe even just public need because I think that's really what ballerin kind of delved into. And run it by him, make sure that's fine. And we would put it out. But I think keeping it simple was probably the key. Yeah, Doug, and then Gaston. Just a quick thing to follow up. So I think that one way to approach would be, and I think it falls into lines with what Gaston was saying, is sometimes when you do a request for proposal, you articulate things that have greatest value that you're sort of using as the metrics for making a determination. That way, people could potentially augment their nuts and bolts application with that details about those things that sort of align with what we're seeking. Obviously, we have to be very careful, as Steve noted, the sort of public good kind of thing. But we could potentially kind of define that a little bit if we wanted to shape the conversation a bit. I mean, I agree, it's a very tricky thing to do. But I think just out of fairness to folks to give them a little bit of a frame of what we're looking for and then the time frame to collect things, the time frame review and the decision date are going to be the pieces we need. OK, thanks, Gaston. So I think we should have that conversation that Doug mentioned. Maybe we can have it after the kind of logistics pieces. And on the logistics, it seems, especially if we have things we want to point out that we care about, we should give a decent lead time. And I would suggest not even say that we're going to start accepting them after a decent lead time so that places don't feel like they have to scramble and get ahead of others and so on. So I mean, I'd be inclined to give folks the month of January to get their ducks in a row. I don't know if that seems in the right ballpark. Yeah, I think that sounds good. Yeah, Hallie? I actually thought, Alyssa, what she for about the select board's process, the two months seems fair in that we're going to ask people to secure a lease or at least have an available property. And then we did adopt our liquor or alcohol regulation. So that is a starting point because it states what we consider for applications. I think that's a good place to start when we're defining what we're looking for since we've already kind of put that out there for the public to look at. So if we started accepting applications in March, perhaps, would that be a good time? We think that. I think we give them two months. Two months? I think the two months was until the hearing. Oh, it's a good one. We could give a month. We could have a, well, maybe we could have a submission window during February and meet in the middle of March. I don't know. One concern I have. I don't know if the board, I don't know if we can not take an application that's submitted. I don't know if that, I believe, I think the statute is written in such a way that the, you know, I don't know if there's any way we can not take one, even if there's this timing thing, we could take it and then just not do anything with it for a couple of months. But I think if somebody walked into the door in January 2nd, I don't know if we could say no. Well, but we don't, yeah, I mean, yeah, OK, but OK. What I would suggest about that is the violence. I think you're right. We may have to accept the application. But I think the other thing you, my suggestion would be that, Steve, when you get those, to say to them, there's some additional information that we may request or we're going to give to the public to others that might be applying, you may want to come back and augment your application with us. And so just so that they have an opportunity to perhaps refine what they gave, you know, after the fact. Because again, I think you're right, we can't, once the license is available, anybody can apply from that point till whenever. But you can indicate when we might be doing the hearing, when we'll review the applications, that there may be additional things they want to review and perhaps augment their application with after they see what we put out. Thanks, Dylan. Procedurally, the way we think about doing this, when we actually get to the meeting itself, the way it's playing out in my mind, let me know if it sounds the same to you guys. Are we going to just take kind of everybody's application in? We're going to just kind of hear what everybody has to say, maybe ask some clarifying questions and then kind of move into a discussion amongst ourselves when we talk about positives. And then maybe make a motion kind of thing. What does that kind of sound procedurally what we're planning on doing? I think Brian Riley had mentioned we could do it where, you know, each application, the public hearing would be open, they'd hear the testimony, ask any questions, the public hearing would be closed. And then instead of moving right to a motion on that application, we would just move to open the next public hearing and then close that, wouldn't go through them all. And then once they're all closed, the board could have discussion. And then there would be, eventually somebody would make a motion to approve one and then if that passed, then there would have to be moves to deny all the rest of them because there was no license available anymore. Yes, Tom. And depending on the number of applications, we could schedule this over consecutive meetings. Yeah, if, yeah, if we had that many. A minute taking would be a bit of a nightmare. Could you have to record all the opening and closing of all of us? The hearing. So the, so what's the next step? Do we have to get, do we put the announcement out? Is that right? So yeah, I'm happy to put the announcement out. I can, I can draft something up. I mean, I think it's an interesting question, Doug, about what we put in there because, you know, rereading Brian Riley's email about all this, it does seem that the board, you know, he says, well, the board does have discretion considering any license application when the ABCC reviews a denial that is appealed, it looks like looks to the so-called ballerin factors and assessing on appeal whether or not the authority's decision was reasonable. And that says, you know, the appeals court said, public need in the literal sense of requirement is not what the statute is about. Rather the test includes an assessment of public want and the appropriateness of a liquor license at a particular location. For example, one might hesitate to authorize the license for a bar across the street from a public school, considering of the number of existing dispensaries. And I think they mean liquor in that sense. In the locality is a proper concern, as are the views of the inhabitants of the locality in which the license is sought. In making a discretionary determination, a licensing authority may take into account a wide range of factors such as traffic, noise, size, the sort of operation that carries the license and the reputation of the applicant. So he says, then Brian Riley comments, factors such as noise, traffic and size are therefore valid considerations. However, these three factors mostly apply to a brand new location since the transfer of the license from one business to another. The same location would not tend to increase these concerns. Number of existing dispensaries in a particular area might be a more difficult argument for argument to make for restaurant licenses and off-premises ones, but in principle that could be considered. This factor allows the board to give preference for a lesser area of town, for example, rather than just adding another off-premises license where there are already several in place. This all depends on the specific facts regarding the applicant in the neighborhood, but just to show that the board does have some discretion deciding whether the application will serve the public good as vague as that term is. So, guest on? Yeah, I mean, I would suggest that we identify the any documents that set forth like the, did we see like the design vision? What are these documents called that the town has the? Do you have the master plan? And there are a few things in there that. So I think we could say that the board is interested in the applications that align with the vision set forth in, vision and requirements set forth in and then we can have the master plan, we can have our guidelines and anything else in there. And so that we're inviting applicants to actually make the case for us that the way they wanna put on the business and where has that alignment? And so they're kind of, we're inviting them to do the work for us. Yeah, I think that's a really good point that you've made you know, guest on you and Doug and I do think we'll just wanna kind of toe the line though between, I do think it's really important to kind of let people know kind of generally what the board is looking for but also not hear the board in too much in particular things, there may be something that is technically aligned with the master plan but the board feels like is not a good location. I wouldn't wanna necessarily say that these, this will be completely what the board's basing it off of but I'm sure we can craft some language saying the board will be reviewing the applications based on the public need and maybe taking into account the master plan and neighborhood needs and traffic and all these things. Yeah, so I think that the, why don't we take the first pass and let you comment on it, Steve? Yeah, that sounds great to me. Okay. So let's identify what we wanna say and because it's really just a few sentences that we're looking at. So we wanna have the hearing March 15th. Does that seem too late? No, I think it sounds fine. I mean, what's our nearest session to that? It'll be March 16th, I think. March 16th is a, I'm looking, March 16th is a Thursday. Applications submitted by the end of February. How about by March 1st or by February 28th? By, what day of the week is that? That's on Tuesday. It's a Tuesday, March 2nd is a Thursday. We want, that gives us two weeks to review them. Okay. Does that seem all right? Thursday is a deadline, Steve? I'm just trying to count up what the notice date would be. Yeah, you're gonna need some extra time, right? And we're gonna need time as a group to go through that before the meeting. Yeah, I would say, so we have to have the advertisement in the newspaper 10 days before the hearing. And generally, I mean, so if that would be a Monday, generally we would wanna get that in on Wednesday just to make sure that that goes smoothly. So I would say if we wanted March 16th, we would set a requirement to have them in by, I don't know, the Wednesday before, the 22nd of February maybe, because if we have a bunch of them, we'll wanna just make sure everything goes in right. We'll need a little time to post it and everything. Close of business February 22nd? That sounds good to me. That's great. So the board requests applications. I mean, I guess, is it okay? Can we give you something, Steve, that has some brackets for some detailed language that? Yeah, absolutely. Okay, request applications for the name of the license. Okay, and so the board is particularly, the board is interested in applications. We'll review applications in light of considerations set forth in the master plan, right? Or with preference given to those licenses that? Well, I guess here's where I'm taking Steve's point of being kind of just a little bit open-ended. Okay. And saying like, we'll review it in light of. And maybe we would center the public need there first and then kind of, and then pivot it in light of. And how do we articulate the public need? I think that's what Ballerin was looking at. I think public need is what it says in the statute. And then Ballerin was kind of diving into. In light of public need, we'll review. Reviewed towards the public need. Based on public need and in light of, based on public need and the board's got regulations. How do we call them? And in light of considerations set forth in the master plan. Steve, could you give me a sharing privileges? Yeah. Did that work? Gaston as a co-host? Yep, perfect. So what else do we need to say besides this? And community feedback? Do we want to just kind of like copy and paste some of that legal criteria for which we can base some of our decisions? So kind of everyone knows that. Like the traffic consideration, number of locations in that area, proximity to things like schools or whatnot. Do we want to include that in there? Maybe broadly in the master plan. Yeah, we could just include hyperlinks to the master plan and our regulations. Yes. And we could reference that decision. We'd say in light of consideration set forth in the master plan and in the, we could just reference the case. People want to look it up. I don't know. I like that. I think it's going to be one of our criteria we can be fast forward about that. Case name. Abuse ballerin versus the licensing board of Boston. And I don't think the board is required to take anything into, I think if the board said, oh, I don't care. I think it's fine for Lucas Dory to be next to a school. I don't think that's any problem. Those are kind of the reasonable things the board could take into account. Yeah, and I think here, we're just saying these are the things that we're going to give light to in our, that will take up there. I mean, so anyway, let's fill in the details there. Yeah, we can approve a 10 story liquor store. I guess we really wanted to. Do we want to formally request, do we want to provide the community a way of giving us feedback? Well, won't they do that at the hearings? I think that would have to be at a public hearing. Yeah. Yeah. But we won't have a way of getting written, written feedback like the town council does. Well, we can make sure to post the full packets online and post the full agendas and maybe even do it early. And people can always write to submit comment if they'd like, but I do think any kind of consideration that would have to be at the public hearing and that'd be the best form. Yeah, I would agree with that. I'd also suggest that, I mean, I think mentioning that we're seeking the public comment. So if we are advertising the license being available at the dates and such, we can also, you know, we're generally put in, oh, we're also seeking public comment relative to this, you know, for community feedback. You know, please note the hearing date and reach out to Steve McCarthy. You are unable to attend that and want to offer comment, something like that. Do we want to also say it's listed or prior to the hearing, the email or something like that? Can we do that? Is that going to create a problem for you to get feedback, Steve? I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand your question, Dylan. Oh, just like, do we want to say rather than if people necessarily want to come to the meeting and give in-person feedback, they just want to send an email with some of their feedback. Do we want to invite that or make it clear that they can do that? Yeah, I think we can make it clear they can, yeah. Okay. There's no CBA, we usually get a lot of emails based on projects and not just people showing up to the meetings. Okay. Okay, I mean, I think, is there any other element that should go in? I think these seem like the key nuts and bolts as far as I can see. Yeah, I think it looks good. All right. Okay, then I'll just send that over to Steve. Thank you very much, Steve. Yeah, thank you. And yeah, I'll run that by Brian Riley and we'll post something very similar on the website and maybe send it to the press for the end of the week. Okay, super, thank you. So what are we gonna do with our next topic? Rental registration? Gaston, how was that going? Well, Hallie and I met and we reviewed the documents that Mandy Jo Henneke had sent around and we made some notes. And so I guess I'd be happy to highlight the kinds of issues that we spotted and the board can decide how we wanna follow up. I think it would be helpful to invite Mandy to come talk to us, but we may wish to highlight something in particular that we're concerned about. So if you all, if we wanna give time to that now, I could actually go ahead and share the documents that we commented on and make some of those points. Should we do that? Does anyone wanna look at it now? Yep. Okay, why don't you, can we, is it? I'll try to make it quick so that... Yeah. So just to put this back in front of you, you'll recall that Town Council is considering making us have some kind of enforcement or hearing role and what this proposal does is highlight that the idea is for us to see a view board, an appeals board. And the first comment that we noted in this document relates to our power that is being proposed here to enter into a consent agreement with an owner. And given that the penalty of suspension, which is a very aggressive penalty, is also completely undermines the goals of the town to have housing, right? So I think that we would actually probably be motivated to do consent agreements a lot because the hardest penalty is very much contrary to the public interest. And so the question that we had is how do we actually, how are we relating to the principle code official, which is, like you on his name, Steve. The building commissioner? Yes. Yeah, Rob, Rob Mora. And so are we, we're supposed to be settling an appeal between the landlord and the town, but we're also not specialist. And so we're gonna be, our most authoritative source of information is gonna be one of the parties to the appeal. And so I just, I guess I just wanted us and the town council to think through a little more how we're supposed to be engaging with the principle code official in these appeals because we know that we're inclined to support the town and carry out the town's goals. But in this case, it's an adversarial hearing between a landlord and the town. So that was one issue. Okay. There are potential administrative fees and this just falls into questions that we have about the text. I don't think we need to have a conversation about it so much as this is a question that we're curious about. Okay, who sets that fee? We're wondering if there's a violation of a consent agreement, then do we have who decides what the penalties are during that consent agreement? Is that us or is it Rob Mora who assesses that there's been a violation during the consent agreement and then what should be the consequence of that? So this is a similar kind of issue that is raised because we're being asked to be an appellate court. I do a quick question there just on that. Could that sort of, could that be a section of violation? Could that be something that had or is articulated within that consent agreement? Perhaps. Absolutely. Doug, I guess what I'm raising is that we're not expert to know whether like the way that they repaired the roof or the way that they did this actually addresses the issue that we're gonna have to basically rely on on the code official to inform us about whether there is a violation. And I guess again, the thinking through what a consent agreement would be, what penalties should be, all of these are things that it's not clear what our competency is and therefore how are we gonna relate to our best source of information who's also one of the parties in this adversary area. So that's the kind of main policy point. And then beyond that, just going to other comments we had. It was the point system that gave us a lot of concern. Can you explain that one, Hattie? Sure, briefly that there's all kind of series of points that you get for violations. And are we, yeah. And there were some that we just needed to get more information on and is it each violation or each date that you get a point? And some seemed really hard for the owners to rectify if they have a bad tenant. If that makes any sense, like cleaning the snow or when I'm trying to look at the refuse, like if the tenant doesn't take out the trash or do that, it's tricky, we thought. Yeah, I mean, some of the things that'll get a landlord points are clearly based on tenant behavior. So it relates to the capacity to fill your tenants. But I guess the reason why the point system is so important to get right is because if you're using points, it means that a certain number of points has a major consequence and that's exactly what parties are gonna wanna appeal. And come to us to adjudicate. So we need to feel like the point system makes sense or else we're gonna be a mockery of ourselves. Right, okay. So if you're looking at them on the screen, I mean, some of them are, like if you rent to minors, like unless you have a chaperone on weekends, like they could engage in underage drinking. And is that the tenant's response or the landlord's responsibility then is that they're getting points for that? Yeah, the other thing is the way this is shaped is gonna change how some of the leases are written actually because things that landlord to traditionally placed as a bit of a thing that the tenant is responsible for and therefore may discount the rental, they may have to take out because of the structure of the points, which that may not be good or bad. I'm just saying that that's a factor. I think the really tough nut to crack is those that are tenant behavior-based. And that's tough because as a landlord, you have only a limited amount of control. Right, so just in terms of action items, reviewing this has been helpful. I think it highlights there's two kind of policy issues that we were particularly concerned with. And I'd suggest we invite Mandy to come and talk to us about those so we can give her some input. We're worrying about what we'd be doing. So we're a good source of information for the town council as they're trying to craft this. Does that seem like a good next move or anyone wanna highlight anything else? I think it's a good next move. I was also wondering if it would be useful to have Rob Mara in at the same time or if you prefer just because a lot of that seems to come under his preview. Steve, what do you think? What do you think? Yeah, I mean, I think we could certainly invite Mandy in for an update. Can I ask Rob if he'd be available at that meeting? Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, Doug, go ahead. I was just gonna add one other thing relative to this point system that they're sort of tenant related because I think one thing that can help inform some of that is looking at the tenant landlord writes responsibilities and sort of what's involved in getting evictions to occur or not occur because I think that the way that structure could be helpful as far as stretching this as well but I think also just understanding we don't wanna put a landlord in a situation that's untenable relative to them being able to evict or not evict or that's counter to the way the eviction process works too. So that those should marry closely but I think it might be also instructive in that because the state's been a lot of time thinking about that and that eviction process it's very long and very slow and et cetera, et cetera but that notion of ownership of responsibility on both sides and we're sort of exerting ourselves as a sort of third party outside of that but related to those two. So I think that could be a good frame to reference. Okay, Gaston. I think those are all excellent points and I think we should suggest to the town council that they create a tenant's rights and responsibilities landlord's rights and responsibilities and neighbors' rights and responsibilities that match exactly what the policy is in here. Yep. Okay, great. So when can we have Mandy in? So our next meeting we're actually scheduled to meet next Thursday. Is that right? On the fifth at five? Yeah, well, I guess rolling into our next discussion I had in many way, do people anticipate being able to keep the same meeting schedule the normal one anyway, in the new year? Thursday, first and third Thursdays at five? Yeah. It's on good, okay. So in that case, I mean, we can just send her those dates and ask which one works for her. Right, see if she's available the fifth or the 19th and then if Rob is able to come that might be helpful too, we'll see. Yeah, and if he can't come he can give us any feedback based on the stretch. And would the board like to meet next week? I don't know if I don't know of any applications that have come in recently. Do we wanna, do you wanna do a meeting or? I'm okay canceling it. Yeah, we can. In consideration of your generosity taking your Thursday morning here for the last renewals. So there are no more renewals, there's nothing coming up. There, we liquor license, we are through everything. There may be a couple stragglers. Common Vic and such, but I think we're through just about all of them and there's no, I don't see any short term or anything coming in so. Okay, great. So we could, if we just wanna skip to the 19th that's totally fine with me. And if anyone else is dying to meet next week. No, okay, great. So we have our agenda on the 19th we'll have maybe Mandy and maybe an, let's see. And then Steve, you'll send that notice about the liquor license application around so that everyone can look at it and you'll send it to the lawyer, is that right? Yeah, I will send, I will, yeah. Gaston send me the draft we have here. I will run that by Brian Riley and if he makes any edits, then I'll let you know and either way I'll send it along to you and you'll see it on the website and everything. Okay, super, thanks. All right, great. So that's it. Topics not reasonably anticipated 48 hours prior to the meeting. Anything, no? Okay. At some point, it is interesting that this year we've had three ABCC kind of violations and nothing from our town. I just was curious like if that's normal or for other towns or Dylan, were you raising? No, I'm not trying to catch you up anyway. I was just gonna say, I was actually thinking about the same thing. I didn't know if I wanna talk about it now or we're gonna get out of here, but I was thinking we can't raise our fees to have something exorbitant for a one-time kind of fee. We have to match our fees to meet the cost of administration. It's like, well, what is Steve, what's your costs? What do you cost the town here? How do our fees match that? And if we wanted to say, figure out some type of enforcement where we could actually do enforcement in the town somehow working with the police department and being able to generate some sort of a budget specifically for that, if we could actually look into what our costs would be and we could set our fees accordingly rather than picking numbers that we all just kind of like, what if we pick numbers that actually met our costs and we could start doing some sort of enforcement? Do we have any idea about like the feasibility of something like that? Now, do you mean board members themselves or hiring somebody or sending me out undercover? What do you... I mean, I love, well, my first option is that we all get badges and guns as board members. I don't think that's gonna fly. Next one, I think the idea that comes to mind the idea that comes to mind immediately is just using the Amherst PD and maybe working with them in some way. I think maybe if we didn't have a talk with somebody from Amherst PD, if you know anyone over there, Steve, who might be interested in this and have some ideas of how the police department could actually do some sort of effective type of enforcement, I'd love to hear from them and hear what their ideas are. But if we could figure out something like that, figure out what the cost of that would be, that I think would also help guide setting liquor license prices to match it so we can actually afford to pay for these things. And now our numbers are generated from what our costs are as opposed to, yeah, like I said before, numbers we like. Yeah, I mean, I can definitely ask Captain Tink from the police department to come in and speak or the chief maybe. I mean, I do know Amherst PD was involved in the Panda East investigation. They were right on board for that. So I do think they stay fairly on top of things. I mean, obviously a big part of their job is monitoring that activity downtown on the weekends, but I'd be happy to invite a representative of the police department to come in and discuss what they're doing for enforcement. Yeah, I just thought it was interesting because this is the first year basically since I've been on that board that, you know, we had port up, but we haven't had a lot of ABCC violations and then to have kind of three and one from pre-pandemic. But I just thought that was interesting and I don't know if it's a black mark on our town or not, but the fact that we're not discovering these things, but the Commonwealth is. And I just thought it's worth a conversation. I don't know, you know, we need to step up. Yeah, no, it's just, I mean. I suspect it might have some correlation to how much they're in town. I mean, a couple of those were rather minor violations. Obviously the Pandy East one was not as minor, but no, it's interesting. And yeah, I can definitely ask the police department how they're doing, but there is a section on the ABCC website. I can forward it around after the meeting of all the ABCC decisions and cases and some of them are very interesting in other towns, just the different types of, you know, as they hear all the appeals of different, you know, different town enforcement. They also, you know, have their own original jurisdiction for their own investigation. So it's interesting to kind of get a sense of what's going on. And for its size, I don't think Amherst is particularly out of whack. I do think they've probably just been around more, but. Any other topics not anticipated? Nope. If not, is there a motion to adjourn? It moved. Thank you, Doug. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Dylan. Take a vote, Hallie. Aye. Dylan. Aye. Gaston. Aye. Doug. Aye. And I vote aye. That is five to zero. We're adjourned at 1149. Thanks, everybody. Thank you, Steve. See you on the 19th of January. Yeah, thank you all. Happy new year. Happy new year. Thank you for coming in on our 30th morning and all your work over the year. And I hope it's a good one. All right. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye, everybody.