2026-09-23 - Committee on Infrastructure

05:55No, but I unmute. Unmute.

05:59>> Okay, we ready, everybody?

06:05>> Good evening. I'm going to call to order

06:08the committee on infrastructure.

06:11Uh, this committee on infrastructure

06:13meeting is being held on Wednesday,

06:15September 23rd at 20 and 6 at 7:06

06:23p.m. in the aldermatic chamber and duly

06:26noted in two places including the city's

06:28websites in accordance with the

06:31requirements of RSA 91- A semicolon 2

06:35room number two. Uh I'd like to thank my

06:41good fellow alderman friend alderman Dow

06:44for coming in and offering the clock for

06:46us. Uh could you please uh take the

06:50role?

06:52>> Yes. Alman large Michael O'Brien senior

06:55>> present. Alderman Dow is here.

06:59Uh Alderman Smith

07:01>> present.

07:02>> Alderman Johnson

07:04>> present.

07:05>> And alderwoman Greg is uh on vacation.

07:09She won't be here tonight.

07:11>> Okay.

07:13We have four members present and I will

07:17declare a quorum.

07:19Um,

07:22also uh in attendance

07:26is uh Liz Hammond

07:29um of the community development,

07:32director of community development.

07:33Right. Did I give you a promotion? Yeah.

07:36Okay.

07:39Uh and u we got fire marshal Mike Deanni

07:45and uh well excuse me from walking there

07:48to up here. Lieutenant your name from

07:51MPD please.

07:52>> Timo.

07:54>> Okay. How do you spell that?

07:56>> O R Rio.

08:02>> It's not one of my Irish names that I

08:05close. So, excuse me, officer.

08:11Okay. Also in attendance is Jill

08:14Stanfield, the parking manager and

08:18>> Matt Downing violations coordinator.

08:24>> Director Sullivan.

08:26>> Yes, Mr. Oh, I should bow. I'll get to

08:30you.

08:33And Andy is here.

08:40And Matt Sulliv,

08:43>> huh?

08:44>> The assistant director DPW.

08:48>> Yeah. Are you uh officially here? Yes.

08:52DP DPW. Okay. All right. You got that?

08:55>> Yep.

08:56>> Okay. Super. We also have in attendance,

08:59Alderman Lopez,

09:00>> I am officially here,

09:02>> has joined us as well.

09:04>> So, welcome all. So, I'll open up to

09:08public comment. Oh, first I would like

09:10to see say that uh Alderman Cle wished

09:14to be here this evening, but uh

09:17something important came up and that

09:20needed to be attended to. So, while

09:24we're just getting into that, she does

09:27have an ordinance before us 026-24,

09:33which is authorizing additional stop

09:36signs to make allway stop sign at the

09:39intersection of French Street and Abbott

09:42Street. has been usually our tradition

09:45when somebody can't make the m uh the

09:49meeting and is the prime sponsor and she

09:52called and asked if we could shuffle it

09:55to the next meeting and I says yes we

09:57could do that. So I hope you accept that

10:00courtesy. Okay. Uh so that now we'll

10:05open it to public comment.

10:09Okay. I don't see anybody in attendance

10:11who wants to step forward. So, we'll

10:14move on discussions and presentations

10:17now to get back. So, just that we could

10:20stay focused. We're all in agreement to

10:23delay 02624

10:26to the next meeting.

10:28>> Is that confirmed?

10:30>> Okay. And we will be done.

10:33>> Okay. So, that brings us next into Oh,

10:37yes. Communications.

10:39Can you the communications please?

10:41>> That the presentations first.

10:45>> Yeah, let's just get this out of the

10:46way.

10:47>> All right. Communications from Wayne,

10:49our husband, PE, senior traffic

10:51engineer, regarding Division of Public

10:54Works support of pending legislation

10:56026024.

10:58>> Okay. There being no objection, I'm

11:00going to accept the communication and

11:03place her on file. However, I will ask

11:06uh Miss Graham, our administrative

11:09assistant, to reprint it for our next

11:13meeting because it's directly and tied

11:15to Alderman's CL recommend uhing

11:19ordinance. So, we'll keep those two

11:21together and that's why I had that jump

11:23over on you.

11:25>> Okay. So now that leads us into a

11:28discussion and presentation

11:31uh on updated residential parking pilot

11:35program. And I I would just like before

11:38the discussion and get it in the

11:40presentation like to say keep in mind

11:43the word the definition of the word

11:45pilot. Uh this is not anything cold and

11:49hard 100% etched in stone that's going

11:53to be put on anybody's temple. Uh this

11:57is a pilot program because this is an

12:00extremely complex issue and is the

12:04desire by some of us

12:08at the table here would like to get this

12:10right as close as we can right off the

12:14bat. you know, because uh parking is

12:17important. It's not so much in my ward

12:19to ward nine. Uh Alderman Johnson, I

12:23have to say I don't think it's a really

12:25big issue in five as well, but when

12:28you're living in the situation of

12:30downtown,

12:32we've got a different animal there.

12:36We've had a lot of landlords that turned

12:39what was traditionally two family homes

12:42into four to six apartments. And if you

12:45look at the city layout of it uh and

12:50compare it to the car registrations and

12:52maybe

12:54uh Andy, if you can get in that with

12:56your presentation, we haven't got the

12:58linear foot on some of our streets for

13:00all these cars.

13:03So try to do it as equitable and as

13:06fairly as possible. So again this is the

13:08pilot and everything. Alman doubt.

13:11>> Yeah. One question I have. You're going

13:12to present the pilot program tonight but

13:14before it gets instituted we have to put

13:16put legislation in.

13:18>> Yes probably. Yeah. Go ahead.

13:21>> Um Liz Hanam, economic development

13:23director. Uh yes but this is uh just a

13:26discussion right now. Um there are lots

13:29of costs and work to do. Um, so we

13:32wanted to hear from you whether you'd

13:34like us to move forward, how you'd like

13:35us to move forward, all of those things

13:37tonight so that we can um as staff

13:40execute uh a potential pilot.

13:42>> Yeah. I just want to make it clear to

13:43the audience that we're just discussing

13:45it tonight, but it's not official until

13:47legislation.

13:48>> Correct.

13:49>> Okay.

13:50>> Yeah. Okay.

13:52All right. Very good. With that, I'm

13:55going to turn the meeting over to uh

13:57Miss Stanfield. Thank you very much,

13:59Jill Stansfield, parking manager. And I

14:02want to thank you, Alderman O'Brien, and

14:04the infrastructure committee for having

14:05us back to discuss the uh potential

14:09pilot program for residential parking um

14:12in this area. Uh I do want to also

14:15recognize our fire department, police

14:17department, public works. Um we also

14:20have director Sullivan here for

14:21community development. So, I want to

14:23thank them for their time and their

14:25input thus far because this is a very

14:28complex issue as you stated and it uh

14:31involves several city departments

14:34working together. So, I want to thank

14:35everyone that's um worked with us so far

14:38on this. Uh tonight our parking

14:41consultant Andy Hill with Thornton

14:42Thomasi is here and um he's going to be

14:45covering why uh this area is worth

14:48exploring and more importantly what

14:51would be actually required to implement

14:53this successfully. Um there is an

14:56existing need in this area today. Um and

15:00then the pro proposed development in

15:02this area will add to that need. So, our

15:05goal is to develop a thoughtful,

15:07measurable model that can address this

15:09existing need and support future

15:11development. Um, and it will be a tool

15:14for us to hopefully implement in some of

15:17our existing permit areas. um once we

15:21work out any um I'm going to use the

15:24word kinks, but um so we're we're hoping

15:27that this model will be the start of

15:29being able to kind of fine-tune and fix

15:31some of our existing permit area where

15:33we have some issues today. Um our

15:36consultant has done an excellent job

15:37outlining what it will actually take to

15:39test uh implement test monitor and

15:42evaluate a program like this. Um, and

15:45the biggest thing is we need to get this

15:47right before we start implementing it

15:49into additional areas. Um, the goal is

15:52to establish a sound template that again

15:54we can can be evaluated and built upon

15:56in the future and be able to be

15:58transferred over into our existing

16:00permit areas. Um, and then finally, we

16:02need to be realistic about our

16:04resources. Um, we're very close to

16:07having the staffing necessary to handle

16:09our existing workload. Um we had

16:11preferred um bringing on some of that

16:14additional staff that we should have had

16:16a couple years ago due to the difficult

16:18budget years. Um but we're getting close

16:20to having that staff which is great. Um

16:22but again that's for our existing needs

16:25today. Um so it'll be important to uh

16:29you know look at the what's going to be

16:31involved in this process which may

16:34involve additional planning, staff time,

16:36labor implementation, enforcement,

16:39monitoring and potentially the funding.

16:42Um we cannot just continue to add new

16:44initiatives and assume that the existing

16:46staff can absorb them in indefinitely.

16:48Um but our department is committed and

16:51um very supportive of moving this

16:53forward. um so we can um add overnight

16:57parking in our downtown area where is it

17:00is needed. Um so tonight looking for

17:03direction from the committee. Do you

17:05want us to continue down this path? Um

17:07and if so should we uh begin identifying

17:10funding and resources necessary to

17:12properly imple implement it? Um so with

17:15that I will turn it over to Andy to

17:17start the presentation.

17:18>> Well if I may and Mr. help if you don't

17:21mind. I kind of sometimes think it's

17:24better that you know if you trigger some

17:27thought for one of the committee

17:29members, may they ask you a question

17:32immediately while you're on the subject

17:33matter or do you prefer?

17:35>> So, we were hoping to kind of go through

17:38the

17:38>> go through the presentation first

17:40>> and then have questions open up the

17:42question if that's okay.

17:43>> And that's the way we'll go.

17:44>> Thank you.

17:48Um, with that said, I wanted to provide

17:51just a little bit of background, um, at

17:53least from my perspective of how how we

17:55came to be where we're at at this point

17:57in time. Um, and I did quite a bit of

18:00research going back through the

18:02ordinances and all the various

18:03amendments to determine that the current

18:06program that's in place right now was

18:08started in 2013 as a pilot. Um, it

18:12originally covered 20 streets and it had

18:14a maximum issuance of 400 permits at $10

18:18a year. Um,

18:20it included then and now provisions for

18:23temporary relief when needed for folks

18:25who who didn't necessarily need uh

18:28overnight parking all the time, but on

18:30select occasions. Um, and that program

18:34was amended, expanded, and then finally

18:36extended and made permanent 2016.

18:39Um the current program as it stands

18:41right now is a limit of issuance of up

18:44to 550 permits uh going across 33

18:48different streets. Now there are

18:50actually almost 50 different street

18:52lengths as if you look at the ordinances

18:54and it's still at $10 a year.

18:58Um when I started working for the city

19:02uh back in early 2020, this was one of

19:04the first things that we had tackled and

19:07uh we went through an extensive um

19:10public outreach process or as extensive

19:12as it could be during the height of

19:14COVID. uh a lot of Zoom meetings here uh

19:18with different um stakeholder groups.

19:21And the deliverable that came out of

19:23that was a proposed uh residential

19:26parking permit program which was really

19:29uh focused on putting most of the onus

19:32on initiation and establishment on the

19:35citizensry themselves to make them uh

19:39drivers uh primary drivers in the

19:42process. When we had reviewed that uh

19:45before the board of alderman at a later

19:47date, uh one of the things that was

19:49requested was us to go back and look at

19:52an alternate approach which would allow

19:55city staff or uh other leaders to really

19:58champion the process rather than putting

20:00the entire load on the citizens to

20:03organize and go forward. So um that's

20:07what we've tried to put together uh with

20:09this program as well as making it fairly

20:11portable so that ideally uh this is

20:14something that if it works in this pilot

20:17area something that could be carried out

20:19uh in lots of other different places all

20:21around the city where the need arises.

20:24Uh this particular zone was really um

20:28identified initially in part because uh

20:30the property possible uh development is

20:34proposed here which is a redevelopment

20:37of three different very large industrial

20:39buildings and a significant amount of

20:40surface parking.

20:43Uh as a result, as we started to take a

20:45look at this, um we had put together an

20:49initial boundary, if you will, uh that

20:52limited this pilot area to Spruce Street

20:55on one side, uh Commercial Street on uh

21:00the opposite side, Temple Street up

21:02north, and East Hollis Street down

21:04south. This is really

21:07among other things about the maximum

21:10reasonable walking distance. uh anybody

21:13in in Nshawa might consider.

21:17Um so we felt that this was an

21:20appropriate footprint to at least start

21:22organizing uh this concept underneath.

21:26And one of the first things we did was

21:27before we even went and looked at what

21:30the new development was that was coming

21:31in, we went and looked at what was there

21:35right now um and went through uh

21:38property tax records and compared uh

21:41those records as well as um going out

21:45and doing some actual field inventory to

21:48get an understanding for the number of

21:49off- streetet parking spaces there were

21:51in the area. Uh what we found was there

21:55were roughly 128 residential units in

21:58this area right now. Uh they're

22:00supported by 460 parking spaces. And if

22:04you use um the city's parking

22:07requirements per zoning as a measure,

22:11and they're pretty good measure, they

22:13align very nicely with what we see as

22:15far as uh standards in the parking

22:18industry developed from empirical

22:20observation. Uh there are about 12

22:22properties there that are under

22:24supplied. Uh which is to say if you look

22:26at the number of off street parking

22:28spaces that are uh allocated to those

22:30properties or adjacent to those

22:32properties uh and you look at the number

22:34of units that are within them and the

22:36demand that they would drive based on

22:39zoning regulations

22:41uh you are short about 42 off streetet

22:44parking spaces

22:46uh within this area as it stands right

22:48now. A lot of these, as you will see, uh

22:51it's a shortfall of two spaces here,

22:53three spaces there. There are a couple

22:55of properties um that have significant

22:58shortfalls, including uh one property uh

23:02that has no off- streetet parking

23:04supporting it at this point in time. And

23:06the reason we wanted to get our arms

23:07around this is so we could understand

23:11uh as we looked at this area, the

23:13dynamics between supply and demand. Um,

23:16when it came to supply, uh, we really

23:19had to do quite a bit of homework in

23:20order to try and calculate how much on

23:24street parking there could be

23:25legitimately in this area. Um, and

23:28there's a fairly extensive writeup that

23:30will walk you through all of those

23:33dynamics. I'm not going to take them

23:35through you this evening. Um but the

23:38long story short is once you start

23:41looking bit at uh the minimum setbacks

23:43that you need as far as uh fire hydrants

23:47and curb cuts and intersections

23:50and you look at street widths and what

23:53will or will not support uh parking

23:55along along um the side of the road and

23:59still maintain traffic flow. At the end

24:01of the day, the best you could possibly

24:04get out of the area that we're defined

24:05is about 152 parking spaces. So, two

24:10numbers to start with. Uh 42 demand for

24:1542 spaces in an area that could provide

24:17up to 152 spaces. Uh which is pretty

24:21good dynamics.

24:23Then we bring the property possible um

24:26project online and um

24:30in uh very recent days the state has

24:34passed legislation

24:36uh in order to encourage um development

24:39of more residential units to address the

24:41affordability issue uh here in New

24:44Hampshire which have stated that new

24:47development now especially residential

24:49is coming along uh cannot be mandated.

24:52needed to provide more than one space

24:54per unit. So, um this was the measure

24:59that we used on the property possible

25:01development here. Um and it meets that

25:06requirement per state. Now realistically

25:10um

25:13based on the behavior that we see of the

25:14other residential units all over uh NSHA

25:18um what we've seen in the greater market

25:21uh and even by admission uh what the

25:23developer uh was referencing the true

25:27demand was going to be something in an

25:28order of 1 and a half spaces uh per unit

25:33and they were really providing for 385

25:35units about 450 spaces. So about 1.1

25:39spaces per unit. So there was a

25:41significant gap there. That gap ends up

25:43equating to about 128 spaces

25:47uh that the development doesn't have

25:49that it would potentially be spilling

25:52out into the surrounding streets in this

25:54particular area. So now if you add that

25:57to the 42 that we already had, you now

26:00have potentially 167 vehicles competing

26:05for 152 spaces, which really um outlines

26:11uh one of the the major challenges in

26:14any type of of overnight or residential

26:16parking permit program, which is um

26:19typically uh demand does outpace supply

26:23in almost every instance.

26:25Um,

26:27we had gone this far with our analysis

26:30before we sat down with representatives

26:32uh from uh the police department, the

26:35fire department, the department of

26:37public works. Uh, and there's certainly

26:39precedent for this. in 2013.

26:42Uh when the initial pilot existing

26:44program was established, uh the vote for

26:47permanence was only allowed after a

26:50favorable um statement of support from

26:53those three agencies. Uh and they are

26:56the three agencies most likely to be

26:57impacted by anything that we're

26:59proposing here. Um and we got quite a

27:02bit of very um useful feedback from

27:06these folks here. uh some of which we

27:09had actually already addressed. Uh we

27:12had initially proposed some parking

27:14along Upper Howard Street. Uh that has

27:17been done away with. There is no parking

27:19along Upper Howard Street. Now um we

27:23have gone back and double checked to

27:25make sure that we have accounted for all

27:27the fire hydrants and if we drill down

27:29to a lower level or a greater level of

27:32detail going forward uh we will be

27:35preparing a engineering quality layout

27:37plan that shows where all the fire

27:39hydrants are, where all of the assumed

27:41setbacks are, where all the parking

27:44lanes might be as well as the no parking

27:46zones um to create greater examination.

27:51Um number of other things that had come

27:54up included uh concerns about making

27:58sure that the streets were clear uh for

28:00necessary functions like trash pickup

28:02and street sweeping uh which we would

28:05incorporate into any final program

28:07recommendations as part of standard

28:09terms and conditions. Um there was a lot

28:13of concern expressed about being able to

28:15clear the street uh in snow emergencies.

28:19Um and that ended up rolling over to

28:22some discussion about how the plan will

28:24definitely need a very robust

28:26communication program in order to uh

28:29make folks aware when we do need to

28:31clear the streets uh in order to conduct

28:35either uh impromptu or scheduled

28:38maintenance here. Uh and there was some

28:41discussion about possibly looking at

28:43enhanced enforcement if necessary in

28:46order to make sure that there's

28:47compliance with those limitations. Uh I

28:50we still if we want to take this to the

28:52next level have quite a bit of homework

28:54to do uh with turning templates to make

28:57sure that we can get DPW vehicles

29:01uh and fire uh vehicles through these

29:04areas and make all of those turns. We

29:06tried to be very judicious when laying

29:08out where you could possibly find

29:10spaces. Um, but that still is another

29:14box that needs to be checked in greater

29:17detail. Um,

29:20two of the big things that really came

29:22out of this were one, um, there was a

29:27general consensus that the load that

29:30property possible is potentially uh,

29:33placing on this area right now is

29:37um, out of scale for what we're seeing

29:39as far as demand from the existing

29:41properties. And there was a general

29:43consensus among all the folks who

29:45reviewed this that there should be um

29:49strong pressure put back on the

29:51developer to try and find a way to

29:53accommodate a greater portion of their

29:57uh perceived or market need on the

29:59property itself rather than spilling it

30:01out into the surrounding neighborhoods.

30:03Um

30:05and then finally uh as we looked at um

30:10everything that was going to be involved

30:11in this uh we were strongly encouraged

30:14to go back and be very conservative when

30:17we started putting together any

30:19estimates of cost to either implement or

30:21maintain this going forward and and uh

30:25and we have tried to do that as far as

30:28that goes.

30:31Um the biggest issue again is just the

30:34issue of how do you um meet the

30:40imbalance between the amount of

30:41potential demand or want for parking and

30:44the number of spaces that you have. And

30:46that really comes down to this question

30:47of what model are you using for permit

30:50distribution? And really there's three

30:52uh and they're fairly simple. Uh model

30:55number one is the hunting license model.

30:57Um, Alderman O'Brien, having lived in

31:01Boston, you've seen this in action. Uh,

31:04anybody who qualifies for permit comes

31:06in and gets a permit and then it is on

31:08you to try and figure out uh where or if

31:12you can park under that permit within

31:14your designated zoner area here. Um,

31:18keep in mind in this uh case we were

31:21talking about uh issuing under a hunting

31:24license model up to 513 permits for 152

31:28spaces. So that's three cars for every

31:31possible space that they might occupy.

31:34In discussing this internally with city

31:37staff, uh the general feeling was that

31:39this was an approach that was more

31:42likely to bring in a lot more discontent

31:45than satisfaction as far as it goes and

31:47this was not the recommended model. Um

31:51there are a lot of municipalities that

31:53go with prescription models which state

31:56uh only uh select number of residents or

32:00certain type of resident within the

32:02particular zone can apply for parking.

32:05Um

32:07and by doing that you typically can then

32:10get closer to balancing uh between the

32:13number of permits that you're sending

32:14out and the number of spaces that are

32:16available. Um, this can be done a couple

32:19of different ways. Um, sometimes it is a

32:23focus on a particular type of land use.

32:26The most common thing I've seen looking

32:28at other programs from across the

32:29country is very often there is a

32:33statement within certain communities

32:35that only residents who live in

32:38multi-unit complexes um can apply for

32:43these permits as opposed to single

32:45family homes. Um the justification

32:49behind that as I understand it is that

32:51the feeling is single family homes

32:53typically have more than enough

32:54capacity.

32:56So if they've got a limit to anybody

32:58they will limit uh access to just the

33:01folks who were in multi-pace unit.

33:03inverse in that, some folks in some

33:06communities have actually required uh

33:09property owners to actually sponsor

33:12um a list of folks that based on their

33:15records uh are inadequately supplied and

33:18should be able to apply for this. There

33:20was quite a bit of discussion about

33:22this. Again, uh the feeling was this was

33:25both labor intensive and politically

33:27unfeasible.

33:29uh which left us with the uh lottery

33:32option. And the lottery option is pretty

33:34much what it sounds like. Um everybody

33:37who is a qualified um individual uh

33:42submits an application. They all go into

33:44the hat. You choose out the first in

33:47this case 152 out of that hat. uh those

33:50folks are awarded um

33:54uh permits for that year and um and then

33:58you have the ability to run a weight

34:00list if uh permits get turned over

34:02during the course of that year.

34:04Otherwise, the following year, you open

34:06up uh the lottery pro process again from

34:09scratch uh and allow folks to uh go in

34:13and submit and for lack of better terms,

34:16try your luck, if you will, going

34:17forward.

34:19um general feeling in talking uh with

34:23city staff was this seemed like the

34:25fairest and most equitable way uh to

34:28approach this. Um and so this would be

34:32the proposed model we would be looking

34:34for at this pilot. Um in terms of how

34:37the pilot would work, it's five fairly

34:40simple phases. Uh the first phase is an

34:43identification phase and it is really

34:46just figuring out where folks want this

34:49type of program

34:51um and talking to the individual

34:54stakeholders

34:55uh defining where that location might be

34:58getting some sort of understanding for

35:00what the basis uh for the request is and

35:03then finding a sponsor. Uh the sponsor

35:05would typically be an elected official

35:07or city employee who would say, "I've

35:10gone and spoken to the folks in this

35:12neighborhood or this area. They're very

35:14interested in this type of program

35:16because they're experiencing these

35:18impacts." Uh and I would like to

35:22nominate it for consideration

35:25u into creation of a residential parking

35:27permit zone. That would basically be it

35:30at that point. it would start the

35:31process

35:33uh and then the ball goes over to city

35:37staff and city staff then really go

35:39through the due diligence process which

35:42involves uh defining how big the zone

35:45would be. Remember it's got to be

35:47something that's reasonable walk

35:48reasonably walkable. uh you cannot

35:51necessarily define a 16 by 16 block area

35:55and say, "Hey, there's uh there's enough

35:58parking if you add up all of the

36:00residential units and all the spaces and

36:02with within this area, but uh everybody

36:05who lives in the residential units

36:08um doesn't want to walk more than three

36:10blocks away and all of the supply is

36:13another 18 that way. So, uh, you have to

36:16limit the size of the zone in order to

36:19make it reasonable and walkable. Then do

36:21the initial assessment much like we did

36:24where you get your arms around what

36:25we're talking about. How many

36:26residential units? Uh, are there other

36:29competing land uses that we need to be

36:31considered? How much off- streetet

36:33supply is there? How much on street

36:36capacity is there? you know, what are

36:38the what does the utilization look like

36:40right now uh in the area on the uh late

36:43evening, early morning?

36:46And from there, you put together a

36:47program much like we did, run it through

36:51uh the different city agencies to get

36:53their initial feedback

36:55um and also understand their terms and

36:58conditions. Hey, if you want to do this

37:00in this area, we're comfortable with

37:02that. As long as they understand that

37:04from 4:00 in the morning until 11:00 in

37:07the morning every other Wednesday, uh

37:10we're going to have to suspend the

37:11program so that street sweepers can come

37:13through. And on Tuesdays between 3:00

37:16a.m. and noon, uh we're going to have to

37:19suspend the program so that we can do

37:21trash pickup. And that becomes part of

37:23the standard terms and conditions. Um

37:27and those all go into the initial

37:29proposal preparation which basically

37:32isn't intended to give uh the potential

37:36stakeholders or participants in this

37:38program the information that they need.

37:40What are the limitations? What are the

37:42conditions? How many permits are we

37:44talking about uh being able to issue?

37:47What's the process for issuing those?

37:50Um how long would this pilot go on for?

37:54what are the costs potentially

37:55associated with those? All of that gets

37:58put together in a proposal and then that

38:00proposal gets presented to uh the

38:04residents within the proposed zone in a

38:06public form and it's basically there to

38:10um

38:11lay out the option in front of them in

38:14very clear uh black and white terms.

38:17This is the proposed program. This is

38:19how it work. um answer any questions

38:22that they've got and then also walk them

38:25through the process of how you need to

38:28go forward if you want to see this put

38:30in place. And that really comes down to

38:31a petition.

38:33Um and you would have to have x number

38:37of signatures in the affirmative in

38:39support in order to sort of take this

38:42program into the next level. Um

38:46typically that process gets opened up at

38:49the end of the public forum. stays open

38:50for about 14 days. Uh, and within the

38:54write up, there's some more detail about

38:56how you would manage this process to

38:58make sure that all the petition

39:00signatures that you're getting are

39:02legitimate.

39:04Uh, you would analyze those after the

39:06period closes. Uh, and then go back and

39:10report to that community what the

39:13results were. And either uh this is

39:16going to carry and it's going to carry

39:18because we got enough um positive

39:21signatures or it's not going to carry

39:23and if it's not going to carry uh here's

39:26the process if you want to reapply uh

39:29for this at a later date. Uh if it is

39:32going to carry go forward then here's

39:33the appeals process if you want to try

39:36and get a permit. Um and then from there

39:40it goes right into issuance. Uh and that

39:43process is very similar to what you have

39:46right now with the current overnight

39:47parking program. Folks will come in,

39:49demonstrate that they are legitimate

39:51residents in the area. Uh they'll put in

39:54an application, register all their

39:56contact information, and then depending

39:59on the distribution model, you'll go

40:01into award questions.

40:03>> Yeah, we're good. Um, one of the things

40:06that I hope um, makes this a little bit

40:10different from other programs that

40:11you've seen in past is we really

40:13anticipate this pilot as being a true

40:16pilot in that we're going to evaluate

40:18this every four months. Uh, put together

40:21a fairly rigorous analysis of whether

40:24this program is working or not. uh and

40:27if it is working, if it's not working,

40:30uh what are the issues and then be able

40:32to report that back to the community.

40:34And ideally,

40:36um it's a lot of text. I'm not going to

40:38walk you through all of it here. uh it

40:41is written down within the write up that

40:43I provided you as well. But uh we would

40:46be looking at doing quarterly checks on

40:48this all the way through and at the end

40:50of the year uh do a final forum with all

40:54the folks within the pilot area uh to

40:58report back to them on on how this

41:00program has either worked or not worked

41:03and if it's going to go forward and

41:05become semi-permanent going forward. uh

41:08if there are any uh potential changes to

41:11terms, conditions, number of permits

41:13that are available, etc. Uh and then

41:16again, much like the first time around,

41:19after all the facts are put in front of

41:22u the impacted citizens, they then have

41:24the ability to sign a petition to either

41:26say, "We want to make this

41:28semi-permanent or

41:32we don't." uh at which point the pilot

41:35would then move from there into a period

41:37where it would be reviewed

41:39um on a periodic basis to see if if

41:43there was still public will in order to

41:45continue to keep that pilot or keep that

41:48program in place going forward.

41:51Um, at this point we've we've taken it

41:54about as far as we can go uh within um a

42:00limited scope of work without really

42:01pouring a lot of extra time and money

42:04into this. uh if this is something that

42:07infrastructure thinks is a great idea

42:09and you would like to see this further

42:12refined and going forward uh there's

42:14significant amount of work that's going

42:16to be need to be done uh including as I

42:19referenced before um going back to the

42:22folks of property possible to see if

42:25there is a way that they can amend their

42:26program to make it less of an impact on

42:29this area uh really going through that

42:31engineering level uh analysis to verify

42:35ified that we've got x number of spaces

42:37and that all of them are any place that

42:40is not going to uh inhibit any type of

42:43delivery of public services within the

42:45area whether it's scheduled services or

42:48emergency services.

42:50Um and then really go over going over

42:53that layout with um with the folks at

42:56the DPW and engineering, the fire

42:58department, police department to make

43:00sure that they're on board with that as

43:01well. It's one thing for me to do my

43:04work uh as a professional, but uh we're

43:09not going to put anything forward until

43:12um we let the professionals that

43:14actually have to live in this uh

43:16environment uh sign off and bless this

43:18here. Um and then uh from there really

43:22figuring out what's the work that has to

43:25happen through this area in order to get

43:27it set up to do this pilot.

43:31um and who's going to do that and what

43:33are the costs associated with that. Um,

43:38and then like I said, uh, as you start

43:42to put together the proposal that goes

43:43in front of the public, being able to

43:45identify key terms, conditions,

43:48um,

43:50making sure that you've got uh, uh,

43:53policies in place so that if there are

43:56issues with vehicles

43:59uh, dwelling for long periods and

44:01inhibiting uh, safety, that you have the

44:04ability to address those and correct

44:05those situations before they become an

44:07issue. Um

44:11so

44:13basically um right now at at the level

44:17that we're at right now just doing some

44:19basic uh uh figuring

44:24uh we're we're estimating that you're

44:26probably looking at spending something

44:28in the order of about $115,000

44:30to physically prepare this area uh for

44:34this pilot. And that would include

44:36things like the installation of no

44:39parking signs, curb markings,

44:42um

44:43probably new signage to make it clear

44:46that there are certain streets here that

44:48are flowing currently in a one-way

44:50configuration. Uh because that's not

44:52always clear. um just marking out uh

44:57where the no parking and parking zones

44:59might be and putting up uh the

45:01appropriate signage to talk about the

45:04program and the rules within the

45:05program. Um that right there is going to

45:08be something the order of $47,000.

45:12And then when you add on labor and

45:13contingency on top of that, uh that that

45:16gets us to the 115,000.

45:19And then um administrative costs during

45:23the course of a year uh to do things

45:26like the engineering review um

45:30you you're looking at $9,000 give or

45:33take there um to get all of those

45:35drawings and sign templates etc together

45:39and and into production. Um this is

45:42going to be a heavy lift out of Jill's

45:45department. So, we were anticipating a

45:48significant amount of time both um from

45:52her administrative staff uh putting this

45:54thing together and if it gets to the

45:56point where uh you have to go through

45:58the application process going through

46:00that as well. In addition to the various

46:03public meetings that you're going to be

46:05having. Uh and then on top of that,

46:07you're you're also looking at a

46:09significant um cost associated with the

46:12quarterly monitoring and reporting.

46:16Um so, you know, you you could be

46:19looking at uh one-year administrative

46:22costs in the order of $90,000

46:25plus a year.

46:27Uh so that's where we stand at this

46:29point in time.

46:31uh as you'll see from the write up uh

46:33that that Jill circulated, this is

46:36designed

46:38uh with an eye toward this particular

46:41area, but uh we have also tried to put

46:43the structure and framework together in

46:46such a way that this would be fairly

46:48portable into other parts of the city.

46:51Uh if this takes off well here, this is

46:54something that could be duplicated

46:56successfully in other places following

46:58the structure that we've tried to put

47:00together.

47:03That is the sum total of my

47:04presentation.

47:06>> Okay, got to open it up for questions.

47:08First hand raise alderman doubt.

47:10>> Yeah, I got some clarifying questions.

47:13On your first slide, you had those

47:15yellow lines. Are you looking at at us

47:18having parking on on that entire street

47:21on both sides or should that yellow line

47:24be in the middle of the street so the

47:27people on the other side of the street

47:28don't think they're going to be getting

47:29in part of this program?

47:31>> Actually, the the yellow lines are off

47:34the Google Earth image and they show the

47:36roadway for East Hollis. Uh if you look

47:40along East Hollis, you'll see uh that

47:43entire curb is marked as red, which is a

47:45no parking zone. So, wherever you see

47:47red, uh, it is anticipated that there

47:49will be no parking.

47:50>> It's only on the internal side of the

47:53yellow line, not the outside of the

47:55yellow line.

47:56>> They, like I said, the yellow lines are

47:58not actually something we put there.

48:00They came off the Google Earth image.

48:02Uh, and it's something that Google Earth

48:04uses on their maps to designate uh,

48:07where streets are. I'll I'll add to uh

48:10Liz Hanam, economic development

48:11director. The the following picture, I

48:14believe, um has the actual where we're

48:17thinking parking spaces would go. All of

48:20the red areas there um are no parking.

48:23The blue areas would be the locations

48:25where parking would be

48:27>> um which would add up to the 152.

48:30However,

48:32we do need to go through a whole

48:33engineering study to make sure that we

48:35actually can get them, you know, the

48:38turning radiuses and all of that. So, um

48:40152 is kind of the top end of what we

48:43might be able to get out of this area.

48:44>> All right. Also, the state passed that

48:48law. You can only demand one parking

48:50space

48:52per home. Um but if the developer wants

48:57to do more, they can. Right. Well, and

48:59that's that's um

49:04that's the rub with that law. Um the rub

49:07has basically stipulated that uh at a

49:10state level, this is the maximum that

49:12can be demanded and overrides whatever

49:14your local requirements are.

49:17>> Understand? But if if

49:18>> but in reality,

49:19>> you can't force them to have more than

49:21one,

49:22>> but they can if they want to.

49:24>> Well, absolutely. and and in reality

49:26what will happen is the market will

49:29force them into that 1.5 or 2.0 ratio or

49:33their lender will one of the two.

49:36>> However, I will say we are seeing a lot

49:39of developments that are um entitling

49:43properties and trying to sell them to

49:46future actual developers. And so they

49:49are using minimum requirements or or

49:52somewhat similar. you know, we're seeing

49:54365 units at property possible and they

49:57only have 450 parking spaces, uh, which

50:01is is 1.1,

50:04which is the kind of the bare minimum

50:06that really requires. And as they're

50:09trying to sell this the two other, so

50:12they're they're doing one building and

50:14then two of the buildings are being sold

50:15to a different developer. Um and that

50:18developer is required by their lenders

50:21to do much more parking that they now

50:24cannot fit on the space or or on the the

50:27property. So they are asking they are

50:30coming to us and saying can you

50:32supplement this so that my lender will

50:35actually let me put this this project

50:37together.

50:38>> Sounds like Nimco and Bagshaw

50:41and Elm Street's going to be another

50:44area.

50:46>> All right. So, if there's a snow

50:49emergency,

50:50where do these people go park?

50:53>> That is

50:54>> that is an ongoing question that has

50:57plagued my work here since we started in

50:592020.

51:01>> Um,

51:02and uh it's not specific just to this

51:08neighborhood. It's specific to the city

51:10as a whole.

51:11uh and the best answer I can provide you

51:14is is if we can tackle this that

51:17probably the next issue uh on the agenda

51:21if you will u to address and figure out.

51:26So, I think it's a good approach on that

51:29you're going at, but couple other

51:31things. Um,

51:33so enforcement, if somebody parks in and

51:36they don't have a permit, who's going to

51:37tow them? Is that your department or is

51:41that the police department? I would

51:42imagine they don't want any part of it.

51:44So,

51:47>> Jill Stansfield, parking manager. Yes,

51:49we we work very closely with the police

51:52department with towing. Anything that's

51:54towed off a public right away, we have

51:57to have a police officer. So,

52:00>> Right. But you make the call for the tow

52:02company and they're just there to make

52:04sure that

52:06>> in some disagreements.

52:07>> Yes. During a snow emergency, um we have

52:11the police department working handinhand

52:13with public works now. So they kind of

52:15work together on like snow emergency

52:17toes, but any other types of toes,

52:19driveway obstructions, unregistered

52:21vehicles, we work, our department would

52:24ticket it and then work closely with the

52:26police department if there needs to be a

52:27toe.

52:28>> And the last question I have is you've

52:30got this starting in the 1 of January,

52:32right in the middle of the winter. Is

52:33that because you want to get it started

52:35quickly or because it certainly would

52:37make more sense if you had it in better

52:39weather?

52:39>> Actually, it's just conceptual, sir, to

52:41see you see how it would lay out. I just

52:43use a calendar year as the model to show

52:46what the quarterly benchmarks would be.

52:48>> All right. So that's not a definitive

52:49date yet. Yeah. Okay.

52:52>> It's illustrative. It's illustrative

52:54only.

52:57>> All set. Alderman Smith.

53:00>> Uh yes. Thank you. Report. So it's

53:02making me have flashbacks from when I

53:04lived in the south and in Boston. Um

53:07very scary. Um,

53:13so I guess my question,

53:16one of my questions has to do with um

53:19the potential models for the permit

53:21distribution. Is there any way that we

53:24can, especially for the pilot to ensure

53:27that we're only

53:29pro providing a permit for actual

53:32parking spaces as opposed to the any of

53:35these other models? Because to me,

53:37thinking about there being 152 permits

53:40and 500 individuals, I'm just thinking

53:42that's like 400 angry, you know.

53:45>> Yeah.

53:45>> Mhm.

53:45>> We don't need any more angry birds, so

53:47to speak. Um

53:50and and then the the other my my other

53:52question. So, one, can we, you know,

53:54look at limiting something so that,

53:57you know, the few folks that have it,

53:58they will at least be happy. And then

54:00the other one um is more or less maybe

54:04having the the city actually take

54:05responsibility for who gets the permits

54:08like I'm looking at the prescription and

54:10the limited lottery some sort of

54:12combination of that because when I think

54:14about the I can see you know the

54:17multi-unit residential properties you

54:19got more individuals with vehicles but

54:21I'm also thinking about my own

54:23experience being in my own place where I

54:25live and everyone's parking in front of

54:27my that whole my space thing. I just

54:30don't want to start seeing lawn

54:31furniture and sofas out on, you know,

54:34places with people trying to save a

54:35parking space. But if we if we're

54:38looking at it that each,

54:41you know, location, whatever has so many

54:44um permits assigned to that that unit,

54:47then that that might make sense. So,

54:49it's it's a tough, you know, it's going

54:51to be a tough call either way, but I was

54:53looking at how do we reduce some of the

54:57um

54:59residents,

55:01you know, being upset

55:04>> and in part of the program design, the

55:07idea of having this entire thing for the

55:10residents really kick off with a public

55:13forum to go through and discuss these

55:16>> and talk about what's being proposed.

55:19is done in part to to bring these bring

55:23these questions to the for and answer

55:25them before anybody even signs a

55:27petition.

55:28>> The last thing we want to do is advance

55:30a program where somebody believes that

55:33they're going to be able to deed the

55:34space in front of their house and have

55:36exclusive use or access to it. So, we

55:39want to be as transparent and clear as

55:42we can going into the program, whether

55:44it's um you know, you you may have to

55:48live with the idea of a stranger parking

55:50in front of your house or um we've only

55:53got x number of spaces and we've got all

55:56of these people who would love to have a

55:58permit for those spaces. Uh and this is

56:01how we've we're proposing to address

56:03that issue going forward.

56:07>> Mr. Chairman, if I could have a another

56:09one more question. Um,

56:12>> and my my only other thing is just

56:13thinking about how do we, you know,

56:15quote, as I say, pay for this. Yes.

56:17>> Um, it's a matter of thinking about, you

56:19know, what would be the cost of

56:21>> are we charging the residents or is it

56:23free for them and the city pays it or is

56:25there some sort of shared financial

56:27responsibility?

56:29>> And and that's

56:31that's one of the outstanding questions

56:33that we still are working through at

56:35this end here. Um

56:39it's sort of the next level if this if

56:42this committee decides to cut us loose

56:44to go forward and the next step it will

56:46be trying to figure out how those costs

56:51get baked in.

56:53>> Um the current $10 per year permit cost

56:58really doesn't even cover the

56:59administrative costs of the existing

57:01program right now. Um, the other thing

57:04to keep in mind is as we talk about all

57:07these permit distribution scenarios,

57:10they're price agnostic right now. If the

57:13charge becomes these programs have to

57:15find a way to be self-supporting,

57:18>> um, you know, then you're potentially

57:21looking at prrating the capital

57:24infrastructure costs not just through

57:25the first year, but through multiple

57:28years going out. Um

57:31now now we have to figure out what does

57:33that translate into uh on a per permit

57:36basis and is the appetite for parking

57:39permit

57:41uh as robust when it's $10 a year right

57:44now for qualified user

57:47>> um as it could be if the permit was say

57:50$150 a year in order to make it a self-

57:52financing entity. Um that could change

57:55the dynamic substantially.

57:59Oh yeah, thank you.

58:01>> Yeah, that's one of the reasons that I

58:03really try to drill down on demand

58:04rather than desire, right? Because

58:07>> desire is limitless until there's a

58:09price associated with it.

58:10>> Yeah. And $10 makes it very desirable,

58:12but $150, not so much.

58:14>> Yeah. Uh, something we're gonna have to

58:17do. You mentioned something that

58:20reminded me of my time in my old

58:22neighborhood,

58:24particularly in the winter. People used

58:26to put out lawn furniture for parking

58:29spaces, Maggie's drawers on the pole and

58:33>> everything else like that can't exist.

58:35If you remember,

58:36>> uh,

58:38the manino of the city of Boston made it

58:40illegal. Mhm. Mhm.

58:42>> And we're going to have to get probably

58:44DPW when they see it

58:47>> to disassemble it.

58:49>> Well, you know,

58:49>> can I uh

58:50>> just um just responding to that

58:53particularly um I think we're we're

58:56thinking about starting with just 152

58:59permits and and having a lottery system

59:01for who gets those 152. Um, and over the

59:05quarterly reporting, we would look at

59:07are people actually using these or can

59:09we can we issue a few more? Can we do we

59:13have to pull back a little bit because

59:14people are are parking there and then

59:16not leaving or um that that's part of

59:19the iterative process of of this first

59:22year of piloting. Um, so we we do not

59:26intend to oversell at the beginning

59:28piece because that we're already kind of

59:31putting ourselves in a in a hole there

59:34unless we see that people aren't

59:36actually using them. So then then we can

59:38start to to kind of test the waters a

59:42little bit for for more permits. But,

59:45um, I think we're we're kind of in a

59:49position here where this is going to

59:52cost us around $200,000,

59:55um, just to get this pilot program on,

59:58you know, 4x4 blocks kind of. And so,

1:00:01we're we're looking for more direction

1:00:04from you. We we don't h we haven't

1:00:07identified a place where we have

1:00:09$200,000 right now. Um so we have to do

1:00:12that if you would like to move us

1:00:14forward with this project. Um and we um

1:00:19we we also need to figure out um you

1:00:24know the the whole process that staffing

1:00:27um you know we we see that right now we

1:00:31have up to 550 overnight permits. Um and

1:00:35we had to open up a new spot for snow

1:00:37emergencies this year at Crown Street.

1:00:40Um, and so we do see an anticipated need

1:00:44of additional parking locations for

1:00:46future snow emergencies. So there there

1:00:48are going to be a lot of costs

1:00:50associated um with implementing this

1:00:52program long term. Um, but we're also

1:00:55seeing that it is an inevitable thing um

1:00:58that we are going to need to do some

1:01:00overnight parking. Um, you know, we we

1:01:03identified 42 spaces that we are under

1:01:06serving in this area. um and we can see

1:01:09up to 50 tickets a night in that area.

1:01:11And so it's it it is a almost a one for

1:01:14one. And so when that um property

1:01:16possible comes in, are we seeing 150

1:01:19tickets a night? Um you know, and that's

1:01:22that's the place where we need to figure

1:01:24out, you know, that is unsustainable for

1:01:27anyone living in our community. So you

1:01:31know, we we could have up to $500 a week

1:01:33in tickets for one person. So, um we we

1:01:37understand that this is not an easy uh

1:01:40request. Um and we have departments here

1:01:43that have also identified major issues

1:01:46that we are potentially creating. Um but

1:01:50we're we're um if you would like to move

1:01:53us forward, we're all um on board with

1:01:55figuring out how to make this work.

1:01:57>> Okay. To that vein, uh and we have

1:02:01Alderman Johnson in the queue with her

1:02:03question. Uh but the chair would like to

1:02:06indulge.

1:02:08Could we come up with I think the whole

1:02:10thing financially if we came up with a

1:02:13cost of the permit first. Okay. We can

1:02:17lag behind the enforcement a little bit,

1:02:22you know, could we not? So in other

1:02:24words, until we get the dollar amount

1:02:27that we feel that is adequate to

1:02:29implement this program, we could build

1:02:31the pro program with what we're getting

1:02:34with the permits. Has anybody else in

1:02:37Mr. Hill in your experience done it in a

1:02:39way like that?

1:02:41Um,

1:02:45>> so, so what you're suggesting is is

1:02:48rather than back into all the overhead

1:02:49and then prorate it over x number of

1:02:51permits and come up with a cost, start

1:02:54with a cost and use that

1:02:58to build a budget that says we can do

1:03:01this within this framework

1:03:04uh until we have the ability to bring in

1:03:07more revenue stream to do greater

1:03:09improvements. No. And so for

1:03:12clarification, I do know putting up

1:03:15signs and painting red curbs and that

1:03:18that it's going to have to be done,

1:03:21right?

1:03:21>> You know, and that's going to come as a

1:03:23cost. And maybe that low is the $200,000

1:03:27potentially

1:03:29if we take care of it. But we can recoup

1:03:32it in the future if we had a good pay

1:03:36the park type of permitted program.

1:03:40you know.

1:03:41>> Yeah. Well, um,

1:03:44as your parking system

1:03:47and and I I guess the best example I can

1:03:50point to locally is Portsmouth. As your

1:03:52parking system grows,

1:03:55um, and becomes more robust in their

1:03:59operations, um, it will throw off

1:04:03funding that will allow you to do lots

1:04:05of other things. Um, Portsmouth has been

1:04:09blessed with a municipal parking program

1:04:11that generates a surplus, I think this

1:04:14year of $11 million over operating

1:04:17costs,

1:04:19uh, which actually goes to other

1:04:22community programs, crossing guards, uh,

1:04:24subsidies to their local transit, uh,

1:04:27elder mobility services. I believe it

1:04:31cuts about $300 a year off of the

1:04:35average property tax bill um with those

1:04:39subsidies. Um so yeah, there is there is

1:04:42the possibility we could get there. Um

1:04:48I and and I I I think there's still some

1:04:52road to cover before we we're we're at

1:04:55that place. I'm just trying to buffer

1:04:58the sticker shock,

1:05:01>> you know. Uh there is a way to do this

1:05:04and we could figure that out. And uh

1:05:07yeah, Alderman Johnson, thank you for

1:05:08your patience.

1:05:10>> You're welcome. Not a problem. Thank

1:05:12you.

1:05:13>> Um

1:05:15we've been working on this for six

1:05:17years. Am I correct?

1:05:19>> Um off and on. I suppose um we

1:05:23identified that as a as a

1:05:27uh as an issue and kind of let it sit on

1:05:30the table for a long time um because

1:05:32there wasn't an appetite at that time to

1:05:34push it forward. Um and so now we we do

1:05:37have several aldermen that are

1:05:39interested in getting this to to

1:05:42fruition. So uh we've brought it back to

1:05:44you.

1:05:45>> May I continue?

1:05:47>> Thank you. Um, you said it let you let

1:05:50it sit for a while. How long did we sit

1:05:52on this for? Since I just got on the

1:05:55board this year.

1:05:56>> Oh. Um, well, we

1:06:01I'm thinking of when I started. Uh, it

1:06:04had been we had the the initial report

1:06:06maybe four years ago.

1:06:09>> Um, and then

1:06:10>> we had one proposal,

1:06:11>> right? We had four years ago.

1:06:13>> Yeah. We had a proposal four years ago

1:06:15that that we decided not to move forward

1:06:17with. Um and so it kind of that's when

1:06:20it started sitting on the table and then

1:06:21maybe two years ago we started up again

1:06:24um and had some health issues and um so

1:06:28it it didn't get moved forward by the

1:06:29alderman but um

1:06:32>> so we are we're we're responding to what

1:06:36we're asked to do. So, um, that that's

1:06:39where where we're at right now is we've

1:06:41been been asked to create a program. So,

1:06:44um, we're happy to do that now.

1:06:46>> And if I may clarify, previous boards

1:06:50had made an attempt at this individual

1:06:53by street by street.

1:06:56On some of the streets, they have failed

1:06:59miserably.

1:07:02>> The width of the street is not

1:07:05conclusive to parking.

1:07:07and it causes some problems with

1:07:10responding fire apparatus and everything

1:07:13else. So that way was the old way. But

1:07:17we had to try something and we did, you

1:07:19know, the previous boards did make an

1:07:21attempt at it. But since my involvement

1:07:26with this, we realize those errors and

1:07:29we're trying to come up because once the

1:07:32cat I've always said this, but once the

1:07:35cat gets out of the bag on this,

1:07:39you're never going to put the cat back

1:07:41in. So, we better have as rock solid

1:07:46as we can on the program here. And I

1:07:49think Mr. Hill and this group have done

1:07:54that. So, you know, pretty nicely. It's

1:07:58not the panacea, you know, believe me, I

1:08:01don't think there's going to be

1:08:04the infrastructure committee day on the

1:08:06plaza at city hall with this. There's

1:08:10going to be some people who may not be

1:08:12100% happy with it, but I think as like

1:08:15uh Alderman Lopez said and we did were

1:08:19conversing before the meeting, it's a

1:08:21step in a positive direction and I think

1:08:24it's a nice step.

1:08:26>> We didn't have solutions for W three and

1:08:28four.

1:08:28>> Yeah. Yeah.

1:08:30>> So, yes, you may continue.

1:08:32>> Thank you. Uh let me see where am I

1:08:35here. So, um, on the streets that you

1:08:39have outlined,

1:08:41are they all new construction or are

1:08:43they multifamily homes that have been

1:08:46there for a long time that people

1:08:47converted on some of these streets that

1:08:50we're questioning with the parking?

1:08:52>> Um, so they are all existing streets.

1:08:55Okay.

1:08:55>> Um, and only the the most left hand

1:08:59section of this map is where new

1:09:02development would happen. So right now

1:09:04most of them are single family homes

1:09:06that um or or single family that have

1:09:09been converted to multif family. Um and

1:09:12so we we are trying to identify an

1:09:14existing issue as I mentioned some some

1:09:17nights we get 50 tickets or we we give

1:09:20out 50 tickets there. So um we we do see

1:09:25a severe need in this area.

1:09:27>> Okay. May I continue?

1:09:29>> Uh just one second. Lieutenant Oracle, I

1:09:34it looks like the city's waking up right

1:09:36about now. And after serving 35 years, I

1:09:40see the look. Uh do you need to go?

1:09:43>> I had a moment. The only question

1:09:45appreciation I had was originally

1:09:47working.

1:09:47>> Yeah. Why don't you come up and I'll

1:09:49give you opportunity to speak and then

1:09:51why don't you go out and

1:09:53>> do your thing.

1:09:54>> Uh Tim Do again with the police

1:09:56department. Sorry, the radio's going

1:09:57nuts here. Uh it was two quick things.

1:10:00One was just an appreciation. One of the

1:10:01early documents, I think it was one for

1:10:02the 17th, had an original oneway on

1:10:05Howard Street. Um, and that's removed.

1:10:07So, great appreciation with that. And

1:10:09the second question we have, which is

1:10:10really in the minutia of this whole

1:10:11thing, are the sheds a parking spots the

1:10:14current ones in the dirt lot or those

1:10:16parallel in front of the apartment

1:10:17buildings themselves?

1:10:19>> The current ones are on the other side

1:10:22of shed avenue opposite the duplexes.

1:10:25>> Sure. And that um

1:10:28I got to get my directions correct. That

1:10:31east side of shed a is shown as no

1:10:33parking right now primarily because all

1:10:36of that curb face needs to have ingress

1:10:39in order to get vehicles into those ad

1:10:42hoc dirt lots.

1:10:44>> Absolutely. Um the the blue spaces that

1:10:47are shown right in front of them on shed

1:10:49a are spaces that

1:10:53could be implemented formally. They are

1:10:56used uh informally and and I believe

1:10:59against policy right now uh directly in

1:11:02front of those houses. That area is

1:11:05problematic as you know already because

1:11:07uh with most of those houses you come

1:11:10off the bottom step and you're

1:11:11immediately in the roadway. There's no

1:11:13designated pedestrian passageway through

1:11:16there. So, uh even if we throw those

1:11:18eight spaces out, you still might want

1:11:20to look at putting in some curbing or

1:11:22something there so that uh kids aren't

1:11:25playing in the playing in traffic, so to

1:11:28speak.

1:11:28>> Like I said, I apologize um for the

1:11:30minutia. And the second piece that's out

1:11:32of our purview, which is a question, is

1:11:34there a consideration for people with

1:11:35mobility issues for the parking spaces?

1:11:38So those folks that are either elderly

1:11:39or have ambulatory issues, are they

1:11:41prioritized neither a lottery system or

1:11:43prescription model. So they're allowed

1:11:45to have more access to the parking

1:11:47closer to them. So I understand that it

1:11:49would conceptualize that, hey, this is a

1:11:50reasonable distance to walk, which

1:11:51absolutely, but there's a fair amount of

1:11:53folks on there that have some pretty

1:11:54severe difficulties with their ability

1:11:55to move andor to traverse terrain. So if

1:11:58it's apartment building, they're not

1:11:59going up and over curbs or around hedros

1:12:01or things like that. And again, it's out

1:12:02of our purview. That's just an

1:12:03observation after listening.

1:12:05>> So two two answers to that. Answer

1:12:07number one is I believe the city already

1:12:09has a a policy and process in place for

1:12:14folks who can advocate designation of a

1:12:16handicap space outside of their place of

1:12:19residence if they actually own a

1:12:21placard.

1:12:22>> Um second thing was limitation of the

1:12:26number of permits issued to align with

1:12:28the number of

1:12:30um

1:12:31number of parking spaces that are

1:12:33available. One of the things that often

1:12:35does is it helps address this question

1:12:37of can I park close enough to my house.

1:12:40When you get into the hunting license

1:12:42issue where you've got three cars for

1:12:43every space, that's often where the

1:12:46folks with ambulatory issues really get

1:12:48pushed to the side as far as it goes.

1:12:50When you have a closer balance, people

1:12:52generally will naturally park closer to

1:12:54their place of residence. And so by

1:12:58keeping that balance of supply and

1:12:59demand, a lot of that gets addressed

1:13:01right there. Um, that said, I'm happy to

1:13:04help the city write policy

1:13:07um during the selection process to, you

1:13:11know, potentially wait those

1:13:13applications for additional

1:13:15consideration. I

1:13:16>> it's something that can be done. It was

1:13:19all was pretty minor, just minor

1:13:20observations, but like as an agency, we

1:13:22have no issue going forward. As long as

1:13:24the other folks from DPW

1:13:26um and the fire department don't have

1:13:28issues because

1:13:29>> to be honest, if they can move their

1:13:30stuff, we can move ours their equipment

1:13:32tends to be larger. So, especially with

1:13:34exploring an issue like this, we don't

1:13:35see a harm going forward.

1:13:38>> Thank you.

1:13:38>> Thank you, Lieutenant. Uh

1:13:41>> uh no hope no.

1:13:44And again, thank you for your patience.

1:13:48Thank you.

1:13:49>> He he was listening to the radio. It

1:13:51just looked like

1:13:52>> That's okay.

1:13:53>> Something's going on. So, he is the

1:13:56shift commander for the evening.

1:13:58>> He needs to be out there. So, thank you

1:14:00for your patience.

1:14:01>> You're welcome. Not in the city where

1:14:03city of love that we wouldn't have

1:14:05anything go on. I want to just build on

1:14:08what he asked about the handicap parking

1:14:11>> because I know that when we had all

1:14:13those barriers for the restaurants

1:14:15downtown, nobody would listen to me. I

1:14:18took my case to um disabilities rights

1:14:21commission and they wrote up a policy

1:14:24basically because um vertical parking um

1:14:28versus head-on parking. Um it's

1:14:32different than if you're parking in a

1:14:34private area because it's one per 25,

1:14:36two per 50, three per 75. I know the law

1:14:38inside and out. Um, so if you have

1:14:41somebody who is disabled and they cannot

1:14:44walk, is there going to be a sign that

1:14:46goes up there and even possibly putting

1:14:50their name on it? You know, because I've

1:14:52done I did things for my constituents

1:14:54when I was at large that we had to put a

1:14:57sign right up in front of somebody's

1:14:58house. That sign went up because that

1:15:00spot was almost designated for them. And

1:15:03that was down I think on King Street,

1:15:05some down in that area. So, what are we

1:15:08going to do for the disabled? I can't,

1:15:11you know, they're gonna have to be part

1:15:13of the lottery. But, um,

1:15:15>> Alderman Johnson, you are familiar with,

1:15:17and correct me, Mr. Hill, according to

1:15:20state law, we can put in handicap

1:15:23designated areas. But that means anybody

1:15:27with a plate or plat,

1:15:29>> right,

1:15:30>> has the right

1:15:31>> to park there. I don't think we can

1:15:33designate uh by law

1:15:36>> individual

1:15:37>> a particular space although I think it

1:15:39what you say is prudent

1:15:41>> I don't think we we'll research this and

1:15:44but I don't think we have the legal

1:15:46authority

1:15:47>> and I I think that that is why we do

1:15:50need that that quarterly monitoring

1:15:52because we really want to understand how

1:15:53people are using it. So, we want to be

1:15:56responsive to issues and if people are

1:15:58finding that that they have mobility

1:16:00issues and they're not able to find

1:16:02parking, then we can be responsive in in

1:16:05our iterative process.

1:16:08>> I've got a few more if I could continue.

1:16:11>> Yes, you may.

1:16:12>> Thank you. Um,

1:16:14just going over my notes here. Um, on

1:16:17the pilot life estimator costs, we have

1:16:21engineering review. Is this all going to

1:16:23be done in-house or we're going to hire

1:16:25an outside um consultant again?

1:16:30>> Um so I'll take that one. Um so we

1:16:34technically can do it in-house I

1:16:36believe. Um but our staffing is is

1:16:40pretty overwhelmed at the moment and so

1:16:42this this would be a very um intensive

1:16:46process. So we would likely need to um

1:16:50uh farm it out basically. Um, so we we

1:16:52would hire a firm to to do the

1:16:55engineering of this and then our

1:16:57engineers could just look at it and make

1:17:00sure that we're on on board, but we

1:17:02would need we we do not have the staff

1:17:04to be able to do this in house.

1:17:06>> May I continue?

1:17:08>> Yes, you may.

1:17:09>> So, this would be done by DPW by most

1:17:13likely like Dan Hudson or Wayne Husband.

1:17:17Um, so

1:17:18>> the engineering piece

1:17:19>> potentially if they had if they had time

1:17:21in their their

1:17:24work day, but I don't think that

1:17:27basically we've we've been told by all

1:17:29of these different departments that they

1:17:31do not have the capacity to to add this

1:17:34project to their list, especially if it

1:17:36works and we need to do this every

1:17:39single process or every single

1:17:40neighborhood that wants this. So, we

1:17:43would have to um we would have to hire a

1:17:45firm to be able to do this.

1:17:47>> May I continue, please?

1:17:48>> You may continue.

1:17:49>> So, each round for each neighborhood

1:17:52would be $93,000

1:17:54basically.

1:17:55>> Uh no. So, um there would be costs

1:17:59associated. Um but the engineering costs

1:18:01I think were around $9,000. Um so,

1:18:06between 10 and $12,000 per neighborhood.

1:18:09um plus the physical costs which wereund

1:18:1410. So it it it will vary by

1:18:16neighborhood based on the size um and

1:18:19the amount of spaces that we can get in

1:18:21there. Um but it would we will have a

1:18:24cost associated with each neighborhood

1:18:26that would like to enter this program.

1:18:29>> May I continue?

1:18:30>> You may.

1:18:31>> Thank you. because I've been taking

1:18:33notes on the whole downtown and I

1:18:35understand that the downtown needs

1:18:37parking because you got the

1:18:39multifamilies that at one time they were

1:18:41single family and once they converted it

1:18:43you know you're adding another apartment

1:18:46or two so you can have two or three

1:18:48apartments maybe four tops

1:18:51you all sat before me this past spring

1:18:54summer I can't remember exactly a lot of

1:18:56stuff happened in my life since then and

1:18:59I talked about my neighborhood

1:19:03um ward five and I got a song and dance

1:19:07from everybody the director and

1:19:09everybody is talking about weeks when

1:19:11when they have trash they won't be able

1:19:13to park that that you know from a

1:19:15certain time would pick up the trash

1:19:18well that wasn't said to me when I

1:19:20brought my ordinance to try to do

1:19:22overnight parking I was talking about um

1:19:25May 1st to October 31st and then from

1:19:28November to the end of April you

1:19:31couldn't park on the street because it'd

1:19:33be winter and you'd get the snow. And

1:19:35you all sat in front of me and said why

1:19:38we couldn't do it in my area which would

1:19:40be a lot easier than this basically

1:19:42because we already outlined the major

1:19:45thoroughares you couldn't park on and my

1:19:47streets are wide enough to have an

1:19:49apparatus because I watch when I'm home

1:19:51during the day I could see the the

1:19:53trucks going down. We didn't have to

1:19:55worry about nighttime. And then we're

1:19:57talking about having to add more

1:19:58personnel, which you wouldn't need more

1:20:00personnel. You'd need less because if

1:20:02you're allowing on street parking, then

1:20:05then you wouldn't have to have parking

1:20:07enforcement.

1:20:08>> No.

1:20:08>> No. No. I mean, I've waited long enough

1:20:11to say everything. And so I'm looking at

1:20:14this and I see this is very complicated.

1:20:19Mine wouldn't have been as complicated.

1:20:20I grew up in New York. We were out the

1:20:22park on the street all the time. I grew

1:20:23up in an apartment building. Then we

1:20:25moved to a private home and the streets

1:20:26I would say were a little bit narrow but

1:20:28we could do overnight parking in New

1:20:30York in Queens which is more heavily

1:20:32populated than this area. And so I

1:20:36looked at all that and I saw everybody

1:20:38lined up here against me which didn't

1:20:42surprise me. And

1:20:45so what you're doing here with the when

1:20:48you talked about

1:20:50trash pickup could have been brought up

1:20:52that the day before the night of you

1:20:55can't park there. You know the cars

1:20:57would have to be off the street. No,

1:20:59that wasn't even an issue. I'm told by

1:21:01the director I need West Holler Street

1:21:03fixed because there going to be a bad

1:21:05accident there. Find the money. I'm

1:21:07looking at this. I need to fix a roadway

1:21:10before somebody gets killed at that

1:21:12school there. Find the money. So, I'm

1:21:14looking to find money for this and a

1:21:17major thoroughare. But you know what? I

1:21:19really didn't appreciate that night when

1:21:21everybody lined up and what you put in

1:21:23this report could have been used for

1:21:26ward five that I come that I represent.

1:21:30>> Thank you.

1:21:30>> If I can respond.

1:21:31>> Oh, of course.

1:21:33>> Sure. Okay. So, um, uh, just correcting

1:21:36the record, we did not say it couldn't

1:21:38happen in your area. We just said we

1:21:40hadn't done the work that we have done

1:21:42since then. So, we we did have to look

1:21:45at all of the same things that we have

1:21:47for this area. Um, so we're happy to do

1:21:50it in your area as we figure out this

1:21:54pilot, but um, we we wanted to figure

1:21:57out exactly what it would identify

1:22:00working with the other departments that

1:22:02we hadn't done yet before your

1:22:04legislation had come to to the table.

1:22:07But um so we we can certainly do that

1:22:11and we can apply all of the stuff that

1:22:14we put that's why we're creating this

1:22:16pilot program is doing it in a difficult

1:22:19area means that we might be able to um

1:22:22move it to different areas around the

1:22:24city where if we did it in a area that

1:22:27was much easier um we wouldn't identify

1:22:30all of the issues that could come up. So

1:22:32uh it might not work in the harder

1:22:34areas. So that's that's why we're we're

1:22:36looking at it this way rather than um

1:22:39kind of just just going for it.

1:22:42>> Alman Johnson,

1:22:43>> thank you again. You started this in

1:22:472020. You took a pause on it and then

1:22:50you started it again and now we're 2026.

1:22:54This should have been all ready to roll

1:22:56out by now

1:22:58and it's not. And how much have we paid

1:23:01the consultant on and off for six years

1:23:04that we're just talking about voting it

1:23:05out now and we're not even we're only

1:23:07we're doing the downtown and I agree the

1:23:09downtown has to be done because there's

1:23:11no parking but here I came in and

1:23:17whatever month it was I don't remember

1:23:19seven weeks ago my life got ruined here

1:23:22but um nothing has even you know I'm

1:23:26just totally amazed the cost of this and

1:23:29we're six years later took some time

1:23:32off, came back and and I'm going to ask

1:23:34you and I know you and I have had

1:23:36conversation over emails and then you

1:23:38kind of just shut me off. Um you're not

1:23:41you weren't going to discuss all my

1:23:42questions anymore um that we could talk

1:23:45about at the meeting. I'd like to get a

1:23:47complete breakdown of an invoice on how

1:23:50much this cost and I'm asking it here

1:23:53because I asked for something else that

1:23:55got thrown into the right to know law

1:23:57that I can't get till tomorrow from DPW.

1:24:00Maybe I'll get it tomorrow. So, I'm just

1:24:02asking this now because it seems like I

1:24:04get shut off on everything that I ask

1:24:06for. So, I'd like to know how much this

1:24:08has cost us over the six years. A

1:24:10complete breakdown on the cost factor on

1:24:14all the invoices. Thank you.

1:24:16>> Would you like to

1:24:16>> Sure. Jill Jill Stansfield, parking

1:24:18manager. Um, so the entire parking

1:24:22study, I believe, and don't hold me to

1:24:24this because I can get the actual

1:24:26number.

1:24:27>> Um, I believe it was 81,000 and change.

1:24:30>> We pulled the overnight piece out

1:24:33because this was our parking study was

1:24:35slated to start on March 16th of 2000

1:24:39and the whole world shut down. I think

1:24:40it was the day after that. Uh, 2020.

1:24:43Thank you. Um, so we pulled the

1:24:46overnight piece out and we utilized the

1:24:48new tool we had at that time, the Zoom.

1:24:51And what we did is we did the overnight

1:24:53piece and we met with each and every

1:24:55ward. Um, and we had pretty good

1:24:58attendance and some of them even in the

1:25:00outer wards of the city. Um, and it was

1:25:03there were wards where it was about a

1:25:0450-50 split where residents wanted

1:25:06overnight on street parking and

1:25:07residents didn't and there were a few

1:25:09outer wards that did not want it. Um, so

1:25:13we did do that piece and that was about

1:25:15$9,000 I believe. Um, so all in all, um,

1:25:20I would say we spent about a hundred

1:25:22$100,000

1:25:24initially, um, on the parking consultant

1:25:26and, um, since we've had him on for

1:25:30smaller projects and very minimal cost.

1:25:33>> We're not overnight related. Right.

1:25:36>> Right. Um, so

1:25:39we I I would say too that um just

1:25:44because it's recommended uh it still has

1:25:47to be approved by this body as well as

1:25:50the larger board of alderman. Um so we

1:25:53cannot move things forward unless we

1:25:56have support from alderman. So just

1:25:59because it has been six years doesn't

1:26:00mean that we haven't we've been working

1:26:03on it the whole time. we needed to have

1:26:06support from alderman in order to keep

1:26:08working on things um because we have a

1:26:10lot of other things that that need to be

1:26:12done and so if we don't have support

1:26:14from the board of alderman then it

1:26:15doesn't make sense to spend time on it.

1:26:19>> Okay, I'll now call on Alderman Dow.

1:26:22>> Yeah, a couple things when you're

1:26:24putting your presentation together. the

1:26:27um

1:26:29114,000

1:26:31that's a onetime cost

1:26:34and it ought to be allocated over 10 15

1:26:37maybe 20 years cuz uh the signs aren't

1:26:40going anywhere. We don't replace them

1:26:42that often, trust me. Uh the paint may

1:26:45need to not last quite that long, but

1:26:47those costs need to be it's not it's a

1:26:50one-time cost

1:26:53>> and needs to be allocated over a number

1:26:55of years.

1:26:56So, you have to figure out how you do

1:26:59that. The other piece is the 93,000

1:27:03of of engineering cost, but I have to

1:27:06believe some of those are going to be

1:27:08absorbed within the current staffing

1:27:11because we're certainly for not going to

1:27:15add staffing for each one of these areas

1:27:17to the city. That won't fly

1:27:20at all. So you have to figure out you

1:27:24know how much is absorbed and how much

1:27:27would be added cost.

1:27:29Uh other than that as far as I'm

1:27:32concerned I think you should go ahead

1:27:34and do the additional detail and and

1:27:38present it to the full board.

1:27:42>> Okay. Uh we have some other guests.

1:27:45>> Yep.

1:27:46>> Here that have shown up and greatly

1:27:48appreciated. Although uh Miss Stanfield

1:27:53uh are police, fire, DPW, just for the

1:27:57record, are they invited to your uh

1:28:00meetings so they are briefed? And if

1:28:05they can't make it, at least can you

1:28:07send them a synopsis uh uh minutes or

1:28:11something like that? So if it comes up,

1:28:14you know,

1:28:16>> do they have anything to add,

1:28:17>> you know, and that's what we're going to

1:28:19find out now. Uh, so I'll call

1:28:24You don't have to. I'm not, you know,

1:28:27but Fire Marshall Devonti, do you wish

1:28:31you do you wish to speak?

1:28:33>> I don't really have anything to add this

1:28:34even.

1:28:35>> Okay. And DPW, do you have anything you

1:28:39want to add? Andy and team did a great

1:28:42job. So if there's questions, I'm here

1:28:44to field any questions, but I don't have

1:28:46anything to add.

1:28:47>> Okay. Uh both say that they're content

1:28:50and that they don't The reason I'm

1:28:53reiterating is you may be far from the

1:28:56mic, you know, but we I appreciate you

1:28:59being here, you know, for if there was a

1:29:02technical question, but M. Stanfield,

1:29:05can you just make sure that everybody's

1:29:07all the stakeholders as far as municipal

1:29:10and are in the loop? Uh, so any other

1:29:13further questions? Okay, seeing none, I

1:29:17would like to propose from this

1:29:19committee that uh

1:29:23that I am generally impressed. Mr. held

1:29:26you did a good job, you know, and I

1:29:29think the next thing is I think we need

1:29:31to see costs and what the permits are

1:29:34going to be charged because uh I would

1:29:37like this to be a self-sufficient

1:29:39program, not necessarily on the backs of

1:29:42the taxpayers. I don't think it has to

1:29:45be 100%.

1:29:47You know, it's a cost of living in the

1:29:50city. you know, if you have to get a a

1:29:53permit. Uh, I didn't build this city. It

1:29:57was built by people who rode horses and

1:30:00cows used to walk down around corners.

1:30:02Much like Boston, this is, you know,

1:30:06something different. So, I think you've

1:30:08done a fair job in looking at this,

1:30:11which comes up to therefore my proposal

1:30:15is the recommendation of this committee

1:30:18that you carry on and continue

1:30:21and to come back uh at a time certain

1:30:26but the next level of where we want to

1:30:29go and I think I'll leave that up to and

1:30:32I will contact Miss Stanfield and to you

1:30:36Miss Handam on uh when that would be

1:30:39appropriate you know and uh we can get

1:30:43it going. So with that we I want to put

1:30:47it into the form of the vote that uh

1:30:50it's the recommendation this committee

1:30:52to carry on and uh and to report back

1:30:56with us with the progress of what we're

1:30:59doing. So I'll call for the vote. All

1:31:02those in favor who agree say I

1:31:05>> oppose.

1:31:07Motion carries. Okay. I thank you very

1:31:10much everybody. Uh now because Alderman

1:31:15Cle unfortunately

1:31:17>> we got unfinished business. None

1:31:19>> is out. So we're skipped over that.

1:31:21>> New business resolutions are none.

1:31:22>> Yeah, there's none. Uh

1:31:24>> and we already deferred

1:31:25>> Yeah, we deferred the the thing uh

1:31:29tabled in committee. Nobody has brought

1:31:31up attention to take anything.

1:31:33>> Petitions were none.

1:31:34>> Yeah, petitions are none. Thank you.

1:31:37Nothing that that wanted to come off the

1:31:39table. Um,

1:31:41>> discussion.

1:31:42>> Yeah, general discussion from members of

1:31:44the committee.

1:31:47Okay, seeing none, public comment.

1:31:51Seeing none, remarks by the alderman.

1:31:56Seeing none, uh, I would like just take

1:32:00the liberty to thank everybody. I wish

1:32:04more of the alderman were here,

1:32:07you know, but

1:32:10you know, unfortunately, Alderman Lopez

1:32:14left early. I'm sure he did. He did have

1:32:16his hand up. I just couldn't get to him

1:32:18time. Uh had some questions, but

1:32:22hopefully he'll be able to reach out to

1:32:24you and to get with that. So to my

1:32:29compadre here, Ottoman Stout's favored

1:32:32motion.

1:32:32>> Motion to adjurnn.

1:32:33>> Motion to adjurnn. All those in favor

1:32:35signify by saying I.

1:32:37>> I.

1:32:38>> Oppose. Motion carries. And now call us

1:32:41adjourn at 8:32 p.m. Thank you again.