NORTH ADAMS, Mass. — The City Council on Tuesday night passed a controversial parking ordinance to a second reading.

But that doesn't mean the debate is over.

The decision to move forward with changing the cost for parking in the Center Street lot — and eliminating the free first two hours — may still face opposition when it reappears in two weeks.

On Tuesday, Aug. 16, Public Safety will again take up the issue to allow business owners and residents a chance to air their concerns. The meeting takes place at 5:45 p.m. in Council Chambers.

It had seemed the council had finally formed a consensus to move forward with the ordinance, which will mean the installation of parking meters in the Center Street lot. The ordinance was moved with only two votes against: Councilors Keith Bona and Lisa Blackmer.

The ordinance had arrived at the City Council in mid-July on the recommendation of the Traffic Commission as purely an enforcement issue. The two ticket kiosks in the lot had both broken years ago and it was difficult for officers to enforce the parking restrictions, which also include monthly permit holders.

Mayor Richard Alcombright said the enforcement would be simplified by eliminating the two-hour free parking limit ($1 for a total of four hours and an additional 50 per hour after) and instituting 25 cents an hour in accordance with other metered lots. That would mean putting parking meters back in the lot, which is about to undergo some modifications and paving.

But the suggested ordinance set off a wide-ranging debate over what the city's future parking situation should look like. Some councilors called for a comprehensive plan, others to eliminate charges altogether.  

On Tuesday, the mayor asked that the councilors make a decision one way or the other.

"I suggest that the council vote on the order up or down," he said. "If it's down, we can look at it more globally ... right now, we're just looking for a way to enforce that lot."

Bona reiterated earlier concerns that putting the meters back could short-circuit any comprehensive planning. He repeated a conversation he said he had with Police Director Michael Cozzaglio about using a digital camera to mark the location and times of parked cars. That could be done at once, he said, and would not require installing the meters.

"This isn't about meters, this is about keeping permit holders happy," he said, because they were paying monthly for space while others were using the lot for free.

"I'm not in favor but not opposed," Bona said. "I don't feel we need to move on it as fast as we did."

Blackmer, however, said the city cannot fine anyone in the lot for overstaying two hours because there is no way for motorists to comply because the ticket kiosks are broken.

"There is no way for them to pay for that additional time," she said. "Are they supposed to come to City Hall and say they want to pay to park?"

She said she would recommend anyone ticketed to fight it, and added that she did not like that the city had been aware of the problem for several years and was only now coming in and pushing the council to make a decision.

Alcombright responded that planned construction in the lot was not contingent on installing meters, but rather an opportunity to do both at the same time.

"If you say no [to meters], we're still going to do it," he said of the paving and curbing.

Councilor Kate Merrigan reminded her colleagues that "we're not voting to install meters, we're voting to remove free parking."

She said she had not heard any business concerns that 25 cents an hour would hurt customers.

"I would like to move forward ... I feel we've kicked up some issues that are valuable."

But resident Roger Eurbin said his impression at the last council meeting was that there would be another committee meeting.

"It impacts the public," he said. "They should at least have the right to express themselves."

Bona concurred that he had heard the same thing. (The council had gone back and forth about referring to Public Safety before motioning to delay until the next council meeting.)

"I don't think the businesses were aware of the first committee meeting ... maybe a better effort for the next time," he said.

After council adjourned, Councilor Robert R. Moulton Jr., chairman of Public Safety, decided to set a meeting of his committee to provide a space for residents to speak on the issue.

Alcombright said he wished the council would just decide one way or the other.

"You've kind of tied our hands administratively," he said. "Either tell we can or tell us we can't."

In other business, the council also passed to second reading and publication an ordinance dealing with employee benefits that had been referred back to legal counsel for questions. Some minor modifications were made but that raised new questions. Alcombright said some new "not substantial" language could be amended at the second reading after review by counsel.