Twenty twenty-six regular meeting of the Town of Erie Pointing Commission.

The time is now six thirty PM, and I'm calling this meeting to order.

Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Liberty Justice.

Will the Secretary please call roll?

Commissioner Booth, yes.

Commissioner Sawish.

Commissioner Dreckman, yes.

Commissioner Burns.

Yes.

Commissioner Bahem.

Yes.

Vice Chair Brodus.

Present.

Chair Hempill.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

We have an agenda before this evening.

Does staff have any changes to the agenda?

No changes.

Thank you.

Okay.

And who wants to make a motion on tonight's agenda?

Motion.

Second.

Booth and Drekman.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

This brings us to approval of our January seventh, twenty twenty-six pointing commission meeting minutes.

Do we have any changes or requests to make a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second.

I heard uh Burns for the second.

And wrote us for the motion.

Um we have a motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

This brings us to the public comments portion of the meeting.

This is for public comments intended for items not already on the scheduled agenda to be discussed.

Is there anyone in the waiting room signed up or in the audience?

No one in the audience.

The time is now six thirty-two PM, and I'll turn it over to staff.

Thank you.

Um good evening, Chair Hempel, Vice Chair Brodus, and Commissioners.

Before you tonight is an amendment to section ten six dash twelve of the Erie Municipal Code, which is the sign code section of our UVC.

This update was part of an overall UDC cleanup and update to text throughout the whole municipal code, so it didn't just uh center just around the sign code.

The proposal will address both chapter six, section twelve, and chapter eleven, section three of the UDC.

The um the main proposal in the main revision of this section clarifies language and replaces much of the existing text with a single cohesive table, making it easier to decipher the code requirements by zoning district.

I would say that's probably 85% of the requests that we're asking for.

Um in developing the amendments to our temporary sign code allowance.

Staff coordinated with the economic development department to ensure that the proposed changes support and align with the needs of our local businesses.

A-frame sandwich board signs are exempt from the 30 days, and they're also exempt from building permits, provided they remain on private property and do not impede pedestrian circulation.

Um this slide here, um see under prohibited signs.

Um we made some updates to provide greater flexibility for businesses.

The language was updated to allowance to allow signed copy changes from once every four hours to once every 30 minutes, and we've also removed ground signs from this section of the code.

Under terms defined in chapter 11, section three, we've added a sign code definition for off-premise signage.

Our current sign code does um refer to off-premise signage, but it doesn't have a definition.

So we wanted to clarify that in our our update.

For approval criteria, um, the request does meet all the approval criteria.

The proposed amendment will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.

And the proposed amendment is generally consistent with the town's comprehensive master plan and the stated purposes of the UDC, and the proposed amendment is necessary or desirable because of changing conditions, new planning concepts, or other social or economic conditions.

Staff is recommending that you approve resolution P26-02, which recommends the town council adopt the ordinance amending Title 10, Chapter 6, Section 12 of the Erie Municipal Code, and amending definitions in Chapter 11.

This item is scheduled for public hearing in front of town council at their February 10th, 2026 regularly scheduled meeting.

That concludes my presentation, and I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Um we'll go around the commission.

I'll just start with Commissioner Burns.

Uh one, I guess, small thing.

I appreciate the table.

It's a lot easier to read.

Um is there a need to have a legend for the acronyms for the different uh zoning districts?

Just for reference purposes, because someone who's not maybe is familiar might try to figure out what they're looking up and they see L1 or LI or you know, R, etc.

So if it's I don't know if there's a need to put a legend or a key into the tables.

Generally the legend and the zoning districts is addressed in the um zoning map, which which has all of those those different zoning districts.

So when you're trying to find what kind of or what type of sign or what size of sign that you're allowed, you you'll generally refer to the zoning map first and then the sign code subsequent.

Okay, I mean, which I appreciate.

I know it's elsewhere in the in the code, it's just not uh in this table.

That's all standalone.

Just a minor thing.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Commissioner Baham.

Nothing from my code.

Commissioner Drickman.

Nothing for me.

Commissioner Sellish.

Um, I know we removed ground signs.

Um we have any definitions about what were ground signs?

What are they apply towards now within the current draft ordinance?

So um ground signs in in the current code, you should be able to find that in chapter 11 in terms defined, but it is defined as a freestanding sign that is mounted on polls or braces.

Um, so we did remove it because we do have we do have several signs like that in town, but it was just another way to allow an option for um some of the businesses if they want one of those smaller signs.

Typically the size of that sign we usually see with the monument signs.

Okay.

So I believe so I know that they are addressed with the town clerk's office when election season comes up on where you can place them.

Um Chris, do you do you know that part offhand?

I do believe that if there is at a certain size, um, we don't require building permits for them.

They just can't be placed in the public right of way, they can be placed on on private property.

That's correct.

And there's a limit to the number you can have for uh election.

The number of signs you have in your yard.

Um there's a limit of two, it's never enforced, but there's a limit in the code.

That part I'm not familiar with.

That's right.

Um I do believe I do believe there is there is a limit.

Um I don't actually have the current sign in front of me.

Yeah, understanding was it was two for each facing street.

For each running, so how does that probably make sense?

As a back does sound like streets, you can have two in the back.

Yeah, it's not a big deal.

Yeah, and again, it's never been enforced, I know.

So never been enforced or could be enforced, or two completely different things.

Oh, yeah, well, I know.

You know, so it definitely can be enforced, especially with us now having a full-time code enforcement officer.

Um so it definitely can be.

Yes, so um and having gone through in 2024 and getting uh receiving feedback from the former town attorney um as per what was placed on the website, the town's website, it was no more than two signs should be within a single property boundary.

Hypothetically, you have a uh general election.

You have presidential, you have gubernatorial, senate, you know, the list goes on.

You then also have the the various measures.

So having gone through that process, there were a lot of residents who were concerned saying, hey, I'm being restricted in terms of my first amendment rights.

Obviously, in terms of what the then town attorney said was well, we have time and place restrictions that we can place on it as long as a reasonable.

So the question would be if there is how it used to be where political signs were exempt from this, if that's something that may that we may want to bring back, or something to the effect of one sign per um ballot measure and race, something to that effect, so that individuals can express themselves, can provide their you know, First Amendment rights and be within a reasonable bound still.

So you're not having you know a littered yard of 27 different signs, but within a reasonable fashion.

So that would be the only thing that I have to say on this, but otherwise it makes sense.

Thank you.

I think what we can do too with respect to that is double check with our uh council between now and town council and just make sure that we're squared away on that issue.

I think that's an important one.

Yeah, and again hearing from former former town attorney Carberry, it fell to this sign code, and it was two per, as uh um uh commissioner Burns had said two per street facing uh side of property.

So that's where some of the gripes came from and some of the animosity from some of the residents.

So that's right.

Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner Booth.

Um my only question was I assume back in 2022.

Um which was the last update.

Did that also go through the planning commission at that time too?

Or just straight to the board of trustees.

I do believe it did, but again, the um the ultimate decision lies with the board of trustees.

That's really it.

I don't have anything thanks.

I think yeah, to Commissioner Sowish's point.

I was just looking up the code and it's um well, it scrolled away from the number of signs permitted, section Fere, just stating that too, but it wasn't clear.

Um if that captured the political sign.

So as you go through the assuming we approve this, um which I think is yeah.

Um working with before you get ready to go to council, I think is a good point.

Yeah, we'll take a look at that.

I I think probably the political signs fall more under the temporary sign requirements, and I'm not sure if that specific section would apply, but we will we will double check that.

I I think probably the political signs fall more under the temporary sign requirements, and I'm not sure if that specific section would apply, but we will we will double check that typically they're allowed like um maybe 30 days prior to election, they have to be removed 30 days after election, but we don't regulate content of the signs.

So there's that was the important thing because it couldn't non-regulation of the content, which there were many First Amendment uh um suits that are brought forward.

Um I do have an email that was from former town attorney Carberry Um as a candidate for office, so this is something that I can share with staff so I can forward this on afterwards so you can see exactly what her interpretation of it was, but it was uh going through line by line size.

Um it actually matters in terms matters in terms of the zoning class um because of how we just had a table, obviously, so it's all reflected in that.

So I can forward that on to you all so you can limit it to the four square feet, not larger than the four square feet.

Yeah, 32 uh non-gross maximum allowable gross areas 32 square feet.

Um vacant properties, same thing.

I mean, it was the whole by this specific zone, um, and then it was uh per zone number of signs per street frontage, etc.

So yeah, we would love to see that if you don't mind sharing that, and we'll follow up on it.

Okay, can do I think just looking at the draft ordinance tables 612-1, the general sign standards, it has the maximum number and then the the two foot note with the 30 days.

So those would be with the previous code.

Yeah, so it's all pretty.

Yes, this this code amendment definitely was not intended to alter or change any kind of um requirements around political signs.

Um but I think bringing that up was a good great question that we'll clarify for sure.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, just just for uh clarification.

This update did not make any updates to that.

That was back in the 2021 update or 2022 update when that occurred.

Yeah, all right.

Everyone's had a chance.

Any final questions before we all right?

Um does anybody want to request to make a motion?

I have it printed out if you want to read everything.

So just out of curiosity, would anybody be willing for a uh recommendation with condition to um exempt political signs from this code by the current code definition, those are falling temporary signs.

They fall under the normal sign code too per frontage and everything like that.

Again, per former town attorney can Kendra Carter.

Yeah, within the specific types of signs, though, were there's temporary or permanent signs?

Um they were not deemed temporary signs in terms of her interpretation at the time, they were not uh deemed to be temporary signs.

Um so they fell to the normal sign code.

So based on the sign code, there's five types eliminated, temporary, projecting, monument, and wall signs.

Which ones would they fall into?

Um they were deemed small signs, not currently in the definitions.

I think it's probably according to the website that discusses them, which is yard signs should be less than four square feet to avoid needing a temporary sign permit.

So my guess is it's temporary.

So then it would fall to temporary at that point.

So those are restricted by 30 day limits unless extended with written permission.

So okay, so then if we have a temporary sign, do they still fall to the guidelines of number and quantity per zone class?

So we'd still fall to that.

They're still governed by the what the table states.

Okay.

So the quantity uh in my interpretation would apply.

That's also my understanding as well.

They do fall under the temporary sign.

Okay, so again, just out of curiosity, would anybody be up for exempting political signs from the current sign code?

Essentially reverting back to what it used to be in 2021.

I don't know if I'm super on board with that.

Yeah, I don't feel like I don't know if I would vote for that.

Yeah, is that a discussion?

My concern is it was changed, I think based on public comment, but you were there, so I don't know that for a fact.

Uh this it was all based on recommendation from the town's attorney's office.

It was it was nine chapters that we went through, I think.

I believe so that sounds about right.

It was I mean literally taking a red pen to everything that she wanted to.

So yeah.

Um Commissioner Sowich, please could you uh clarify when you're saying exempting political signs exempting from the sign code?

Um so let me see if from regulation uh exempting them from the sign code provisions in terms of the quantity or alternative is you know, one actually stipulating one per office or something to that effect.

But then again, if we do that, then you get into the content base, don't you?

That and so that's my concern with that is that's the that's the issue because you're you're then that that yeah, exactly.

And then you you bring up the challenge and potential of um religious signs that why aren't they exempted from this as well?

Because then you're getting back to content instead of time space and manner.

Yeah, okay.

Another thought I had is if we exempt them.

Um if I wanted to be obnoxious, I could put a billboard size sign with my favorite candidate on there.

With this is just exempt from the sign if we just blanket exempted, yes.

So I think legally it's it's that's a concern.

I think then it would be a good thing.

That's right.

So it's not real.

I do have a uh maybe a point of clarification then.

Um the table in the proposed ordinance indicates maximum number of of signs, and it has for the three different categories, and with the note two, in addition to those, so the max two per street front, it also allows, in addition to that, two temporary signs.

So that's really four.

Well, I mean, technically, but the way that the temporary signs are their temporary in nature, they're designed to maybe advertise like a limited event.

Well, that's what I think the argument was that the political signs fall under temporary signs.

Um they're just not enforced necessarily with the strict, like say 30 days, but that's what we'd otherwise have to lump them in with.

Well, I I think so, but I think the best thing is I there is information on our website that talks about um some standards for that.

Um I I think that staff will take that under an advisement.

We should dev we'll we'll vet it out with uh our attorney um and make sure that we add a section in the update to town council regarding political signs.

Thank you.

Um our code also does say that signs on private property not exceeding four square feet in area are exempt.

That's true.

I mean, if they're under four square feet, they don't require a temporary use permit.

Um so typically we're not telling people what they can and can't post in terms of their own messages on their own property.

So and just to clarify that that's exempt because but that's a that's a size exemption, right?

Not a content exempt.

But if they're larger too, then a building permit is required and then they fall within what the table says.

Yeah.

Yep.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um so I have the red lines uh from Erie Legisar.

Uh so we used to have signs accessory to churches, schools, other institutions, and then we had political signs.

So both of those were actually notated in terms of uh it was 10612 Burmit requirements and exceptions.

So that entire section was removed.

And if I remember correctly, it was the um content base arguments where we have different different restrictions against different content, and that's why it can be wiped out.

So um I mean you could always look at it these as you know, these are election day holiday signs, you know, and holiday signs are exempt from this sign code.

So but um, you know, again, something to bring up.

Um I'm I'm in agreement.

I don't think we should try to address that right now, but I do think that's something that should be brought up with council so that uh or um the town legal council had it before it being brought up to council so that it can be addressed.

Okay, we'll 100% do that.

I think uh so did you want to put a condition on the motion?

No, okay.

I don't I I I don't even know what to put up.

We'll take care of it.

See, good discussion.

Um open it back if anyone wants to make a motion.

I can thank you, Commissioner Trek.

Okay.

Um, Dracman motion to approve resolution number P 2602 resolution of the planning commission of the town of Erie recommending that the town council adopt an ordinance or appealing and re-enacting section 10612 of the Erie Municipal Code and amending definitions related there too, all regarding sign regulations.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Does anybody want to request a roll call vote?

Right.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So the second item on our agenda is 26-66 discussion of the pointing commission appointments.

Time is now 6 54 p.m.

So I ask staff to add this to the agenda.

The clerk released the application for the next three seats of the planning commission.

Um I've talked with the three commissioners whose um terms are expiring, and two of them expressed interest for continuing their their work here.

And tonight I want to discuss if we want this body to provide a recommendation to the town council on any of the um any of those appointments.

So tonight is really just about giving direction to staff to draft up a resolution or whatever makes the most sense if we want to do that.

Um and then I would expect that on our February 18th meeting where we actually vote on that resolution if that's the the course of action.

So this is kind of an open forum if we as the council or we is a planning commission want to provide a recommendation to the town council.

Um I haven't been around long enough to know this, but someone maybe like Andrew, or is that normal?

So is that stamp?

No, okay.

Um in the the last um the terms expired uh for the four who were added or commissioners trackman, uh chair or vice chair, and um actually it was just it was Martin Martin Wallace.

Um it was I I believe that they just asked if you guys are interested in re-upping and then they voted on it.

Right, yeah, I just didn't know if in the past, like prior to that we had recommended.

Yeah, the answer is no.

Um that's never occurred.

I will say though, uh, because of the extensive amount of turnover that has occurred, right?

Um I I don't think that's ever occurred for you know that that reason alone, if not any other, but um no, this it has never been prior to 2020 through date, never had a recommendation.

It's uh our appointment is at the um discretion of the council.

Right.

It's different.

I'm sorry.

I was just wondering that was the one yeah, it's different for the other boards.

Oh, okay.

Advisory boards, but uh planning commission yeah, yeah.

So the reason I started on the sustainability board, and part of that was we interviewed the people.

I were not interviewing the the commission candidates.

Um it was just one of the things where I it made sense to me that if we have an opinion, I think it's worth sharing.

Okay, um, but again, that's my opinion, and I want to make sure that's the opinion of the the full commission.

So can I would a resolution be required or could we just send something saying we voted and feel this way?

Um I I think it'd be safer to just uh just do a resolution.

Okay.

So can I can I just ask um is it even within our power to make power roles responsibilities to make that recommendation?

That is that is something that is spelled out for each and basically each and every one of the other boards and commissions, but not ours.

And we don't have anything that is provided to us in terms of authority by statute to provide provide that recommendation.

Can we provide a rec recommendation of something like that when we aren't explicitly provided that role responsibility?

Yeah, I I think we can we can kind of interpret that they that the planning commission can also um provide that recommendation, even if they explicitly state it's not saying that you guys can either.

It was always you know vested powers granted to you from the council or board of trustees.

Yeah I I I like your attitude.

Yeah I mean I do think it's an interpretation thing too right so but yeah.

Just to clarify it's a resolution to recommend correctly yeah I think the wording like I said I think we'd give direction to staff and can all to write up something um where we'd probably fill in the the names of the recommendation um I talked with commissioner booth and Commissioner Burns and Commissioner Baham and Commissioner Baham you said you weren't interested in reapplying yes yeah which we're sorry to see you uh not come back but uh I know Commissioner Burns and Booth were both interested and I like the planning commission to give a recommendation that we keep them on so that's kind of where I'm coming from so I agree I would be on board.

Yeah for continuity it just makes a lot of sense I was gonna say what if I don't know if I want to hear that people don't maybe I don't want to do this.

I don't want to know what people think.

It's too late we've already said so um I don't think we need a formal vote but just wanted to see if everyone's on board of that as a staff direction for our February 18th meeting.

And the reason the 18th the reason the 18th is well spoilers we're probably not gonna have a meeting on the fourth so I don't think we had a vote.

I've okay so I've I've been on the other side um again this hasn't happened before um yes in terms of like a you know job application job application you know you have references right you know essentially that's essentially what we're trying to provide in that situation you know um I I don't know how I feel about this I don't know if I'm on board or not um I don't disagree with it but I don't fully agree with it.

Um it's just it it it hasn't been done you know that's fair I part of it is also I mean we've been talking about expanding our roles and responsibilities I know one of our roles and responsibilities is ultimately to interview pointing commissioners and then give our recommendation and then maybe town council doesn't have to do that because that's a full night if they're gonna interview everyone so if we start here and then point a commission turns into the interviewing board because we have to work together town council doesn't come to these meetings so that's just my thought about it.

Wait were you thinking not for this round.

Right but with that recommendation were you thinking that that would alleviate their need to interview the two of us I I don't that's their choice I I think in the code it says commissioner shall be inter appointing commissioner applicants shall be interviewed.

So it's you've technically been interviewed in the past so I don't know how they're gonna quantify that or if they want to bring you in I don't know my goal is that you don't need to be interviewed because you have many years of service if they choose that does reappoint like that brings up some like it's what commissioner Burns was saying about what we've done in the past because we did have a lot of turnover and I mean I guess I was already seated but I don't know exactly like let's just use vice chair laws.

Like did he go through a we all went through the interview process I think there were seven people totally it was I'm not comparing apples to apples I don't think but yeah it was Andrew was Andrew was on the board everybody up here has been interviewed.

Interviewed what happened is they took the list of people who applied and made a short list of seven who were interviewed the last time did anything happen to our terms during the home rule no that made us just be automatically it didn't affect us um is planning commission it we just kind of went the problem was that we we lost you know four I'm just along the way and you know I guess to and to point out or reiterate I guess what I was mentioning before um I guess I was a little interested to see what the process was here because when the four were re upped uh two years ago the um they didn't interview as far as I'm aware of you guys again they did not so the the process we were reappointed in September um and then effectively the term that we were appointed for was to April so like 24

Um I guess I was a little interested to see what the process was here because when the four were re-upped uh two years ago, the um they didn't interview as far as I'm aware.

They did not.

So the the process where we were reappointed in September.

Um, and then effectively the term that we were appointed for was to April, so like 24 yeah of the next year, so a few months.

So there wasn't value in the court decided or asked the council at that time if they would just reapprove without doing a new application because they just appointed four people however many months ago.

I mean, I can see what relative to Commissioner Sawich is mentioned, like uh it wasn't um I I don't believe anyone else was asked, but I I I wasn't asked up for an opinion on anyone specifically for that purpose.

Um so I guess would be this would be different, I guess.

But it was also different circumstances.

And part of my thought thinking too is since we're not interviewing the other candidates, um, and we're recommending again what I would advocate for is we recommend we keep our current commissioners who want to reapply, but we may we're not going to see the applications for everyone new, um, and then we just don't have a recommendation for the third seat, and that's fully because I don't want to give a recommendation if we haven't interacted with the people either.

So yeah, but then we're providing two recommendations but not the other.

And if you know, going on with what you're saying, you know, in the future maybe we can review them like all the other boards and commissions, they review all the applicants, and then they provide a recommendation to the the council of who they recommend be appointed, right?

Right, and typically it's just they follow the recommendation.

Um but we're not in involved in the interview process or reviewing the applications to say who is or isn't going to be um staff is gonna be the ones who are going to be recommending those to interview um and will be completely council will be either out of the process or say no, we want to take other individuals to interview as well, and then they'll go through the interviews.

Yeah, and and part of also the other part of the February 18th date, and the reason that it won't work is they're not actually closing the application until February 20th.

I did send a message to the council last week asking that they push it to the 17th or something, so we could look at those packet over that packet if we wanted to, but I didn't hear back and they kept the application open.

So there's no we won't be getting the full application packet by the deadline by our meeting, and I don't think it's worth calling a special meeting.

We haven't been asked to give our input.

Like I said, I think it's valuable in my mind.

From my perspective, it's a vote of support for the people rather than anything else.

Yeah, I I totally understand that.

You know, I just again it's it's never happened, and it's at per you know, per code, it's at the discretion of the council.

Yep.

So why don't we do this?

Why don't we have the resolution drafted and we're gonna have to discuss it anyway at the next meeting?

Yeah, and I think maybe staff could potentially um put it put out a feeler to council to see how they feel about that to see if they'd be willing to accept a recommendation.

Because again, I I don't know how they're gonna feel.

I don't know how I would have felt on the other side.

That's where it it just it hasn't happened.

That's all you know.

Yeah, okay.

I don't disagree with the the intent.

Yeah, um, we just don't want it to be received improperly on the other side, so we might want to have a feeler out there first.

I also have a feeling that with a fairly new council.

I don't know that we're gonna be able to get out of the interviews, like we haven't interacted with many of them or interviewed with many of them, so they may want to re-qualify us.

Yeah, but they have I know many of them, if not all look at the recordings of the meetings, yeah.

So they've seen how you how you conduct yourself.

Yeah, but it's get me out of that anyway.

I'm doing my best.

So are we interviewing really well?

As a commissioner, are we in agreement to have uh a resolution drafted for our February 18th meeting?

And I agree with commissioner or sorry, I keep using first names, Commissioner.

So watch.

Is that who said I saw what I can do?

So that's what I want to say understand.

Um the if we could ask the town council, I think that's a I agree with that.

A good idea.

Okay.

Yep.

I'm on board with that.

Uh before our meeting.

So do you have clear direction over there?

I think so.

I was just gonna ask.

I I heard um it sounds like you want to see a draft resolution that would support the existing PC members in terms of reappointments, and then have an item placed on that 218 date for discussion of that.

Discussion and vote, yes.

Yeah, with the assumption that the town council doesn't uh agrees rather than doesn't disagree.

Okay.

And I was actually interested in in clarification on what if they're expecting the existing commission commissioners who uh are interested in continuing to submit a new application and interview versus their review like they've done previously.

In other words, like I assumed it was yeah, because when they and it's it's a little bit of apples and oranges, um they reviewed the the the four um in 2024 just separately it without like uh a full application process and interview.

They just I don't know if they had a vote or what or if it was just consent agenda, but they just yeah, okay, they're approved to for another four years, or if um they're looking for us to go through the interview process like the new applicants as well.

Just and more maybe more in terms of time as well.

So I didn't know if this was gonna happen before and they were gonna go into the full interview process looking at one spot or three or two.

Yeah, that's a good question.

I don't know if we have to do the application as so it's just in in the sense of like ask if you're asking kind of like hey, how do you guys feel about recommendation?

Can we get a little bit of clarification on the timeline here or what they're thinking for existing commissioners?

And are we going through the same process as yeah?

I'm trying to remember.

I've frost up I thought I had to do redo the application every time, but I could be wrong.

Regardless, they can check.

Yes, we can totally check.

I would assume that it's like any type of internal recruitment or external, or you basically start over, but we'll find out.

Define the process.

It's I would I was just not in involved in the last one.

Okay.

Like I just heard that they they had okayed everyone, so I was like, okay, cool.

Okay, yes.

I'm not even sure exactly what happened.

Thank you.

Uh we'll we'll revisit this on the 18th as long as well with our uh our continued item.

Don't forget about that one.

That's a good one.

Uh time is now 711 p.m.

and we have concluded general business.

We'll move on to staff reports.

No specific items, but yes, I just have two things to note.

One of uh all of you should have received an email from uh IT regarding starting the mandatory security trainings, so just make sure that you do that and it has to be completed by March 12th.

So that's one thing to note, and then the other thing I think we've already alluded to was our 2.4 meeting has nothing on the agenda.

So wondering about whether or not we should cancel that.

Does anyone have any pressing items they want to talk about on 2-4?

Um when do we have planned the meeting with council?

The council meeting is after the appointment of it uh the pointing commission, so mid-April or early April.

Because we have the couple items that we want to discuss ahead of time.

Yeah, and knowing we're probably gonna have some cancellations after that point as well.

So do we do we kick it to another uh propose canceled event or proposed cancel meeting in the future?

Or do we use this one?

Well, probably with the new planning commission.

Wouldn't it be best to have the new planning commission members?

Yeah, well there'll be one meeting with the new planning commission before the meeting with town council.

Yeah, so we're gonna have the meeting where one attempt.

Yeah, that's it's probably not gonna be where we're gonna say, hey, here's our thoughts and just one I mean roles and responsibilities.

There's been like what, twelve meetings from since like 2000 or 2020, you know, about that topic alone.

So I'll be honest, I'm not actually going to be available for the fourth, so it doesn't bother me if you have a meeting, it'll just uh be everyone else here.

Oh cancel.

So I think you should be in the discussion.

Yeah, definitely.

We're we're having something on 18th.

What is the potential of March?

And March starts spring break.

Doesn't affect me, but spring break is in March.

Okay, we added the 18th meeting.

Um yeah, we can start talking about it on the 18th.

There's probably gonna be enough time.

It'll be a little bit longer.

Uh worst case, I uh move my Roberts Rules meeting to another time.

Well, would the Roberts rules be handy with the new Yeah, that'd be good.

That'll uh help me not write my presentation that I haven't written yet either.

You're welcome.

So we're saying March 4th, which has nothing on the advanced agenda.

So yeah, there are no land use cases for oh, I'm sorry, you said March.

March 4th February in my hand.

Yeah, February was the Spring Hill.

That's that was the on the agenda advanced agenda from December time frame.

So it sounds to me like it's okay to cancel.

Um if anyone has a really strong opinion, reach out to Vice Chair Brodus because he'll be running the meeting.

Um but as of now we'll call it canceled.

All right, okay.

Um time is now 7.15 p.m.

and we'll finish with commissioner reports and discussion.

Uh anybody have anything to report or discussion?

Good luck, Broncos.

All right.

Well, thank you.

And that concludes all the items on our agenda.

Commissioner Booth.

Motion to adjourn.

Time is now 7.15 p.m.

We are adjourned.