--------- I thought practice session All right. I'll entertain a motion to come out of recess. >> Motion to come out of recess. Resume committee the whole >> uh motion from Londine, second by Peterson. All in favor of coming out of recess say I. I. >> Any opposed? >> Motion carries 40. Uh so we were talking
about the uh hazard tree removal the 27 trees in the right of way. Um I think the the discussion was you know try and get the the cheapest prices. Uh it looks like contractor one for the tree removal uh as an aggregate seemed to be the cheapest. Um considering that public
works couldn't do all of those trees. Uh, and then for the stump restoration total, you had estimated $4,000 approximately for public works to do them versus the 6,90 from contractor one. Um, so that would be the public works have having the best bid.
>> I just wanted to add to that is that's why I put 4,000 plus because we necessarily haven't >> uh ground stumps that much. So I guesstimated on that. >> Okay. I think once you do it
>> if it goes longer than the hours I it could >> Yeah, sure. >> I think once you did once you get a couple it you'll get used to it. It's >> there's nothing over three feet, right? It's all like 24s and 26s.
>> There's a couple 41s and 43s and >> Okay. >> Okay. But I mean, you're still 50% less than the next closest bid. So, I think I I'm think I'm pretty comfortable with that. Um, and then you just track your hours and then we just bill accordingly.
Correct. >> Yes. So, that's why I was saying that's a as good estimate as I can get. Sure. But it could be >> we could be charging them a little more because we're going to track hours. Yeah. >> Sure. But still probably less than contractor one unless we're real unlucky.
>> You could even just say just round it out to 18,000. >> Sure. you know, with that and them doing it not to exceed 18,000. >> Sure. And then as far as the black dirt and seed restoration, ours is again less just barely more than half of the the
cost of contractor 4. So I would propose personally that we go with uh option one for for that as well or public works for that one as well. And then maybe um I assume that'd be pretty pretty good timing when once you stump grind it then you black dirt and
seat it while you're there or have is that how that would kind of work or would would there be what are you thinking on that? >> Yeah be you would stump grind and then you'd probably have another crew right behind them. >> Sure. Okay. >> And then there again if it's on private property maybe they want to seed it right and black dirt it themselves.
>> Yep. I mean, even at that point, you can just drop by, take some compost and dump and say, "Here you go." Then you're going to take care of it. So, that would save time as well. So, >> and this is all these are all prices if you know we we have a talk about the the tree draft letter and if they decide not
to do it themselves. Um, so they have the option to do it themselves and not pay anything. Uh, so for that, we have these these estimates here for specific trees. Would people be be on that specific tree cost of that of their specific project or would it be an
aggregate an average of all of them build to the same to everybody on that list? Did you think about that aspect of that? >> I do know that uh I gave the contractors all these so they're probably assuming they were doing all of them.
>> Sure. >> And to clarify, it would be specific to them. So, >> specific to the homeowner, >> specific specific to the property where the tree was located. >> Sure. Okay. Yes, >> sounds good. That sounds fair. >> Uh, I I think there's direction there.
Are you guys all in agreement with all those choices on that aspect of that? >> Contractor one for removal and PW for the restoration and stump grinding and then seating and dirt. Yeah. Yep. >> Sound good, Steve. George.
>> So, we're gonna send them a notification. Tell them >> that's the next question of how what do we do about the notification? >> I mean, we're just go let's let's finish this portion first and we go to the notification. >> They don't have to pay for it. If they don't want it, they're not going to end up doing it.
>> All right. It just goes hands hand in hand. I'd like to look at it in the way it's going to be done. trees have to be removed. >> Second, huh? >> These trees have to be removed. >> So, all we're saying is if they if they don't want to do it, what are what is it
going to cost? And are we willing to do it if they don't want to do themselves? >> And this is just direction anyways. This isn't a formal. >> So, we have direction on that. Next, we'll talk about the the draft letter because I think that's where we should have a considerable amount of
discussion. And uh I I personally I know right now it says 30 days. I think uh given the time of the year and people are busy I think it would be prudent to offer 60 days. Um that gives people more time. I don't know if that's allowed but that gives people time to plan for it.
And >> the problem with that is that it's saying that they need to be removed before May 1st though. >> The challenge is um different and that's why this letter had to be drafted new. We have never had a letter like this because specific to the emerald ashbor
issue um ash trees can only be removed during a certain time period. So whether we gave 30 or 60 days before um is is okay. But this one it still may not fall within the window of that where they can take them down. So that's why this letter is a lot longer, a little more complicated than if we were just having
them take down a dead tree that was a hazard, which is what we've had for letters in the past. >> That makes sense. Okay, >> that makes sense because that's that May 1 through August 31st. The sooner it gets down, that's the less chance of according to the fungi. I mean, he's
talking that once the tree is dead, they're no longer there. So, >> and I don't know how, and I I mean, I don't want to presume, but if it falls, if the tree really needs to come down because it's going to fall and cause damage, they can debark it and do other
things. I'm not sure how realistic that is for most typical homeowners. >> It's not. You have to remove like an inch of the tree all everywhere and then keep that on site or burn it on site. That's not going to happen realistically. Okay. Well, that puts a little wrinkle
in that I suppose with trying to uh appease the emer traveling any further than it already is. >> Unfortunately, that's out of our hands. I mean, that's that's nothing we can do about it. >> I mean, if we did get letters out immediately, we could give them until,
you know, um midappril, giving us enough time to hopefully get the contractor out there between April 15th, hypothetically, and the May 1st deadline to get them taken down. That's not a lot of time. >> Josh, how much how much time did they say they would need to do all these
>> um to do the whole scope of work? >> The list These big contractors are probably going to do it in two three days for those that am all the trees. >> But then you got to then then we have to get public works in to go do the stump. >> But that can happen after >> that can happen at a different time that
that >> I thought it said and the stump remov had to be done before May 1st. >> That's why I just read it. It >> does say >> should be avoided. >> Yeah, it says should be avoided. It's not wrote stolen law, is it?
What are we going to do with the with what we grind if we would we collect that and then burn it? So realistically be transported to the the dump site probably and that's as far as it would go and we could probably we could guarantee that with our people
that it's not leaving this area and you burn it and it's done. Correct. >> Yeah. We would haul it back to the shop. >> Okay. So, I I'm not as concerned on the stump grinding aspect of it. >> Oh, it didn't say the stump. It just said the stump must not ex extend more
than 3 in above the ground or it must be completely debarked. So, it doesn't say anything about grinding the stump before May 1st. >> Yeah, it says uh for ash trees specifically, removal of branches, trees, and stumps should be avoided between May 1st and August 31st.
If removal is necessary during this time due to hazardous conditions, the outer one inch of bark or wood must be chipped on site and transport to the nearest facility. Essentially, stump grinding is chipping. We'd be transporting it to the nearest facility for burning. >> Is this a is this a state thing? I mean,
>> what >> if if you just go less than an hour south, their spring is at least two weeks behind us. I'm assuming this is set from what the ash boore has been set up as that would have been a question to ask the fungi
>> and that but it's irregardless it's it's probably set up through the DNR and that's when they were saying that that's you don't want to do it at that time >> Josh if we give them if we give residents until middle of April and have
a twoe window for the trees to be removed and I mean the stump grinding I'm not sure how How many days you think that might take? Um, I'm not personally not concerned because if you follow the guidelines here, we would be following the removal inside of that frame because we'd be chipping on site and moving to
the nearest facility, which would be our facility. >> I would say it would be more on the contractor and their schedule. The more time we give them, the better. >> Okay. >> So, I mean, really, it' be 30 days then. That's that's what our language says. 30
days from tomorrow would be middle of April. It's all we got. If these trees pose a risk to the public or property, then the longer they wait, if we have to wait in if that time elapses, then those trees have to sit
there until the end of August. So, I'm not a big fan of like pushing a 30-day window, but there's not really a lot of options around it. If these trees were identified as posing a risk to the public and property, like how long can we sit on them? The only thing I got to
point is if they're that far gone, it's got to be the tree is dead and there's no ashbor in it. Once he's because I asked him specifically, once the tree is dead, the ashbor is gone. That's what I don't that's where I'm conf what I'm confused with in the fact
if they're that much of a hazard they have to be dead. >> So what what happened Steve is the the emerald ashbor I had one in my yard starting in 2009. I do I looked back at pictures and I I see have some pictures of how that progressed. It'll take essentially one major limb will die and
then it'll fall off. It'll it'll turn into mush basically and grenade when it hits the ground and then it'll go to the next one and then the next one. And the stump the stump on mine was still there and there was still active beetles in it even though the rest of it was dead because the rest of this tree is there's still material there them for them to
eat. So unless the tree is totally dead and if it's totally dead it would have probably fallen over completely by now. There's still >> I don't disagree with that. >> Yeah, there's still I was just I'm looking at >> sure >> a solution to this other than the 30-day notice. I don't think we have any choice. They they can the homeowner can
make that choice. I'll be honest with you. If I had two trees, somebody come to remove out of my yard and they want to charge me 750 bucks, have at it, dude. Because that's going to cost me more than 750 in my time just alone trying to get it out of there. I don't I I don't think that I I'll be honest with
you. >> These bids are good. >> I don't think they're that far out of line. I think that's pretty decent for a guy to come in company come in and do that. >> Some of the numbers look pretty large, but if you look at like the 222, that's four for four trees. The other one
that's uh for two grand is two trees as well. >> But that could be that the hazardous area for doing it, >> right? I'm I'm saying like they are very reasonable quotes like that's >> 300ish to $600 per tree. I mean, and some of them like the top ones being
problematic that public works can't do. I It doesn't seem unreasonable and it'd be tough to find someone to beat it, >> right? >> Yeah. I just I I think that I think that's I think this letter should be preceded and if they choose not to do it
then it's on them. We've given them an opportunity. They could call some independent tree company, they're going to probably charge a heck of a lot more than that because these guys are coming in for two days, three days, whatever, they're going to get it done and get out of here, right? You call somebody
independent and come out and just remove one tree. It could be over $1,000 just to remove one tree where they're only getting charged 300, 350, whatever. >> I'm going to add one more thing in there. A lot of these quotes say 30 days. >> Yeah, I do recommend that if we do want
to move forward with sending a letter that we move to the bring the contractor quote in the amount of 12,275 to council this evening so get it on their schedule. if they don't do anything. And we'll have to definitely
um communicate with the contractor that it's possible that some of these trees may get taken down by the home homeowner. Also, with a short window, I do think that we should not only mail it, but because sometimes the mail can take many days. I know it's a strain on public works, especially as I see snowflakes flying, but we really should
doorpost these uh notices as well to the prop the homeowners to try to get them as much >> notice as possible. um >> with that letter in there also stating that this quote is only good for 30 days, >> right? Yeah. And we would put we can put
in there the estimated amount, but because you never I mean we shouldn't say definitively that this is the exact cost, but we can put the estimated cost from the contractor in the letter. So then they can make that determination if they want to do it themselves and can find it cheaper through someone else. Um, but we'll also need to include where
they can haul the wood to because that is not addressed in the letter saying that if they do take it down themselves, they can bring it to public works. >> I'm assuming that's that's what I think what we discussed was to bring it over there and burn it. We'll burn it ourselves. >> Does that sound good, Josh? >> Yeah.
>> All right. So, we'll bring this to city council for approval tonight so we can get forward go forward with uh the letters and the notification so people have as much time as possible. And uh I think it's a very good price. Uh the quantity group price is going to would save people substantial money. So, I
appreciate the work on that, Josh. All right. Anything else that you guys wanted to talk about on the ashtree continued discussion? Should we go to that for the next 20 minutes? the overarching ashtree discussion >> or that was both of them the draft the
nuisance letter and the I think that covered everything. >> So um do we need do you guys want to do anything we had talked about with the research study we'll do the hundred uh with his fungi treatment? >> I think so. I think I >> we'll do all that. Yep. And then as far as do you guys want have plans to want to tackle anything else this year or do
you want to see how the research study goes and maybe or do we want to have a schedule for next year? Maybe there's other trees or just >> Well, you got them on the do not plant list. If the trees are healthy, not posing risk to property or life, then >> sure. >> I didn't know that any other discussion.
>> Let's start with this study. Yeah. >> And we can always add on to it as time goes, right? Let's do what his recommendations are. I think the letter to help for them to for the grant. >> Uh I think that's I think that's pretty ob.
And uh I think let's proceed with his grant and just follow what his recommendations are at this time. >> Okay. >> I think by doing that and tackling these major issue trees at this time, I think that's more than enough for right now. >> I agree. >> The only thing I would like to add to
that would be minus the 200 trees that that the U of M is going. >> It'll be 230. >> Yeah. 230 if we and the ones we're take minus the ones we're taking care of here shortly that we keep really good track
of the rest of the trees so that in August or as soon as we can get back on this we address the next batch of trees so that the homeowners have a longer time like 60 days or 90 days you know we give them a little bit more
time >> but then like like Mayor Merrill said that he had a tree that was it was five, six, seven years before it really showed that it needed to be done. So you could have a tree that's it could be 5 years before we need to really do anything with it. >> Mine was 16 years.
>> Yeah, there's only 88 trees that they identified that need attention. The rest look good. >> I think let's I think we should deal with this first and then later on after we figure out what's going on with this study, then we'll start addressing it further on. We got to know what's going
on with the study before we do anything. Yeah, actually it would only be we're taking care of 20. They'd only have to keep track of those other 60 trees basically. So that that's all I would ask so that if they look like they're need immediate attention, we can
do it quicker. I mean have a longer time to notify >> keep an eye on the other ones already have >> and they may and maybe public works will have time that they could maybe remove a tree here and there rather than doing this all at once. >> Okay.
>> We'll have to see how that goes. >> Yep. Well, sounds good. So, it sounds like we'll have that as a discussion in four or five months, if not sooner if necessary, depending on what comes up. Does that sound good, Josh? All right. Well, thank you for your work on that. Uh next we'll move on to item E5,
payroll processing discussion. >> Evening mayor and members of council. So presented before you in the memo was some more information about payroll processing. I gave a summary there just giving kind of an update on how our process currently works with it being
very manual for time entry and a lot of our different pay codes. a lot of manual work being done there. As part of that, I gave an estimate for hours that it takes for us to process payroll along with the amount of time that it takes
department heads to approve time sheets, track leave requests, and kind of get everything where it needs to go. So, I got two different quotes. One was from Cassell, who's our current ERP processing,
and that is down below. So, it's $2,850 for the setup fee with an additional annual fee per year of $4,200. And then below that was a paycom, which would be a more automated system that
would kind of outsource a lot of our payroll stuff. That setup fee was $7,500 with an annual fee of just over $16,000. kind of the difference in those with the Cassell. It's going to be an addition of
our current payroll processing. As part of that, we would add online timekeeping for all of our employees along with online submitt of time sheets and approvals from the department heads. This would also house a lot of our HR documents that would then allow us to do
address changes and kind of any employee changes electronically that would autoimp import into our systems just to keep everything electronic and keep it from being less back and forth, less sheets getting passed back and forth between HR and payroll to make sure all updates are tracked. Instead, it would
all be electronic and everybody involved in those processes would have record of when those changes were made and when those changes were applied. With Paycom, the difference there is is that all of our benefit administration along with our submitting of time cards
and everything would go to Paycom. They do a lot of the work for the setup and then from there it's more so just approval stuff that's coming from the city to basically okay payroll as it processes every two weeks.
Uh, basically discussion I want you guys to have tonight is whether you're in favor of us continuing on to get more information on these different payroll systems and kind of what direction you would like to see so that I just have more of an idea what you guys are kind of looking for for it.
And then I guess my only other factor to consider between those two is that with Cassell staying in house, we have a lot more control over that system and have a lot more responsibility with it, which I think is a good thing just to
make sure that we're able to correct any errors and we're going to be able to provide better service to our employees when we're the ones in charge of it versus when you go to a third party, you kind of lose that control. So any discussion would be welcomed. >> So I have a question for you. Uh it
sounds like Cassell uh gets rid of some of the hours involved and Paycom would potentially get rid of more of the hours involved. Is that accurate to say as an aggregate? >> Yes, I would say that's accurate. I think that in Paycom's proposal, I don't
know exactly all the language they have in there. I think they kind of overestimate how much time that will take off our plates. I think there's still going to be staff time necessary and it kind of puts a lot of it back on the employees to
confirm their own checks on a week bi-weekly basis before it processes, which is potentially a difficult process with just the timing of it with our different departments. Like if you have a police
officer that's not working within the first day and a half of payroll, he may not think to look at his check and make sure it's approved and looks good before it would process at the end. >> Okay. >> Things like that to consider too that it pick would save us more time. How much
is maybe not as big of a difference as we might think there with it. So the the cited 10 hours and then roughly 8 to 12 hours. Is that for Cassell or Paycom or both? >> That's for Cassell currently with the manual process. So I would say that 10
hours for the department heads probably would be cut to like six with just everything kind of being in one place and for us being able to kind of reference it all in one area versus tracking a lot of different paper forms and looking at a lot of different places. it would cut off,
like Josh said, takes them about two hours. That two hours probably would turn into like 45 minutes to an hour. So, with that, we'd have some savings on the department head side. And then same thing with the finance team, that 8 to 12 hours, just time entry and a lot of
those updates is probably 3 to four hours of our payroll each each payroll that we process. So, how many total hours would be saved with Cassell? If you were to estimate, I I see it says that it shows the totals
here, but it doesn't show how much of those totals would be lessened. >> I would say it'll be about eight hours saved each payroll adding this cassell, which should be 28 hours in total for our 26 payrolls. And then with paycom
department heads would be the same where we're saving about four hours of payroll. And then for the assistant finance director doing the payroll processing it maybe saves her another two to three hours of payroll. So maybe
like 300 hours total for paycom versus 208 for cassell. >> Okay. And with you know these these technology things are great. Um would this provide the ability to uh maybe not hire sooner
or would it's would we save other costs otherwhere that other places that would offset this this cost? I know it's a savings in time. Um but we seem to do a lot of savings in time with a lot of these things. Does it what's the practical I guess savings for the city if we were
to invest in another $7,000 in this? Would we employ one less person, slow down on hiring, or what? What's your vision on that? >> Yeah, I would say specifically with the finance team, it probably would push off our needs a little more because we would
have this savings every two weeks and hours, which would allow some work to be shifted around to let the assistant finance director do some more work, which would free up time for the other people in the department. So, yeah, it's more so probably a long-term look of
It'll allow us to not need to add somebody to the finance team in probably the near future. >> So, if we were to discuss Cassell versus Paycom, >> who would you rather see? >> I would rather see Cassell.
>> And right there, you're you're five grand alone just on the setup and then you're another 12,000 on annual fees. >> That pay's not reasonable at all in comparison. Yeah, >> I would recommend that he p looks more into the Cassil.
>> That's my opinion. >> I think it I think you think about it, it's it it's the onetime setup fee is 28. That's done. It's the annual fee of 4,200. You're saving that in hours, >> but >> 4,200 you're saving that in hours alone
in that year guaranteed. >> But it adds to the budget with no reduction to the budget. So that's where it's we have an extra cost. It does and it doesn't because now they're going to be able to do other things that they should be doing that they don't have time to do. >> So inventually essentially in the long
run at the end of the day and the end of the year they probably saved a lot more than that even though it's in the bud like you're talking about in the budget. I think it's I think I I personally I'd say go go with Cassell go and move forward. We could have this conversation
for 14 hours and we're all going to have different opinions on it. >> So I guess then to follow that up, do you guys have any specific questions that you would like me to ask Cassel relating to this timekeeping? Just so I can have those answers for you when this
would get brought back to council. >> No, I think you guys know the system and what sort of questions you need answered. >> Would you're the expert, I think, on that. >> Yeah. Just making sure if there was anything that stuck out that make sure that
>> specific features, anything like that that you guys be wondering if we have making sure that we've ran through that before it comes back. >> Okay, that sounds good. Anybody have any questions, Nick? >> Yeah, so uh I have some questions for my wife. She had she did pay. She did 1100
employees through Paycom previously. >> Um so she was not a big fan of that as proposal at all. Yep. but she found some other stuff in her research on different payroll systems and Cassell had a lot of uh it's kind of clunky and cumbersome in some ways and there's other systems that
are designed for municipalities of our size. I'm wondering if those on your radar too or if those were screened out. >> Yeah. So, I listed the ones that I reached out to in the quote >> besides Workday or ADP. There's a couple other ones that like Taylor or something like that and then one that had uh
rebranded that was uh I can get you the names if if if you want. >> Sure. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And I think the benefit of sticking with Cassell 2 is just it's keeping it all within our current ERP system. So, keeps all of our financial information in the same place, too,
along with all of our payroll, which was kind of my other concern with if we do switch to another system, then we're working across two systems, too. So, there's some time costs on me when it comes to getting that information reflected back into Cassell, too. But,
yeah, anything that you have for sure. Was there any payrolls that Cassell was you thought deficient that you were looking for with Paycom or does Cassell get everything that you want? >> Yeah, I think Cassell has everything that we need. I think Paycom had a lot
of nice features that are more so like optional things that it like it would be nice to have but it's definitely not something that's necessary versus Cell is going to be a little more bare bones but is definitely a step in the right direction compared
to where we currently are and we'll be able to manage all the things that we currently need from them to and has the ability to do a little more than what we're currently doing. Also, >> sounds good. All right, we'll look forward to coming back with more information on that. I'll entertain a
motion to adjurnn. >> Motion >> or motion to recess, sorry. Yep. Motion to recess on the floor. >> I'll second. >> Motion by Peterson, second by Heman to go into recess. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries 40. We are in recess and
we'll pick up city council at 7:00 p.m. Just a reminder guys, if if you have questions, you Part: 2
All right. I'll entertain a motion to come out of recess. >> Motion to come out of recess. >> Second. >> Motion on the floor by Londine, second by uh Peterson. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? >> Motion carries. 5-0. We're out of recess. We will move on to I'm going to
move forward E7, the liquor store sign since we have Keith here to discuss this. >> Mr. Mayor, >> yeah. Can >> we add uh council member Zadon? >> Oh, so do we have to mention that we added the council member now at 9:45 p.m. or No. No. Okay.
>> Shouldn't have to. >> Is that what you meant? >> Yeah, cuz cow, she wasn't there at the beginning and now she I wasn't sure. >> Okay. Yeah. And the minutes reflect at 9:45 maybe or whatever. >> It won't matter. She's going to get credit for the whole line. >> Okay. Uh so Keith, go ahead if if you're
going to take this one. >> Right. Thank you, uh mayor and councel. Um been working with Stephanie uh to get some more information to you guys in regards to options for a liquor store sign on along Highway 65. um she put together a memo for you and I'm just
going to kind of uh summarize it, but basically on the corner by um the credit union members co-op um we have the option to either well we're looking at the option to either renovate and fix their sign or have a separate sign. It
would be between the two existing signs that are there. They have to be I believe 100 feet apart. um like so we would the options are to basically fix their sign and and be a part of that or have our own. Um the cost for that
>> and I just want to be clear we'd have to make an offer to do either. We're still not certain if they'd allow it but that's why that agreement's in there and we can talk about that if that's something you want to do. But we'd have to make an offer for either of those options. >> Yes. Yep. Um so basically you can see
the costs in there are um anywhere from n basically $80,000 to $100,000 to refurbish the existing sign. That's if members agrees. Um the other option would be to have our own pylon sign.
That would be roughly 90 to $110,000. The biggest reason there's a difference in prices there um is because if you go with a higher resolution, it costs more money. Um, personally I I I don't like to spend money either. I like to make
money. Um, and the way that I'm looking at this is we can expect or anticipate an 8 to 12% increase in revenue um, by having a sign on the highway. Right now, my the hardest job I have is getting
people off the highway and and into the liquor store. We're kind of tucked away. We're not right by the highway. We've got a billboard a couple miles down the road. Um, we we're on Facebook. We do targeted advertising south of the store trying to catch that traffic going north. But if we had a dynamic sign near
a very heavily traveled intersection um that was changing could catch people's attention. Um we would we could see an 8 to 12% increase in in revenue. Um that would you know that fall on my shoulders to prove that to you guys too.
Um, but you know, just to give you an idea, an 8% increase in revenue and gross revenue would be about $496,000. Um, and that that's an 8% increase. That's gross. That's not net profit. Um, but you're our net profit would increase
of that as well. Um, so what I want to convey to all of you is that yes, this costs a lot of money. Um, but number one, it's an investment to make more money. Number two, it's coming out of the liquor store fund, so it's not
taxpayer funded. Um, we'd still continue to to send money to the general fund and and I still hope to continue to increase that as the years go by as well. Um, so I think I think we've got some new option or some great options as long as, you know, the the credit union would
agree to work with us, too. Um, personally, I would prefer the the option of having our own pylon sign. I always try to look at what's the worst case scenario. Uh worst case scenario in my mind is if we were to be able to to
use that members one um I' we'd constantly get people at the liquor store telling us that they thought we were located at the credit union um or in that building. That that's just something that's crossed my mind. But I think if we were to move forward, I
would prefer to see the the pylon sign on its own. And Stephanie, there was a discussion about a different location potentially. Is that on the table tonight for discussion? >> Not look like it's going to be on the table for discussion. Um, finance
director Soulberg and I did meet with that potential land owner and I didn't think we got very far. We posed a lot of options that could be potential um ways to look at possibilities um for
the city. to utilize that site, but it didn't seem like they had any interest um as they have an interested purchaser for the corner of that site. And so they didn't think that that
intended buyer would be interested at all in sharing that sign with us. >> Oh, that's a bummer. I I think that location is 10 times better. I I personally I think we should wait and make sure that's a possibility before we spend money on something that is not in
the exact ideal location. You know, it's it's that that area is kind of polluted with other signs. the area between Federate or between the co-op and Coburns, it's a little I don't think a dynamic sign there is going to have that 8 to 10% impact uh just because of how polluted it is and because the speed of
travel and your more attention to on the the the stop light than you are on the the dynamic sign in that location. Um >> I I agree with that. At the same time, if you have a dynamic sign, the reason that that dynamic signs perform better than say like a static sign is it's it's
moving, right? >> You know, human nature is you see something moving, you you look >> sure. >> Um and ideally, you're you're correct. If we're trying to catch northbound traffic, if we've got a sign right at the corner to turn in and not have to turn south to come back to us, that
makes sense. But if that's not available, the next best thing would be down there and you have that traffic stopped at the intersection, not just driving by. and you know they're they're going to be more likely to see it and to read it and you know maybe decide to
come in. >> Sure. I just think that there's always a there's always a way some somehow and I would hate to like see us sink money into that at the moment when there's potential development coming to the other property and maybe there will be something that comes up you know with
that development like oh I didn't think about this cost now we're going to have to supplement to afford to be able to do this. So maybe the city does want to still buy that property or lease that property. I think it's there's always that option until the option's totally gone, you know. >> Yeah. And we did I don't know if finance
director Soulberg wants to speak at all on our conversation, but um it we did make a number of give a number of opportunities and it just didn't sound like they were interested in any of them. Um, so, okay, just
>> I just don't I just see this here as a 10-year lease and then with one fiveyear thing, I just don't see us putting 100 $200,000 into a sign just for 15 years, >> right? >> It I I can understand if they want to sign a 99-year lease. I mean, that to me
makes more sense than just a 10 and then with a one option of five. I just I just don't want to see you throwing any kind of money in away in there. That's just dumb. And that's our this is these would be our contracts to negotiate. And I would say if that's something you guys
do want to consider, then we should bring that into a closed session, which we are allowed to do. But this is just an example of what we could do. And so that's what you guys would propose to them. Those were just the life of the
signs are about 15 years. And so that's why the lease was looked at about that. But if you're going to invest that money in the post and no sign and all of a sudden you already got the money, the post isn't going to go away. It's the sign that fails. It's not the post. So, it's just throwing away good money after
bad. Now, did I don't know if they brought it up. Did Didn't we buy that corner kitty corner? That lot. >> We do own the parcel officially on the opposite corner. >> Um there are some caveats on to how we can use that and where the sign can go.
If it were for the liquor store, we would have to um get a specific permit. Um and I'm not sure if it will be allowed or not. That's through the state. Um >> why would there have to be a specific permit for there if it doesn't have to be on the other side?
>> It is all Yeah, because it's would be more offremise across the highway. >> It's still off premise at the bank versus where the liquor store is, >> but it's still in the commercial area directing people that way. And so there's a difference in how they view that. Um, and for a community sign, for
instance, we wouldn't have to apply for a permit at all. So we could put whatever we wanted on a community sign on that corner. >> Theoretically, if say if we were to, it's probably not the ideal situation, but I don't think any of this is ideal at the moment. If we were to consider a community dynamic sign on that corner
and we had on top of it something that says liquor with a big arrow just pointing that way. And then maybe you use some of that dynamic sign to promote a special once in a while. So it's kind of a community liquor store sign. >> You kind of try and kill two birds with
one stone sort of deal. It's not ideal, >> but maybe that's an option that we could >> that would be a better option and more likely to be permitted. Um we'd still have to permit that just because we're >> doing but >> um I think that they would be more favorable of that than just a liquor
store sign on the opposite side by itself. Sure. Because I think the whole point is just to let people know there's a liquor store over there. You know, obviously the dynamic aspect of it is nice, but if we could, you know, pair that and maybe during that time, maybe something else happens with the other lot, you know, and we get luckier. I
just feel like there's always a way on those types of deals. Even it might not have seemed like it when you guys had a meeting with them, but maybe they'll mow it over, too. >> Yeah. And and they very well could. Um I we mentioned it was a negotiable and said they can always come back to us as
it goes, you know, as their transaction potential transaction goes through um to negotiate um with you guys um that that would be our recommendation. Um, but also I do
want to keep in mind that if at any time um members does decide to upgrade their sign or lease out or put up a new sign in those locations, it does take away those two options for us too. And so it's those options could go away very
easily also. So just keeping that in mind and maybe they're not ideal, but they might be, >> you know, the best. I think the other side of the highway better. >> I think we need if we're going to if we're going to look at option of leasing that, I think we need to at some point
go into close session, discuss this contract. I just I just don't feel there's amount of money that we're investing into this thing. And I don't care if the sign lasts 20 years, if it's in last 15, we're still spending money for the infrastructure for that sign.
>> I don't think that location's that great, to be honest. >> I don't either. I don't think it's a bad location. >> Not. >> Ideally, it'd be better if it's over by O'Reilly's. I mean, >> I wanted to When was the last time we've contacted O'Reillies? >> They had zero interest in it and they're
a large organization and they did not even want to discuss it. Actually, >> can we make them an off? Okay, we've changed our sign ordinance since they put their sign up. We could offer them a bigger, better sign. >> Add our sign. redo that whole pillar
that they have right there so they'll get more traffic coming off the freeway. In the meantime, we can benefit too by having a look. >> We did try to offer them to redo their sign and all of that previously. Um but I mean they said it's just a hard no.
They do not share signs with anyone. >> Yep. It's they're they're big corporate No. I don't just trust me that this >> But what what if we were to not share a sign but offer to allow them to upgrade theirs to a larger sign since we control the sign ordinance and we have
>> they they are allowed a much larger sign than the one that they have. >> Okay. >> Already like we actually allow very tall large signs and so there isn't really any nobody will ever put a sign up as large as we allowed from my >> pretty standardized across all their
stores. What about talking to Coburns again? There's that that spot where there's that low land and there's that road that goes between O'Reilly's and Coburn's. It's pretty much a useless piece of property if we got a sign in right there. >> Coburn's does not is not in favor of the
city's liquor store as they were not allowed and approved for a liquor permit. And so they um from my understanding, I haven't gone back to them, but that is what I know from past history. They've been great to work with for me personally since I've been here, but I
just I just know that is what I've heard in the past. >> It might be worth asking. I mean, you know, money kind of talks like it's a if it's a smart business move, it's a smart business move and they know they're not going to get the liquor license because we we have a municipal liquor store right there. It would be >> they wanted it even when we had
>> I remember. Yeah, I think >> that was that was even kind of before you even >> that went but way that went way back. That was when Keith's person before him was admin against them not getting that
and that it was not a good fair. They were they were pretty pissy with us at that point. >> Mr. Le, >> what's about our average net from gross? >> Um I believe this year was about 12 and
a half%. Our net profit was about 12 and a half percent net profit for last year 2025. >> Is his computer is currently doing an update at the moment? >> Yeah, good timing. >> Our margins are roughly 28 to 30%. So
that's what we would kind of >> net from that gross amount would be about from Keith's estimate it' be about 168,000 and net revenue would be what we end up bringing in after taking off our cost of goods sold there. So, we'd see roughly a 1% increase in the profit
margin from this from the profit total of the sign. 12 and a.5% and uh you said 8% of that that would be a 1% total increase in net profit from the sign if if it comes in at 8% uh improvement. So, how much how much profit do we put into
the do we make total if rough numbers? Um, I believe we're over a million in profit, I want to say, but I don't have the numbers in front of me. >> So, we'd be we'd be coming up about a 1% with the addition of a sign if it
performs at an 8% level. >> I mean, 168,000 numbers based off of our sales. That's how much money would be available to cover our operating expenses and sign costs and all of that that would be related with that uptick in revenue. So, assuming we make another
$168,000 net each year. We're paying off that sign pretty quickly. >> I got a I got a quick question. Something I just realized looking at this plat map. Do we really have property just on the
west side of 6th Avenue Northeast? A little sliver right where it goes into the Coburn's parking lot. And we put a 40 foot sign right there. We could almost hit both directions. We're a little ways from the freeway, but right here angle would not be good.
Where is it, George? Between the bank and Coburn's. >> It looks like we have a little sliver there. I mean, it's it it gives it enough room where people going north will be able to see it past the wooded area. And obviously, >> it' be like 90° to you. You'd be like,
>> I mean, it's just a just an idea because when I drive down Highway 65 and I look over at the liquor store, you can see the liquor store. And I've always wondered, well, why don't we just put a 40ft sign right there in the liquor store parking lot dang near >> on top of the building >> or on top of the building? We'd be able
>> get good visibility both directions. >> Yeah. But what's going in where it says 702 in that empty ultimately? What's going in there? >> Is that the corner the corner lot? >> Yeah. Between like that empty lot right
there. What is that going to be? >> That's was the church >> ideally. That was the church that bought that, wasn't it? >> No, that is it's to the north of >> our property. That's just extra property. >> No, it's not our property. There's two commercial parcels there theoretically that would be platted out as well as
some um low density medium family residential. >> Like I guess I wouldn't be super stoked about a giant sign flashing liquor, >> right? And I just >> then again I mean that's they can choose
to live there or not. I just did the math. So, even if we get it see a 8% return on that sign uh or 8% improvement, that's only $10,000 per year of extra profit. >> Well, that means it's paid off in 10 years. >> That's that 168 number.
>> 168. >> Yeah. So, if we take that $496,000 that Keith has on there for additional gross revenue and take I believe I was using 33% would be what we would net off of that. But didn't he say that the net's only 12.5%.
>> You're just going off of margins, not the cost of just going off the margins, not our bottom line net. A lot of those costs are already fixed. So whether we sell more, it doesn't make a difference there. >> If we're going based off 12.5% net, that's only a $10,000 improvement per
year. So you >> that's 100,000 100 some thousand would be the net. >> Okay. that 160 because of fixed cost numbers. What we would anticipate an increase in net revenue cover that >> fixed though because if you do that much
more business, wouldn't you have to? We would have >> had some like at least one more person on shift if you're doing >> Yeah, we would have some variable costs there too with maybe additional staffing needs and utilities, parking lot stuff, all that type of stuff, but
probably not super significant that >> it's probably wouldn't be a increase in sales volume that Keith and the staff would be able to probably handle. >> Oh, we can handle it. >> Yeah. Um, and I would like to say the estimate
for electric, I know that was something mayor you were concerned about. Yes. The $6,000. So, I did ask my um contact at Kexus Energy to pull sign data from local signs. And so, the $6,000 one actually isn't even relevant because it
is a B billboard, a giant LED billboard. And so, most of them range from 1500 to around 3,000. Okay. that were similar to signs that we currently have. And she said the newer they are, the lower they are. And so she said they're getting better every year. And so I believe it
was East Bethl or Ham Lake. Theirs is the $1,500. >> Their sign sucks. You can't even read that from the highway. I fear that with ours, >> but yes. So that is um the one that's the lowest. But yeah, so but around 3,00 to,500, which is, you know, much lower
than the originally anticipated electric cost. She said it's getting better every year. She's noticing. >> I remember when he gave the presentation, Nick, was it you and I and we did the math on that and it's like it's like $8,000 was what and that's what that based on the numbers he told us for the kilowatt hour usage
>> with uh adjusting brightness for nighttime versus daytime. His average watts he was talking about was something like a 30 amp service circuit at 220 or something like that. It was like a wild amount of energy which maybe that's like what the CBD joint was burning because that thing you could see from forever.
>> Oh my gosh. From the moon. Is it like >> it doesn't seem like there's a good resolution right now, but could you just do a bulletin board? >> And that was something that I we have that corner property and I wanted to talk about this in our advertising, but
can we just put, you know, liquor liquor on top of our sign, just a basic or even just a a banner and have it point or something like creative. Well, that or just one of those like stick the letters up for a I don't know sign or whatever.
>> When you can't come up with a solution right now, can you just do one of those like right now like Snap Fitness has like >> 2000, you know, >> $20.26 for 2026. I know that you want a permanent solution. >> I I do, but I think the the biggest
issue right now is finding a place to put the sign. And you can't put can you not put those like sticker signs up? >> We we don't have property right along. Okay. >> And that's that's where we're kind of we need to get approval to continue the discussion, you know, to to get you guys
more information. >> Oh, I think we Yeah, I I think we're all on board with potentially doing something. So, if we got to do more research, I think it's well worth it. It's been a focus of ours for the last three years. I want to own the land or
own a 99-year lease or something like that. I don't want to do 10-year leases. I mean, I'd even look at another option outside the box here. If you take that plat map and you draw a line and go straight west um of the liquor store, north
property line, it again covers that low low area at Coburns. Maybe we could ask him to buy that little slice or something or or get a >> that's a holding 99 pond that
>> we don't right it's worthless to them but >> they would give us sign a place to put a sign >> I would love to know what they can't do it when they're run off ponds and we go and do it now we've kind of a double standard at that point >> it's a holding pond
>> yeah but there's room right here for a sign on dry land. >> Yeah, but they don't like you. They don't like us. >> That could be. I mean, at the time, maybe when we asked a few years ago, it could change. >> That was many years ago. Yes. It was a long time ago. >> This is Ianti.
>> They don't forget. >> They don't forget. >> Five years ago. That's that's that's all >> things change in five years. >> No. >> Like clarification on something. So, if we got that uh dynamic community sign on the northwest corner of 65 and five, a
community sign is allow if we if it's a liquor store sign, it has to be approved by the state, but it can be a community sign. It can advertise for liquor store, and that's fine. >> No. >> Okay. >> We're advertising for the liquor store at all. We have to get it approved by the state. The state still has to approve it, but we don't have to go through the full permitting process for
a community sign. And we can be in the right ofway a little bit. Um, if it's community sign, we don't have to be outside of the rightway. If it's a liquor store sign, if it's doing anything for profit that's not just a city community sign, then we have to permit it. It has to be outside of the
rightway. It can't even touch the rightway. So, there's just more stipulations behind it. >> It can only be used to then like say that there's a special like a firefighter fundraiser at the liquor store would be fine, but not specials or just generalized sales.
>> No sales. Okay. What about just a sign that just says liquor? >> That would have to be permanent also. >> And that would be out not even touching the rightway. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, to clarify, we have room there,
right? That would be >> Yeah, we have room to do it outside of the rightway, but if we're wanting to do a community sign just by itself, it's probably better to pull it closer a little bit. But it's your guys' discretion, so we own that corner. So, >> I don't think it's worth the investment
unless we can help with the liquor store, too. >> I don't think it's close enough. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> As far as the liquor store, I don't think it's anywhere near close enough. Like, >> then it's almost the same almost the same as the bank then because it's not really much further. It's the same. >> Yeah. But at least on the right side of the road, but I still think the ideal
place is >> where the church has that property. Now, they're trying to sell that property. I mean, obviously, >> one one thing to keep in mind, too, and this is kind of counter to what I brought what we brought to you guys tonight, but when they do develop that property just to the south that the
church owns, that's going to open up the, you know, the the eye line sight line >> to everything on the east side of the highway a lot more, too. So, I mean, I'm I'm with all you guys. I would much rather have a sign closer to the store and on the south end. Um, but I mean I
don't know if that's an option. >> Yeah, in those conversations they weren't super open necessarily to us having a sign. Wasn't necessarily It's a hard no, but just not anything that's in their plans as of current. They need to sort the rest of their stuff out before
they would even be able to consider giving us a spot for the sign. So >> a little I just don't see the church going, you know what, you guys, >> but the church wouldn't be building there. They're they're selling it to a sub subdeveloper. >> They are building their >> Oh, they are building their church on that corner now.
>> Not on the corner, but they would build it towards the pond just to the south. So, it would still be on that site. >> Okay. And >> and one of the guys that's big on I don't want to say names, but one of the guys that's big on that church is recovering alcoholic, and they just
don't feel that that's the right thing to do with the church property. >> I mean, they're next to a liquor store. Those are both >> different now they're advertising for it. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> So, you're saying that that that lot could potentially be cleared and developed. Is there any is there any
potential way that we could see what the vision is like and we just put a sign on our own property at the liquor? >> Yeah, because that little green slice on where it says 6th Avenue. Could a sign go there? Do you think that's advertising enough or >> Well, right now there there's so many trees there you can't
>> but but once the church comes through those trees disappear then that might not be >> we will so a building will have to be there as well as we will require them to follow our tree preservation rules which do require them to replace a large portion of trees and maintain as many
trees as they can. So just keeping all of that in mind that um >> but that's something that there's variance is allowed on stuff like that during development. Isn't there >> currently it's in tier one so we don't have any say over what happens there. It's not really in the city. Yes. >> Okay.
>> Maybe you should sell the property next to O'Reilly's to someone who would like us to put a sign up. >> We don't own it though. >> Right behind Riley's. Who owns right beet O'Reilly's and the liquor store? >> O'Reilly's. Oh >> yeah. And they use a huge amount of
water watering that lawn. I remember we talked about that a couple years ago. Insane amount of water. >> Like what? Okay. >> Let's clarify. They have reduced their water use. >> Awesome. >> Yes. >> I know Mike was trying on that to get them to reduce. So cool. Well, corporate
they were where they worked with us on something like that. Maybe. >> Yeah. At that time Jim had gone out there and was able to um help them. >> Okay. Cool. Well, thanks Jim. I think that was probably a local manager decision versus like sending it to someone else. >> Okay. Well,
>> just to clarify one more thing again. Okay. South of Orley's where they want to put that church in. There's two residential lot, not residential, they were commercial lots if I remember right when I looked at plat map years ago. So, those are for sale right now. There's a
>> there's a for sale sign actually on that corner. >> Correct. And I know I mentioned the console one time before and you guys all said, "Well, we're not in the business to do that." But >> I am for a sign. >> I don't think those lots are going to last long if they I mean, I think it'd be a good investment.
>> Does the church own them or not? >> Yes, the church does own them and also they haven't officially split them at this time. Um, but that is how they're marketing it to be split. And so we could theoretically make an offer to purchase those from them if that is
something you're interested in, which I would suggest we do in a closed session and not right now. >> Right. This so all this is going >> if it's something you'd like to to potentially discuss, we can bring that forward. >> I mentioned it before that I land is a really good investment, but I know we're
spending using taxpayer dollar to do it, but I I don't think we're going to lose our money by doing it. And plus, we could get the benefit of maybe influencing what type of businesses go in there.
>> I do believe they have a very clear path of who they want and where they want them as a member of New Hope. >> Sure. >> We've just paid off the Cambridge the Cambridge campus and they are moving forward to build the IC campus. Okay.
Um, but I I think they know exactly who they would like in there. >> Well, right. And we probably end up putting the same businesses they're looking to put in there, except we'd secure that corner so we could have some
signage. Whatever business is going to be put in there is going to want signage, too. So, it's just a different sign. >> I don't know. >> You'd have to approach them. I I hate to tell you that's the only thing you can do. But if you just don't just don't get
your hopes up. I I'm telling you right now if the church the the person I know there is he is not a fan of the liquor store sign. >> How about it? >> You know my iPad just died. Heritage. That is what I can confirm that I was um
in original discussions that the church was founded upon sobriety and they do not believe it's within their >> um in their not their beliefs. >> Yes. To sell it to the liquor store. They have no issues with the liquor
store. They think it does great things for the community, but they just feel like they can't because of how their church was founded. >> Have we ever talked about having any sort of sign on Heritage Boulevard? Even just a smaller sign. >> Say that again. What? >> On Heritage Boulevard. And what's is that Sixth or what's the name of that
street that goes to the liquor store? >> Sixth. >> Sixth. Have we ever talked about having a small sign out on that corner? Maybe potentially. It's not It's not ideal and we wouldn't put all our marbles into it. But >> yeah, but where you going to get the property done? >> You'd have to approach that property owner to see if he'd be willing to sell part of the
>> I think that property owner that owns that owns all that development behind him and he wants to sell it all at once. >> I don't think so. Yeah. Okay. I think so. >> Well, maybe that's something to mow over, Keith, if you've ever thought about that. This is a tough >> Or we could put up a liquor store sign
on a billboard. >> What's the percentage of traffic on >> We have one. >> Couple miles. >> Must not be very pretty cuz I've never seen it. >> It doesn't It doesn't Yeah. You've never seen it? It's by It's It's on the the
opposite side of Nick and Brody's. Uh >> Nick and Brody. >> Nick and Brody. the real estate agents. Turpin Realy. >> Oh, I've seen that one. >> Yeah. Yeah, it's on the other side of this. >> That must be prettier. >> It's yellow. >> It's yellow. Maybe we need a brighter side, too. >> If you just write liquor that just a big
liquor. Yeah. Not Not just have liquor >> and an arrow. >> Yes. Exactly. We should try that, Keith. I'm telling you. Just do a liquor on an air second, right? Just huge so it's not polluted with or have other stuff so people just see it cuz she just said she hasn't seen it. >> Two blocks arrow.
>> Mr. Yeah, we it says I s any liquor. It's got a big wine glass and it's got a thing that says, you know, voted best liquor store and then, >> you know, two rights. >> It looks beautiful. >> They all sell white claws, so I don't need best wine store. >> It looks beautiful, but I think it
doesn't stick out. Like Mike had always talked about the beer sign in. Him and I talk about that all the time because that just catches your eye. Just says just beer. And you cannot beat that. Everybody sees it. You know what sign I'm talking about. Probably everybody here knows that sign, but people that live in Iani don't know the the
billboard, you know. So, how do we make that so it sticks out? Just beer arrow, you know. >> Maybe that's something to consider for the next one. I love the design, though. I think it's perfect. But it's it doesn't catch the eyes. >> I guess dynamic signs do catch >> Yeah, right. >> more than static signs. >> Good point.
>> But I hope you see the sign and I hope you like it. >> I'm going to look for it now. >> I hope so. Yeah. >> What's the volume on traffic on Heritage versus 65? Do you know? >> I'm sure it's not even comparable. >> We have roughly 23,000 daily traffic
volume on 65 and about 13,000. I think it whittleles down to about 8,000 on five going out of east. >> That's still pretty substantial. More than I would have. >> 5,000 going east. >> 5,000 going east. And how many of them? >> 8,000 going east. >> Oh, 8,000.
>> 15,000 going west. >> Sorry. >> And then about 23,000 on 65 through. Okay, >> that's higher than I thought it would be for that intersection. >> I would be interested to know what those numbers are in the summer when school is not in session. >> Well, we just get them about once every
three to five years depending on when MDOT does their. So, I'm happy that they're so recent. Actually, >> we hire in a summer. >> These are from two thou 2024 and I feel like that's pretty recent. >> Yeah, they are higher. >> I know the county is doing a project out there. They might have different
numbers, too. So at some point, >> so what do we need? Do we want to have a close session on this? Is there enough that we can really negotiate or have a close session or do you guys need more direction to keep pursuing options? >> Whatever direction you want us to go in is the direction we're we're going in at this point. Can't get you any more
random sign numbers. Just tell us tell us what direction you want. >> I think we should bring it back into a close session and discuss it. Not tonight, but another night. >> Yep. Um because it should go back into close session so we can discuss some of those >> Yep. >> items.
>> That's what we would do. >> That's my recommendation. >> Okay. >> Uh my iPad died. I don't Do we want to be done? Is there anything else? >> I was going to motion to adjurnn. >> Is there anything else special we have to get done tonight?
>> You want to do nine quickly? That should be like less than two minutes, right? >> Yeah. Yeah, >> it's after 10 code or 10:00 we're supposed to be done. >> Y >> that's >> Well, we'll get the we'll get the streaming stuff figured out before we talk about that maybe. >> Okay.
>> So, all right. Well, there was a motion to >> make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. Motion by council member Lundy.