City Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you.

Call the meeting to order. We'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. I invite you to join us.

Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Roll call, please.

Kolpak? Here. Papcorn? Here. Strand?

Here.

Turnburg? Here. Mahoney?

Here. First of all, I think the new elected mayor is here. Josh Boucher, you want to stand up so people can see who the new guy is coming in after me? So Josh, I'll try to show you how we do this, but we'll see how it goes. We have two presentations that we're going to do at this time. One is for Jim Gilmore. who has been our planning director, strategic planning. Jim, will you stand up? Jim has been with us for 31 years, and he's been the guy that when I had a complex problem, I'd come to him and say, can you figure this out? And he'd work on it, work on it, work on it. Block 9 took us three years to get that one done, and he continued to have other projects we had. Amazon came to town. The only thing they wanted is, can you build it fast? And we figured out a way we could build it fast. When we had Border States Electric look at us, Jim figured out some way in which Border States Electric stayed with us.

So I think Commissioner Pepkorn, you and I in economic development with Jim did over $400 million worth of new stuff came to town.

I think the downtown... property values went from 250 million to a billion. So Jim is very much part of that and very much helped us get to where we are to this point. The other person I want to bring up here is Kimber Anderson. Kimber Anderson has been with us for 17 years and she is the one that runs the commission office so every time there's a new commissioner or new mayor she sits down and talks to them and kind of goes through the rules and how we do things and how the city of Fargo is run. She also is the one that is the keeper of the mayor's schedule so if you ever want to schedule anything you have to go through her. Now that's going to change because she's going to go to a different position but you have somebody like her, Josh, in your hand that helps you out a lot. She also has all the phone numbers of everybody she needs to have when you say, call this person. She knows who they are. Kimmerer's done a great job. She does a great job with the commissioners and is well-reserved that she can retire and go to another job. But for that, we want to give them two plaques here.

One, two, and three.

It was very nice. I'd be amiss if I didn't also introduce you to somebody else who's been by my side the whole time. But my wife, Kathy, is in the audience today and came to see what we're going to do on the convention center. Do I have a motion to approve the order of agenda changing item 41 from public hearing to regular agenda item?

So moved.

Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carried. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of the June 8, 2026 meeting? So moved. Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion carried. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda items 1 through 34? So moved. Is there a second?

Second.

Roll call vote, please.

Turnberg? Aye. Kolpak? Aye. Pepcorn? Aye. Strand? Yes. Mahoney? Yes.

Public hearing 35 and 36, we are going to be continued to 7-20-26. It's an alcoholic license of the African Cuisine Catering Services and La Terra Raza. So do I have a motion for both of those? That's a move. Is there a second? Second. Roll call vote, please.

Papcorn? Aye. Turnburg? Aye. Colpack? Aye. Strand?

Yes.

Mahoney?

Aye. Public hearing application for Class Y alcoholic beverage license for Polish Nail Spa, doing business as Polish Nail Spa, to be located at 4265 45th Street South, number 129, and it was continued from 526 regular meeting. Angie, bear to explain.

Yes, thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners. The Class W license is a wine-only license. This is the polished nail spa that has been at the 45th Street location for several years, and they would like to add a wine-only license to this. A bar is allowed for this license. There were no issues with the background checks, so I'm looking for a motion to approve this Class W license.

Does anyone present wish to speak to this license? Does anyone present wish to speak? If not, I have... A motion, please.

I'll make the motion.

There's a second. Second. Full call vote, please.

Capricorn? Aye. Turnburg? Aye. Kolpak? Aye. Strand?

Yes.

Mahoney?

Aye. Public hearing number 38, application for class Y alcoholic beverage license for BCKN Enterprises Doing Businesses North Brewing to be located at 3105 North Broadway number 7, continued from 526 meeting.

a Class Y license for the North, or excuse me, it's BCKM Enterprises, doing business as North Brewing. The Class Y is a brewery license. It's gonna be a small brewery located at North Broadway next to Trollwood Village. Miners are not allowed on here. There are four owners, one previously owned a brewing company here in Fargo. They are gonna allow the off sale of their own brewery, They're off sale of their own product. There were no issues with this background check, so I'm looking for a motion to approve the Class Y license.

Is there anyone present who wishes to speak to this license transfer? Is there anyone wishing to speak? If not, we'll close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? I'll make a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Roll call vote, please.

Pepcorn? Aye. Turnburg? Aye. Kolpak? Aye. Strand?

Yes.

Mahoney?

Aye. Public hearing application 39, application for transfer of license ABH, alcoholic beverage license from SMN Fargo Courtyard to Brandt Hospitality Group in Fargo Courtyard located at 2249 55th Street South.

The class ABH license for this is only an owner transfer, so it is stay in the courtyard by Marriott. Nothing else is changing, just the owners only. There are no issues with the background check. The one owner and manager is listed, and they have locally 30 years of experience. There are no issues with the background check, so I'm looking for a motion to approve this license transfer.

Does anyone present wish to speak to this transfer? Does anyone present wish to speak? If not, no public speakers. I close the public hearing. Do I have a motion?

I'll make the motion.

Is there a second? Second. Roll call vote, please.

Pepcorn? Aye. Turnburg? Aye. Kolpak? Aye. Strand?

Yes.

Mahoney?

Aye. Public hearing. Here in a dangerous building located at 111-113 32nd Avenue North. John Radnick to explain.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners. We're here about an up and down duplex at 111 and 113 32nd Avenue North. This is an 1152 square foot wood framed bi-level duplex structure owned by Bobby Stephenson. It was constructed in 1976 and the taxes are current on this structure. The deficiencies with this one is there's no water service or electrical service at this point. There's a siding missing from the outside. Junk was all over the property. It's currently in foreclosure, and it appears to meet about five of the dangerous building criteria. Here's a list of... the timeline for events that have happened on this. Some notable ones are on October 15th, 2025, the water was terminated to the structure, and on 5-6-2026, the power was terminated to the structure. During this time, there was water being stalled from Neighboring and properties as well as being stored on-site trying to use it We did post the structure as a dangerous building on 4 29 26 and we sent the notices We continued to receive complaints and on 5 4 26 We got a the current owner to sign an agreement for nuisance nuisance abatement and special assessments So we would abate all the junk on the property and special assess it back to the property That went very well for us The interior of the property was inspected on 5-6-26, and again, we secured the property on 5-6-26 to make sure that nobody was entering the property. Like we said, this property is in foreclosure, and it's been in foreclosure for quite some time. This timeline of events does not capture everything that has happened with this property, and it's been kind of a lengthy process for us because of some extenuating circumstances. Here's some pictures of the property as we were doing different inspections, and most of these are pretty recent in 2026. You can see that there's a number of deficiencies and some problems with the property. You know, there's been some vagrants that have broken in. We've secured it. There's junk and junk accumulation all over. There is structural defects and just the general unsafe conditions within this property. There's water damage and smoke detectors are deficient, electrical problems, and broken windows. And our recommendation is on the screen. I'll stand for questions.

Anybody have any questions of Sean? Do I have a motion?

Mayor, I'd like to ask a question if I could.

Sure. Sean, if it's in foreclosure, is it a bank that has it in foreclosure?

There's a bank that currently does have it in foreclosure, and I'm sorry I don't have the bank's information on here, but on Cass County records, it is still listed under Bobby Stevenson's name for some reason. We're not sure why. It was taken to a sheriff's auction early this year, but the bank didn't take any action on it, so it wasn't auctioned off, and it was sent back to them, and there's been no action since then.

Is there any potential outreach to the bank and to the owner of the title that we could let them know you have a window of time to salvage your property that you hold lean title to?

Yes, so when we send notices out of dangerous buildings or anything like that, we make sure that we notify everybody. So any banks that are involved, anybody has interest, owners that are listed on Cass County, anybody, we send them all of the information that we have. And so they are duly notified of everything, so we make sure that they have a chance if they want.

And last, bear with me, if it is deemed a dangerous building, does that give them a window of time to rectify it?

Yes, they can still pull permits and rectify it if they want to within the 60-day window. And we'd work with them if there's extensions or anything that they need because of circumstances outside their control, we would bring it back to the commission and ask for extensions. Thank you.

Is there anyone present who wishes to speak about this dangerous building? No one present who wants to speak to it? If not, I close the public hearing. Do I have a motion?

I'll make the motion, Mr. Chair, and just the other couple comments, because there wasn't any police record of the calls, but this is, I live in North Fargo, and that's, the people contacted me, and there's multiple issues with law enforcement with the facility as well. They were keeping toms and all kinds of stuff going on, and so I know that's separate from what you do, Sean, but there was a lot more to it other than just the building. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Chair, I will say I think there were 35 calls from police, so it's definitely been a dangerous building.

You two have your lights on. Do you want to speak either way? We'll call vote, please.

Pepkorn? Aye. Kolpak?

Aye.

Strand?

Yes.

Turnburg? Aye. Mahoney?

Aye. And in 41, Lascaux First Edition, approved and recommended by Planning Commission 5-5-26, continued from the 5-26 regular meeting. It's a zoning-changing agriculture to single-dwelling residential, single-dwelling residential, and multi-dwelling residential with conditional overlay in public and institutional. It's the first reading of the rezoning ordinance of the plot of the Lascaux First Edition. Nicole, before you start, we have a developer agreement that's redlined. I don't know that this can go forward if the redlines have not been resolved. It appears to me that there are many things that the city normally regulates, and the developer does not want to allow the city to do that. For instance, floodproofing, putting floodproofed basements in. For instance, low-marring. For instance, if we put a concrete or asphalt road in. Wouldn't it be just a denial because they haven't worked out the things with the developer's agreement?

Thanks for that question, Mayor. We are prepared to talk about it, that item, with our recommendation today, but that is one of the issues we were going to bring forward.

Normally our developers have worked well with our planning location and come up with solutions prior to coming to this board. So go ahead and explain what you're going to explain, but we'll see.

Sure, sure. Yeah, I will... And I think Tom is going to present part of this with me. But just to pick up where we left off about a month ago, we in front of you have a major subdivision and a zone change. And we have an unusual situation where we have a staff recommendation for denial based on a number of reasons that I can explain. And then we have a planning commission recommendation in support of this. And we recognize it is a difficult subject. It's related to a proposed subdivision for housing that we definitely need in our community. We have a regional housing study that talks about that need and the economic development related to housing is obviously very important. as part of our growth plan. And so what makes this application unique is the fact that this is the first subdivision we have in front of us and zoning that is since the 2024 growth plan has been adopted. On top of it, this is the first development that we have that is pushing that edge of development where we don't have the regional infrastructure in place as well. And it is also a bit unique in that we again have the conflicting recommendations. Staff doesn't like being in front of you with a recommendation for denial. I think I've done this maybe two times in front of you. So if I'm a little nervous tonight, that is why. So what have we done since you last heard this item? Over the last month, we did try to have an informational meeting to talk about some of the policies that are being discussed and challenged outside of the plat and permit application. And given the busy time of year and the election and other factors in our schedule, we weren't able to align that informational meeting. But here we have policy development discussions on top of a permit request. So I'm here to represent the differences between the permit application and the policy discussion. In normal, when we have a conflict between policies and permits, we seek a continuation or we seek a denial. And the developer in this case has time constraints, also a demand for development. And so they're pushing that agenda. They're exercising their due rights for entitlement requests. So this puts you, the Commission, in a difficult situation as well. One of the things that dawned on us as we are reviewing this as staff as you might not know about Covey ranch That will be forthcoming to the City Commission and then in the next month or so. This is a developer development just east of 45th Street and And in this two-mile area north of 52nd Avenue to 76th Avenue, I-29 to Veterans, as well as the two miles east of I-29, have been, for the last 20 years that I've been here, part of our master planning elements. And so as part of the regional pond development, as part of Walmart, the Pines, the Sports Center, the NDSCS, there's been a lot of work in this area. But this is the most recent aerial that will show you. Lost Creek is a half mile west of 45th Street. And in between, we have that land that is being held by the existing landowners. whether it's the Hector estate or Sanford or Fargo school districts. There's lots of other elements that are part of this two square mile development. Tom will talk a little bit about the regional infrastructure that is being planned to go west of here that this subdivision will set in motion if approved tonight. Again, on top of the Covey Ranch, those developers that we've been working with has been taken over five to 10 years to get to this point. There's entitlements related to easements, there's drainage, there's floodplain management, There's a lot of things that go with permitting a housing and or land development. And that started with the original interchange discussion as part of 64th Avenue. So it takes time to get to where we're at. And I would say Covey ranch also has, uh, another 124 residential lots with Covey ranch. Um, so again, that will be in front of you in a couple of weeks are probably two to four weeks. And then as well as there was a deferral agreement for Covey ranch on your agenda tonight and the consent agenda. And so there's also, uh, financial commitments related to that. So why am I in front of you is the planning department often the planning department represents the permit process. And so normally we would receive a complete application. We would route this for department reviews, agencies, over 20 agencies and departments receive the applications. Normally we don't receive negative comments. This is the first time in a long time that we receive comments that are unresolvable. And so that's what recommended for the staff denial. The Planning Commission, we brought those concerns to the planning commission, they chose to forward those comments to you and those concerns to you. But the fact of the matter still rests with we have other departments and agencies that are recommending denial. Normally we would have a technical review complete before it's in front of you and to the Mayor's point, we normally would have the agreement of a developer's agreement and an amenities plan that would come as part of the entire package that would come to you. And then if the city commission were approved that then it may go to recordation and then start and start the permit process. So these are the departments that we received review comments and concerns about the engineering public works police and fire and West Fargo school district. I think all of them other than maybe West Fargo school district is here today. If you have any questions specific to that on top of that the planning department reviews that as well as all of the other agencies concurrence review against the comprehensive plan master plan and ordinances today. And so what are we trying to do is in confidence ensure that we can issue future permits that aren't putting the public in harm's way. So what are the things you don't usually see as part of a permit process is simultaneously to the plat and the zoning will be engineering working on infrastructure. flood protection, amenities plans on how the roads are going to be designed and other improvements in the right of ways as well as the parks and open space and parks developers agreement. I am remiss to say the application, one of the application elements as a result of that review that has changed, the plat and zoning that was in front of you a month ago had some mid blocks right in here about four lots that would allow for trail access between here to hear that we're going to be parks dedicated lots. The parks has gone on record that they don't want those lots and so we've moved that trail access and brought it back to single family lots. So that is one technical change that has happened. Let's see. So with that I'm going to turn it over to Tom so he can talk a little bit about some of the regional infrastructure because a yes to this plat means yes to future infrastructure demands in that what makes this a little different is the financial considerations that were held under now after the legislative actions related to the 3% cap. And so as well as Moody's downgrade. So I'm going to pass that off to Tom.

AS NICOLE MENTIONED, WHEN WE SEE THESE TYPES OF REQUESTS, SOMETIMES WE'VE ALREADY MADE THAT INITIAL INVESTMENT TO SUPPORT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE AND SOMETIMES WE NEED TO MAKE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT. IN THIS SITUATION, THIS LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED LOSS CREEK DEVELOPMENT, WE DO NEED TO, IF THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVES THAT PLAT, WE DO NEED TO MAKE A DECENT AMOUNT OF INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT TO SUPPORT IT. SO FIRST I WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT THE SANITARY SEWER. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A SANITARY SEWER THAT EXISTS AT 45th STREET AND 64th AVENUE. WE WOULD HAVE TO EXTEND THAT SANITARY SEWER TO THE WEST JUST OVER A HALF A MILE. APPROXIMATE COST OF THAT IS ROUGHLY A MILLION DOLLARS. AND THEN THERE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE A SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION PLACED IN THIS AREA. IT WOULD SERVE A LARGER AREA THAN JUST LOST CREEK FIRST PHASE OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT. AND SO YOU CAN SEE THE AREA DRAWN IN GREEN THAT THAT WOULD SUPPORT BUT NEARLY A MILLION DOLLAR INVESTMENT IN THAT SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION. Likewise with water main we would have to extend water main for this entire mile between veterans and 45th approximate cost of that 16 inch water main would be about $600,000. We would also have to make some decisions when it comes to paving of roadways of 64th and veterans and so I'll talk about those separately. So there's really two options when we talk about 64th. 64th Avenue corridor from Horace City limits, County Road 17, about a mile west of where you're seeing it on this page, all the way to University is a five-mile stretch. There's this one and a third miles that have not been improved. The rest of that corridor has been improved to a URBANIZED CONCRETE SECTION. AND SO THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE DECISIONS THAT WE WOULD ULTIMATELY BE ASKING CITY COMMISSION TO MAKE. IF THIS DEVELOPMENT GOES IN, IT WOULD BE ENGINEERING'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE ROADWAYS BE IMPROVED. BUT PART OF THAT QUESTION IS, WHAT TYPE OF ROADWAY? IS IT A RURAL ASPHALT? THERE'S SOME PROS AND CONS TO THAT. THE LIFE OF THAT IS A LITTLE BIT UNKNOWN. REALLY DEPENDS ON TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT. YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE AS LITTLE AS A FEW YEARS, AND IT COULD BE many years, close to 15 years. It's really unknown. That type of infrastructure has an initial cost, which isn't going to be recouped, and so it is a little bit a throwaway infrastructure investment. It would likely be simpler for Public Works to maintain until there's more development in this area. LIKEWISE, URBAN CONCRETE COULD BE A CHOICE THAT THE CITY COMMISSION MAKES. IT COMES WITH A MUCH LARGER INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, THE BENEFIT OF IT IS THAT IT IS THAT FULL BUILDOUT, IT IS THAT FULL INVESTMENT THAT WE WOULD ANTICIPATE LASTING PROBABLY IN THE RANGE OF 30 TO 50 YEARS. Because it's an urbanized section with concrete, curb and gutter, things like that, it does become a little bit more difficult for public works to maintain during the winter, especially with all the blowing that we would likely see coming from the north here without adjacent development. Likewise, would recommend the approval of Veterans Boulevard if Lost Creek is approved. Again, you can see the price range for that. This is a shared road with the city of Horace. Horace is responsible for half the cost. We do have a memorandum of understanding at MOU between Horace and the city of Fargo that has been created. They have spoke about that at their city council meeting. We're getting close to the point of bringing that to our city commission for approval. But again, the anticipation would be that we'd be recommending a rural asphalt roadway there on veterans. Again, timeline of the life of that road is a little bit unknown, but my best guess is a 10 to 20 year life. So you kind of put all that together and you take all those varied options. You know, you have somewhere between five and a half million to nearly $20 million of investment necessary to support Lost Creek. That does not include the roadways that would go into Lost Creek. That's just the investment to support that new growth area. Depending on funding splits and payment options, you can see the price ranges of what those cost shares would be between Horace and the City of Fargo. Couple things I want to talk about too is, you know, if City Commission were to say yes, approve Lost Creek this evening, you know, what does that really mean? And so again, if a yes vote is made tonight, that means that there needs to be these infrastructure investments along 64th Ave and Veterans Blvd. So if it's approved tonight, then we in engineering start working on project designs. We add these projects to the future CIPs. These are all things that city commission becomes aware of in the future and votes on. WE WOULD BE SEEKING A DIRECTION FROM CITY COMMISSION AS YOU SAW THOSE PRICE RANGES FOR THE RURAL ASPHALT OR AN URBANIZED CONCRETE SECTION AND THE PROS AND CONS WITH THEM ARE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT AND SO WE'D BE SEEKING CITY COMMISSION DIRECTION ON WHICH TYPE OF DESIGN WE WOULD PURSUE. SO WHAT DOES SAYING YES TO LOST CREEK TONIGHT, WHAT DOESN'T IT MEAN? AND SO AGAIN, THERE'S STILL A THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATION THAT'S HAPPENED HERE IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS ABOUT THE CITY'S DEBT AND CONTINUING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENTS. CURRENTLY, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULDN'T BE DECIDED NECESSARILY WITH A VOTE TONIGHT WITH CITY COMMISSION. AND SO HOW WE FUND THESE IMPROVEMENTS, both the regional improvements on veterans and 64th as well as the local improvements That would still be a decision for a City Commission Again, traditionally these improvements have been financed through special assessments according to our infrastructure funding policy to the benefiting area That policy states how items are going to be special assessed if special assessments are used But it doesn't say whether IT DOESN'T DICTATE WHETHER SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS MUST BE USED OR NOT. AGAIN, THAT'S ALWAYS GOING TO REMAIN A CITY COMMISSION DECISION OF HOW WE FINANCE IMPROVEMENTS. AGAIN, CITY COMMISSION COULD CHOOSE TO CONTINUE THE PRACTICE OF SPECIAL ASSESSING THESE NEW GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENTS OR THEY COULD REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO PAY FOR ALL OR A PORTION OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS. I ALSO WANT TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE DEVELOPER AGREEMENT. LIKE MAYOR AND NICOLE ALLUDED TO, TYPICALLY WE HAVE HAD TIME TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME OF PLATT IS COMING TO CITY COMMISSION TO IRON OUT ALL THESE DETAILS. THERE ARE A FAIR NUMBER OF FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT ITEMS THAT WE HAVE NOT COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON. And so again, as we drafted this agreement in engineering, we tried to position this document to give our city commission the authority to make these future decisions. And so again, Veterans Boulevard from 64 to 76, it's engineering's opinion that it should be improved to a rural asphalt section if Lost Creek is approved. Currently, the developer has proposed that that remain as gravel based on their red lines. Again, engineering is recommending that 64th Avenue either be improved to a rural asphalt section or an urbanized concrete section, but that should be at the discretion of the city commission. The developer's position is that an urbanized concrete section is not acceptable. The developer, again, engineering feels the developer agreement should preserve the flexibility of city commission to determine how future improvements are funded. The way that the developer redlined the agreement is that all infrastructure improvements should be special assessed. Another area, acknowledging that an MOU with the City of Horace is necessary, and again, they have discussed that at their June 15th City Council meeting. The developer agreement requires that MOU be approved between Fargo and Horace. That requirement has been struck from the agreement by the developer. The developer also did add language to the developer agreement, stating that Lomer F and flood proof basements would not be required. That's contrary to our city policy and would require property owners within this development to pay flood insurance until the time that the FM diversion has been accredited by FEMA. Again, engineering does not support that revision at this time. With that, I will turn it back over to Nicole.

So normally, you don't see this back and forth discussion as part of a plat application because we try really hard to separate the policy development from the technical review. Again, in front of you tonight is the application, the application for a plat, the application for zoning, and that has a quasi-judicial process, meaning there's a shot clock, if you will. The city commission has to act in certain point of time, what's reasonable, otherwise it's approved. And so normally, like in the case of Covey Ranch and development from my past 20 years here. It's been, you know, there's a back and forth discussion and the developer hasn't, you know, assertively needed to get on that immediate commission agenda. And I recognize the challenges of the developer, the challenges of lots, the challenges of housing, but we are at a conundrum, if you will, at the staff level on how we deal with these challenges for the first time ever, if you will, in my career here. I will say, you know, I've done development across the country. We're one of the only cities in the country estates in the country where the design of the engineering isn't done in advance of the application of the permit and so that's something tom and i have been talking about with the land development code process etc you know having to design the engineering first in advance of the housing so that sets the predictability if you will for landowners and so that's one of the challenges we have today we have an infrastructure and regional design that hasn't been decided on yet and yet we're asked to give a permit And so that is the challenges we're under today. So with that, just like last time, I have three recommendations for you. But you could either accept the Planning Commission's decisions with conditions. We've got that prepared for you. Staff's recommendation for denial and just to confirm where we're at with that. It's think about the develop We think about as staff the way I train my staff is think of the quasi judicial due diligence process as a hot potato and so we have the hot potato and then we have to give them the hot potato where the hot potato is is the duty and So we have the hot potato now if you vote and approve and accept that we continue to have that hot potato with a developer That means you're spending staff time, staff resources on focusing on this part of the city on top of everything else. And so that prioritizes our time on top of it. So I just want to make that point. So with that, we have the staff's recommendation for denial We are, as staff, okay with approval with conditions. We have really set requirements for those conditions that are subject to the following to be met prior to the plat recordation. And again, I'm going to emphasize the plat recordation because it's that recordation that gives that entitlement. And so that's the technical review of the plat to be signed by the city engineer. So still maintaining that authority with the city engineer. a developer agreement that would have that city commission and preserve the city commission's authority to determine the timing of when the standards and infrastructure should be done, preserve the city commission's authority to determine the funding mechanism for the future infrastructure. and to affirm the compliance with the applicable flood protection as well as the amenities plan like normal and all other items needed by the city commission and probably more importantly the MOU with the city of Horace because otherwise we don't have an arterial road on veterans and then also commitment with the 2027 budgets related to public works and police services in order to provide services to that. Again, it's a long story on how we got here. Glad to answer any questions, and the other departments are here as well.

Just to be clear, Nicole, if it's denied, does it just go away? Do they come back and work with you, or what happens?

Yeah, so a denial, in all fairness, the two recommendations are pretty much the same. It's just where you're putting that hot potato. So they would have to reapply. You're basically setting that affirmation that as the policies get confirmed, We could have that informational meeting. We can figure out as developers, as part of the LDC process and the incentive process. And then, but they could apply as soon as three months from now. And so it's basically an application process that starts over and gives a clear, honestly, a clearer direction to the planning commission.

Any questions? Mr. Kopach.

Yeah, so that was my question, Nicole, is the difference between these two motions specifically. What would be the differentiating between the two decisions for staff and developer? Does that make sense?

Yes, I'm sure the staff and the developer have two different perspectives on this. From the staff perspective, it gives a clear direction to the planning commission and to honestly uphold the city's positions on all the things related to these things, and it pushes those authorities. From a developer perspective, a denial would basically, under law, under the land development code, they could reapply in three months. I believe it's three months. I'd have to double check that ordinance, but it's set by ordinance.

Mr. Pipkart.

So Mr. Chair, could we pull up the picture of the satellite photo again? And Ben, would you mind coming up and letting me ask you a couple of questions? So the big thing, if you notice in a satellite picture, there isn't a tree within 300 yards. And so Ben can talk a little bit about 19th Ave or we've had challenges in the past when we have a heavy snow year where we get multiple storms. What happens is that it starts filling in even when we don't have a storm of the wind blows. And so what happens then is if Ben has to commit to moving snow there, we don't have police and fire. And so obviously the money is is a lot. But but public safety, that's number one. So can you talk a little bit about that, Ben?

sure commissioner you did a great job of kind of filling in the gaps for me but i'll add on top of it so this is something that'll get planted right out in the middle of an open field and so with our regional pond to the north you're going to see that you're going to have a mile to the north that's going to be wide open and everything's going to blow from the north but to the south as well so every day it blows in north dakota almost so when we have snow on the ground in the middle of winter you're going to see if we have a 20 mile an hour wind this development is going to be full of snow The real concern, like Commissioner Pepkorn said, is when we do face that blizzard and that half mile out to that development, it'll be something that will be extremely difficult to control. And now you're going to put 200 homeowners out there at risk. And so it's something, and we can close 19th Avenue North. But this is something we won't be able to close because there is not an alternative route, and it's going to put a lot of the residents out there at risk because we'll have to pull a lot of equipment from the inner city to pull it out there to service this area to keep it open so that if there is a fire, if there is a medical condition, or if there is a need for police out there, we can service them and do our due diligence and make sure we can. Because right now how it sits and the staffing we have and the inability we have to add staff because of budget constraints, I don't know that we can do it. We will do it, but it's going to take resources from other areas of town, and other areas of town are going to have to sit and wait.

Can I add one more thing, Mr. Chair? So the one lesson we learned when Davies was built on 25th, if you remember that, we debated whether to put asphalt and put a temporary rural road. I don't know if Tom, I'm sure you were, maybe that was before your time even. That's how freaking old we are, but... But we debated that, whether to put in permanent cement. And as we know, that has filled in unbelievably fast. And I predict the same thing will happen here. So the right thing to do is put in the best infrastructure right now. And that's a lot of money. And so that's the other thing I would encourage you to do, to do it right instead of laying down asphalt and then tearing it up, which is essentially what we would have done. So, all right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Anybody else?

Mr. Stan.

Thank you. Who would be able to answer financial questions?

Susan?

Perhaps if you could ask the question, it might be the city administrator.

In laying the groundwork, Nicole, is it my understanding the land development code is currently under reviewing financial formal formulas for edge development?

Yeah, I think what you've heard in some economic development incentive committee meetings and finance committee meetings is Part of the growth plan and, honestly, Go 2030 talks about the resources needed on the edge of development. And you might remember Commissioner Preston and some of the other commissioners, we've been challenged on how to define ROI, or return on investment. And what our consultants are doing as part of the land development code is trying to build a model related to ROI, return on investment. And what we're finding is the data isn't solid enough to get that return on investment. And so we'll have some updates for you in July on that and August on that. But right now we're honestly just thinking about the initial cash up front, and that's where I would defer to the finance team.

Does that answer your question, John? No, it doesn't at all. Well, it begins to. Okay. You know, Susan, if this project were to go forward, and we're already hearing numbers of a minimum of maybe $20 million of investment, And as I understand it, that would be assessed, special assessed $20 million. And then that's just infrastructure. Then who knows what's on top of that? I'm going to say $20 to $40 million, but I don't know. We don't know. But help me understand, that gets bonded by the city, correct?

That is correct.

The city bonds go up and borrows the money to allow this and facilitate this development. And we all know the discussion that's unfolded, and it's ripe, and it's pertinent, about our debt being 1.37 to 1.5 billion dollars. And a lot of that is developable, development supported, bonding over the past, but our overall debt. So this will add to that debt?

Yes, it will be part of an annual assessment. So every year we do a refunding improvement bond, which includes all the construction. It's typically the routine projects. But more and more, it's become these developer requested projects, which are things just like this. But as Nicole's presentation mentioned, we can look at how much we special assess. Whether or not the city does just the peripheral as Tom was explaining and those were his numbers the major thoroughfares and whether You know one of the responses could be that the developer becomes responsible for the the roads the interior roads I don't know the actual words, but the the Roads within the development, so I mean that that's a compromise that we could look at but yes anytime that we move to a new location and do some major infrastructure, that is something that gets assessed and part of our debt. When we were talking with Moody's, they do acknowledge that debt is part of a growing community. So we're not going to get away from it. It's just how much and for what purposes. And those are the considerations you need to think about.

would just add a mayor commissioners and commissioner strand thank you for the question i think it's a really good question i kind of separate the question into two parts there's both the cash flow needs of today funding that new equipment operator to go out and move snow that's going to take quite an intense effort to go do that but then there's also that long-term structural financing question and that long-term debt and and and a suitability of that debt for our city books and i think susan's articulated that well I would just also add that I think what Nicole has outlined for you and planning has outlined for you are two options that really send us back to the drawing board in different ways, different directions, but we really start anew to really try to process a new application, try to better understand these cost implications today as well as tomorrow in support of long-range housing growth in the community we do need to be smart about it and as articulated here I couldn't say it any better than Ben did we are some distance away from existing development and we will have some challenges in this area no question about it and we would want to spend that time thoughtfully methodically to understand that and what that will mean to our bottom line as well as our ability to serve the area but might I continue mayor my last question I think for the moment

We had this discussion maybe 10 years ago when Kent Koston was here and the whole topic of specials and assessing properties and edge development versus infill and so on. When we're going down that path of financing, how do we know that it's going to pay for itself? How do we know the return on investment? How do we know it's cost justifiable? Because internal is way different than external edge development. What I recall back then was we were told then the developers were to provide letters of credit. And I remember thinking, well, I'm not sure that's worth the paper it's written on if the economy crashes. Are we secure? Is the city secure if they bond this and the developers are backing those bonds? Is that safe and secure for the public?

Yeah, so I'll thank you for that question, Commissioner. So at that time, you are correct. The conversation really centered around collateralization of city debt. And that was really more about securing an instrument like a letter of credit or if there was a different alternative at that time, which was really deemed that there wasn't. That it was really a letter of credit was kind of the gold standard to make sure that the developer could take care of the laterals and take care of the other infrastructure within a subdivision. and be able to see that growth and to see the finish line for that goal that was established. But your question is a very solid one. There is not a very neat and clean black and white answer to what is the right development at the right time simply because you have to really be smart in looking at the infrastructure that's in the ground today and then where we're most economical in terms of bringing lateral infrastructure off of truck infrastructure that we're installing. So I think the question long range led to the commission of tomorrow and the commission after that is going to be, what is that cost participation? It's really about the assignment of cost and risk and kind of where are those costs and where those risks assigned. There are means to try and mitigate those risks. Letters of credit are one such way to do that. So we did at that time. Now it's hard to believe, but you're correct. Almost eight, nine, 10 years ago, talk about it more from that collateralization question, but I think there's a new question now, which is simply the cost of infrastructure has increased immeasurably in the last several years. You don't have to go back too many years to see that we're paying one-third or one-quarter of the cost of what it takes to do a mile of infrastructure now. It's just gotten that much more expensive in this environment. And so all that to suggest that we really do need to be thoughtful and we need to be methodical, long range. That will definitely be a conversation with the next commission and one that Susan and I will look forward to having as we talk about edge development, but as well as infill. We do need to be really, really intelligent with how we're kind of thinking about the future here.

Are you done? Go ahead. Ms. Sternberg.

With an approval with conditions, does that mean we have to decide how this will be paid for today? Or is that something that will be worked out? My fear is we have to listen to residents, as residents are so tired of specials, whether it be improvements or new infrastructure. And just because we've done it one way all these years doesn't mean we have to do it that way going forward. So if it is approved, can we work out how it will be paid for after tonight's meeting?

Yes, that would be, you know, kind of lined up with question number, you know, basically 2B on the approval with conditions. So that would be basically condition number 2B, if I'm reading that correctly.

So we're at a dilemma. We need housing. We only have 50 lots left. You need 140 homes that might go in this lot. We have done this type of financing for a long time. What's getting everybody to gulp? It's $20 million. But we do bonding for that. We do the specials for that. You look at Osgoode, very successful neighborhood that came to us, and that was, in our sense, on the fringe. We look at Davies High School and what filled in, and which the governor thought would never fill in for 20 years and filled in in 10. Was there an ROI on it? There was an ROI on this. Difficulty with this proposal is that we have not worked development agreement with developer, which developers squawking a little bit. And Commissioner Turnburg, the arterials will be special. It's just a question of in the development, how we pay for that. When we did talk to the developer about that, I said, how about you pay 25%, maybe you pay 50%. The developer didn't want to do that, wanted to do it the traditional way in which we do specials. The Commissioner Pipburn's talked about this, we've got to decrease specials, and the Land Development Code, that's part of the option that you would have, is does your developer take more part of the piece of the infrastructure that goes in the neighbourhood? and so that is something i think the next commission can tackle i think the new mayor wants to talk about affordable housing i think that's part of the formula as well so you have to get that all in the difficulty i have with this one this particular development is normally we have a developer's agreement which we have no red lines which we all agree on things we have 15 red lines on this one and it's things that are not reasonable The city is the one that decides, do you do concrete or do you do asphalt? The reason we do that is then we don't come back in five years, tear all the asphalt out and put in concrete for twice the cost. People are used to specials on arterials. That's when you go into development, when you go into a neighborhood. When I went into my area, there's specials on arterials that you get hit with, and that's what Horace is struggling with is they had to put more infrastructure in. This is a great place to have a discussion with the new commission, the new mayor, go through this and decide what we want, what we don't want, what kind of development we want. One would be to deny this, to come back in three months with the new rules. The other one would be the recommendation of motion with conditions. So again, I'd ask, do I have a motion from the commission?

I move for approval with conditions.

Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Strand, you had your hand up. Do you want to make another comment? No? Colpec, anything else?

No. Through the discussion, my questions have been answered.

Any further discussion? Roll call vote, please.

Turnberg? Aye. Colpec? Aye. Pepkorn?

No.

Strand?

Yes.

Mahoney?

Aye. Item 42, we do have one speaker, so after Ian does his discussion on this, we will have the one speaker will be allowed to speak, and then we'll open up for a commission discussion. Ian. The first rank proposal for the Convention Center.

We're back here on the Convention Center. I'm going to go through a timeline just real quick. On November 5th, 2024, that's when the voters approved the 3% lodging tax for the Convention Center. For about 14 months or so, the Convention Center committee met. They created and managed the RFP process. On April 27th, Mr. Johnson presented the recommendations to the city commission. City commission directed staff to begin the due diligence process on the top two score proposals, which are downtown and the Brujala proposal. May 21st, we got the answers from both Brujala and downtown. We presented those at a BrownPeg meeting of the city commission. May 26th, we had another city commission meeting and directed staff to engage Baker Tilly to perform additional due diligence. Thereafter, we engaged with Baker Tilly, provided all of the documents that we had, In addition, the Brujala team had a few more documents that they wished that we share with Baker Tilly, which we did. We also sent to the downtown team for transparency and fairness. Downtown team wanted to have a phone call with Baker Tilly in response. We asked Baker Tilly to have phone calls with both teams so it was fair and it was transparent. I believe both teams did have phone calls. And on June 18th, we received the Baker Tilly report. so these are the same two motions you would have seen at the start of the last meeting the first one is either pick the mba brujala or the eapc kilbourne group slash downtown civic as the first ranked proposal convention center project and to move forward with them to begin discussing a development agreement and if there is a successful motion one we would then go to motion two which is to approve city staff to begin looking at tiff financing Obviously Brujala we would be creating a TIF and working with the county and school board downtown does have a TIF but regardless of Which project we would then work to allocate the costs so that they are TIF specific and eligible costs So those are the two those are the two motions. We do have Baker Tilly We do have Steve Scharf on the on the phone and he's happy to answer any questions about the report as well Any questions for Baker Tilly?

Mr. Strand several I want to know First of all, have them compare the two financially. Are they both green-lighted by Baker Tilly to be feasible and doable, or is it just one? Are they giving both of them a green light?

We'll see if Baker Tilly will answer that. I think the answer to that question is yes. They both said that they met the guidelines.

Could they talk about that, please?

Yeah, good evening, Mayor and Commissioners. Hopefully you can hear me all right. This is Steve Sharp of Baker Tilly. We did review each of the proposals. We did apply our own independent assumptions where warranted. I think in the report it identifies some salient positions or features of each proposal. You know, I think if you wanted to wrap a bow on it, there is a there is a proposal that is higher suggested bonding amount than we reviewed as something that's currently within reason for the interest rate environment that we're in. So I think there's some identified variances and risks for each of them, one such proposal being that there is an identified gap in available funding based on what's being proposed.

Can he tell us what proposal he's referring to? I think I know, but I want to hear it.

I'll be more specific. Brujala's proposal, based on the bonding capacity they presented, is not consistent with what we provide as an outcome. So it does create an inherent gap in the funding that would need to be reviewed and resolved in terms of construction.

Steve, can you just point, in your report, is Brujala thinks they can have $58.5 million, and I think your team said $47.8. I think that's what John's referring to.

That's right.

The public doesn't have your papers in front of them, so just bear in mind we have a room full of people, so it would be nice if you give a little detail when we get into this. John, any other questions? Continue for the moment. Mr. Kopach.

Yeah, I don't think I've ever spent more time on a decision in my four years on this commission, and I will tell you this was a really difficult one. So to that end, I have a PowerPoint, and you're going to have to bear with me. It's a little long, but I'm going to make a few comments. If you'd pull that up, please.

Could I first have the speaker speak before we get into deliberations, if you don't mind? I just wanted to have one speaker on this.

Thank you.

Romani Kildee. Romani Kildee. Over to this one. I think I have your slides ready.

Good evening, Mayor Mahoney and Commissioners. My name is Romaine Kildee. I have been a resident of downtown Fargo for the past 10 years. I serve as a board member for the Downtown Neighborhood Association and am an advocate for historic preservation and adaptive reuse. Tonight, I urge you to choose the path of true taxpayer stewardship and fiscal responsibility by voting to revitalize the city-owned Civic Center site, a position formally endorsed by the Downtown Neighborhood Association. As you review the Baker Tilly's reports, a critical fiscal distinction needs to be made between these two sites. The unique financial leverage of utilizing our existing public assets. Choosing the Civic Center site represents common sense financial discipline. The contemporary adaptive reuse model built on this public anchor completely eliminates an estimated $250,000 in annual operating costs by decommissioning the auditorium. Furthermore, it completely avoids a $2 million demolition expense. A downtown convention center capitalizes on millions of dollars in existing public infrastructure, including our parking garages and skyways, which begs a critical question our community needs answered. What exactly will the City of Fargo do with the Civic Center site if you choose not to repurpose it tonight? Leaving this public asset to sit as a costly, unresolved liability is neither fiscally responsible nor strategic. Maximizing the return on our past investment is what true stewardship is about. Placing the convention center downtown plugs it directly into a unified civic campus alongside City Hall and the public library. This project will transform that campus into a vibrant pedestrian forward destination, creating an iconic gathering space that elevates our quality of life and civic pride. I ask that you vote for the downtown civic site for the convention center, ensuring Fargo remains anchored where its history, civic life, and fiscal future thrive. Thank you.

Now we can go to your slideshow.

Thank you. Thank you. I'll tell you when to advance the slides, but I'm going to start on this slide. As I said, I truly believe that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and we should not consume tomorrow's opportunities simply to solve today's challenges. Today we're discussing the location of a convention center and I truly believe really discussing something much larger. We're discussing the future shape of downtown Fargo. We're discussing how we steward public assets to the speaker's point. We're discussing what opportunities we leave for future generations. Second slide. So respecting the process, the process included, community engagement, stakeholder input, site analyses, I went on every one, Fargo Convention Center committee formation, and in-depth, exhaustive reviews over 18 months, consultant evaluation, including the most recent report, and financial comparisons. And while my personal preference for a location, frankly, was not among the final two, I respect the process that brought us here today. A great deal of work has gone into getting us to this moment. So the next slide, why I asked for more information before making a recommendation. Earlier this year, I was unwilling to support either location without a side-by-side financial comparison. I wanted to understand public investment. infrastructure costs site implications long-term impacts the information has been provided although i didn't glean as much from that analysis as i wish i would have hoped to but i appreciate the work that went into it in the short time frame so when we think about that financial analysis next slide it did not identify a clear front runner in some of the wording And had one option clearly emerged as the superior financial choice, this decision would have been relatively simple. And as I said, we did not glean, I didn't, everything that I wanted to from that report. And I've always said that financial sustainability would be my most important criterion in this decision. And in this case, financial stewardship means looking holistically at what's best for the city and our taxpayers. I believe the Brujala site provides the land at no cost to the taxpayer. It does. That was an offer. And Brujala proposal assumes the operating risk. And the proposed TIF for Brujala is intended to provide future businesses in the area with financial resources to help further develop the area. This is a targeted inappropriate usage of a TIF, and frankly, I find it more beneficial and defendable than the TIF being proposed for redeveloping the current Civic Center site. And so while the financial consultant did not clearly identify a clear winner, our obligation is to choose the option that preserves the greatest opportunity for future generations. And I truly believe this, next slide. Downtown needs and deserves a win, but we should pursue the biggest win possible. And I understand why so many downtown businesses support the Civic Center location. They've invested your livelihoods in downtown Fargo. The city has supported that. You want activity and momentum and certainty. And after years of discussion, understandably want action. Believe me, I've heard from you, and I've talked to many of you, and I respect that. And I share the belief that downtown deserves continued investment. In fact, I've often supported the incentives. Where I differ is not in that goal. In this case, it's the timeline and the strategy. I agree with those who say downtown deserves a win, and I simply believe Fargo has an opportunity to create a bigger win. So on the next slide, what if we didn't have to choose? What if we could have a convention center at Brujala and a future performing arts center at the Civic Center? Throughout this process, it has often felt as though we were being asked to choose between competing priorities. But what if we didn't have to choose? What if the best solution is the one that allows Fargo to achieve both? A convention center at Prujalla and a future performing arts center at the current Civic Center. I know this is late, but this process has been belabored, and it's never too late to make the right decision. So we have two very different futures. Next slide. Future one is a convention center at the Civic Center site. Civic Center site consumed, future options limited. Future 2, Convention Center of Brujala, Future Performing Arts Center, Expanded Downtown Corridor, two downtown anchors. The question before us is not where to place a building. The question is which future can we create? So I'm going to show you the Sioux Falls example. Next slide. The Washington Pavilion in the Denny Sanford Premier Center. We're often compared to Sioux Falls. Their downtown is anchored by a performing arts center and cultural destination. Their convention center facilities are located elsewhere. They did not force both functions into the same location. They created complementary destinations. And Fargo has the same opportunity to do it even better. And let's think about the Civic Center. Next slide. honoring the original purpose of the Civic Center site. When community leaders invested in the Civic Center decades ago, they understood something important. Downtown needs gathering places, it needs culture, it needs entertainment. The Civic Center was not originally conceived as a convention center. It was conceived as a place where the community comes together, a place for performances and events, a place to create memories. And as you may recall, I was a member of the Fargo Arts and Culture Commission before winning the election on the City Commission. One of the earliest ideas I brought forward after joining the City Commission was a discussion about a future performing arts center. We engaged experts, we explored feasibility, and like many projects during and immediately following the pandemic, the timing was uncertain and the conversation was ultimately paused. But the need never disappeared. The opportunity never disappeared. We had to simply wait for the right moment. Perhaps the best way to honor that original vision of this site is not to replace it with something entirely different, but to build upon it. Next slide, I'm almost done. Visitors come once, patrons come back. Convention centers attract visitors. Performing arts centers create patrons. Visitors attend an event, patrons build habits, patrons create traditions, patrons support restaurants, real tailors, and downtown businesses year after year, and I think downtown Fargo deserves both. The next slide, the hidden cost isn't dollars, it's opportunity. This discussion extends beyond a single parcel, and it involves an entire district. Public land is one of the most valuable assets taxpayers own. Before permanently committing those assets, we should be confident we are achieving the longest high-term public value. And Fargo has seen this before. Next slide. Northern school supply building spurs downtown renaissance. There was a time when people questioned investing in downtown Fargo. They said, why there? Is it worth it? The core is dying. Yet visionary leaders saw a possibility. Today we celebrate those investments because they helped create the Fargo we know and love. It sounds a lot like the discussion around West Acres and 13th Avenue in the 1960s, and look now. That is an area that's the center of our community, not on the outskirts. Successful communities all have one thing in common, vision. And vision often looks obvious in hindsight. We need to get this one right or we will see another community do it. Expanding and diversifying downtown Fargo a bit further west and establishing a new anchor point is exactly what is needed now more than ever. Next slide. I promise I'm getting close. Vision often requires looking beyond the obvious. And then one of the most recent examples is the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library that's taking shape right now and opening on July 4th. What many people forgot is that the project did not begin as a world-class destination we see today. Originally, it was discussions around a much smaller facility connected to Dickinson State University at a $15 million project. And because they were willing to think beyond the immediate solution, North Dakota is about to open a $450 million destination that will attract visitors from around the world and create lasting economic benefits for generations. I'm not suggesting the convention center or presidential library are the same project. I am suggesting that transformational projects often begin when communities choose vision over convenience. So leadership requires looking beyond the immediate need. Next slide. Easiest decision is not always the best decision, and the quickest solution is not always the most strategic solution. So stewardship. Next slide. Every generation inherits opportunities. Our responsibility is to leave more than we inherited. Public assets belong to the people of Fargo. Our responsibility is not simply to use them, but to steward them wisely. And that means preserving opportunities whenever possible and maximizing long-term public value. And I really believe Fargo can have both. Most communities spend decades, next slide, choosing between competing priorities, and Fargo has an opportunity to achieve both. So my commitment, I'm almost, I promise, two slides. My commitment to Fargo and for Fargo is if this city commission, next slide, were to choose the Brujala location, I would support beginning a community visioning effort regarding the future of the Civic Site area, and it would not be a new conversation, but one that began several years ago. A conversation focused on performing arts, culture, entertainment, community gathering, and public-private partnerships. Because preserving an opportunity only matters if we're willing to pursue it. So in summary, final slide. We should not consume tomorrow's opportunity simply to solve today's challenges. Throughout this process, I have kept an open mind. I've been very honest with those tough conversations I've had and told you, but always would come down to financial analysis. And in the end, to me, the financial analysis still does put Brujala at the top. But our obligation is to choose the option that preserves the greatest opportunity for future generations with the least risk possible, and I fully agree with those who say downtown at Fargo needs a win. It deserves a win. I simply believe Fargo has an opportunity to create a bigger one. Because in my view, supporting Brujala is supporting downtown, and in doing so in a way that preserves additional opportunities for future generations. As we should leave future generations with more possibilities than we inherited, I support the work of the Fargo Convention Center Committee, its intentional work and its ranking of the final locations. And for those reasons, I support the Brujala location for Fargo's Convention Center. And it was a tough decision.

Ian, can you put the motion up, please, on the screen? Commissioner Turnbull.

Well, Nice slideshow, Commissioner Kolpak, but this needs to be driven with fact rather than emotion. There is no TIF being proposed for downtown. There is no new TIF. There is a $100 million TIF being proposed for the Brujala site, and the county and schools have not been included in that conversation, and those that I've reached out to have said absolutely not. And who is paying for this performing arts center? Those are my questions.

I will add that the downtown, if I may, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. The downtown proposed site includes utilization of an existing TIF that would tie up those funds for downtown.

Mr. Pipkin.

So just to review, I know they can't put the Baker Tilly report up for everybody to see, but I would encourage everybody to take a look at it. But the word that you see throughout the whole report is risk. There's risk for both projects and not just a little risk, like across the whole thing. There's risk, risk, risk, risk. That's not what we want to see with a public property that the taxpayers, if it doesn't succeed, money from the general fund will come to pay for it. So what we're proposing is something that's very risky, and that's not what we should do. I would say, from my perspective, the least risky is to use an existing facility that the city has. That reduces the risk at least some, and that's either the Fargo Dorm or the Civic Center. That helps reduce the risk, but I believe both of them have risk. And we should not be proceeding with something that says you're taking a lot of risk. Thank you, Mr. Chair. But the other thing is, do we get equal time, all of us? Do we all get 20 minutes?

We've all had time. If we want, we can take more time. Commissioner Kopach?

I just wanted to clarify that the difference between Brujala and the Civic Center was Brujala also agreed to accept operational loss as risk.

Do I have a motion? Mr. Strand.

I guess I'd like to join the conversation before we know who's advancing a motion. Everybody needs to be thanked for their visions for Fargo. And everybody needs to be acknowledged for their willingness to participate in giving us a future that's better. My biggest personal issue over all of these topics and issues is, like right now we're talking minimum $40 million bonding. Yes, the people voted on it, and the people decided that we're to do this, but it also requires us bonding. So that's just a practical reality. We're going to grow our debt to do either project, you know? How many times have we seen in our lives where the government does something and then it ends up becoming what we later on call a boondoggle? I'm not saying these will be, but if something doesn't pencil out financially, if like as in Commissioner Pepkorn reminds us, this is going to come on the taxpayer's nickel.

Actually, John, the bonding is on a sales tax.

No, no, no, no. If there's a need to go into the general fund because it's not cash flowing, it's on the tax.

When you're talking about bonding, it is on the lodging tax.

I'm talking about the cash flow of the entity. And if it doesn't show profit, it's on the public to pay for that deficit, separate from the bonding issue. The bonding issue will be paid back with the 3% revenue from the lodging tax. But if the economy goes south, and I'm always wanting to be prepared for the worst, but if the economy doesn't pan out the way we hope it would, it's on us. It's on the city, either project. to pay over the future, past the first few years. That's my concern. So what I really wanted to hear from Baker Tilly was which has the least risk to the public. They hinted at it, but they weren't real clear with us. that one of them is more feasible than the other. That's where my head's at. I don't want to be putting on the public a decision that down the road they go, look what they did to us back in 2026. And yes, the people voted on it. But I just want assurance that we're not going to the public more to sustain this into the future.

Unfortunately, John, you've got to make a decision tonight because we're supposed to make the decision. Again, do I have a motion from anybody?

Mayor, I'll advance the motion to get the discussion going that we look at the downtown site and make that our first choice.

Is there a second?

Second.

Further discussion?

Can we repeat the motion?

It's what's on top, but it's what's the downtown civic because he moved the proposal of the downtown group. discussion. This has been a long, sought-out decision that we've gone through for a long time. I appreciate the slideshow we had, but there's some things you've got to think about whenever you do something in this business. I appreciate all the hard work the developers have done, all the presentations we've had, and everything that has been brought forth to us. The public needs to know that the Baker-Tilley didn't necessarily say one or the other, but it said each one had operational risks, each one had different things that they had. I have to put the hat on of I'm the mayor of the city and what is the best interest of this community, and I've been looking at the Civic Center for 20 years now trying to figure out what to do with it. I'd love it if you get a performing arts. I'm going to flip it on you. Let's put the performing arts at the Berhala. That would be a great place to have it. But Pipcorn can tell you, when we did the performing arts, we had to raise $70 million, and that wasn't easy. I've been subject to two votes on the Fargo Dome that failed. People didn't want to do it. They just weren't actively excited about that. I am excited if you get a performing arts in the community. I am excited if you find that funding. But the Museum of Science right now is trying to find $50 to $60 million, and they're struggling. It's not always as easy as you think to try to raise money in this community. The difference in the two projects is what happens with each choice. When we had the downtown proposal before us, it was interesting, they lined 30 businesses behind them. They lined 30 business owners in this community behind them. In the downtown area, we have invested, Jim Gilmore and I have worked a lot of time in the downtown, but we moved the value of the property from 250 million to a billion. There's a lot of money that's been invested downtown. If you don't do the Civic Center, you have to pay $2 million to take it down, and I don't know what you're going to put in its place. We have two buildings next to it that have no value. If you do the downtown proposal, you have two buildings in which will be part of the project in which the city can make some money off of it. If the project downtown has problems, I have a TIF in place that has up to $1 million worth of revenue that could help pay off the losses, but actually Susan developed it that initially on losses for the first five years were covered, 500, 500, 350, 350, 350. Again, remember, the convention center is not the size of the Fargo Dome, and the losses should not be as great if we have losses, but it has to be done. And again, I want to thank Mark and Kevin for excellent presentations. I have all full confidence that place will continue to thrive. But I think right now the downtown needs the help at this time. So I will be going along with the motion. Any other discussion? Roll call vote, please.

Strand?

Yes.

Turnburg? Aye. Kolpak? No. Pepcorn?

Aye.

Mahoney?

Aye. We'll take a five-minute break. Mayor? Sorry, I've got to have the second motion. Do I have a move for approval of the second motion?

So moved.

Is there a second?

I'll second it, but can I ask a question? So there's an existing one in effect with the Civic Center, and so can you talk, what will this entail if that happens?

we'll be utilizing the riverfront TIF if we're able to enter into a development agreement with the downtown proposal team. And then it's just figuring out how can we use that TIF to pay for the demolition, for example, it would be a TIF eligible expense. So it's working with the city staff to figure out how can we best use the TIF funds to protect the city's downside on the general fund.

Thank you. Any other discussion? Roll call vote, please.

Strand.

Yes.

Pepcorn?

Aye.

Holpec?

Aye.

Turnburg? Aye. Mahoney?

Aye. Five-minute recess.

Thank you. Thank you.

We'll call the meeting back to order. Item 43, Eric Johnson, request Spirit of Fargo funds to use through the Resource and Recovery Center. Eric, you were talking, huh?

Yeah, I wasn't exactly sure how this was going to play out, but I'm sure... Eric, how many years did you work for the City of Fargo as an attorney? Since November of 1985. 85, oh my God, that's a long time. Eric Johnson, Assistant City Attorney. The Mayor had asked me to help look into some funds that were made available as a result of the 2009 flood fight. It was during that flood fight that the idea came to mind to create a fund and take donations and And the mayor worked with the Impact Foundation and Dakota Medical Foundation to be, I think they're called the fiscal agent, under a sponsorship arrangement. And donations were made. And my understanding is about $280,000 was donated, some of which was a match from the Dakota Medical Foundation, $50,000 or more. And the money had been used over the span of time mostly for scholarships for students. In my understanding it was students that had been done sandbagging efforts, not so much in 2009 probably, but in the future flood fights we had in the subsequent years when we had threats of significant floods. There haven't been any funds expended since 2017 and currently There's about $144,000 in that fund. When funds are created, a purpose is established, and so the purpose was initially for just flood fighting purposes, and it was modified by the Impact Foundation to also include other natural disasters, so projects that would be supportive to reduce the impact of both floods and other natural disasters. And in speaking with them and with the idea the mayor had in mind as to whether this might be available for the new engagement center, resource and recovery center on First Avenue North, the question is whether it would fit at all. And certainly in a natural disaster, people can be, need shelter for a temporary period of time. Might be a few nights, it might be for a week or two. But in any event, that need was identified. The Impact Foundation said, you know, if the city commission wants to propose that, that would seem to make some sense. It's really the board at the Impact Foundation that wants to make certain that donative intent has been met. and by that meaning what was the purpose for the funds to be donated initially. So if you were to approve this resolution that I drafted at the mayor's request that basically lays that foundation that it would be used and the request is being made, the impact foundation released the money to the city to be used for that purpose because it will support people in the event of natural disasters providing shelter if you were to prove that resolution in tonight's meeting we would take that to the impact foundation board and they would determine whether they agree with it and then release the funds thereafter for that purpose but this is fun these are donated funds these are donated funds it's not didn't come from city coffers at all it was all donated funds

And the reason this came about in Army, initially the Spirit of Fargo funds were for people, also if they got bought out by FEMA, if they got different arrangements at the time of the Flood Fighting 209, we thought we needed a gap to fill in if people had to go to hotels, if they were displaced, if they had to be housed somewhere. When I started to look at it, it's just like the flood project's about done, so we're not hopefully having any more disasters happen. But it was something that could be eligible to put at the resource center for shelter and for people who need that help. And I think it's appropriate for that use. But I do have one speaker, Olivia Fisher, and then we'll have a discussion. Olivia?

Good afternoon, Olivia, Fargo resident. I wanted to give my two cents on this conversation as well as express gratitude for this proactive effort for the warming center. These services are vital to keep community members safe for the seven to eight months of winter we see here in Fargo, and the amount of community members who have utilized it in the last couple of years is not small. There were over 80 people there per night just months ago. As a proven need and life-saving space, I encourage you all to support these funds going towards keeping the winter warming program going. Considering the various permanent flood prevention efforts that have been made since the Spirit of Fargo Fund was created in 2009, this is a thoughtful and productive way to use up the rest of it. It will still fall in the vein of protecting people from harm caused by natural elements. This is the lowest barrier shelter that we make available to folks during the most brutal time of year, and without it, lives would be lost. If for some reason this resolution gets turned down tonight, I would implore you all to set a date, ideally before October, to make sure the city has secured funding for the winter warming shelter. Enough funding for it to run through the end of April and to open seven nights a week. From the sounds of it, hiring an extra seasonal staff member for the winter warming would help immensely. We have time now to gather enough funding to make that happen. And as Ms. Honey said earlier, it's not always as easy as we expect to raise money in the city. So we need to start now if this doesn't pass tonight. While some may disagree, it should absolutely be the city's responsibility to fund a low barrier shelter when the city is the reason individuals aren't allowed to use tents or tarps to shelter themselves, which may I add is still affecting people in the summertime. It still gets cold out at night, especially with the wind and rainy days we've been seeing. Just this Saturday, a blanket drive was held because we have elders sleeping on the ground with nothing but the clothes on their backs, which is why I encourage you to secure funding before October when temps start to drop fast. The warming center needs to be ready to function before snow hits the ground. People keep saying that we need to let nonprofits provide support for unhoused individuals rather than make it a city issue. But if the city doesn't support the building that the nonprofits have been moved into, they cannot function. While not everyone may have supported this particular building for the Dex relocation, city officials were ultimately the ones who rushed that decision. So we must now do what we can for the space while we have it. Whether that be tonight through this resolution or through scheduled discussions to secure funding elsewhere, I encourage you all to put personal feelings aside to ensure warmth for all Fargo residents.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Chair, I just have a question for Eric. I just swallowed wrong. Excuse me. It'll be short. So this is just for disaster-related projects?

Correct, yep.

And this meets the criteria?

Yes.

Sorry, swallowed wrong.

It'll be the Impact Foundation Board of Trustees that will ultimately sort of make that determination, I think. Thank you. They haven't met yet to discuss this. They wanted to receive our request first.

So, Mr. Chair, last question. So if this goes and it'll go to them, and if they do not approve it, it'll come back to the commission?

Yes. I mean, we'll have to find another purpose for that fund that meets the parameters of the sponsor agreement.

Yeah, we actually talked to them, so we had anticipation that if this goes through the commission, it really is one of the deciding boards.

Yeah, we think that the board will approve it. Mr. Trenberg.

My first concern was, is this legal to have funds donated for one purpose when we had the flood of 2009, which was horrific to live through? And then in 22, then it sounds to me the Dakota Medical Foundation changed where it could be allocated for natural disasters. So if we were to have a tornado like Enderlin did last summer or Northwood, this money would be used to help residents displaced by that, correct?

Correct, yes.

So it's already in place. My concern with this is we keep pumping money into a rental and we don't own the building and that this was supposed to be funded by donors and that doesn't, are they not coming through? Is that what the problem is?

Donors are coming through but we're not quite to the level we want and with the Convention Center discussion, we also have the option to buy. So that goes away now with the Convention Center not being at the Rural Hall if the space could be permanent and the intent would be perhaps to have the state purchase it.

I would perhaps make the motion that we table this for the new commission as The Dakota Medical Foundation will not be meeting until August, is my understanding, to vote on this. And we could have another perspective of commissioners look at that.

Is there a second to the table? I'll second it. Any further discussion? Mr. Kopach.

Well, I mean, the fact that it hasn't yet gone to the impact foundation for consideration makes some sense to table this for that reason. So I would wait until that decision comes back. Yep.

If I can't make the decision until we make motion.

Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood that. Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry.

They're asking for the request to come from the city first before they act so they can act on the city's request. But if you need more time to decide, that's certainly your call.

Frustration with this is you have money that's sitting in an account that is nonprofit that you really don't have a lot of areas you can move it to. If you don't have enough funding come in, the city of Fargo will have to make up the deficits. They're actually putting more burden on the general fund. It was just a suggestion because the money is sitting there and not doing anything at this time. reality is that the commission passes that there would be unusual that the dakota medical foundation would turn it down since we consulted them before we put this forth so i'd speak against the table i think the commission has to make its own decision this is something that we've worked hard on If you haven't seen the results of the Resource Recovery Center, you're blind. Everything downtown is much different. People have gotten comments. The chief's getting comments. We have policemen all over. We have up to 16 policemen around on the weekends. We have much better control of what's going on. It's made a huge impact. If you look in the Resource Center, how many people or clients are in that site, there's 50 to 100 people, and they're off the street. They're not bothering people. They're getting their needs taken care of. We have 35 nonprofits working with us. It's basically giving money to an organization that helps decrease the cost for the city. To me, it's fiscally smart. And I don't quite understand. When we originally set up the period of Fargo funds, it was to exactly this need, disasters, to help people out. That's what it's going for. So to me, it's a no-brainer in some sense and would sense that you would support this. But I'll see what the table comes out. Any other discussion? Roll call vote, please.

Ternberg? Aye. Pepkorn?

Aye.

Kolpak? No. Strand? No. Mahoney?

No. Do I have a motion?

I advance the motion that's recommended.

Is there a second? I'll second. Further discussion? Roll call vote, please.

Strand?

Yes.

Kolpak? Aye. Pepkorn?

No.

Ternberg? No. Mahoney?

Aye. Thank you. Recommendation to conclude the Human Rights Commission. Eric Johnson to explain this. No, I don't think it'd be you. It would be Ian, perhaps, or who would explain, or John Strand bringing this forth?

I'll start, Mayor.

Okay.

You know, back in January, this commission advanced a decision to revisit the status of several commissions, boards and commissions. that we have the Human Rights Commission, Native American Commission, the Arts and Culture Commission, and maybe more. But we ask them all to help shape their future. And I'll start with the basics. We don't have the capacity to do a good job. And I'm what some people call a left-leaning liberal activist, flaming, some would say, liberal activist. But I also, as an activist, don't like to run into walls and deal with unobtainable goals. When you're an activist and you're fighting for human rights and you're speaking for human rights, you need to go into a space where it's received well and it's embraced and it's acknowledged and you breathe life into the wishes of the people. None of these boards and commissions have functioned well lately. We had multiple instances with the Human Rights Commission, the Gaza situation with Israel, the Shane Netterville incident where we had a resident that was shot to death inadvertently or however you say it by a law enforcement officer. We just had countless, the George Floyd moment in time. And It just doesn't get anywhere. It doesn't work. And I've learned over time that if you put some things inside government, it's not likely to work. What I'd rather see is a room full of activists filling this station with their desires, like demanding action, like Olivia does on a regular basis, like Wes does on a regular basis. Rather than beating our heads against the wall and then walking away exasperated and frustrated and mad that it just doesn't work and it doesn't get anywhere and it almost seems token. So yeah, we care about human rights. We can have a human rights commission say, yeah, we elevate up the human rights issue in our community. We could say that. But it's pretty much not much more than what they'd say lipstick on a pig. Sorry. I'm for breathing and empowering the people to have a voice and not setting them in a space where their voice is squashed and stifled and diminished from the beginning, just by the nature of the group you're in and how you're trying to approach it. One of the concerns that's come back about this, and we've visited about this, and I think this is a housekeeping item. Let's wrap up some of the business we needed to wrap up before the new board and new mayor and new commissioners take their seats. But it's a process decision also. Our group has decided to let this decision lie until the new board, new mayor, and commissioners are there. So if you all decide tonight, hey, let's wait a few weeks and let them vet this, fine. I'm okay with it. But I've come to the conclusion it's just not, it's not. If it's not working, don't pretend it's working. And in that light, and knowing that process has been turned upside down and we said we would wait longer, understanding that completely, and I'm okay with it if this commission decides to wait until the new mayor and others are at the table. In light of that, I advance the motion that we continue our path and we wrap up the task we had started with regards to this final commission and conclude its affairs officially.

Is there a second? Second. Further discussion? Mr. Kopach.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There was a very specific request by the Human Rights Commission to make this decision after the new mayor was seated. And it was from that commission in the work, after a number of months where they were also given an extension, that they came to us with that request and we supported it. And so I will not be supporting this motion.

Part of the difficulty is one of the human rights commissioner who was the chair was running for mayor, so it made it somewhat political. John, I'm under the understanding that they can work with the state association and form a local chapter in Fargo, and activists could have a standing committee in the city of Fargo and could get many things done they would like to get done. I think you're right. Oftentimes they're inhibited by open meeting laws, by different confluent things that were hard for them to meet, They oftentimes wanted to meet, have discussions, but they're subject to all the open meeting laws, and I think it inhibited good conversation about activists, what they need to do. So I will be supporting this motion as well. Roll call vote, please.

Strand?

Yes.

Turnberg? Yes. Kolpak? No. Pepcorn? No. Mahoney?

Aye. You have my recommendation for appointments to the following boards and commissions, Special Assessment Commission, Library Board, Liquor Control Board, and Planning Commission. Do I have a motion? I so move. Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion? Roll call vote, please.

Pepkorn? Aye. Sternberg? Aye. Polpak? Aye. Strand?

Yes.

Mahoney?

Aye. I do want to thank all the people who run our boards and commissions. They do a tremendous job and take it very seriously. You do have, Pepkorn, this is for you because you always had this pulled out, so I might as well let you get to do the first one. Do I have a motion for applications for property tax improvements made to buildings? I so move. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Pepkorn just always loved to have this out there, so we're giving exemptions to people for remodel, but if you really look at it, it's a great thing to help all people in their houses, so we'll call vote.

Pepkorn? Aye. Kolpak? Aye. Strand?

Yes.

Turnburg? Aye. Mahoney?

Aye. Okay, we'll start this. This is kind of interesting because we'll see if he has anything to say. Commissioner Pepkorn, do you have any liaison assignment discussion?

No updates, but I will say it's been an honor to serve. I've learned a lot, and it's been a great experience. That's it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Taylor.

There's been so much going on in the last few months that I think my head is still spinning, but I just want to thank the four of you from the bottom of my heart for guiding me through the past four years and your service, the many years that you've served, Mayor and Commissioners, and my BFF, Commissioner Strand, over there. You get to stay with me for another two. So looking forward to it, and thank you all for your service.

Thank you. Mr. Kolpak.

A couple things. First is I attended the North Dakota Safety Council where I served as board chair last week in Bismarck. We had a really good meeting and good conversation. The city of Fargo is a member of that group and so it's been an honor to serve them as well. And it's been an honor to serve all of you. And I knew I was going to be emotional about my liaison assignment because of the relationships that I've had with my portfolio departments and all of you sitting there. I knew that was going to get me. I'm really okay. I'm really okay. I promise you, but it's just, thank you for, I mean this, you know this, Team Fargo. Thank you for what you do. You sincerely serve, and you do it for the right reasons, and I know that firsthand. And so I want the citizens to know how much you do for them and how much you've taught me. So thank you. And I want to thank all the fellow commissioners as well. I did not want to get emotional. Thank you to all of you. Thank you.

Commissioner Stan, I'll just remind you we have two awards to give out here to two of my commissioners, so don't get too carried away before we're able to give them the award.

I thought you were going to remind me, keep it to two hours. First, initially, you know, I'm the birthday guy, and I've reined in my birthdays rather than embarrassing everybody all the time with the birthdays on my list, but it's really important, like Commissioner Kolpak's birthday was yesterday. Happy birthday to you, Commissioner Kolpak. And Mayor Mahoney's birthday is coming up the 28th. So we won't be in a meeting to wish you a happy birthday, but these are, I think, really important little things in life to pay attention to each other and note what's going on with each other without belaboring it too much. One note, we have three folks here. I knew this would be emotional, but we have 40 years of service ending tonight. Commissioner Pepcorn, 16 years. That's just unparalleled. Mayor Mahoney and Commissioner Mahoney, 20 years. There aren't examples like this much in cities like Fargo. People getting elected multiple times. Commissioner Kolpak, four years. That's 40 years of service that we can thank them for. and appreciate what their contributions to all of us have been and will be into the future. The legacies of what they've contributed is just beyond measure and it's not fun and easy being up here and being at the dais and being a public elected official, it's just not easy. But I'm not going to belabor that. I do have something I would like to say, though, before we conclude our meeting. And that is that we have a special video on our eye. And I know there's things coming down front afterwards, but we have a video commemorating Mayor Mahoney's 20 years of service as commissioner and mayor. So if we could call forth this video to show our gratitude and kind of remind us of his service.

And our goal is to achieve metro-wide permanent flood protection.

One of the first times that Mayor Mahoney and I connected after I became mayor is he invited me out for supper so that we could start to get to know each other. And we went to Beer and Fish in Fargo. He is the one who introduced me to oysters. And so anytime I go anywhere that has oysters on the menu, I feel like I need to order some just in his honor and his tributes. You know, from there we just started to develop a really good working relationship together. He's been very respectful and helpful. You know, we haven't always had the same opinions on things, but we've always been a team that have worked together for our shared communities.

I think back 21 years ago when he was running for his first political office, I had the pleasure of hosting, I think, what was his first debate as a candidate. And I remember the good doctor at the time, no other titles, just Dr. Mahoney, came into the candidate forum, a big binder full of papers and notes, and he sat down, was ready for anything that came at him. You could tell he was prepared, ready for any sort of questions. He had a questionnaire filled out. And I think everybody left that room maybe even they didn't even know who he was before they knew he's a guy who prepares for everything that you know every eventuality and he had an answer for everything and had done his research but beyond that it was like his willingness to learn on things he wasn't an expert in he's obviously very smart he's a doctor but to get into housing and economic development all these other issues you could tell he was willing to dive in and do the homework and do the work needed and to me that just left the impression and what stands today is that not much has changed He's always the most prepared guy at every meeting. You know he's done his research. He's talked to people ahead of time. He doesn't ask questions that he didn't already ask somebody else and knows the answer to. So he comes into meetings, and I think it just sets a great example. It set an example for me then. And I think for the last 20 years, he's shown up at the city commission ready to work and prepared.

Well, I've got to think back almost to what I call the beginning. We had the very unfortunate passing of former Mayor Dennis Wallacher. And at the time that that occurred, Mayor Mahoney was deputy mayor at that time, so he became interim mayor.

Had to wait for a special election to run for the mayor's office.

And about that same time, the only city administrator the city had ever known, Pat Zavrall, announced he was retiring. At the time, I was assistant city administrator, so got named interim city administrator. And then so Mayor Mahoney had to run for election in a special election, get elected mayor. I had to fill out an application and apply and interview for the city administrator's job. So we kind of started new at the same time. And what I kind of loved about that. We both had to learn a little bit along the way and we collaborated a lot and I really appreciated that in Mayor Mahoney on decisions that had to be made. We kind of walked in tandem with each other and I think it worked very well. I just Really appreciated working with and alongside Mayor Mahoney. I consider him a mentor in my career in a big way. And so the way that he was open to collaborating with me, we got a lot of great things accomplished that I think the mayor really should be proud of.

If you've ever witnessed the three of us together, Mayor Carlson, Mayor Mahoney and I, it sometimes seems like Mayor Carlson gets put in the middle and we banter back and forth, Tim and I do. We're both very competitive about our city, but we do have a friendship. Our politics are different and that's probably what makes us most effective. There's been so many incidents where he's giving me a bad time or I'm giving him a bad time. It's really out of mutual respect that we know that we can work together despite we're different individuals and we're elected leaders of different cities. One of the things that Mayor Mahoney continues to give me a bad time about, he knows I'm a cigar smoker. And I bought him a lot more expensive cigars than he's never bought me one. So Tim, This is waiting for you upon your retirement or your new role that you have in the government. This is a very good stick or cigar and we'll share that someday on a patio somewhere.

Mayor Mahoney, I just want to thank you for the decades of service to the Fargo-Moorhead community and I wish you the absolute best in your next chapter of fun, whatever that is going to be.

Tim, I just want to say thank you on behalf of me, my family, and our future generations for everything you've done for this region, both for the immediate future and for generations to come. Beginning to watch you lead and become a commissioner and now mayor and then lead into your retirement, having left Fargo in a better place and the region in a better place has really been fun to watch and it's fun to get to play a small piece of all those projects that you've been able to push forward.

Yeah, and I would just like to offer a personal thank you to Mayor Mahoney. Very important part of my career and he has done service for not just the city of Fargo, for this region. I met a couple of regional projects in flood protection and drought protection. And so he's leaving not just Fargo, but this region in a better place. than when he found it.

Mayor Mahoney, thank you for your dedicated service to our region. We're grateful. And by the way, Tim, when you're buying cigars, real men only smoke 60 ring cigars.

U.S. Senator John Hoeven here, and I just wanted to take a moment to express my deep appreciation to Mayor Mahoney for his long-time service not only to the city of Fargo, but truly the entire metro region. Looking back on all of the different efforts we've worked on together, one memory that really stands out is when we both got to push the button for the implosion of the Lashkowitz Tower. The redevelopment of that site has been a great benefit to downtown Fargo. This project not only created affordable housing, but it resulted in a higher standard of living for residents and added to the beauty of Fargo's riverfront. It was an incredible, unique experience to be part of the demolition and to join with a huge crowd of local residents as we mark this milestone in Fargo's growth and development. Tim, you've been a tremendous partner over the years, particularly as we've worked to provide permanent flood protection for the region. We are nearly to the finish line, and what a capstone to your career as mayor. This project will provide security to this area's residents for generations to come. That's a real legacy that you can be proud of. You will be missed, but I join with the entire Fargo community in wishing you the very best in whatever life may bring next. God bless.

Appreciate it. You guys surprised me on that one, but I just realized when I had hair, it was always messy. It's kind of nice to have that time.

Mayor, we need you out front and everybody else to present you a plaque. Yes.

We do have two speakers.

Speaker hasn't spoken for a while.

Wes Philomay is going to go up first. Back from his travels.

West fellow may he him his pronouns. I'd like to start by saying long live George Floyd and on you a magic. It's been quite some time since I've spoken at City Hall, but as the closing of a chapter is upon us tonight seems fitting. Mayor, our relationship has been the furthest thing from perfect. We've butted heads publicly, privately, and even right here within these walls. Despite those battles, we were able to come together on multiple occasions to make this community a better place for all. Thank you for striving each day to be better as a leader, and I am certain your impact will continue to be felt within our city for generations to come. to our deputy mayor, Denise Kolpak. We too have not always seen eye to eye, but our stories have been intertwined in ways that only God could. From the time Dave first interviewed me to the time our worlds would collide on the steps of City Hall, to our recent sit down during the mayoral election, I just want you to know that I have a new found respect for you and I truly hope that you continue to be a leading voice that helps our city shape moving forward. When God closes the path, it's most likely because he's created a better one for you. I wish you nothing but the best. The truth is, I always feared this day, feared the change and the unknown of a city commission that would be foreign to me, a leadership group that would undo the progress that so many have worked tirelessly to create over the last six years. Although nothing is certain, I am cautiously optimistic for the future of our city with Mayor-elect Josh Boucher leading the way. We've arrived at a time where inclusion is frowned upon and exclusion is encouraged. We are at a crossroads in this experiment that is the United States of America. Now more than ever do we need leaders who are not only willing but capable of making a difference. May the future of our city continue to be one that strives every day to make sure our residents feel welcome. I look forward to being a part of those efforts. Thank you.

Austin Slatmull.

My name is Austin Slutmo for the record. Good evening, mayor and city commissioners. I'm here tonight to put on public record a severe failure of public safety and constitutional policing in our city. Recently, I was blocked in a parking lot, swarmed by multiple individuals, threatened with carjacking, and explicitly threatened with death. When the Fargo Police Department responded, officers completely failed to protect me, ignored these credible criminal acts, and left me exposed to violence. Worse yet, the department completely failed to process the theft of my vehicle. The Fargo Police Department sat on my case for five months, pushing into six months, leaving it buried in a desk lock with absolutely zero action. Yet the moment the information was finally transferred, law enforcement from an entirely different county tracked down and recovered my stolen truck within just 10 hours of receiving the report. This blatant incompetence proves that the ball was completely dropped right here in Fargo. Because of this systematic failure, I have officially escalated this matter to the federal level. I have successfully submitted a civil rights lawsuit underneath 42 USC section 1983 to the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. This federal lawsuit names the city of Fargo through the mayor and four individual police officers in both their official and personal capacities. A federal judge is currently processing the summonses. I am seeking $300,000 in damages against each defendant totaling in one point five million dollars uh... for a blatant violation of my constitutional rights uh... furthermore since initiating this legal action the retaliation has escalated to life-threatening or to a life-threatening level the same individuals have targeted my household resulting in the direct uh... malicious eviction of my friend christa uh... most alarmingly I was just targeted while driving in active traffic. A complete stranger intercepted me and forced me to pull over explicitly, warned me to drop this lawsuit. This individual stated that underground networks are involved and threatened that they will make me go missing. I am standing here tonight to notify this commission and the public that the insurance lawyers have the case in effect.

Thank you, Austin. We have a two-minute and 30-second rule, so thank you. And we're aware you've already filed everything you wanted to file, so thank you. Thank you, everybody. Have a good night. We're adjourned.