City Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We just returned from Executive Sessions. We had already called the meeting to order. So we will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance, and I invite you to join us. I pledge 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. Thank you. Tonight we have a representative from Vision Zero here who will be presenting challenge coins to the Fargo Police Department's Traffic Safety Team. So I'll allow you to come to the podium to speak.

Good evening my name is Leah Kelm and I am a Regional Outreach Coordinator for Vision Zero. So I serve the southeast region of our state. Those of you that aren't familiar with Vision Zero, it is North Dakota's mission to try to bring down our motor vehicle fatalities and serious injuries across our entire state. And part of that mission includes recognizing people across our state that are promoting traffic safety and helping prevent tragedies on our roadways every single day. So today I will be presenting the officers of Fargo Police Department's Traffic Safety Team with the Vision Zero Commemorative Coin Award for their high visibility back-to-school enforcement detail that took place last year, which improved roadway safety by addressing traffic violations within school zones to help protect students, families, and staff during peak travel hours. The first person to be recognized is Officer Dean Jordheim. Officer Patrick Thomas. Officer Joshua Marlow, who is also the state's Drug Recognition Officer of the Year on behalf of Vision Zero. Officer Trey Schmidt. Officer Jeffrey Ward. An officer Maurice slack. Thank you to all of these officers for the impact that they make on our roadways and in our community and the dedication that they have for traffic and for, like I mentioned, preventing those tragedies and all of the awful things that could happen on our roadways. But with their enforcement, it is greatly appreciated.

Again, thank you to our traffic safety team and all our officers. We continue to hear about the concerns about traffic safety throughout the community, so you're playing an important role in making sure we address that, especially as we continue to grow throughout the community. So keep up the good work. With that, we have the agenda in front of us. Is there a motion to approve the order of the agenda? I so move.

Second.

There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. Motion carries. We have our minutes from the July 20th, 2026 regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve the minutes?

I so move.

Thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion? Discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Thank you very much. The motion carries. We have in front of us the consent agenda, items one through 31. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Commissioner Peterson.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull item number 21B and 21G for discussion, sir.

Great. Is there a motion to approve the consent agendas, items 1 through 20, and then 21C, D, E, F, H, I, J, and 22 through 31? Mr. Peterson. So moved, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.

If I might, wouldn't it be more appropriate just to advance these to the next agenda meeting because we don't have notice to give people a chance to respond?

We have a motion. Is there a second then we can go to discussion?

Go to second first. Sorry. Thanks.

I don't know. Is that a second? No. That was not a second. Yep. Is there a second? Commissioner Willickson?

I'll go to second for purposes of discussion.

Thank you. Discussion? Commissioner Strand?

Well, I applaud people going into a consent agenda, but generally speaking, if we can give our staff and administration an opportunity to be prepared to have the discussion you're hoping to have, that would be my preference.

Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Mayor, thank you. Commissioner Strand, thank you. These are two topics that I've gone back and forth repeatedly since last week on these items, but I have no problem delaying both of them. One is just actually the G is not even an action item. It's just thoughts on the item to pull it. So without objection, I'd have no problem continuing it to the next meeting.

Then, Mayor, I move that those two items just simply be put on the next agenda if possible.

Okay. So to begin with, we have a current motion which would exclude advancing those two currently. If we want to come back to a second motion to hold those two after, but we'd have to act on the first motion. So the first motion is to approve the consent agenda absent 21B and G. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Or is that a roll call? It's a roll call. Roll call, please.

Peterson?

Yes.

Gullickson? Yes. Strand?

Yes.

Chernberg?

Yes. O'Shea? Yes. Members, we have in front of us consent agenda items 21B and 21G. Commissioner Peterson?

Per Commissioner Strand, I'd be happy to table these until next meeting and make a motion to do so. Thank you. Is there a second?

Second. Any discussion? Discussion? Hearing none, we'll go on to roll call vote to advance items 21B and G to the next regular meeting.

Peterson?

Yes.

Strand?

Yes.

Sternberg? Yes. Gullickson? Yes. O'Shea?

Yes. All right. Thank you. We have our item number 32 next on the agenda, our public hearing for an application filed by Valley Process Technologies, LLC, for exemption from property and or income tax for a project to be located at 342 42nd Street South, which the applicant will use in research and development and production of value-added ague and food processing biotech products. We have Mr. Swanskowski from the assessor's office to visit with us.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners. So yes, this is just our business incentive exemption that we offer to applicants, and this is to exempt just the improvement value on the property for those five years. And the incentive committee has reviewed this to see if it meets our current policy, which it does, and has a recommended approval. At this time, I'll turn it over to Ryan Osheim from the Greater Fargo-Moorhead Economic Development Corporation to introduce the project details.

Thanks, Michael. Mayor Boucher, members of the commission, Ryan Osheim with the Greater Fargo-Moorhead Economic Development Corporation. Here to introduce Mike Thummel, who's the applicant with Company Valley Process Technologies. The reason we're here is we represent and support primary sector business growth and expansion. in the market, and so because of the value added processing that Valley Process Technologies does, that qualifies them for that primary sector status. This company and this project represents a big investment in the market and also is an economically diversifying project. As was kind of alluded to with the introduction, their technology touches value-added ag processing, biologic technology, and renewable energy. They're going to be bringing some level of production of yeast and enzymes and biologics to the value-add ag chain within the marketplace. So this is kind of a new business using a lot of bio-fermenting and specialized equipment. The space that they're looking at has been unoccupied for several years. And part of this project, they're going to be making major investments into that property and the equipment that are going into it. So approximate numbers, about a $15 million investment. That includes, you know, fit-ups and improvements to the building, equipment, working capital, and new positions. In addition to hiring the company will be relocating some senior talent and technical talent to the marketplace I'll bring Mike Thummel up now to tell you a little bit about the company what they actually do and he can hopefully do a better job Explaining it than I did with his more technical savvy mind and then he'll tell you a bit about the project And and we're both available to answer questions Thank you

Mr. Mayor, members of the commission, as Ryan mentioned, my name is Mike Thummel. I'm the co-founder and CEO of Valley Process Technologies. We are a value-added chemical provider specializing in beet sugar processing and bioethanol production. We currently have a facility based in Wahpeton, North Dakota, and we're looking at adding an additional facility to expand our production capabilities. Currently, we offer the non-hazardous CIP chemistries to the bioethanol space and then also to the beet sugar industry. With that, we are looking at a substantial investment, as Ryan mentioned a little bit, total projects about 15 million. What we're looking at as far as individual breakdown is we're looking at somewhere between two and three million dollars worth of construction and as well as up fit for the processing equipment. These are very specialized vessels, bioreactors and specialized equipment from that standpoint as far as lab analytical equipment. uh... the reason this facility looks uh... the building works well for us as it was previously a pharmaceutical uh... packaging and production facility so many of the up fit things with far as building out lab space having on-site refrigeration and freezer space and then backup generation would actually uh... have actually reduced that overall project to about fifteen million dollars uh... from there will be adding uh... As the application says, we're looking at about $2.5 million worth of actual capital for equipment that we're putting in itself. And then outside of that, the rest of that is going to be used for relocating talent, working capital, and things like that, inventory, procurement with this project. With many of the products that were being produced, we're actually integrating that into the local supply chain. So many of the raw materials and feedstocks actually come from the beet sugar facilities. So we'll actually be buying products from the beet sugar facilities that are used as co-products and actually using them to produce a new product in the future that those facilities could actually use themselves. WITH THAT, WE'RE LOOKING AT OVER A FIVE-YEAR SPAN ADDING BETWEEN 70 AND 80 EMPLOYEES. AND THEN LOOKING AT A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE OF THAT BEING ACCESSIBLE POSITIONS THAT DON'T REQUIRE A FOUR-YEAR DEGREE. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT LAB TECHNICIANS, PRODUCTION OPERATORS AND PROCESS LOGISTICS AND CUSTOMER SERVICE EMPLOYEES WITH THOSE AS WELL. So I'll open it up to questions.

Thank you, Mr. Thumbel. Any questions, Commission? Commissioner Turnberg, then Commissioner Peterson.

Thank you for being here. Can you tell me, would you be going through with this project without the tax incentive?

Without this tax incentive, we're actually using this as part of a total funding package. So this is one of the many pieces that's being involved in the total capital stack for this project. We're also looking at some other North Dakota development fund applications as well as lift and some other financing options as well. So it's actually being viewed as part of our total incentive here to try to help bring these jobs to the Fargo area and to North Dakota.

Commissioner Peterson?

Mr. Mayor, thank you. Can you touch on the regional impact of this? I think you introduced a little bit here, but what's going to happen down in Wahpeton as well?

Sure. So we'll actually be maintaining our facility in Wahpeton. That facility is served by rail. The one in Fargo is not. So many of the products that we bring in, some raw materials and chemicals that we do use for the processing will come in and rail. So we'll continue to maintain and actually potentially expand that facility location in Wahpeton. But that we won't be looking at reducing the head count. We'll actually be looking at expanding that with additional logistics operators in Wahpeton.

Thank you. Any further questions? Commissioner Peterson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. For our friends at the EDC, you and I sat down last week for a bit, a good couple hours, and walked through this project as well. Can you remind me what the current valuation of this building is relative to what it was five years ago? I think that's an important touch point.

Yeah, the numbers I have.

Ryan? And then also, touch on, he alluded to it, but until you and I spoke, I had no context relative to, you said it's a pharmaceutical industry before. what you and I spoke, and I can maybe tell the story too, but it's better coming from you, I think. If someone else was to buy this building, what happens to the building?

Yes, I'll start with the first question. First, and this is obviously on the county and city tax sites. In 2023, the value of the building was $4,126,900. In 2025, the assessed value was $3,841,000, so nearly a $300,000 decrease in assessed value in that two-year time period. The second question, you know, it is a specialized building. You've got an operator that obviously invested in that building some 30 years ago to be designed for pharmaceutical packaging, required FDA approval, required refrigeration, some lab space, specialized HVAC, clean room. operator exited the marketplace, you've got a building that now has all this specialized capability and equipment and fixed assets within it. And so if kind of the general marketplace, if someone was looking for an industrial or office building and that square footage met their needs and they were really interested, they would have to essentially do a lot of demo and there's a lot of capital that will have to be expended to get rid of those components that they don't need, the specialized refrigeration and lab space, because there's just not a lot of companies out in the marketplace that are looking for that.

Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Mr. Splanskowski, anything to add?

Not at this time.

All right. With that, thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you.

With that, is there anyone present who wishes to address the City Commission regarding this application? Anyone present who wishes to speak? Seeing and hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. Commission, is there a motion to be made?

I move approval.

Commissioner Strand, thank you.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Gullixson. So the motion before us is to approve the, let's make sure we have this right here. the exemption for property and our income tax for this project located at 342 42nd Street South. Any discussion? Commissioner Peterson. Mr. Mayor, thank you.

Excuse me. I think we have a unique fit with our incentive program and building and user plus I wanted to touch on the regional impact. I kind of have some angst with our friends in Richland County for a number of reasons. They're good friends of mine. Most of them, if not all of them, are very good friends, some fraternity brothers even. So they should be thankful for the city of Fargo supplementing their economic industry. I think that what we've got is a building who is essentially based on not the proposed data but our own assessor's data, buildings and free fall and valuation. Further, if another user comes in, that's why I wanted the EDC to mention this, if we have another user come in the interior, the guts of the building are worthless, meaning it's not worth 3.8, it's worth 3.8 less the demo. That sets your new valuation. And I think that's a reasonable thing because the specialized use of this building is worthless to I'm going to look at my ADC, to 99% of users, if not more. I'm seeing a nod. Yes. It's just wonderful for certain people, and for most of us it's not. So I think this is an excellent value in terms of preservation. I think the near term, the only thing that does scare me, obviously you're showing a million dollar loss. I guess I haven't checked your, we showed a loss first year, but after that we show exponential return over time, plus good jobs, not $12 an hour, not $15 an hour. And Just as importantly, it doesn't take a four-year degree or a master's degree to work there. So we've got good jobs, near-term victory, valuation preservation, and an investment of $15 million, probably more by the time you get done with all your FF&E. This is a good project. This is what these projects are for, preservation of taxes, creation of jobs, and regional impacts. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Sram?

Thank you, and the reason I'm supporting this pilot, I'm glad the request isn't more than five years. I kind of have this limit in my mind of five years as far as I'll generally often go, but 22 new jobs is why I'm supporting this. That's what private sector income growth is about, is 22 new good paying jobs. We had one a few months back where there was one new job. you know in the end but that's what this is for is to create new good quality professional jobs and it looks to me like they would deliver this. However, my question again is do we and are we assuring everybody that we will have a look back annually And we'll have a confirmation on a regular annual basis that they delivered what they said they would do. And if there isn't a delivery of the promise that was made, that we address that at that point in time as a shortcoming.

Yes, we are actually just about to send out our survey of the same thing that we did last year where we asked all of the businesses that have incentives to tell us how they're doing. So that's going to be sent out here I think in the next couple of weeks and we will be reporting back on that when we get all of the information back. We also have a signed business incentive agreement with this company already So, yeah, we will be doing that. As far as the callback question, that's still going through legal right now. So I can't answer it.

Commissioner Strand, then Peterson, then Turnbull.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll clarify. I don't want us to be asking for the reports. We require it.

We are sending it out. I don't know. Basically, the requirement at this point is if you don't respond to us, then we're going to be coming back and asking. And then if we don't, you still don't do it, then we're going to say, we're going to bring it to you guys on the commission and say, these are the ones that we didn't get back. What do you want to do?

And Commissioner, if I'll add, that'll be some of the conversations happening this fall with the Economic Development Incentive Committee, is looking at some of these ongoing conversations. But as we look at the overall incentive packages, what needs to be fine-tuned, what needs to be fixed, but also what accountability measures can we enact. And it's not just an ask, then, it's a requirement, because I think there's some interest in that. Mr. Peterson, then Turnberg.

Mr. Mayor, thank you. Ditto what you said. In addition, Commissioner Strand, to that point, we actually are compiling data right now, doing look-backs, not in a formal sense, but in an informational sense, data-gathering sense, with our friends at EDC, our friends in planning, and I think even the Chamber is getting involved in this, too, a little bit. finding out what those data points are and we can measure our victories and our losses in terms of exactly what Mayor Beauchesne just said is, seeing if we've made the right decisions over the past couple decades, we'll have real numbers from real projects, real victories, and if we have real losses, we'll be able to look at those too. So that data gathering is in process. Commissioner Turnberg.

Well, I think it's absolutely wonderful that they found this building because it seems to be the perfect fit with their needs and what is available. From what I hear, it sounds like other state funds may be available to help pay for this project, but I don't think it should be at the expense of taxpayers. As I continually hear from my constituents that they are fed up with businesses getting tax breaks while residential fees and assessments and taxes continue to go up. So while I believe this is a great project, and I think a wonderful addition to the city, I will vote no for the tax break.

Any further discussion? Commissioner Gullixson.

I'd just like to chime in a little bit to what Commissioner Turnburg is saying. If they are meeting all of the requirements that we have set forth in those policies, we don't really have a good reason not to approve it. So if our question is about the policy, maybe we need to look at the policy if that's the question.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll go on to a roll call vote.

Strand?

Yes.

Gullickson? Yes. Kernberg?

No.

Peterson?

Yes. O'Shea? Yes. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, Mr. Spolanskowski. For everyone's knowledge, the next four agenda items are a newer agenda item for the commission specifically due to a statutory change that has been made. One previous commission meeting included this, but there's a 10-day notification requirement of a liquor violation. And so typically, that would have happened in the past in front of the Liquor Control Board, who then would advance a recommendation of the commission in which we would then act on that. Since that 10-day window falls within our meeting and that'll continue to evolve, we'll likely see some of these going forward. So that is why the change here, and Ms. Baird, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll turn it over to you for item number 33, liquor compliance violation at Front Street Taproom.

Mayor, I'm actually going to steal that away from her and take it from here for a little bit. Good evening, Commissioner and Mayor. My name is William Wisher. I'm part of the legal team here at the City of Fargo. I'm here on behalf of the Auditor's Department. With me is Angie Baer. As you've addressed, Mayor, we've got some new laws that changed how the liquor compliance process went. In the past, it would go to the Liquor Control Board. Then it would come to the Commission. Because of new laws, we now have to go straight to the Commission. This is the second time, as you said, that we've had this process. Today we've got four businesses that we're going to be going through. I just want to give a quick summary of how that will look. First, I'll introduce the licensee and the legal steps that we took to get to this point. After that, Officer Lehman, who was involved in the compliance checks, will give a little summary of what led to the violations. After that, the You'll come back to me. I'll give a little summary of whether this is a first or second offense and any mitigating factors need to be considered and ultimately what the auditors department is recommending for a penalty to be assessed I'll then turn it back over to the Commission to allow a chance for the licensee if they are here to speak and whether any members of the public desire to speak as well and After that, I can give a summary of what the motion is recommended to be. So with that, the first business, as you've addressed, Mayor, is Front Street Taproom. This is a business located in the city of Fargo, which has a city of Fargo liquor license. An affidavit summarizing the violation was provided to the city attorney as required by law. Notice of the violation and this hearing was sent via registered mail from the auditor's department within the required timelines. With that, I'd like to have Officer Lehman give a summary of the violation.

Good evening. My name is Shelby Lehman. I'm a Fargo police officer. I'm over 18 years of age and I'm competent to make this declaration affidavit. In conjunction with Fargo Cast Public Health, alcohol compliance checks were held on July 21st, 2026. As a part of compliance checks, a person or persons under the age of 21, while under supervision of the Fargo Police, enters a liquor establishment and requests alcohol. At approximately 1800 hours, I and persons under 21, they will be referred to as SS and BD, Went to Front Street Tap Room located at 614 Main Avenue. Front Street Tap Room has a license with the city of Fargo to sell alcohol and is subject to compliance checks. April Austin was the bartender. April correctly identified SS as under 21 years of age and did not serve her an alcoholic drink. BD ordered an alcoholic drink, a Michelob Ultra beer. April served an alcoholic drink to BD. April was issued a citation for the offense.

Thank you, Officer Lehman. This is a first offense in the probationary period. It's important on whether it's a first or second offense because by ordinance it is assigned a certain penalty, essentially a matrix. First offense is generally a $500 fine. A second offense is a $750 fine. But because the server was server trained at the time, That means we can use that as a mitigating factor. We're actually required to by state law. So what we've done previously is when the server has been server trained and it was a first offense, the Otters Department has recommended a $250 fine. We are recommending a $250 fine in this case. With that, I'll turn it back over to the commission to allow the licensee, if they're here, or members of the public to speak.

Thank you, Mr. Wisher. Is there a representative from Front Street Taproom present who'd like to address the commission? Not seeing any. Commission? Do you need the mic back, Mr. Wisher, before we discuss?

Thank you. Well, it's up to you if you'd like me to recite what the proposed motion should be.

All right.

I'll let you do that So there'll be essentially three things I will be asking for one find that front street a business in the city of Fargo Which has a city of Fargo license served an individual alcohol who was under the age of 21 to to impose a penalty of $250 and three direct the city attorney's office to draft findings in an order consistent with the Commission's determination

Commission with that we'd be if someone is willing to make a motion a second we can discuss but essentially the motion is what did a violation happen and then the recommended remedy is provided by Mr. Wisher. Commissioner Peterson. So moved Mr. Mayor.

Second.

Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Discussion? Seeing none or hearing none we'll go to a roll call vote.

Peterson?

Yes.

Turnburg?

Yes.

Strand?

Yes.

Gullickson? Yes. O'Shea?

Yes. That will move on to, or motion carries. We'll go on to item number 34, liquor compliance violation at Pound's.

Thank you, Mayor and Commissioner. Once again, my name is William Wisher, and with me is Angie Beer. We're here on behalf of the Auditor's Department. This matter also involves a liquor compliance violation. This second matter involves Pounds, which is located in the City of Fargo and also has a City of Fargo liquor license. NAFDA that summarizes the violation was provided to the city attorney as required by state law and notice of the violation was also sent via registered mail to the licensee within the required timelines. I now turn this over to Officer Shelby Lehman of the Fargo Police to give a factual basis.

On July 21st, 2026, at approximately 1830 hours, I and persons under 21, SS and BD, went to Pound's, located at 6 Broadway. Pound's has a license with the City of Fargo to sell alcohol and is subject to compliance checks. Adele Kennison was the bartender. BD and SS both ordered alcoholic drinks, Kona Big Wave Beer and Coors Light Beer. Adele served both alcoholic drinks to BD and SS. Adele was issued a citation for the offense.

Thank you, Officer Lehman. This, too, is a first offense. In this case, the server was server trained. The auditor's department recommendation is a $250 fine. I now turn this back over to the commission to allow members of the public and the licensee to speak.

Thank you. Is there a representative from Pounds present who would like to address the commission? Anyone to present to the commission? Hearing none, Mr. Wisher, what's the desired motion?

Thank you, Mayor. The desired motion is as follows. Find that Pounds, a business in the city of Fargo, which has a city of Fargo liquor license, served an individual alcohol who was under the age of 21 to impose a $250 penalty. And last, to direct the city attorney's office to draft findings in an order consistent with the commission's determination.

Commissioner Gullickson?

So moved.

Is there a second? Second. Commissioner Peterson, thank you. Any discussion? Discussion? Hearing none, we'll go on to a roll call vote.

Gullickson? Yes. Peterson?

Yes.

Strand?

Yes.

Trumbark? Yes. O'Shea?

Yes. Thank you. Number 35, liquor compliance violation at Noble Smokehouse.

Thank you, Mayor. William Wisher and Angie Bear here on behalf of the Otters Department. This is another liquor compliance violation. This one involves No Bull, a business in the City of Fargo which has a City of Fargo liquor license. An affidavit summarizing the violation was provided to Mr. McLean, City Attorney, as required by state law. Notice of the violation and this hearing was sent via registered mail to the licensee within the required timelines. I now turn this over to Officer Shelby Lehman of the Fargo Police to give a factual basis.

On July 21st, 2026, at approximately 1845 hours, I and persons under 21, SS and BD went to Noble Smokehouse located at 609 Northern Pacific Avenue North. Noble has a license with the City of Fargo to sell alcohol and is subject to compliance checks. Isabella Bersera was the bartender. BD ordered an alcoholic drink, Coors Light beer, Isabella correctly identified SS as being under 21 and did not serve her an alcoholic drink. Isabella served BD an alcoholic drink. Isabella was issued a citation for the offense.

Thank you, Officer Lehman. This, too, is a first offense within the probationary period. The server was server trained. The City of Fargo Auditor's Department recommends a $250 fine. I turn this back over to the Commission for the licensee and any members of the public.

Is there a representative from Noble Smokehouse present who'd like to address the city commission? Anyone present to speak to the commission? Seeing none, Mr. Wisher, I recommend a motion.

Yes, the recommended motion is as follows. Find that Noble, a business in the city of Fargo with a city of Fargo liquor license, served an individual alcohol who was under the age of 21. Two, impose a penalty of $250. And three, direct the city attorney's office to draft findings and an order consistent with this determination.

Is there a motion, commission?

I so move.

Thank you. Is there a second? Mr. Mayor? There's a motion and a second for the recommended recommendation. Any discussion? Discussion? Hearing none, we'll go to a roll call vote.

Turnberg? Yes. Peterson?

Yes.

Gullickson? Yes. O'Shea?

Yes.

Strand?

Yes. Item number 36, liquor compliance violation at Worst Beer Hall.

Thank you, Mayor. Last but not least, this involves Worst Beer Hall, located in the city of Fargo and has a city of Fargo license. An affidavit summarizing the violation was provided to Mr. Ian McLean, city attorney, as required by state law. Notice of the violation and this hearing was sent via registered mail to the licensee within the required timelines. And I'll turn this over to Officer Shelby Lehman for a factual basis.

On July 21, 2026, at approximately 19.30 hours, I, in persons under 21, SS, and BD went to Worst Beer Hall, located at 630 First Avenue North. Worst Beer Hall has a license with the city of Fargo to sell alcohol and is subject to compliance checks. Avery Malone was the bartender and manager on duty. BD ordered an alcoholic drink, a Coors Light beer. Avery correctly identified SS as being under 21 and did not serve for an alcoholic drink. Avery served BD an alcoholic drink. Avery was issued a citation for the offense.

Thank you, Officer Lehman. This is a first offense. The only difference here is the server was not server trained. So the City of Fargo Auditor's Department is recommending to impose the $500 penalty to this licensee. With that, I turn it back over to the commission.

Thank you, Mr. Wisher. Is there any, is there a representative from Worst Beer Hall present who would like to address the city commission? Anyone to speak to the commission on this matter? Seeing none, Mr. Wisher, the recommended motion.

Find Wurst Beer Hall, a business in the city of Fargo, which has a city of Fargo liquor license, served an individual under the age of 21 alcohol, impose a $500 administrative penalty, and direct the city attorney's office to draft findings and an order consistent with this determination.

Commissioner Trenberg? I so move. Thank you. Commissioner Gluckson?

Second.

Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Discussion? Discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to roll call vote, please.

Chernberg? Yes. Gullickson? Yes. Strand?

Yes.

Peterson?

Yes.

O'Shea?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Wisher, Ms. Baird, and Officer Lehman. Commissioner Strand?

Maybe before Ms. Baird leaves, I have a question for her as our auditor. You almost...

I almost got there. I'm just kidding.

If I recall, I thought that we had revisited this topic of serving minors and serving people without proper IDs. I thought we had a new requirement that those folks begin immediately. One of the other requirements is incorporating scanners, ID scanners. What's the status of that? Where are we at with that now?

So the health department does offer a few. They do have a few scanners. We don't require it. The Liquor Control Board has not required it. businesses to have scanners. We do recommend scanners for businesses, but we have not discussed it. Since Steve has left, we have not discussed that.

And if I might continue, my recollection is we had discussed it, and if there were violations, that was one of the options they were facing. So anyway, if the Liquor Control Board could pick this topic up again. Sure. One more question.

Yes.

In each of these reports, you might not always know who the owners of the business are. You might know their name, but I'm not comfortable seeing the server's names identified in the documents. If there'd be a way to not have to list their name, because that's forever out there, that they were violating a law and breaking the law. If we could find a way to not have to identify the individuals who were serving, I'm not sure we can, but that'd be my preference.

We can do that for future violations.

Thank you.

Commissioner Turburn. I just wanted to add, Commissioner Strand, I believe you're thinking of the nicotine ban because that has been discussed at length with the scanners or perhaps with the Liquor Control Board, but of that I'm not aware.

Might I continue, Mayor? You may. That is happening on that front also, but when like clubs, District 64 had their license, false IDs, issues surfacing, that was a front and center conversation for us with scanners and use of scanners and requirements for scanners. And my general sense is if they had a violation, that was a requirement going forward. And my sense also was we'd want them all to use scanners if we could proactively get to that point.

Commissioner Shannon, I think you're thinking of the fake IDs that people use to enter the bars, that there are requirements to have scanners on those, depending on violations, but not so much once you enter the bar to order a drink. I think that's the difference.

And with the compliance fees, some of them, the servers aren't even asking for an ID, so then they fail for that as well. They're not actually even asking and looking at it. They're just not asking. Or they look at it and still serve, so.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Appreciate it. All right, with that, we will move on to item number 37, a resolution regarding special election matters for the change of form of government. Mr. McLean.

SO SOME BACKGROUND ON THE PETITION FOR THE CHANGING GOVERNMENT THAT WE RECEIVED. SO ON JUNE 8, 2026, A PETITION PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE CITY'S FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM A COMMISSION SYSTEM TO A COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT WAS FILED WITH THE CITY AUDITOR. THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT IS STATE LAW THEN PROVIDES THAT THE CITY AUDITOR HAS 30 DAYS TO REVIEW THE SIGNATURES TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A REQUISITE NUMBER OF QUALIFIED ELECTORS THAT HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION. That's one quarter of the people that would have voted in the last mayor race. So that's 4,159 signatures that were required. And the city auditor determined that 4,491 valid signatures existed. So there was more than were required in order for the petition to move forward. State law 40.04.10 mandates that a special election be held within 60 to 90 days from the date of the certificate of sufficiency. That's July 8th. 60 to 90 days is September 6th to October 6th. What's important to remember is prior to the last legislative session, the city of Fargo had great home rule powers when it came to elections. There were two bills. One sort of stripped away the ability to have approval voting and rank chase voting. There was another one that was much more broad that basically stripped away all home rule powers when it comes to elections. So that's why we must follow state law when it comes to this petition. And just for future reference, September 6th to October 6th, you're going to see that our recommended date is October 6th. I'm going to talk about the inability to get any help from the county or state. It would not matter whether we chose September 6th or October 6th. The answer would be the same. uh... to some background on commission for scouts i tried to keep this completely factual uh... currently there's obviously five city commissioners all of you are elected at large including the mayor in each one of you house one votes there's five votes each one of you has equal vote the petition would change the form of government to a council form of government In that form of government, the city is divided into six wards with one council member elected from each ward. So there's six council persons. Then the mayor would be elected at large, making it seven total. But the mayor does not vote unless there is a tie. The mayor does have a veto power. That veto power can be overcome by two-thirds of the city council. So if there's a six-person city council, you need a 4-2 vote to overcome a veto of the mayor. So that's the background of commission versus council. I DID PROVIDE A RESOLUTION THAT IS INSIDE THE PACKET IN A COVER LETTER THAT GOES INTO MUCH MORE GREAT DEPTH, BUT WE ARE REQUESTING THAT OCTOBER 6TH BE THE DATE THAT IS SET FOR THE CITY FOR THE SPECIAL ELECTION. IT IS A TUESDAY. ELECTIONS ARE TYPICALLY ON TUESDAY. One of the reasons is state law requires the city of Fargo to have absentee voting, even on a special election. And absentee ballots must be available 40 days prior to the election. So that puts us in a tight spot of August 27th, even if we choose October 6th. So as soon as we get done with the approval of the ballot language tonight, we will turn around and start getting these ballots printed so they're ready to go on August 27th. So provide time for absentee voting, the hiring training of poll workers. We did have a special election in 2023 that the city ran. We had, I think, 85 or so workers. So there's a lot of people that are required. And to prepare for the election, the resolution seeks the election date of October 6, 2026, which is also the last possible date we could have. It is not possible to coincide this with the general election in November due to the state law. I've also confirmed that with the Secretary of State's General Counsel and the Attorney General. So this is the last possible date that we could have. The ballot language, again, state law provides the ballot question must be in substantially the same form as prescribed by statute. I made one small recommended change there, as you'll see. Shall the city of Fargo change from its organization under the commission system of government and become a city under a ward-based council form of government? The words I added were ward-based. And the reason being that most of the discussion about this election has been and probably will be whether you're in favor of wards or you're against wards. So we want the voters to understand when they go to the ballot box, wanting to vote either for a ward or against, that they actually know what they're voting for. So a yes vote would mean you're in favor of a council form of government and wards. A no vote would mean you're not. So that's the recommended ballot language. Polling places and times the resolution provides authority to the city auditor designate one or more polling places so far the Fargo Dome Civic Center and Tom at Lutheran Church are available we've also The crystal ballroom, which I believe that the Delta is also available a polling hour should be 7 a.m. To 7 p.m. What I would say is since I have put this on the agenda on Thursday we have received NEWS FROM THE STATE AND FROM THE COUNTY THAT THERE WILL BE LITTLE TO NO ASSISTANCE THAT CAN BE PROVIDED BY BOTH OF THOSE ENTITIES, WHICH MAKES HAVING FOUR POLLING STATIONS PROBABLY NOT REALISTIC. SO WE'RE WOKE WITH THE CITY AUDITOR WHETHER ONE LARGE POLLING STATION SUCH AS AT THE DELTA WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE OR IF IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE MORE OF A FARGO CIVIC CENTER AND THE ROSE CREEK AREA FOR NORTH, MIDDLE, SOUTH. THOSE ARE THINGS WE'LL HAVE TO WORK THROUGH WITH THE CITY AUDITOR. The administration of the election, as I just sort of stated, the state's electronic voting equipment is not going to be available for the October 6th special election. While Cass County typically administers our elections pursuant to a contract, it does not mandate that they do it for special elections. They have told us with how close this is in time to the general election, whether it was September 6th or October 6th, they're not able to help us. We are meeting with them to sort of go over their best practices. I don't want to make it seem like they're not helpful at all. It's just that they can't help with the administration. ADMINISTERING THE ELECTION. THEY DID GIVE US A LIST OF THEIR POLL WORKERS, THOUGH, FROM THE JUNE ELECTION, WHICH WILL BE HELPFUL, I THINK, IN FINDING HELP. AS A RESULT, THE CITY IS PREPARING TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION USING PAPER BALLOTS AND OTHER LAWFUL ELECTION PROCEDURES WHILE REMAINING FLEXIBLE SHALL ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT BECOME AVAILABLE, BUT I THINK AT THIS TIME WE DON'T THINK THAT WILL HAPPEN. SO THE SUGGESTED MOTION IS I MOVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION REGARDING THE PETITION TO CHANGE THE CITY'S FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THE RESOLUTION HAS ALL THE INF HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER TURNBERG.

IAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE COST OF ALL OF THIS RESEARCH AND THE BALLOTS AND THE WORKERS AND THE PLACES WILL COST THE CITY?

I THINK IT'S BETWEEN 30 AND 50,000. THE 2023 ELECTION, I THINK WE LOOKED AT THE FARGO DOME, THEY REIMBURSED THE CITY AND THE NUMBER WAS RIGHT AROUND $50,000. THANK YOU.

Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Mayor, thank you. Did that include staff time? I understand that was hard costs. That includes staff time also?

No, it would not include staff time.

Okay, so it was just hard costs. Yep, thank you.

Other questions? Mr. Strand.

I'm not sure if this works or not, but I know at least one of the sponsors is in the audience. If ever, I wouldn't mind hearing from them if they wanted to share a few words.

Any other questions? Okay. We do have someone from the public signed up to speak. Mr. Brad Schaffer. Apologies if I said that wrong. Welcome to this podium over here.

Just in general with the election, I think Ms. Turnburg talked about the June election, moving that to November. You got an election here that, I don't know, we had less than 30%. show up to elect three of you guys and uh i just it don't make a lot of sense to have one by itself i don't have any people gonna have you have you know a couple thousand people show up to vote on something pretty important like this it makes absolutely no sense um and i don't know you guys can talk about this in the future but if we can move any june election to november i don't know it's frustrating you got 70% of Fargo is staying home and not voting. But in November, you may have 50. So that's my only concern with this. I don't know who's drawing the lines on who's what where. That's a whole other deal. You can gerrymander this stuff in the future if you want to, but I think it's a stupid idea. So thank you.

Thank you.

In terms of switching elections to November, if we wanted to move the city election from June to November, that would take a change of state law. 40-2102 currently provides that the biannual election is on the second Tuesday in June of even years, so that requires state law change.

Thank you for that clarification. Commissioner Turnberg.

Also, just to clarify, so we would vote whether or not to go to a ward-based system, but we would have no idea where the wards would be with the election. That will be decided after?

Yeah, so if at the special election, if the vote to change the form of government is changed to a council form of government, then the city commission would appoint an independent body to come up with six wards. Ultimately, it would come back to the city commission to approve that ward map. They'd have to be compact, continuous, and about the same population as well.

Mr. Peterson. Mr. Mayor, thank you. This is no different than what they do legislatively. We do it at the county every 10 years, too. So you'll twist and turn, contort. And the interesting part about will be the politics of what those districts look like when you're done, because there will be politics in this, and that's what a lot of people don't want to talk about. I wish it wasn't the case, but that may be the reality. So yes, gerrymandering is the correct word. Thank you, Mayor.

Any other questions? Is there a motion? Commissioner Peterson, and then Commissioner Strand. Sorry, excuse me. Commissioner Strand.

I move if, unless it's already been moved, I'll move. I'll second.

Thank you, there's a motion and a second. Any discussion, Commissioner? Commissioner Strand?

Would it be appropriate to hear from one of the sponsors at the podium tonight?

I will look to those of you that have, is that precedented? Yeah, we had to sign up for the public hearing part of. Any other discussion? Commissioner Strand?

I want to thank these leaders in our community from all sides of the aisle for advancing this topic, which has been rumbling around for probably years. And I don't know where the public will go or not with whether they want wards or want more commissioners or not. But I want to thank our leaders. We have two former city commissioners and a former governor candidate on the steering committee. You know, and one thought that occurs to me also is there was a moment in time where they approached our commission here and asked for permission for our legal team to help work with them proactively to make sure that there weren't surprises or bugs in their approach, and that topic didn't happen. We did not offer this group of citizens our legal team. But my sense is I haven't heard much from a legal standpoint that there are huge obstacles in that that can't be overcome. But bottom line, thank you. Thank you very, very much for giving the people a chance to speak and for the people to say or not, this is the type of government we do or don't want in the future. And they'll have a lot to learn about our governance model, commission versus council, weak mayor versus strong mayor, six commissioners versus four commissioners. This will be fun. And in the end, I'm sincerely optimistic that we all serve the people. And if the people want wards and want districts and they figure that's to their benefit, that's what we'll do. So thanks to the citizens who brought this forward.

Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Mayor, thank you. The only thing I'll say is I find it fascinating from a group that wants to promote civic engagement, wants to promote the number of us sitting up here, actively chooses to have a special election knowing full well voter turnout could have been substantively higher but one month later. It would have been very interesting if they would have waited a month, done it in November. I think it was intentional that they did not. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Commissioner Strand.

That calls for a legal interpretation. Are they even able to, if they wanted to, incorporate this into the November general?

So yeah, I mean it's 60 to 90 days from when you give the petition. I would imagine the reason they gave the petition prior to the mayor election is going to be more votes at this mayor election because there wasn't an incumbent. And the ballot, I think the signatures would have had to be over 5,000 if I remember right. So I'm sure that was the, I don't know if it was purposed to get a special election, I'm sure it was to have less signatures required because there would probably be more required after this last mayor election, which there would have been.

And if I may, Mr. McClain, can you clarify, I believe there was a deadline to turn in the signatures by, based on when they started the process, was there not?

Yeah, there would have been that too, which I think was a year. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Strand?

I had the impression, I might be wet behind the ears, I had the impression it had to be its own standalone election by statute.

Yeah, and I think what Commissioner Peterson is saying, we could have done a special election that coincided with the general election, so it still would have been a special election for the city of Fargo.

So there. Any further discussion? Only thing I'll add is, Commissioner Peterson, the only thing I'll add is that, you know, I know the conversation, Mr. McLean, and as you work with the auditor's office about locations, I think we need to have as many locations as we can feasibly make happen, especially if we can try to make sure at least getting different parts of the city touched as people, to get as many people to participate as possible. So with that, we'll go to a roll call vote.

Strand?

Yes.

Peterson?

Yes.

Sternberg? Yes. Gullickson? Yes. Boshe?

Yes. Thank you, Commission. With that, we'll move on to item number 38, which is recommendation to approve the 2027 preliminary budget and set the public hearing date for Monday, September 14th, 2026 at 5.05 p.m. Mr. Redlinger.

Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners. Good evening, and thank you for the time this evening to receive just a brief PowerPoint presentation from staff. We really want to thank you for all of your investment of time in July. On July 20th, 21st, and 22nd, we had our three days of our budget workshops. Then we followed that up with our Finance Committee meeting just last Monday on July 27th. And so we just really appreciate all of the time that you invested in that process. We're really doing two things tonight. We are approving the preliminary budget for 2027. And we're also establishing a public hearing date of September 14th for the public to offer comments and input on the 2027 budget process. I would just note that the work will continue after this evening. This is just the preliminary budget adoption and really the work that continues after this is Answering additional questions that the commissioners may have. And as you can see in the schedule of events laid out before you, you will continue to have a few weeks before we get to our final adoption. And then we have the state required deadline that we submit our budget by. So I'll turn it over to Susan. We just have, again, a few slides tonight. We'll be on standby here to answer any questions you have at the end. And we'll just be asking for a recommended motion to approve the preliminary 27 budget and establish the hearing. Thank you.

Good evening commissioners The full preliminary budget information was included with all the materials that we distributed at the workshop and at last Monday's meeting Both of which are included on the city's website for those of you that would like to look through them Following approval of this preliminary budget the finance department will put together a book like we've done in the past that will also be posted to the city's website in the next week or so and But for our agenda today, as Michael mentioned, I pulled together about a dozen slides addressing what I've gleaned from prior budget presentations in our July meeting as kind of the most relevant budget considerations. So I'll go through those with you. I wanted to start with the proposed 2027 general fund budget and a comparison to 2026. This represents a balanced budget. I also included the little fidget ball at the bottom as a reminder that if you have a request for less revenue or more expense, we're going to need to work with an accommodating adjustment in order to maintain a balanced budget. This represents revenues of 147.5 million, which is an increase of just under 5% from 26. Expenses of 145.8 million, which is an increase of 3.64. And then the new item that we included this year is an intentional budgeted underspend of 1.7 million. That represents 25% of the incremental revenue in order for us to maintain our fund balance ratio. So to get into some of the specifics, I wanted to talk a little bit about property tax. So from our budget workshop discussion, the value of a mill is listed at the top, $913,804. And then that long calculation that we did, the property tax cap calculation, the adjusted levy plus 3% is $52.8 million. I wanted to make sure that we're all clear that this proposal does include deducting two mills or using two of our mills for the airport per their request. So that yields a general fund $51 million and then we take that at 95% because most people pay before February. Then I did a little bit of the math. As I said, we reclass some of these to state revenue and then we add in a few other line items. to generate the 48.3 million that you see as sales tax revenue on that line item. The city of Fargo also levies 1.05 mils that is not subject to the property tax cap. That's for the city parcel share of special assessments. So the total 2026 mils for the 2027 budget is 58.88. Last year it was 57.36. So it's an increase of 1.52 mils. And if my math is right, the median price of a home is $367,000. So one and a half mils equals about $25. The next key item is human capital. kind of three components there. This particular sheet is the detail. We also have one that just has a roll-up, but the considerations that have been included in this preliminary budget is cost of living adjustment of 3%. We're estimating health insurance increase at 8.5, though we won't know that for sure until the end of August or the beginning of September. And then we have some full-time position and a few reclassification requested as a proposed to be approved as listed. We also have, I wanted to make a note that there are some market adjustments that were not included in the preliminary budget. So this is just on that same information, but more on a rolled up level. You can see that proposed the new positions and the reclasses for the general fund total 1.2 million, and the enterprise fund is just under a million. Enterprise fund, just to remind you, most of those are the transit drivers, and those will be paid back BY MOREHEAD FOR MOREHEAD'S NEW PILOT ON DEMAND PROJECT PROGRAM. SO THAT WILL NOT BE BORN BY FARGO. Two slides on capital. I'm not gonna expect you to see this, but I just wanted you to know the volume of capital requests This lists the requests and the proposed approvals we have Requests of about 24 million and approvals that we're proposing at 16 This is rolled up summary of that it explains where they're what the funding source is proposed to be and I put this one on here because I often get questions about this. So economic development, that has been whittled down to just over $47 million, primarily youth works, which is a program through social services and the police for at-risk youth. And then the social services is... LISTED TOTAL OF $440,000, AND THAT IS NOT CHANGED FROM LAST YEAR. THAT'S WHAT WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE OPPOSING TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD. I WANTED TO DO A SLIDE QUICKLY ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY SALES TAX. WE HAD AN ARTICLE IN THE PAPER ABOUT THAT THAT I THINK PRETTY THOROUGHLY EXPLAINED IT, BUT JUST AS AN OVERVIEW, FOR 2027 WE ARE EXPECTING SALES TAX IF WE CONTINUE WITH THE 2% GROWTH OF $8.8 MILLION. THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE SPENT nearly $1 million, $969,000 set aside for a fire facility, 6.1 to the general fund, which covers those programs that we started, including the pay plan, implications of prior year new personnel, ongoing operations, the new technology, basically the Axon cameras that we have the new 10-year commitment, and then two new police officers, as we talked about in the article. And then the last item is $1.5 million for capital. That's primarily towards leasing and purchasing of replacement vehicles. THIS SLIDE I JUST WANTED TO PUT ON HERE AS WELL. IT WAS KIND OF A HOT TOPIC IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS. THIS IS THE SNAPSHOT OF THE METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION'S COST ALLOCATION MODEL. THE CITY OF FARGO'S NET COST IS 4.2 MILLION. THAT IS A TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THAT FUND. THIS IS SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN 2026 TRANSFER. AND THEN THE LAST ITEM I WANTED TO PUT ON HERE IS THE The proposed utility rate increases as were discussed at both the workshop and the finance committee meeting. These represent street lights, storm sewer, forestry water, water rec and the new line item for the Red River Valley water supply project. I fully expect that there will be ongoing conversation regarding these preliminary rates. And so in front of you is the requested motion. Again, as Michael said, this is really the first step in the budget process. We need to approve a preliminary budget, but primarily what the county is looking for is to approve the budget hearing date and time.

Thank you. Any questions from the commission? Fortunately, we've all been down this road a couple times the last couple weeks, so we're feeling probably pretty informed, but I know we are hearing from the public, too. Commissioner Strand?

Thank you, Mayor. As I read this, you're talking four new police officers? Correct. And the chief was requesting eight or nine?

Eight and a community service specialist.

To get up to what he perceived a minimum standard. I think that topic needs some more work. And, and, and I'm not, and I'm just, we, we've got mo, we've got some time now to fine tune our budget. What we'd be doing, I believe, I understand it today, setting a ceiling at the mill levee, and then re, revisiting subtitles, subtopics. And I believe, I'm not sure where things will go, but the utility increase is a really important conversation for us to dive deeply into as, as well. So, number of officers and the utility rate increase of 14 some dollars per year, which is the beginning of a new stream. I'm not opposed to these, I'm just saying I want more work on them. I'd like to see more police officers.

Correct.

But that's just me.

I agree. What I indicated, though, is if we do that, we need to start looking at where we're going to make cuts elsewhere. So I think we as a budget team are looking for guidance from you as well on where you think that needs to be.

Commissioner Turnberg.

Well, because this stage is just a part of the budget process and required that we hit this deadline, I will move to go forward with the budget process and approve. However, I wanted to share what our budget looks like. And I have, since we got this, this takes a little bit longer than the time we had in our budget workshop to go through. And I have gone through every department and have identified several items I think should be discussed and cuts that can be made. And I will not go forward with a budget without public safety being priority one in getting our police officers. And I'm also already getting thank you notes from entities for grants that we will be handing out in 2027, which I think is exceedingly too soon. So I would move to approve the budget with the agreement that we will have a brown bag meeting to propose and discuss additional cuts and changes to the budget.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Thank you. Any discussion?

Commissioner Peterson? Mr. Mayor, thank you. Commissioner Turnbig, exactly. I think this is a technical execution of a motion. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not satisfied with where we are right now either. And I think we will all do a great job. I would encourage us, as I do, look through your book. make cuts i think the ball can be squished i think we can still accomplish our mission and minimize the effects on our neighbors regarding our utility rates know full well that it's not going to be any easier over time but i think we can slow walk into the pain rather than driving headlong at 100 miles an hour into a brick wall thank you mayor thank you any other discussion commissioner strand as our new mayor

How do you feel about the budget where we're at now and the processes going forward?

I appreciate it. I was going to speak to that anyways. Well, I think first and foremost, a recognition that this commission has been seated now, what, 33 days? So we're inheriting a process that, as we saw the timeline, has been in the works since early spring. And so with the interest that we all have had in digging in into the different areas, the staff have done a great job of getting us here, but it's now basically our budget. Right? And so we'll have that opportunity to continue having those discussions. And to the point about the part of your motion, Commissioner Turnberg, about a Brown Bank, we actually already have, I think, next week or the 17th, there's already a Finance Committee meeting scheduled. So we'll be able to use that opportunity.

I would propose that we have one in addition to, just because I do not think that will be enough time. Even with our budget workshops, it was almost only enough time to absorb the information and not give feedback and ideas.

Sure. Yep. I agree. I think the more time we spend on this, while it might be challenging for staff at times, it's important for us to feel comfortable with it. My biggest concern, and as I shared it with staff this morning, as we talked about the utility rates, is the ask of a significant increase to our neighbors. I recognize that some of us can absorb that, but many can't. And so trying to figure out a longer term plan to get, as Commissioner Peterson talked about, a slow walk to get to where we need, where we can also prioritize these capital investments we've been making to regionalize things like water, wastewater, our solid waste program, and of course the Red River Water Supply Project. So I'm glad to hear that everyone's interested in rolling up their sleeves and working with our team to get to where we can. So with that, any other discussion? Hearing none, we'll move to a vote.

Turnburg? Yes. Gullickson? Yes. Strand?

Yes.

Peterson? Yes. O'Shea?

Yes. Thank you, Commission. Oh, excuse me. I apologize. Mr. David Graff had signed up to speak. Is David here? He took action before that. David Graff. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Hopefully he'll reach out to us individually then. All right. Item number 39, the Ground Transportation Center Relocation Status Update. Mr. Redlinger.

Well, thank you, Mayor and Commissioners. I wanted to provide a brief slide deck tonight just to provide a status update on the Ground Transportation Center as well as Municipal Court. Thank you for your time last week in the Finance Committee meeting to discuss both facilities as well as the underground parking. that sits underneath this location. So I just have a few slides tonight, and I'll just tell you a bit about some of our next steps that we've talked about really over the last week. So what you have in front of you is just an image of the ground transportation center. This is the facility that we're talking about. This is a picture from a few years ago at the time that we were getting ready to propose other improvements to this particular facility. Last week at your Finance Committee meeting, you heard from Casey McNames from KLJ Engineers. She provided a report on 2025 deck repairs and just the status of all improvements that have been made to date. We also looked at an aerial image of the site that included the GTC Municipal Court as well as the surface parking lot that's located immediately to the south of the facilities. We also discussed and Casey identified new tendons that have since failed since our previous improvement projects in 2020-2021 at the GTC and with that parking structure that sits underneath both facilities. The conclusion that we reached last week in our finance committee meeting is really that the GTC needs to be relocated and that we should be quite cautious about further rehabilitation projects and that they should not be considered just really out of fear that they may not address the long-term issues that are both known and unknown within the facility. But I thought it would be important as well tonight just to give the Commission and public some background on some of the improvements that we have made to date. I won't spend a lot of time on this, but I did have an opportunity this past weekend to look at some of our previous remarks that we made to the Commission back in January of 2019. I was before the Commission talking about the MetroCOG met bus transit facility study and then later in that summer it was actually just about six years ago we were seven years ago we were in front of the commission talking about some of the recommended actions for and improvements both above grade within the transit facility as well as below grade in the parking authority facility We identified a number of needs, and then by November of 2019, we were really talking about the importance of a unified, comprehensive plan for improvements that we thought at that time were going to really address a lot of our issues permanently and handle our needs permanently. This is a cover page from KLJ's report, Wade Klein. And Casey also helped out on this report back in 2019 we also at that time looked at relocation alternatives. And then finally looked at the renovations that we thought again we're going to address immediate safety, security and operational needs, this is a direct page from that report. What we really were trying to focus on at that point was giving us a longer duration stay within the GTC but, obviously, as we have since discovered here in 2026. There are additional issues that are happening at the facility that were simply unknown back in 2019, but we have since discovered really warrant our attention and really require us to think about our future at this location. So flashing forward to today, as we talked about last week at the Finance Committee, based on the technical reports and analysis by both KLJ and Kimley Horne, both structural engineers have provided reports that suggest that further rehabilitation options really do not exist for the GTC. And there's really no certainty that any kind of future project that we would commission now would resolve known and unknown issues. So what we now will be doing is looking at relocation both facilities that we believe is necessary in the next two to three weeks. So what we're talking about for the GTC and I'll talk about municipal court right after this is that in the short term we utilize the former police department headquarters at 222 4th Street North. This is a city-owned asset. We have full site control of this asset at present. We also have some very direct experience operating from the street, 4th Street and 3rd Avenue North here as we just discussed back in 2020 when we last improved the GTC. We operated out of the former Fargo-Cass Public Health building, and so our drivers and our operators know and understand what it takes to operate there. But really, this is going to be a temporary location because, as we've talked about pretty extensively over the last several months, this will be the future convention center-related improvements. In particular, this will be the site of a hotel redevelopment on this site. Our timeline for proposed relocation is that we would like to conclude current operations at the GTC on Saturday, August 15th, and then we would mobilize over the weekend and get ready to start operations on Monday, August 17th. I validated this information with the transit staff this morning. And I will really be relying on them as well as our facilities management team, information services, our contract security staff, as well as the police department and our finance and administration to be able to really pull this off. We have a lot of work ahead of us for customer communication as well as outreach to make sure that our public knows, our patrons know, where we're going to be relocated temporarily. I want to shift gears, talk briefly about Municipal Court. This is also a facility that's co-located right next door to the GTC. This is a somewhat old photo of the interior of that building if you haven't been in there. This is a much improved facility and it's one that we've actually done a great job operating from for the last several years. But much like the GTC, we know that there are some structural concerns to stay in place. And so what we're proposing here, much like the GTC, is that we propose a temporary relocation. In this case, moving over to the Civic Center site right next door, utilizing the Sky Commons and former commission chambers. as a courtroom and then also utilizing the former commission and perhaps HR offices within the Civic Center for the staff offices that support municipal court. Again, much like the facilities that we've also talked about, for transit, we have full city ownership and site control at this time for this particular facility. But we also know that the court is going to need, at least in the interim basis, a downtown or near downtown location that has technology, has the equipment necessary, the furnishings necessary to support their daily operations. But again, like the other facility, this is going to be one that will be temporary because the future convention center will demolish this portion of the Civic Center as you recall from earlier conversations. I also wanted to note that we did look at proposed alternatives for the relocation of Municipal Court, talked to Cass County in the last 10 days. I've also talked to West Fargo about their former City Hall and their former Commission Chambers where they currently utilize that for their West Fargo Municipal Court. And then we also entertained, albeit briefly, utilization or at least approaching the federal court system and going to the US District Court to see if they would have any options for us but really in the interest of time we deemed that the Civic Center was really the only viable short-term location if we are to relocate on a temporary basis, and now we need to coordinate pretty directly with Judge Dawson and his staff on a timeline that we would hope could be accomplished yet this month. We'd like to cease operations at the current municipal court location on August 28th, and then we'd like to get set up and start operations over in the new location on August 31st. And then again, we're going to need that coordination with facilities, the city attorney's office, information services, finance, administration, and municipal court. Obviously, communications plan is also going to be very critical here as well. The municipal court, as we've learned, has a very large downtown operation. It has anywhere between 50 and 60 customers through that door when they are active in session for a full day session. So we'll need to really work closely with the judge and the court staff on this temporary relocation. We're also going to be looking at a permanent facility for the GTC and municipal court. We have engaged a commercial realtor, someone that we have under agreement, to continue to help us look at additional sites. I would just note, based on a preliminary analysis, we know that some of those sites that were available even two months ago may now Have purchase agreements and or lease agreements for their use I think that's a direct reflection of a lot of the enthusiasm of the convention center coming downtown So we know that any feasibility analysis is really going to have to be focused on trying to find viable Practical alternatives to locate these facilities permanently but we also are going to do for municipal court as well just a feasibility analysis of is there any opportunity to shore the existing facility and By shoring, we mean using some measures to try to get in that parking facility underneath it to try to give it structural strength to be able to stay there. I'll be working with our engineering team from KLJ and Casey directly on that particular question to see what it may take for a future budget or project expertise to try to get that done, if it's at all possible. If not, we will be needing to look at a permanent relocation of municipal court as well as the GTC. We are going to be tracking all of our expenses on a project code basis, so I think that that would be really helpful as we think about the future and we think about any kind of repayment streams, as has been noted earlier in our conversations last week. If we do need to determine what FTA reimbursements or reinvestments we need to demonstrate, to the Federal Transit and U.S. Highway Group and U.S. DOT just to make sure that we're on the same page with the FTA as we look to the future as well as North Dakota DOT, MNDOT, their coordination for Moorhead as well to make sure that whatever facility we set up either temporarily or permanently is going to meet the needs of the entirety of the system. And then obviously we'll need to come back to the commission to talk about these updates and make sure that the commission is briefed and is very much on board with all the improvements that will need to be discussed in the future. I would just note too that with the GTC we are talking about a unique city of Fargo only facility. We're the only entity that owns that facility whereas when you go to our transit garage or MTG facility that's where we we start to see more joint ownership. That's Fargo and it's Moorhead. In the case of the GTC, this is only a city of Fargo facility. So we really are working within our teams, making sure that we're coordinating with our partners as may be necessary. I just noted here that this will really require a full attention of administration and finance over the next 30 to 90 days to accomplish all these moving pieces and parts. And please know that this will be a top priority for us in the interest of safety and to make sure that we're doing the best we possibly can I deserve not only the taxpayer as well, but our customers that are utilizing both transit as well as the municipal court. So that's all I had for this evening. I just want to give you that status report from last Monday's finance committee meeting to today and just let you know that we're working on this virtually every day and spend some good time over the weekend just thinking about our strategies and priorities as we move forward as well. So happy to answer any questions at present and we'll make sure to keep the commission completely informed as we move forward. Thank you.

Commissioner Turnberg. I have so many questions. What happened to Cass County working with them as part of a relocation for the municipal court?

Yes, thank you, Commissioner Turnberg. That's a great question. So the Cass County Courthouse is a very busy courthouse. They have determined just based on their utilization of their courtrooms that there is not the ability to accommodate our many days out of the week that we would need to operate municipal courts. So simply a space feasibility analysis. West Fargo does have some space and some availability. However, it would remove the operation from the near downtown area where a lot of our customers and our clients are served. And so it was really deemed that the Civic Center would be the most practical and feasible alternative in the short term if we're to just temporarily relocate in that we control that facility and we can get up there and we do have offices available as well to help supplement the operation.

And if GTC was located in the former Cass Public Health and NSP building, why wouldn't they go back? Because if my fear is now we have the deck building, the former deck building, and the Civic Center, which will both be demolished, we're going to be throwing loads of money into both buildings. But we have that other property across the street. Has there been any discussion on that?

Sure. So the police department facility has more of the furnishings, the equipment, and the IT infrastructure at present. The public health building, after it was left in 20, Largely gutted and so it may not have that same opportunity to operate there as quickly as we do in the old police department But we will make sure that whatever we do there that we are not investing You know kind of longer range improvements and cost there because even just even to set up temporarily we just want to go over there with our equipment our desks our computers for example and be able to operate there and then also be be able to be removed as quickly as possible too when we hopefully identify a different site to get to in the next six months to a year so but those are great questions may i ask what is the estimated length of time that we would be in the temporary location and i'm wondering if that will coincide with wanting to break ground for the convention center Yeah, also a great question. So the one thing that we really have to do and part of the reason I mentioned in that previous slide is that we have to be really all hands on deck for the next 30 to 90 days is we are on that schedule and that timeline for the eventual demolition of the former police department headquarters as well as the demolition of the Civic Center. We don't anticipate that that will be happening anytime in early 2027, so we do have several months still on the calendar that we can utilize these facilities, but we do need to be cognizant that in that same period of time that we're temporarily relocating, we really need to be working with our commercial realtor to try to identify a more viable site that could help us set up for maybe that longer term plan and project. So we believe we have months, but we definitely don't have the year and a half or two years just given the timeline with convention. So your point is well taken.

Thank you. Commissioner Peterson.

Mr. Mayor, thank you. I know you answered this question, but I'm going to ask it again. For our transit folks, are we setting ourselves up to fail by accelerating this for a period of two weeks? I know you believe in the team. I just don't want to pressure them to the point where the building's not in an imminent state of implosion, right? So are you able to accomplish everything? And most importantly, maybe equally as importantly, making sure the public at large is informed as to our transition from the existing space to the old space? How comfortable are you?

Yeah, no, thank you. That's a great question also, Commissioner. And so I believe in that two-week turn. We can get accomplished what we need to get accomplished, get our customers notified, get press releases out, get the facilities relocated. This team actually has experience, having done it once before. I have a great confidence in them. I think that they've really identified some early alternatives. They've already toured through the facility. I think they can pull it off. But we will really need to dial it in and really make sure that we're focused on getting that word out so that our public knows exactly where to find us. In some respects, thankfully, we've been down this road before. And so with that operating experience, we know how to do it. Our drivers know how to do it. It's not ideal, but we will make it work because, as we've been told by our structural engineer, we really, really should be moving and get out of that facility that we're in right now.

Okay, Mr. Mayor, if I may. And then regarding the courthouse, CAS is packed. I can validate that. I'd hope more would be accomplished with our federal partners, but I'm hearing that's a no. So... There is a building to the west immediately outside the annex. So half a block, a block away from the courthouse. The old park district buildings. The county owns it. There is no program for that for the foreseeable future. It might be worth it. So it's fully accessible. Parking's available. Mass transit drop off right there. That may be if we're looking for an interim solution because the fiscal situation we're in yields that we're not going to have one, two, three, four, five, or ten million dollars for a courthouse in the coming calendar year. I can't prove that, but my spidey sense says that's the case. Therefore, the county may be a wonderful place to partner with, especially if we're talking about one year to eighteen, some point longer than, bigger than a bread box. And I know they have no purpose for it. And again, fully accessible. It was a public building. And they could have judiciary offices in the upper level and the old park district offices. Court could be held in the lower level. A large open space. Lickety split. And my biggest concern is what Commissioner Turnberg hinted at is we're going to move to the Civic and then possibly pressured to move again after the Civic starts demolition. So... I think it's more logical to find us a permanent home, and I bet the rental rate's pretty well because I know how much we paid for the building. If not, I know a guy. So, Mr. Mayor, thank you.

I would just say thank you, Commissioner. Happy to visit with the administrator at Cass about that opportunity. The reason, I should just note too, and if I haven't already, that the Civic was suggested was simply because it is furnished and we do own it, but absolutely, if we have a low-cost or no-cost situation to to move to a place like that, we're open to considering that. And I'll be working with the attorney's office and Judge Dawson on a discussion. We were not able to connect last Friday or over the weekend with the judge, but I will be doing that this week to talk to him very directly about what it is his needs are and what his staff needs.

Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Redlinger. With that, we'll move on to item number 40. We'll start to my right, so Commissioner Gullixson with liaison commissioner assignments, updates.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

My understanding is that was just an update, not permission, correct?

So, Mayor and Commissioners, they did have a suggested motion. Should you, on that previous slide, if we want to put that back up, should you like to act? And there is just a couple of pieces to that. If we can pull that up, I'll read that to you. It's just simply to authorize staff to proceed with any actions necessary to relocate the GTC and the municipal court on a temporary basis. I've identified the two addresses here that I identified tonight. And then also that we further authorize the expenditure of funds that may be necessary to support any relocations at this time, procure services, equipment, or support that would be necessary. Again, as I mentioned earlier in the slides, we will also do some project tracking to make sure that for that FTA tracking piece that we've got that well understood. But what I can do too, If you're open to a friendly amendment is that we can also add that if you move the suggested motion that we also add and any other facilities within Cass County. I think that'd be a perfectly fine amendment to the motion.

Commissioner Peterson.

Mr. Mayor, that's the motion I would make, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Gullickson. Any discussion? Discussion on the motion? Commissioner Strand.

Thank you. I just would be remiss not to share that we have, with all everybody's been through downtown the last few years, there's folks that would be concerned that we don't lag on this and that we act quickly and we don't create new elements of gatherings of people downtown that they're not right now prepared for. And this will shift our populations and where they're at and who they are. And I'm not trying to talk about those people. I'm just saying it's a new dynamic to downtown with the courthouse population, which is 70, 80 people a day sometimes, and with the bus service folks. We have quite a few folks that will be there that weren't there now. And let's just keep with law enforcement, with everybody, keep an eye on those neighborhoods and make sure we're paying close attention to what traffic is there and what's happening and how they're all interacting with the overall general population.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll do a roll call vote.

Peterson?

Yes.

Gullickson? Yes. Strand?

Yes.

Chernberg? Yes. Beauchesne?

Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Gullickson, and then we'll work our way across.

Thank you, Mayor. I've been working hard to keep up with all kinds of commissions and departments, Historic Preservation Commission, Planning. I've met with them on various topics, engineering as well. I had an opportunity to attend Grand Farm Elevate and TEDx through Emerging Prairie, both fantastic events. also visited and toured the Red River Dispatch Center, and Commissioner Peterson and I met with Chief Lorenz and a few of his captains, I believe, and so just keeping busy.

Okay, two things to report. The transit director vacancy right now after Julie Baumann retired We're well into the interviewing process and have gone through the initial phases. I want to say there were like 21 applicants from across the country, but we're down to two at this point, so we have two finalists that will be vetted further, and our HR department and others will keep us informed on that, but that's unfolding. Secondly, from the public health arena in the public health arena you may all know or not that the governor kelly armstrong has initiated announced a ban on kratom it's a substance like an opioid type natural plant substance that's sold pretty easily and readily and has some potential severe consequences if used inappropriately or if used in an overdosing or whatever anyway it's a serious topic And the ban on Kratom sales use and possession takes effect Wednesday, August 5th at 5 p.m. Governor Armstrong has called for a special legislative session for September 2nd to address that topic. So I'm just sharing that from a public health arena. Commissioner Tremberg.

I am meeting with all of my departments in the coming week to discuss the budget and what we can do to help with it and also getting more involved and meeting more people through my new diversion departments, diversion authority committees. So any updates that I have or newsworthy items will be posted online.

Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Mayor, thank you. Boy, have I been busy learning about water. As I said with this portfolio that my peers selected me to have, this is one of the things I knew the least about, and this has been an absolute blast. I've had tours of multiple sites, water utility, water reclamation, areas that I've driven by for decades. I mean, arguably most of my life in some cases, never even bothered thinking about what activities are taking place there. And as I said in the past with our budget hearings as we were sitting down here, the innovation that's taking place by our team members is substantive and meaningful. Obviously, that's a couple items. Fargo Dome, you may have seen The request from the Fargo Dome and our budget, the reality of it is if they want to do more, it is going to be potentially substantively more. We've got to figure out that in maybe not the near future, but at least have a dialogue about what they envision, along with their partners at NDSU and everyone else around town, figuring out what that is long term. Busy on the diversion again, getting up to speed again where we were there. I actually met with the airport folks, ran out with Mr. Doberstein, knew him well, got a new tour of the new airport and what will be out there. As Commissioner Gullickson said, I met with the fire team. That was a wonderful experience. I think we've got some work to do there out in the legislature with permitting fees and inspections, but we'll talk about those with specificity later. I had a meeting with EDC, Chamber of Commerce internal staff, regarding the EDIC, as the mayor has hinted at before, reinventing our policy going forward, seeing what makes sense and what doesn't. And that Commissioner Strand is where I got that tidbit of information regarding the look back on all our hopefully successful projects and maybe some of them that aren't. But again, data-driven decision-making is the way we should be doing things. No emotion, no politics. It's just these things work, these things don't. We should keep doing the things that work and not do the things that don't. Got an update from Public Works regarding fleet. I got the vehicle list. I think some of you probably know that. I'm sure Commissioner Strang, Commissioner Trevor, you know it exists. But I actually got it very thick on Friday late morning, and I have not spent 30 seconds looking at it. But it is in my truck. I will be going through our vehicles. That's one of my passions. I really enjoy those sorts of things. And inclusive of that, actually, they do... data. So they're now tracking what it's taking to maintain the widgets that we've purchased. So you have that cost benefit analysis being done by our team. It's been done in recent years, but I think we're getting better at it and getting better at every year so we can get to those cost centers. Why does it really cost? to maintain a police department. What does it really cost to maintain fire forestry? You can attach the widget cost plus the maintenance cost. Starting to think things through. And again, data driven decision making. Just this afternoon met with the IS team, learning about the technology. They have not done that in the past is what I was told. So now I'll be doing, whether it's quarterly or I hope monthly meetings with them to figure out what their needs are, what we're doing, what the pickle they have may be of the week. Going forth, I'll be better informed from our team members. So with that, Mayor, thank you much. Oh, one more item. Commissioner Strand, I think this would be the point to maybe talk about this. Consent agenda items. I tend to dig into things. Maybe you've noticed. I enjoy it. Not to say that anyone else doesn't, but I tend to go a little too far. And with that, I want to have much respect to our team members that tolerate somewhat stupid questions. Mr. Borbun, maybe, might be a person to point out. But I do have meaningful commentary. I do have genuine questions, not just to annoy you and make your days longer. But to the mayor, getting our agenda on Thursdays, I try to get my, so I get, in this case, we got them pretty late. I had my responses back on, I think it was middle of the night on Thursday. Maybe it was right away Thursday morning to Mr. Redlinger. And I'm not sure, or Friday, excuse me. I'm not sure that's fair to our team. So what I'm wondering is, Is it possible, sake of discussion, start moving up the submittals to you as mayor so they can get the agenda out sooner? And even if it's one day, if you remember the day we got elected, our meeting consisted of a vacation day, right? It was a holiday. That set our team up to fail if we had any questions. Had we had that one day sooner in the calendar, that would then give them a day. So something to think about, Mr. Mayor, adjusting the timeline of their submittals. That would then give us time, rather than having Mr. Redlinger responding to me Sunday night or Saturday night at 11, which Mr. Redlinger, I'm grateful for you. Thank you for doing that. Public record, you can FOIA if you'd like. But note also that I responded to you within about a minute. So I was also working. But it's that conversation to free up our friends' weekend time. in lieu of my pestering, albeit in good intention, plus then that may get some of my consent agenda items resolved ahead of time, thus not needing me to pull them down. So Mr. Mayor, something to think about. That concludes my report, thank you, sir.

Appreciate it, thank you, commissioners. I had an opportunity last week to go visit with the Public Works Department, get a tour of their facilities, or much more akin to a campus, where everything's set up and met many of the employees. So it was great, shared with the cabinet this morning that, you know, I didn't get out to the departments as much as I would like my first 30 days. So trying to make that a priority in August and early September to get to meet all our great team members and see the different facilities. So look forward to continuing those conversations. Reminder to everyone that our annual police picnic is on August 12th at Broadway Square from 5 to 8 p.m. The public is certainly invited to come enjoy that evening. And I know that many neighborhoods tomorrow evening are hosting National Night Out events. So check with your neighborhood as there may be something organized in your own. front yard versus people's backyards. As many of our Team Fargo knows, Brenda Derig, who is our assistant city administrator, retired quietly last week after 35 plus years of service to the city. And I just wanted to make sure that we recognize her years of service. There was a nice write-up about her in the paper, but I know her legacy to the city. She's touched probably almost everything that's happened in this city in the last 35 plus years. So thank you for her leadership to the city. And with that, I will also just share for the knowledge of the commission and the public that I did submit my resignation to the state Senate effective tomorrow morning with the calling of the special session that it was important to move up my timeline so that that district could get someone appointed to be ready for that special session. And I can continue to focus with you all here in Fargo. With that, we do have someone who registered for a public comment. So I'll invite up Ms. Sherry McMahon, if she still would like to speak. And as a reminder, during our public comment period, the information is posted online. That has been provided to our speakers as well. But generally, we have a two and a half minute time limit. So Ms. McMahon, the floor is yours.

And it's McMahon like Linda McMahon.

Thank you.

Okay, so here's my statement. Yesterday, there was a concert at Broadway Square. I do not speak for the people who organized and performed at the event, although I was there to listen. The original headline for this concert was Songs of Peace, Protest, and Hope. But before the concert could be held... My understanding is that the headline had to be changed to omit the word protest. Broadway Square was created as part of the Block 9 development, which required financial assistance in the form of tax incentives and bond issues. The developers promised us not just commercial development, but a year-round central community plaza designed to draw thousands of people into the heart of downtown Fargo to experience all this community has to offer. Broadway Square was originally managed by the Park District and currently co-managed by the Park District and the Downtown Community Partnership, largely splitting the year into Downtown Community Partnership summer, Park District's winter season, with each party allowed certain days outside of its own season. The management agreement includes a governance committee consisting of block 9 partners the downtown community partnership the city of Fargo and the park district downtown community partnership representing block 9 claims authority to restrict a expression at the plaza and Has confirmed this to me in writing for yesterday's concert it literally brand not a protest but the word protest and Private ownership alone does not necessarily insulate a space from First Amendment scrutiny when there has been and continues to be substantial government involvement with that space. And this is established by precedent. I do believe there is sufficient government involvement with Broadway Square that there is a genuine question whether Block 9 and DCP have absolute control over expression related to Broadway Square. This can also mean potential legal exposure for the city and the Park District, such as if Fargo Police were used... Sorry? Oh, to remove unwanted speech from the square. I urge the commission to seek a legal opinion on this issue. Thank you. And I sent material. I do have hard copies if anybody wants it.

Thank you. We did receive it forwarded on to us this afternoon. We did receive it forwarded to us this afternoon. Thank you. All right. With that, I will accept a motion to adjourn. So moved, sir. Is there a second?

Second.

All right. Any discussions? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. All right, we are adjourned. Thank you and have a great evening.