City Commission - Regular Meeting

Everybody ready? Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Monday, May 4th, West Fargo City Commission meeting. We call the meeting to order. Please join the commission in a pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Madam Secretary, would you please call the role? Commissioner Jorgensson here. Commissioner Zundel here. Commissioner Dardis here. Commissioner Olsen here. Commissioner Anderson

here. Record show all commissioners are present. Next order of business is item D is to approve the order of the agenda. Commissioners, it has been distributed. Move to approve. We have a motion by Commissioner Anderson to to approve. Is there a second? Second. Commissioner Jorgensson seconds. We have a motion and a second to approve the order of the agenda. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carried. Item E is the approval of the minutes of April 20th, 2026. They have been distributed. Move to approve. Commissioner Olsen moves to approve. Is there a second? Second.

Commissioner Zundell seconds. We have a motion and a second to approve the April 20th meetings as presented. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed? Motion carried. Item F is building permits. Again, commissioners, it has been distributed and in front of you. Motion to approve. Have a motion by Commissioner Jorgensson to approve and second by Commissioner Zundal. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I.

Opposed. Motion carried. Next order of business is consent agenda. We are discuss reviewing items A through G. Move to approve. Commissioner Olsson moves to approve the consent agendum. Items A through G. Is there a second? Second. Commissioner Anderson seconds. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. Motion carried. Thank you. We are now in the regular agenda. First order of business in the regular agenda is public comment. I have one individual that has signed up this evening and that is Mr. David Wy. Good evening and welcome.

Good evening. Thank you for your service. I'm going to read it this time so I don't mess up the timing. The project 2290 cost memo in the agenda packet shows costs are 28% higher than in the previous memo and 40% higher than what was estimated for the project. It appears the city didn't know its own costs. For years, we were told the city can do this work less expensively than a private firm. This memo says otherwise. When the city attorney said in court that no other cities in North Dakota do this work, I suggest it is because they know that when there are active private firms doing this work, those firms are less expensive. This cost me supports that. And if nothing else, the city can never compete because the city voluntarily pays the employees 7% portion to their retirement fund, which private companies don't do. There is always a 7% disadvantage for the city. When the city is used for loan overlay projects, it makes the project more expensive and makes taxes higher for residents. If you argue that employees are paid through the capital project sales tax, you forget that when residents were asked to approve the sales tax, they were told that it would never be used for operating expenses. Yet, $2.8 $8 million in operating expenses are being paid that way this year. Besides, the city attorney claimed non-overlay are maintenance, not capital projects. If you claim that employees are available and are paid anyway, then that means either they are available because there isn't any other work for them to do or that they are taken away from other work that they should be doing instead. And now you'll probably do it all over

again on project 2300. Do what is right for taxpayers. This is wrong. Thank you. Thank you. Item number two is public hearings. There are no items on our agenda this evening that require a public hearing. So we move on to item number three. Item number three is A26-2 ARD properties first edition, a request for subdivision and conditional use permit to allow crushing and stockpiling of aggregate materials. We're going to call on Aaron Nelson, director of planning and zoning for this discussion. Good evening, Nelson. Mr. Nelson, and welcome.

Good afternoon, Merardis and commissioners. So, uh, this item is a request for approval of a four lot subdivision as well as a request for conditional use permit to allow, excuse me, concrete crushing, stockpiling, and stockpiling of aggregate materials on lot three, block two of the proposed subdivision. The request comes to you with recommendation of approval from the planning and zoning commission. I'm just trying to scroll down here to the map. Apologies. Thanks, Emily. Um, the subject property is located at 10:01 12th Avenue Northeast, which is on the south side of 12th Avenue on the east side of 9inth Street Northeast and just west of the Fargo Landfill. The proposed subdivision is intended to accommodate future industrial development and the property is currently within the M heavy Industrial Zoning District. Additionally, adjacent property to the southwest and east is also located within the Heavy Industrial District as shown in the purple areas on the zoning map in front of you. The area north of 12th Avenue is currently is within the city of Fargo. As for the plat, the proposed subdivision would plat the subject property into four lots on two blocks and would dedicate public rightway for two new local streets, which would be 10th Street Northeast and 11th Avenue Northeast. So 10th Street is already existing. Uh the plat would essentially deadend that street and add a little culde-sac bulb on the east portion of the plat there. and 11th Avenue or excuse me, uh 12th Street is already existing, I should say. Um the plat would just be adding the little culde-sac ball at the terminus of uh 12th Street there. The new streets would be 11th Avenue and 10th Street in the northwest portion of the the plat here, which would be two little local roads in a backwards L-shape there. Um additional rightway is also provided for a um well the culac wall I mentioned as well as portions of 9inth street and

12th Avenue. Um just some widening basically of the ride ofway where it's pretty narrow in some spots that have not been previously platted along 12th Street and an additional little corner where the um roundabout is currently located at 9th Street and 12th Avenue. Uh the applicant intends to request public infrastructure upon approval of the requested entitlements and so a subdivision improvement agreement accompanies this plat uh and outlines the city and the property owners uh respective responsibilities regarding public improvements. A copy of that agreement is included in your meeting packet. Additionally, a public dedication agreement also accompanies this plat. Uh the park district has no need for any land within this area and so the applicant has provided the fee uh the cash fee equivalent um in le of the land education. In addition to the subdivision application, the applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to allow concrete crushing and aggregate stockpiling on lot 3 block two, which would be the southeast portion of the plat here. Um this image in front of you is the uh site plan of the crushing operations um with some of the u crushing operations labeled there on the site plan. I know it's a little small on the screen here. Um according to the applicant, crushing operations would be relatively infrequent and would follow all required permitting and operating requirements such as air quality permitting through the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality. Uh to date, staff has received several comments regarding the proposed application for uh uh aggregate crushing and stockpiling. Uh both in favor of and in opposition to the request. Copies of all written comments are included in your meeting packet. Additionally, a public hearing was held at the February planning and zoning commission meeting at which two individuals spoke in opposition to the requested conditional use permit. Uh for those folks in opposition or the comments we've received in opposition, the primary concerns noted uh have been

the potential for fugitive dust with those crushing operations as well as associated noise, truck traffic, and um perceptions for resulting negative impacts to property values in the vicinity. The uh criteria for granting a conditional use permit are outlined within the staff report. Staff would note here that the M heavy industrial zoning district's uh stated purpose is to establish and preserve areas uh for necessary industrial and related uses which due to their size and/or nature of operation uh may have a significant impact on the environmental and social well-being of the city and therefore requires isolation from many other kinds of land uses. Overall, staff finds that the proposed use to be largely consistent with the purpose of the M heavy industrial zoning district. However, fugitive dust is a um common issue associated with concrete crushing and aggregate uh related operations. And so, staff does recommend several conditions intended to mitigate this um concern. Uh specifically in relation to the conditional use permit, uh the specific conditions of the CUP conditional use permit are outlined within the staff report. Uh a couple of one um conditions that I'll mention um are things such as required air quality permitting through the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality. No crushing when sustained wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour um as measured at the nearest National Weather Service reporting station. Crushing operations being limited to no more than 28 uh individual days within any calendar year. The use of water spray dust suppression system during all crushing operations. Um and then crushing operations being set back at least 200 ft from all property lines. Overall, staff finds the proposed subdivision and conditional use permit with conditions to be consistent with city plans and ordinances, including the intended purpose of the M heavy industrial zoning district and is recommending approval of the subdivision and the CUP with conditions as outlined in the meeting packet. So, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions or to go over any

additional details. Otherwise, the applicant uh is present as well should you have any questions for the applicant. Questions for Mr. Nelson? Commissioner Jorgensson with the 11th Avenue Northeast. They're tying in the ninth. Would that be able to be done this year so we don't have to tear it out what we just put in? The uh intent, at least according to the applicant, uh the initial request for infrastructure would be for uh 12th Street Northeast coming off of 12th Avenue here. So that that culde-sac dead end. 11th Avenue and 10th Street would be a date to be determined at some point in the future. So, um, as far as the applicant has indicated to us anyway, there's no immediate plans, uh, to request infrastructure for, um, that little L-shaped yet.

Yeah, I just didn't want to tear out something next year that we're doing this year. So, yeah, and I don't want to speak for engineering, but I believe um, the plans for Ninth Street do include um, the connections for um, 11th Avenue. Thank you. Correct me if I'm wrong there. Additional questions, Commissioner Zundell. When you have a conditional use permit like this, I notice in the language it talks about they have a 10-day calendar notice for a revocation hearing. Are they allowed to continue operations if they've been notified, hey, we're having a revocation hearing between then and the 10 days?

May have to say that one one more time. So I'm on page 19 to 55 and this one specifically Emily and then number 12. So if the applicant fails to observe the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit, the city may revoke this conditional use permit in such event, the city will give the applicant at least 10 calendar day notice of a revocation hearing for the conditional use permit stating the time, place, and purpose of such hearing. So once they've been notified, are they allowed to continue with any and all uses of the conditional use permit up to a revocation hearing? Yeah. And I might defer to the city attorney on that one.

Yes. They'd be able to continue to use it to to follow the cup that operating under the permit. And then once you had the hearing, then you could revoke it. So I guess my concern comes in if they're only going to limit it to 28 days and we're going to do 10 days between like a hearing that seems like an awful long time if there's going to be any potential violations. Is there any wiggle room with something like that or is that standard contract language or it's just a policy decision and if you want to shorten it, it just depends upon the timing that you could get together, right? And how short of a turnaround that would be. And the revocation hearing, if I'm correct, is the city commission.

Yes. And then um if I could ask a question of the applicant if that would be okay.

Can you just kind of talk about the Excuse me. Oh, you state your name? Uh Trent Duda, Earthwork Services, ARD Properties. Sorry, I missed that. Good thing you're here. Um, can you talk about um just the process of I guess how you crush the aggregate, how you limit the dust, what your neighbors can expect when you have these operations.

Um, typically what we do is is we stockpile year round. Um, and then we recycle certain days. You know, if we do it in one set or two sets a year, usually it's one set and it can be 10 to 20 days. So that's why we ask for 28. Um, and on the crushers now they have dust suppression that they put they run it off a fire hydrant which we'd have to get a city water meter. Then you run it off fire or you can do a water truck but then it has spray nozzles as you're crushing it. Uh, as you're crushing it, it sprays a mist on right right where it's crushing so it suppresses the dust. Um, so I mean that's a big difference than what it used to be and nobody around right now like in Fargo, um, they don't have that with all these old crushing plants.

So this will be something different where I'm I have to do it. So like it won't allow me to crush in the winter because it'll freeze. So I have to crush at a certain times of the year that allows me to on the on the permit. Sure. And then what's your backup? Like let's say whatever's pumping water onto the thing breaks, how quickly do you know that it's broken and not working? And then what if any problem? You know, really, you know, instantly. Yeah. Yeah. So, and it's usually the it's really not the the crushing itself isn't that dusty unless the wind picks up and

you know what I mean? Like everybody's crushing. This winter they were crushing and there was really no dust except when the wind would pick up then there'd be dust and it would have be a pretty high wind but then you'd see dust but there's you know I I have pictures that I can show you at sometime that show that it's it's not that bad as what you would think it would be unless the wind picks up but above and beyond that we're doing the dust suppression that we have to have in place. So if it breaks down, we have to stop, get it working. So any questions, commissioners? Right. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional questions for Mr. Nelson?

I'll make a motion to approve. Commissioner Olsson makes a motion to approve. Is there a second? Is there a second? I'll second. Commissioner Zundell second. We have a motion and a second to approve the A26-2 ARD properties first edition uh request for a subdivision and conditional use permit to allow crushing and stockpiling of aggregate materials. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. All those opposed?

Nay. Let the record show the vote is 4 to1. Thank you. We move on to proposed 2027 utility rates. Uh my understanding that the presentation this evening by Mr. Anvvic isformational only and we will not be taking a vote on this. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Good evening and welcome Mr. Anvik.

Good evening commission president commissioners. Uh like the commission president said, this is uh the proposed 2027 rate increases. Uh and it's just informationational like to get that in front of everybody uh well ahead of time so everybody has a good chance to see uh what those changes might be. Uh if you remember back I think we first brought this for you in 2024 for the 25 increase. So this is what third time that we brought this forward just to see this uh plan. We came up with about a 5-year plan. 2027 is the year three of that five-year plan. Um in I guess we can go forward. Uh there's not really much change on this um I guess rate presentation the proposed rates versus what I uh came before you with last year. Like with water, we really have no uh change or increase. Uh that base rate goes from 784 to 808 and then the flow rate is from $8 to$824. Uh sewer is the one change. We did make that um base rate and kind of a jump last year to $19 per month uh just to kind of even that out. We want to hold that steady this year instead of making an increase on that. But we do increase that full rate uh from 627 to 658. Sanitation we're staying kind of the same as we were last year or showed last year in 26 where that base rate goes from 2591 to 28.50. Uh and then that B that base can charge is that that our 64gallon uh can size. Uh and then the forestry rate um we lowered that we I didn't show 425 last year but just to get those 50 cent increments instead of a 75 cent jump this year we went to $4. And then vector control we stayed the same at a dollar per month. Um just to go kind of quick on some of the reasons why we're making sure that we're getting these rate increases is we're looking at to where we want to be, you know, in 2030

basically instead of just that one year look ahead. Uh we want to know where our reserves want to be in and what kind of projects are out there. Uh one thing that we are in a contract year with Fargo and 27. Uh we've been in uh about a two-year contract with them for our water and sewer rates. Uh we'll be entering into negotiations with them. been in contact with them. They're not um quite ready to I guess have those discussions yet. Um but so we don't currently know what that the 27 water or sewer rate are going to be. I do have factored in a substantial increase on both. Um so we're confident on any of the rates that we are proposing will cover any of that adjustment and then we'll know where to go from there as we bring this forward again in 28. in front of the commission for any changes. Um the other one in the water that is kind of adding to that increase is the Red River Valley water supply project. Our local costs are starting to increase and coming back and and we're paying that through the uh per thousand um gallon fee that we are paying through Fargo. So that is adding to our our cost a little bit there. Uh with sewer, we're really trying to get kind of build our uh reserves up a little bit and make sure we have that financial stab stability. Uh and then making sure that down the road we can send everything once we have the lagoons fully decommissioned, making sure we have enough in the budget to send all the our flows to Fargo sanitation. Uh it's back to just that financial stability and and kind of the idea of where we might be in the future. Uh we are looking at a need for a new inert landfill coming up or the one we have currently is a little end of life. Uh and with that do we need transfer trans uh excuse me transfer station or uh we need to look ahead at at what's

going on with Fargo's municipal solid waste uh landfill there. how many years we have left on that and what we have to do uh to make sure that we are prepared if we need to actually uh transport our waste somewhere else if there is not one permitted uh nearby and forestry we're just strengthening the reserves and we're starting to just incrementally take over uh the boulevard trees um emerald ashbor on the way it's been um located in Fargo this last year so we know that is coming and we were trying to take steps to protect the trees canopy by doing some I guess selective um kind of pruning or taking some of the ash out and replacing them ahead of time so we don't have one big um one or two big years where we have a lot of trees that have been killed for through EAB. So we're trying to make sure we're staggering that any loss that we might find at that point. Um just getting to those proposed rates if this mouse will cooperate. Here we go. Uh we just kind of highlighted the um rates you know there in green I guess compared to what we have been in 20 you know 24 25 and 26 what our increases and then again what our projected increases might be or rates might be in 27 or 28 and 29. Uh 27 is that last of the kind of our larger increases. Um the only one with a little bit larger increase this year is sanitation. After that, we get down to uh quite a bit more manageable ones as we get towards 2030. Um just as for what it might be on a residential utility bill, um going, you know, out of 4,000gallon usage, which is fairly average for, I suppose, about a family of four, you're looking at about a $555 increase uh per month from 26 to 27. Uh a little bit more on a 6,000 gallon

house. Uh I think that's about 664 per month. Um I did include uh what we had presented in 26 as well just as a comparison. Uh with that I'll stand for any questions. Questions for Mr. Envig. What is the term of the contract that you're negotiating with Fargo? Is it a 5-year contract, three-year contract?

Uh the last time that we talked to them, they seemed like they were good with about a two-year contract. uh they do kind of like a two-year look back when they are doing their rates off of. So for them, it seems like that two-year contract seems to be um what they're looking for. Um been in contact with them. They're just with uh they're not quite sure with quite a bit of train turnover in their their commission on where they want to be just yet to start those negotiations. Right. Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you. Thank you.

We now move on to project number five on the agenda. That's project number 2293, 9inth Street Northeast, grade separation improvement district number 2265, 9th Street and 7th Avenue Northeast re reconstruction. We're going to call on Jerry Wallace, the city engineer for the city of West Fargo. The purpose of this discussion is to approve proposals for construction material testing services with Brown Intertech for the Ninth Street corridor project. Mr. Wallace, good evening and welcome.

Uh yes. Thank you, Mr. Commission President. Commissioners, uh before you here tonight with this item, uh essentially everybody's well aware that we're proceeding with the uh the two projects on Ninth Street. That's the uh Ninth Street urbanization. Um and then the uh grade separated crossing over the uh BNSF railroad. Um essentially uh Brun Intertech functioned as the geotechnical engineer of record uh over the design uh and development of those projects. Um, traditionally, uh, we, uh, tend to award, I guess, the, um, uh, construction oversight to, uh, uh, that firm that has completed that work. Um, with such, um, basically here before you with, uh, each of the proposals for, uh, for each project. um essentially looking for approval uh for the uh construction materials testing services uh for these projects. Um with that, I'm available for any questions you may have.

Questions for Mr. Wallace.

I'll move to approve. Commissioner Olsson moves to approve 22 93 9th Street Northeast Grade Separation and Improvement District 2265. Is there a second? Second. Commissioner Anderson seconds. We have a motion and a second. Is there any additional discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carried. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. Thank you.

We now move on to item six on the regular agenda. It's project number 6064, transit shelters. Again, we call on Jerry Wallace, city engineer. Purpose of the discussion is to accept quotes and authorize staff to purchase quoted materials for the transit shelters. Mr. Wallace.

Uh yes. Thank you, Mr. Commission President. Um commissioners uh here before you with this item uh essentially looking uh for for the commission to accept quotes and authorize staff to purchase the quot material and uh proceed with the project. Uh we have uh five locations we're looking at um to put up transit shelters for the uh map bus routes. Um I think all commissioners are are well aware of uh what we're trying to do here. Uh we did go out and uh receive quotes uh for the materials that we're going to be using in the project and they are listed in the engineers statement of estimated cost at the end. Um total project cost is estimated to be around $40,000 um with some contingency and whatnot built into that. But uh again uh looking to accept the quotes and authorize staff to uh purchase the material and proceed with the project. Uh with that I'm available for any any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Wallace. Commissioners, anything? A motion to approve. Commissioner Jorgensson moves to approve. Is there a second? Second. Commissioner Zundell seconds. We have a motion and a second to approve uh project number 6064 which is to accept the quotes and authorize staff to purchase quoted materials for transit shelters. Is there any additional discussion? I'll note for the public that the transit shelter shelters are being provided by uh transit authority. Yeah, the metro transit authority.

Metro Transit Authority. So, the the the $40,000 estimate is for the uh bases and the installation of this equipment. So, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. Opposed. Motion carried. Thank you again, Mr. Wallace. Thank you. We now move on to improvement district number 2290, a 2025 public works mill and overlay project. Call on Mr. Dustin Scott, city administrator. It's a financial recap and information. No action is required on this item. Mr. Scott, good evening and welcome.

Good evening. Thank you, Commission President Dartis and commissioners. Yes. So, the uh March 16th commission meeting uh staff was directed to bring back uh the financial analysis for last year's Milan overlay. U at the time we are considering uh the bid award for project number 20 uh 2300 which is the following item here. So, um, that information has been updated. Uh, as you recall, last fall, uh, Dan Hansen and Matt Envik put together a financial packet. Uh, there's a memorandum along with, uh, an overview of the public works expenses related to the project. uh based on some feedback that Matt Anvik received from the commission and some members from the public uh the methodology that he used to assign those costs uh have been updated. So again that information is available in the packet. U I do want to stress a couple points that that were mentioned in that that memorandum that Dan Hansen put together. Uh the first point being that the um the financial information regarding this project is really it's it's not intended to be a comparison to the to the private market. It's it's not structured the same as a contractor's bid, if you will. Uh as you know, contractors when they bid out projects, they're thinking through uh their their costs, their profit margins, and a number of factors that are not really applicable to a city assigning costs. So again, I just want to be clear that this isn't meant to be a comparison document. Um, additionally, in in Dan's memo, uh, he does, uh, highlight that in 2023, the commission turned down a couple street overlay projects and directed staff to find alternative ways to, uh, reduce the amount of special assessments that are associated with these projects. And so, uh, I I will say that, um, you know, public works engineering came

together. they they looked at ways to do that. Um, utilizing our our staff and and our our resources, I I believe that we've been effective at achieving that goal. The uh the assessments for the 2290 project were about $1,500. Uh again, as highlighted in the memo, that that did not include curb ramp replacement. Um but Dan did estimate that cost to be about $500 worth. So, had that project included those, the overall assessments would have been about $2,000, um, we're currently working on projects that have been bid out and are being completed by a contractor, a Northern Improvement. Good news, they they gave, uh, really competitive bids. They were about 30 to 40% underneath our engineers estimates. Um, but the special assessments assigned or associated with those projects are estimated to be around uh, 2500, I believe, for one district and $4,000 for another district. So again, I'm just I'm highlighting that, you know, the goal that we set out on was to reduce special assessments and I think we're effectively achieving that. So um that all said, I'll stand for any questions.

Questions? Commissioner Zundal. Is it also reasonable to assume that again if you're trying to compare an apple to an apple that's partially difficult to do for projects because you're looking at a snapshot in time and there are times where contractors will even take jobs at a slight loss to continue operations and so on and so forth. Is that an accurate kind of added layer of difficulty I think when we're trying to do some comparisons?

Yes. uh maybe re restating it into a the bid market can be volatile and there are a number of factors that that come into play and and a contractor yes they might have um a lot of staff and resources available to do a project and so they'll lower their bids so that they keep their staff busy or uh they might have a very full plate already and start to uh add some markups where where they they'll certainly do the project but they're going to charge a little extra because they're going to be paying over time or they're going to stretch their staff thin to cover multiple projects. So again, I would just restate it as the bid market can be volatile. Absolutely. And and our costs are known. You know, we we go in, we we've got a budget established, we have our resources available. So, um, when we can utilize them to perform projects like this for a few days out of the year, I think that's a great way to, uh, subsidize some of the the capital costs that are eventually special assessed out. So, again, I think it's a very effective way to achieve that goal that the commission set forth with us back in 23.

What are the material costs when we're looking at like the costs like the actual millings and stuff like that from last year to this year? Are they up down? About the same when we're looking at like a per per ton. I assume that's what you purchase by it. I I'm not I'm not the best one to ask. Uh I'm not sure where the material costs have have gone in the past 12 to 24 months. Um I'm sure our engineering or public works staff could could answer that question. Um so I will say that there are there are aspects of that project that were also competitively bid and again subject to that same volatility. So I think overall material material costs have gone up a little bit but um

again I I don't know exactly how much how is the feedback from the residents that lived in the actual project area itself. My understanding is those within the district were very uh happy with with the product. They um you know, I'll say that it it didn't come without some lessons learned. Uh we we certainly um undertook a very big endeavor there, but I think you know, early on in the project, I think there was just some uh communication we needed to get out and and inform what's going on. But overall, I think we had several compliments. U I'm sure Matt could give more specifics, but overall uh good news. I'll back that up with the residents that I talked to over there.

I only heard positive things out of the residents that lived there. So, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't I drove through when there was, you know, about 5 5:30 at night when there were people out there. Um, very positive. They were very pleased. Absolutely. Yep. Our our public works crew does amazing work. I I really do think so. Question.

All right. I think that there's a a point here that I want to emphasis with Mr. Scott, you know, this this particular project has been scrutinized upside down, inside out by both engineering, public works, city administration who has an engineering degree and background and an old broke down sign salesman too that uh has 47 years in business. Every business that I ever ran, the accountants did the depreciation schedules different or they did a cost accounting on m on certain things, markups on materials, uh how they apply overhead and benefits to uh come up with a final number of what the true labor costs were. So there's nothing wrong with this scrutiny. It's nothing wrong ever when the public engages in this scrutiny. What's wrong is that we don't use the facts that are involved. Mr. Scott made a point just a few minutes ago. I hope it didn't get lost on anybody in this room. Our bids are coming in 40% less than engineers estimate. Anybody care to venture? Why? You can look at this as an experiment if you'd like, but we're not done with our experiment. If we believe that we can do this and we can save the taxpayers money and they're not going to be assessed another$1,000 because the original estimate was $3,000. Now it's $2,000 of what they're going to be assessed in that neighborhood. So there's been a lot of name calling and there's been a lot of different

approaches to our estimates are down 40% from the engineers estimate. Mission accomplished and if we have to go to the legal process to prove our point uh I won't back down. We're going to prov provide the citizens of West Fargo with the best operations that we can that's going to be affordable to them. Okay. 30 to 40% down from what the estimates have been. You could interpret that any way you want. Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Thank you. That's a no action item. We move on to item number eight is project number 2300 2026 public works mill and overlay. Jerry Wallace, our city engineer, will present and this is to accept a bid and award a contract. Mr. Wallace, welcome back.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Commission President and Commissioners. Uh here before you uh with uh project number 2300, which would be the 2026 public works mill and overlays. Um we opened bids on uh April 28th. Uh one bid was received from Border States Paving. Um that bid was in the amount of $562,4925. Uh the bid came in, this one in particular came in about 2.5% over the final design engineers estimate. Um with this project in particular, uh last year's project we looked at doing local roads. Um this year we're looking at doing uh more collector class roadways that need some help. Um essentially uh we're not looking at any special assessments with the work. Um we had anticipated in the 2024 CIP that uh this work uh we had budgeted call it uh $1 million uh with about $250,000 for uh curb ramp replacements. Um, and when it's all said and done, uh, we are looking at, uh, a project that costs, and I apologize at the end there, that that's actually a a typo. uh total project cost, including uh public works revised ways to estimate their labor and equipment costs, we estimate coming in at about $99,000 or um I guess subtracting uh what public works uh expenses are anticipated to be. Uh we anticipate that we'll be on the hook for about $782,000 with the project. Um, with that said, um, I'll stand for any questions you may have, but, uh, looking, uh, for us to accept the bid and award the contract.

Questions for Mr. Wallace. Commissioner Zendelle moves to approve project number 2300 to accept the bid and award a contract. Is there a second? Second. Commissioner Anderson seconds. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carried. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. Item number uh nine is the draft of the city commission governance policy. Again, we call on Mr. Dustin Scott, our city administrator. Welcome back.

Thank you again, Commissioner President Dartis and commissioners. So yeah, the uh governance policy before you this evening is really aimed to provide a a clear and consistent framework for how the city commission and administration work together in serving the community in an effective, transparent, and legally sound manner. The draft has been reviewed by the city attorney as well as senior directors and select department heads. It was developed with consideration of policies used by comparable local government agencies, applicable state law, the city's home rule charter, and best practices from organizations such as the ICMA, the National League of Cities, and the GFOA. The intent is to provide clarity regarding governing authority, communication, and operational relationships while maintaining the flexibility necessary for effective day-to-day governance. The policy includes guidance on the governing authority and the role of the commission as a body, the commission administrator relationship, communication and information sharing, individual commissioner requests and coordination with staff, portfolio assignments and committee liaison roles, participation on external boards and regional organization, governance, culture and professional conduct. And finally, the operational expectations and administrative authority. Again, this is a draft that's being presented tonight. Not looking for an action uh but more your feedback and direction to to move this forward. With that, I would stand for any questions.

Questions from Mr. Scott. It looks very comprehensive to me. any feedback for Dustin at all? Amy? Um, I really appreciate seeing some of the committees and portfolios. Um, I like the fact that we've done this a lot because I think the perception of what a city commissioner does versus what they they do on a day-to-day basis. It's good to see I think in writing just to clarify um any and all expectations. So, I like it a lot. I think it's a it's a great overview and I'm glad we're taking the steps to adopt one.

All right. Okay. Uh please continue with your city administrators report then Mr. Scott.

And thank you again, Commissioner President, commissioners. Couple uh updates for you. Uh today we concluded vendor demonstrations for our our new ERP system. There were a series of three demonstrations conducted, two of them last week, the final one this morning. Each session was about four hours. Uh really appreciate the committee and all their time and effort uh going through those and carefully vetting through each proposer and their their products and capabilities. Uh on the committee we had uh our finance team, Willie as our finance director, Nick Lee, Dan Hansen, Scott Tiffany from public works, and of course uh Mayor Dartis. Uh as far as next steps, they're going to continue to to um continue with due diligence. They're going to look into uh reference checks. they still have to go through and and uh review the financial proposals. Uh these past these demonstrations really focused on their their technical abilities and what they're offering. Uh so these next couple weeks will really get into what are the financial proposals from each vendor and again additional due diligence to vet out uh their their qualifications. Our goal is to bring this forward to the commission uh the first meeting in June for for additional consideration. Uh there could be a couple different ways of of approaching this. Uh either a recommendation to enter into negotiations with uh the preferred proposer or uh depending on on their work, they might come with a recommendation to um consider a contract and and award such contract to a to a proposer. So, we're going to continue to to vet that out over the next few weeks, but again, um happy to report that we are near the end of of this uh process.

So, excited to to be moving it forward. And then, um Mayor, you sat in on those demonstrations. I don't know if you have any updates to share.

I do. Uh I was very pleased with our team with Mr. Nick Lee, Mr. Dan Hansen, uh Sheila Olsen, our finance, and of course, Mr. Scott and Willie Glindo. Uh it was uh you know I I' I've sat in on these before in in business, but what Mr. Galindo did and his staff is they didn't allow them to give their normal uh presentations, you know, the the just whatever's out of their book. He gave them scenarios. He gave them invoice numbers, customer numbers and they had to apply it and how it would go from procurement to finance and and paying for it and then how it goes into records. I mean uh that element of it was extremely thorough and these people had to be well prepared uh because Mr. Glendo had a lot of com uh notes on the backs of his sheets and uh it was it was extremely well done by our city staff. I I I couldn't imagine it could been done any better. So that's my input. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions on the ERP? Hey, my my last update here is just on the budget. Uh all of the departments have submitted their budgets. We are now uh everything's been compiled into u a holistic u overview of of what the departments are requesting this weekend. Next, Mr. Gindo and I are going to be reviewing each department budget with those department heads and and applicable staff. Uh put any final touches on it and start to really prepare and focus on the first draft of a preliminary budget. As I've mentioned

before, we hope to bring that forward to the commission uh during the second meeting in June prior to that time. Uh we will start to engage commissioners with an early look at what that first draft is is coming up to be. So, uh stay tuned on that. But, um I'm very proud of the work that's been going into this. I I've seen some really tight budgets. I can tell you that Chief Nielson here has a folder this thick of of nos all the things that all the requests from his from his department. um which is not an easy thing to do and and it all the other departments are right there with them. Uh they are really uh returning some responsible budgets. So uh thank them for for all their efforts and look forward to uh engaging you with with the first look. So with that I will stand for any other questions.

Questions for Mr. Olsson? Uh how are we doing on the audit from 2025? Sure. uh the uh there's been a lot of file transfer back and forth, a lot of data collection, if you will, data sharing. I believe their in-house visit uh so there's always a process by which they come here for about a week and um dive into everything. So I believe that is scheduled for the last week of May, first week of June. Nick, do you have that off top of your head? I

I think that's I want to say it's the first week of June, really. Y So as far as I know, everything's been going well. And I will thank again the finance team. They have really gotten that down to a science. So it's become very efficient these these last couple years and uh thanks to to Sheila and and Willie for for their diligence on that. Anything else for us? That's it for me. Anything for Mr. Scott and commissioners? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Does any commissioner have any non-aggenda items they'd like to bring forward this evening? Commissioner Olsson, just to make sure you're not going to be here at the next meeting or are you?

Uh, the next meeting? No. Okay. I have grandsons being confirmed a distance away and I'm not going to miss two my two of my grandsons being confirmed. Just wanted to double check. Yes, sir. That's the first one in eight years, by the way. I've missed one. Anything, commissioners? Anything at all? Any department head have anything that you'd like to bring forward as a non-aggenda item? We can't act on it, but we can discuss it. No. Commissioner Zundell move to adjourn. Commissioner Olson. Second. We send adjourned.