City Commission - Regular Meeting

Well, Brad off.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Monday, November 17th, West Fargo City Commission meeting. We welcome you. Uh before we call the meeting to order, I'd ask that everybody in the room please silence your phones except for first responders. With that, we call the meeting to order. Please join the commission in a pledge of allegiance 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. [clears throat] Thank you. Madam Secretary, would you please call the role?

Commissioner Anderson, here. Commissioner Olsen here. Commissioner Dardis here. Commissioner Zandell here. Commissioners Jorgensson here. Let the record show that all commissioners are present. Commissioner Olsen is joining us by via Zoom. [clears throat] Next order of business is to approve the order of the agenda. Commissioners, it has been distributed and near your packet. Move to approve. I have a commissioner Jurgensson moves to approve. Commissioner Anderson seconds. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed? I.

Commissioner Olsson, for clarification, did you vote and pro to approve the order of the agenda? Did I just rush to it? Rush through it too fast. Yes, I voted to approve the agenda. Thank you, sir. I'm coming from the northwest part of the state, so it may take a little while for my transmission to get there. I'll slow down. I promise. Next order of business is to approve the minutes of November 3rd. They have been distributed and are in your packets. Move we approve. Commissioner Zundal moves to approve the minutes of November 3rd as presented. Is there a second? Second.

Commissioner Jorgensson seconds. We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of November 3rd as presented. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion [clears throat] carried. Building permits. The building permits has been distributed and in your packets. Commissioners, move we approve. Commissioners Unal moves to approve the building permits of November 17th as presented. Is there a second? Second.

Commissioner Anderson seconds. We have a motion and a second to approve the building permits of November 17th as presented. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed? Motion carried. Next order of business is a consent agenda. We have items A through E on a consent agenda. Move to approve. Commissioner Anderson moves to approve the consent agenda. Items A through E. Is there a second? Second, Mr. Zendell seconds. We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda A through E as presented.

Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed.

Motion carried. At this time, we are now in the regular agenda. Item number one on the regular agenda is public comment. We have four individuals that have signed up for public comment this evening. I'm going to just call them off as they were presented to me and handed to me in no particular order. This is the way it was given to me. First person to speak this evening is Joanne Almond. Joanne, I see this microphone, please. Yes, ma'am. Good evening and welcome.

Thank you for so kindly for allowing our neighborhood to present our concerns regarding project 6060 Riverbend path. I represent Doll subdivision, the neighborhood on the north side of the proposed path. We are not in favor of the path. This includes the homeowners condo association and owners of Kinder Care. We have numerous concerns including cost, safety, negative effect on the neighborhoods in the area and the environmental impact. I'm going to mainly address environmental impact. I walked the proposed path and saw the mainly boxelder and cottonwood trees already marked for destruction. 150 trees, some likely over a hundred years old. This is a significant destruction of the tree canopy that serves as a large nesting area for eagles, hawks, falcons, and other birds. Per Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, a bird survey needs to be done within 5 days of demolition. And if active nests are found, you need to detour 100 ft away. This could result in a zigzag path and increased cost. They will replant trees, but I quote, "Realize this will be with 4-in twigs. It will take 30 years before these trees conserve the environment like the ones taken down. The construction will also displace deer, fox, coyotes, and river otterters. Living in this area, we know it will be very difficult to keep the path open in the winter as it fills in with snow. So you will likely have a tunnel and then in the spring a flooded path. There are other options that would be cheaper,

have no negative effect on the environment, and involve no tree destruction, such as beaten drive. Please look beyond the sales pitch you are being given on this $2 million, half a mile long path. And as city commissioners, I encourage you to be good stewards of West Fargo's environment, finances, and neighborhoods. This path is not wanted, safe, needed, or environmentally friendly. Thank you so kindly.

Thank you, Mr. Miss Alman. Next person that I have on the list is Ryan Hos. [clears throat] Good evening and welcome.

Good evening. Thank you. It's nice to put a face and a name together for a change. I've lived in West Fargo for eight years and I live at 2325 Riversbend Drive which is right across the street from the proposed uh bridge. [clears throat] My biggest concern that has not had a lot of uh emphasis on in the meetings that we've had is the lack of the loss of all these trees. Now, some of the trees we've talked about have probably been there like was just mentioned over a hundred years. If there's oak trees involved in this, and I have not taken a census, they could be 250 years old. So, just randomly taking a path through this. You know, even the underbrush is providing future generations with trees. Nature has a way of replenishing itself. And this is our urban forest. West Harbor really doesn't have an urban forest other than maybe Rondoo Park has a lot of trees and you know is user friendly for all the things mentioned habitat and holding the bank and uh u whatever else you can think of recreational purposes um I just think that there's better ways because if we get rid of the existing trees that's fine that takes care of what we enjoyed as a generation but the next generation is seedlings and suckers coming up out of the ground that will be the next 100-y old trees 50 years from now, 75 years from now for our kids and grandkids. So I think in the impact of the bridge itself, I don't think is going to provide that much interest versus planting more trees and people enjoying the existing paths, plant more trees around the paths that are existing. The Riversbent area has an overabundance or not overabundance but a lot of walking paths and it's very userfriendly. So we enjoy that and if we enhance those paths a little more it wouldn't be such a harm on the river bank itself. So thank you for your time.

Thank you sir. The next individual is Mr. David Wy.

Good evening. Good evening and welcome

David with the 2421 Mloud Drive East. I too am here to talk about this the project 606 multi-use path. Frankly, I don't understand why it's on the agenda because the purpose behind it keeps changing. First, we were told it was needed to help students get to Freedom Elementary School except the students on the other side of the river go to Brooks Harbor, not to Freedom. Then, we were told it's needed to help make certain that people can access the businesses more easily among veterans. But West 2.0 L says that people will walk maybe a quarter of a mile to get to a destination and this would be a lot more than a quarter of a mile from the other side of the river. So then we're just making a bike path. But I got to be honest with you, there are a lot of people closer to Costco and other stores that could ride their bikes there, but they don't. I don't see bikes being used currently, but people could do that. So then we were told, well, really this is a project that's part of West 2.0. Well, you know, it's everything about it is exactly opposite what West Highway 2.0 asks for. West Highway 2.0 says protect our canopy and grow it from 2.7% 2018 up to 20% in 2030. Right now, we're at about 7.4%. That was from our last forestry department report from 22. And cutting down 150 trees does not help us grow our canopy. Um, uh, it also says that we need to protect our wildlife and wildlife habitat. Well, you know, it also tells us to protect our riverside and wetland territory. Well, you put a path in there, what you're doing is you're disrupting that habitat dramatically in one of the few areas where we do have um, wildlife. Um, so this path goes against everything we've been asked to do and there's no actual plan for

replacement trees. We asked about what happens when you cut down all these trees. We were told, well, there's a requirement for [clears throat] us to plant two for every one that we cut down. Well, it's not really a requirement. It's a plan. It's just a standard industry practice. But I'm willing to wager that this was never really planned for to plant 300 trees until maybe we just brought it up recently at the Rustad meeting. Then we were told, well, you know, it's not really West Fargo 2.0. It's actually the 2016 Metrocog bike plant that's really behind this. Well, statistically speaking, there was no real West Fargo representation in any of that discussion. There were four open houses and none of them were in West Fargo. There was a survey but not a relevant number of people responded to the survey but they went ahead and used it anyways. Number of people went from West Fargo there only 21 people who responded to that survey. That's not relevant number either. Statistically speaking should have been at least 46 preferably 56. So the soap gave us a list of 23 projects for West Fargo. Only eight of those projects were actually presented to any group of people to vote on. Only two of them received votes. We don't know where the other 15 projects came from or who put them on the list, but it wasn't West Fargo citizens. Now we're being told what we need is another connection between Cheyenne and Veterans/9th because 17th to 30 to 32nd is too long of a distance. I can understand that. But there's a better option just a quarter mile away unbeaten. It turns out that was one of the two projects that

actually got votes on that Metro Scog um study that was done nine years ago, eight years ago. So, we got votes, but that's not on the project list until 2027. Why don't we just protect our our nature, protect our wildlife, protect our canopy by just not doing this one and doing beaten cuz we really don't need two of them just a quarter mile away. And beaten already has safe um crosswalks and traffic light on the western side. 60 doesn't have anything safe on that side. I have a handout. Can I give it to you? Certainly.

Thank you for your time. To the secretary, please to the to the secretary. She'll get him to us. Thank you. The next speaker that we have on the list is Pat Balmore.

Good evening and welcome.

Thank you. Yes. My name is Pat Delmore. My wife and I live at 2334 Riversbend Drive. Uh our property is immediately adjacent to not only the path but also the proposed bridge. So we're uniquely uh concerned about the project as you can imagine. Uh I've been in leadership positions before. I try to be pragmatic about these type of things when I see it. If I would have had somebody come to me with almost a $2 million ask, I'd be asking a lot of questions. Um, as David mentioned and others, this really stems back from a study 10 years ago. A lot has changed at that point. In fact, most of Rivers Bend wasn't even developed at that time. And like I said, a lot of things have changed. Um, I'm really trying to figure out what what problem are we trying to solve here? It seems like it's connectivity. We have connectivity with 32nd and possibly beaten uh in the future. I'm probably on the most northernmost part of Rivers Bend. My wife and I routinely walk over to 32nd Avenue over to the lights. And if an old guy like I can like me can do that. I think our connectivity and our access to commercial districts is just fine. We'd love the path. I have no problem. Um if it's the commission is bent on doing something to the west. There's already a multi-use path that runs on the south end of Rivers Bend and it stops and goes north on the Loberg Trail which is a nature trail which is wonderful. Not proposing anything to change there but simply where that cement ends it's a short jet which or 29th Avenue which has a fully completed intersection with crosswalks. uh these type of projects what comes up is really in my mind the law of unintended consequences and a lot of this stuff I don't believe has been

thought about. You're you're developing a secluded path down along the river. I feel like be remiss if you don't have conversations with other cities like Fargo. They have a lot of problems in those areas. Um I have personal knowledge of those with friends that have used those areas. Has a comprehensive risk assessment been done? Things that come to my mind are the mitigation of the high-risisk bikes. It'll be a racetrack back there. Uh the kids that I've talked to that have bikes, they've now bypassed their speed limiters and they got them go as high as 45 and 60 mph. What comes to my mind? What's the plan for emergency access in that back area? [music] Is it going to be routine routinely patrolled? Those type of things. And then moving west, we're sending people right out to a sixlane highway or street which is very busy. As far as the destruction of the woods, we we were taken out by the FM diversion. When we decide to build in West Fargo, we're looking for a wooded lot with privacy. We have it now with the proposed bridge. We'll be actually looking back largely, especially this time of year, at a bridge that expanses the Cheyenne. that'll be our view uh that we'll be looking at instead of what we thought we were getting. Um so I just wanted you to consider some of my comments and I would urge a no vote on this project. Thank you.

Thank you sir. That is all the folks that we had signed up for public comment this evening. So with that public comment is closed. We move on to item number two on the regular agenda. The right number two is the public hearings. Um, and none of the items that we have before us this evening uh are mandated by Sentry Code that we have a public hearing. So, we move on to item number three. Item number three is the West 94 area transportation plan, presentation, and approval. We're going to call on Aaron Nelson, the director of planning and zoning, and Mr. Mike Bitner of Bolton Mink and Dan Farnsworth of Metro. Gentlemen, good evening. Welcome.

Thank you and good evening. I got all the names right. We got the the names that are on here are the gentlemen that are here. That's correct. Good. Well, welcome. Please.

So, I'm just uh here to give a quick introduction and a little context. So, uh item three is a pres presentation of the West 94 area transportation plan. Um accompanying this presentation tonight is a request for approval of a resolution of support which is included in your packet. Um so in terms of context here, this transportation plan was originally initiated by the city of West Fargo and Metrocog a couple of years back uh in order to plan for transportation needs in advance of the completion of the FM diversion project and associated uh development pressures that are anticipated along with that. The uh plan or the plan itself focuses on two main things. Uh one is the potential for future interchanges along I94. Uh the other is the uh future transportation network and infrastructure necessary to accommodate uh future development within the specific study area which will be included in the the slide deck uh shortly. Um the results of this plan along with other previously completed transportation plans are intended to inform uh the transportation component of the city's growth area master planning effort which is currently underway. So just wanted to provide that little bit of context. So with that um again here tonight uh Mike Bitner I think is going to be given the bulk of the presentation. Uh Mike Bitner is the project manager with Bolton Mink who uh completed this project. Also Dan Farnsworth with Metrocog's project manager for this project. So all three of us and others in the audience here including um Dan and engineering um are available for questions as well. So with that hand it off.

Thank you mayor commissioners. I just want to start by giving a kudos to city staff. Uh some of the best in the business that I've had the pleasure to work with. Great leadership and guidance throughout this entire process. So, I'm going to start by focusing here. [clears throat] Get this mouse working. Okay. Is it this thing?

Okay. I'll just give you a point if that works. Okay. All right. So on the screen you can see our study area in yellow. And uh so a couple of the key themes that really go into this overall process um is really that the uh the Red River diversion is really the lifeblood that breathes potential into this area, but it's also kind of the primary reason why we can't access this from a transportation perspective. it it basically severs all ties and we know that we don't want to move traffic through Brooks Harbor where we already have land use and traffic conflicts. The third thing we had to go through as through this process is that the North Dakota Department of Transportation has rigorous requirements and firm preferences on access spacing on I94. So to be able to fully unlock this area, it really took a lot of transportation uh finesse and analysis. Next slide, please. So the overall intent is three-fold. Understand growth potential, uncover potential barriers, whether that be through DOT, stakeholders, and the public at large. Roadmap next steps, which which is where we'll finish the presentation. But then also just to understand that this this plan is not a final referendum on land use, access, and overall investment. It really is designed to be analysis to guide your next couple steps. And so you're going to see some concepts in here that that are going to feel fully formed, but they really are just the first step in the right direction. So why is early planning so important? You can really see the change and you're all very well familiar with what uh West Fargo looked like south of I94. And so it really is important that we start to think about the overall potential but also start to evaluate what those potential barriers are um so that we can learn from the things we would love to do a little bit differently in terms of getting infrastructure out there. First we started with a variety of growth assumptions and one of our key goals was to provide better access to commercial

land use in this area. Not only does this provide uh better tax sharing as you start to pay for the infrastructure, but it also provides a bit more harmonious land uses. And so we've got our where people work and live a little bit more closely connected than some of the neighborhoods we have across the region. And again, this is really just supposed to be a basis of analysis. Uh the West Fargo growth plan is really designed to come through and refine the land use assumptions. So here's a con conceptual vision on the left and of land use potential and how everything kind of interconnects into the future of the 2 and a half square miles. On the right you can see the roadway infrastructure connected in and throughout that process. And so you can really see the marriage between land use and transportation through these two graphics. And so it's really important as you start to think about the different types of uses for roads um how that interplays with the land use. And so a great comment we got at the public input was well we don't want all of our schools to belong in arterial. And so by being able to establish where the roads go first you can start to make sure that your land use doesn't conflict in that manner in the future. So we take all that land use information we input it into metro COG's travel demand model which is a big uh traffic model that connects where people live and where people work through the year 2050. And so on that graphic, you can start to see growth projections that range anywhere from about 10,000, so something similar to what you see on 9inth Street, uh, north of 13th Avenue, all the way up to some traffic volumes near I94, similar to Veterans Boulevard or even 45th Street. So, dialing into a couple of the key locations from the plan, we call our first kind of the road in the middle, our central spine. It's not an avenue. It's not a street, but it really bisects everything that's going to happen through this area. And really the vision for this was something foundational, versatile, and memorable to be the signature road that connects all the

different elements of this this plan together. So what we did is we developed a pallet of potential alternatives so that developers as they come in based on their adjacent land use and their transportation demand can pick between a variety of different approved options. Another key component is Christensen Drive. Um, as you can see on the right side of the screen, the connectivity of adding a new connection over the Cheyen version for for all modes of travel and then interconnecting all of our our trails and different uh turning lanes and elements to this area as well. And so this will be an important element as you start to think about any short-term growth as you're going to find some of the bigger elements are going to take a while to start to get developed. If we were to look at our our only interstate access that we'd have without the Christensen Drive connection would be all the way west at 38th Street and I 29 which is really the western termini of this overall area and this will be an important interchange at some point particularly as you think about the northwest part of West Fargo and Fargo which is expected to have a lot of growth. Uh but this really was not determined to be a feasible solution to access West 94 as its sole access point. Both from the lack of ability to move all the traffic, but also just all the way to the west can be pretty inconvenient. So we started to look at some new connections. Um on this screen here, you can see on the left side of the screen, this is an overpass of think say 42nd Street 9994 in Fargo. Um that's connected to 13th and 15th. And then the right side of the screen is an interchange connection. So that would have ramps that connect to and from I94. So as we start to think about the trade-offs and as I mentioned really the overall document starts to provide guidance of what the benefits are for each of these things. Um so we start to look at what an overpass would be is lower upfront cost um and long-term

costs. And then from the DO's perspective um better from reducing potential conflicts on Interstate 94. Um however from a local perspective um most including the development community and public felt like this had the interchange had a much higher potential to achieving those uh those commercial goals of development by having access to the interstate. We also find it has better regional travel times from getting to and from the areas in and around West Fargo. Um, and also we kind of ended up with similar volumes on I94 regardless. Just a matter of where they got on the interstate. Here's another configuration. Again, we we maintain several options in the report so that you have flexibility and agility as you move forward um through the planning process. Um, this is a 15th Street connection on the left with an overpass and then on the right that's an interchange with access to I94. So, as you compare 13th Avenue versus 15th Street, 13th definitely has better connectivity. 13th Avenue is an arterial all the way to the Red River, whereas 15th Street does provide some simplified design and certainly some preference um for those that directly abut that area as well. We also looked at Main Avenue and 26th Street. This is a really critical infrastructure piece as we think about the growth in the northwest part of the community. This is designed to connect into that area while also connecting down into West 94. This is also an extremely challenging interchange location from a design perspective because we have five different approaches by 2050 that carry over 20,000 vehicles. So, not only do we have Maine, but we're trying to connect north via 26 and south via 26. And so while it does achieve all of those goals, it certainly requires um two Cheyenne diversion crossings and a railroad crossing um if you were to zoom out and look to the north. So we looked at a lot of different options here and this was really the one concept that uh really met all the operational needs.

So as we start to think about whether it's 13th Avenue 15th Street or 26th Street in Maine, um there's certainly pros and cons to both. um 13th and 15th, it just has better access to West 94. Um there's a [snorts] lot more developable land directly adjacent to that. It also provides a bit more logical east to west growth patterns. Um 26th Street in Maine as your first kind of major feature access point is it does help kind of balance the need to the northwest plus the west 94 and also the utility connections based on where the available capacity will actually be from the west and so you're kind of connecting a little closer to the utilities home. those will have to move all the way through. Anyways, we also looked at alternative modes of travel. Um, so not just vehicles, but pedestrian, bicycle, and even transit. Um, so you can see on the graphic on the right side of the screen, we've got uh connectivity both linearly across and adjacent to corridors, but then also across busy intersections. We also looked at ways that we could connect uh to the Red River uh diversion greenway vision, which is a pretty ambitious plan with a lot of uh trails and different multimodal hubs throughout the corridor. We had a pretty intense public engagement process. We engaged more than 100 stakeholders throughout the process, which is which is good considering there's not a lot that's happening directly inside it, but we have a lot of neighborhoods connected to it. So, we had developer roundts, jurisdictional oversight meetings, property owner meetings, one-on-one meetings with key stakeholders, a public openhouse, and interactive online website and preference surveys. We also did a lot of marketing to try to get the word out. During that process, uh we had postcards to property owners in study area, openhouse, marketed um Brooks Harbor Elementary and Westside Elementary, email newsletters, social media posts by Metro Cog in the city of West Fargo. We uh punched [clears throat] marketing signs at busy intersections that we knew that the neighborhoods would all cross. Uh for

example, Cheyenne Street and 26th Avenue as they exit Brooks Harbor. Uh posters hung in proximity businesses, uh news coverage, box ad press release. Overall, from the engagement perspective, um we had a variety of different surveys of how much do you support these types of concepts and and if you had multiple options, what would they be? So you can see in the bottom right that is what we call our our criticality index which is just saying that 100% you think that's really critical solution zero you don't think it's very useful at all. Um and as you can see kind of all of our major improvements all gained pretty notable support uh overall um all well above 50%. Um and then as we start to look at preferences locally in terms of 13th and 15th is that an interchange or an overpass the preference locally was an interchange. Um, there were some notable conflicts with the interchange versus overpass. Elmwood neighborhood was a little concerned about increased traffic volumes and the North Dakota Department of Transportation was just wanted to reaffirm that there wouldn't be major safety issues with new with new uh access points. So, ultimately we ended with two phasing scenarios as we work through the process and worked through all the stakeholders. um on the on the the two graphics you see on the screen, green would be short-term, yellow would be midterm and red would be long-term. And there are no specific years tied to this. This is really, you know, left open-ended recognizing that on the next slide you'll see that there are some pretty major cost components, but also just local priorities. And so, um but really the differences in the two scenarios are just designed of what what is that key signature feature. On the left side of the screen, you can see that is Cheyenne. That is sorry, that is 26 in Maine interchange at I94. And then on the the right graphic, you can see the the key signature feature is 13th and 15th. And then they all they both also end at a different point. Um 13th and

15th on the scenario A is only an overpass. That was requested by North Dakota Department of Transportation as having multiple options open as you move forward. And so there's definitely some advantages and disadvantages that I talked through on some of the previous slides, but both of these are presented as road maps that you can start to move towards as you move into the future. No, that's good. Next slide. You you looking ahead, you knew. So finally, kind of the keys to future success. Um really probably the most important right now is city and NDOT collaboration. This really was a groundbreaking plan and that it got the conversation started. Um but there just needs to be more coordination as you work through that process. Um this is a long process overall. Um there are two for example interchanges, one occurring new interchanges, one occurring in Fargo and Grand Forks and both of those have taken when they're said and done they'll be take 10 to 15 years to go from vision to implementation. So it really underscores uh how much of a process this can be. Um and so other important elements to this would be just local leadership. The DOT does like that these are led um to be proven that they're needed. So thinking about grant money to help fund this because you can see on the bottom right that um regardless of which solution you take on um there is a significant amount of overall investment. Right ofway preservation, stakeholder engagement and then commitment to growth plans are three other elements that are important. The last thing you want to do is have a great infrastructure plan that is, you know, thwarted by the first low density residential neighborhood that present prevents the interchange from happening. Um, or it prevents the demand from occurring. So, with that, I guess the final recommendation is just get started early. All of these things will take time. Um, but they will help to unlock this area if it's so desired to do so. So, with that, I'm happy to open it up for any questions.

Commissioners, questions for the gentleman? Commissioner Zundell,

can you go back to the two different recommendations? Thank you. Um, is there a reason in scenario B that you wouldn't follow the DOT in talking about that pedestrian bike overpass on 21st Avenue West? I think of the things that stick out to me um and full disclosure I live in the Brooks Harbor neighborhood is adding any additional traffic through that area especially like essentially routing it right by the school I think would be very very problematic and any type of expansion. So in scenario B was there a reason to keep that existing connection point at 21st Avenue?

It kind of came down to sequencing. you could absolutely follow and your final solution could be some kind of mix of these two different things. So let's say you you want both interchanges but you want to start at 26 in Maine. That's an option. So I don't want to say that these are concrete options. Um we looked at this option actually so on the scenario B the reason why um we kept some of that open um is just the idea that you might actually provide relief for Brooks Harbor if you had a new interchange. Could some of those folks that are congested at 26 and Cheyenne, could they actually take a backage road if they're headed west or going some different direction? Um, again, I think that's something you could absolutely continue to evaluate if you think that that's valuable or not, but that was that was some of the thought process that went into it.

Is there any when you were doing the traffic patterns from that, do you know where people in that neighborhood are kind of currently draining to? Cuz basically if they drained and they were heading west, is the thought that they would hop on the interchange at 13th Avenue then as opposed to catching a connection at Cheyenne and 94. Is that kind of the That's kind of the hypothesis, right? And we we can kind of track. We know they're going to the interchange, right? I mean, you can see as you come out

that I was like that feels like I'm not a traffic engineer, but you don't have to be a traffic engineer to realize that nobody wants to be on that north lane, right? I mean, so everyone's trying to get onto the interstate access one way or the other. Uh there definitely is less traffic to the west, but I think even if I lived in the northwest part of the Brooks Harbor neighborhood, I might think about taking that route if it was there and it was pretty easy to get to or maybe if I'm coming off. Um but again, that's hard to say perfectly how many folks would use each of those.

And then can you remind me how far is the current DOT recommendation of having interchanges? And if we select one first, does that limit our ability? So if we pick for example 13th Avenue 15th Street first, are we able to also do one on Main Avenue 26 or vice versa? I guess if we pick the one on 26, how does that affect our ability to do an interchange at 38th Street or at 13th Avenue and 15th Street?

DOT is definitely least comfortable with 13th and 15th because it is a new access. That is the one advantage of the main avenue is there's already access onto the interstate. Certainly, we're making it more complicated by adding access north and south, but that exists. And so, there's probably a few less procedural barriers to go through that. Um, the process to get an interchange approved is pretty arduous and it takes a lot of technical analysis. And so, while they didn't say no, you can't do that, they definitely told us you haven't proved enough to prove that you can't make it work by having just one of these other locations. And so while I don't think picking one precludes you from the other, I definitely think it delays significantly, you know, what's going to happen later. So when we think about one of these interchanges, if it takes 10 years to build, think of the next one as 25 years to even start to think about it. So there really is a sequencing element that will probably start to shape what that land use looks like based on where you pick it.

Okay, sounds good. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Questions for Mr. Brenner? All right. Thank you, Mr. Farnsworth. Thank you. All right. I have a question for maybe Mr. Hanser or Mr. Wallace. Uh, in any of this discussions, in these plans, has there been any discussion with the Metro Flood Diversion Authority with regarding to the Cheyenne mitigation that's coming in 2728? as is the Cheyenne mitigation which it as far as uh taking as far as trying to cross

the uh West Fargo diversion.

Yeah. So the there has not um but it with the new FM diversion going live. Um it's going to really throttle back the flows in the Cheyenne diversion. So we're not talking major bridges at that point in time. We're talking more box culverts. And we believe with the number of uh existing uh crossings that are already there that it should be um although as as Mr. Britner said things are always complicated with doing that but um it's very doable uh for us to expect that we would be able to cross both for for example the 26th street interchange option that we would have two crossings of the Cheyenne diversion. Uh I believe that that would not uh be a hurdle that would be insurmountable. I think that would be very doable

with the attempt to try and get it from the core of engineers to the metro flood diversion authority. Uh would we still require permits from the core of engineers for box carpets? Yes, it's still considered a bridge through the we definitely would need u all those permits. Um but again uh I think those permits are u very achievable especially with the lower flows that we're going to see in that in the Cheyenne diversion. Thank you, Dan. Anyone else? Any questions? All right, please continue. If you have anything else,

well, that is really all that we have and like Aaron mentioned, um, we are just seeking a resolution of, uh, support for this um, just to make it more official and then that can be your guide book going forward. Anything else I missed, Aaron? [clears throat] Okay. All right. I'm commissioners move we approve the west 94 area transportation plan presentation and approval resolution resolution of approval thank you commissioner Zundal is there a second is there I have second

commissioner Olson seconds. We have a motion and a second to approve the West 94 area transportation plan and uh and plan approval and uh a letter of support. Is there any further discussion hearing? None. All those in favor please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Opposed. Motion carried. Thank you. Thank you. [clears throat]

Item number four is project number 6060, Riversbend Multi-use Path and Pedestrian Bridge. We're going to call on Mr. Dan Hansen, senior director of community and development. The purpose of discussion is to direct and approve an engineers report. Uh I'd like to call on Commissioner Zundell before we start. I am going to recuse myself from this vote. Madam Secretary, please let the record show that Amy Zandal is uh Commissioner Amy Zundal is recusing herself from item number four. Mr. Hansen. Good evening.

Thank you, Commissioner, President Daris, and commissioners. Um before you is uh a engineers report for project number 60, the River's Bend Multi-use path and pedestrian bridge that we've uh heard uh from the local community earlier this evening. um just wanted to take us through I there I've seen a lot of the emails a lot of the um correspondence with it. So um I've hopefully presented in this packet a little bit of a timeline of how this where this project is at uh as far as the budget goes and things of that nature too. So um one of the questions that [clears throat] has come up is the amount of federal funding that we received for the project. So wanted to touch base on that. Uh originally uh in fall of 2023, in November of 2023, um we were uh approved to submit for funding for this project. Uh and at that time it was uh called out to be submitted as TA funding, transportation alternative grant funding. uh there was another opportunity uh for submitt for funding and that's through the carbon reduction program which is the CRP program and ultimately it was the CRP program that awarded the city of West Fargo $848,798 uh which was 80% of the estimated cost during the planning of the project back in 2023. And the the thing with the the funds that were appropriated towards this project or given to the city of West Fargo towards this project is that those funds were from the carbon reduction program based off of the 2027 aotment that was going to be created and that is an amount that was uh that was planned for. Uh however, it has that had not been funded yet and still currently hasn't been funded. it still needs to be funded through an upcoming uh legislative s session. Uh there is a lot of talk that because it's carbon reduction program that the current

administration likely might uh get do away with those type of funds. So the reason that the grant dropped from the $848,798 to $746,536 was that the $746,536 was from the carbon reduction programs 2026 aotment which is funded. So that was a guaranteed uh source of funds. So some of the questions as far as why did the grant dollars depreciate u from what was originally presented is that's the case. was going from something that was unfunded to uh and planned for to something that was funded and planned for. Um the other thing is uh you know we had a publicformational meeting in April and the consultant had on that presentation the dollar amount of $1,70,000. Uh that was the original construction estimate that was put together by uh our transportation engineer at the time uh when we applied for the original grant in 2023. In April uh they were midway through the design. There was no design estimate engineers estimate that uh had been prepared yet. So the number that they had put up on that display at that meeting was just the construction dollars only. Uh back in November of 2024, uh I brought this project uh in front of the commission and the dollar amount that I had presented to the commission at that time was $1,391,000. So just shy of $1.4 million, which included uh that original construction cost estimate plus an estimated 30% soft cost estimate. after getting through design. It was actually in late October, just prior to our October 30th public informationational meeting when the consultant gave us uh more of a design uh cuz they're because they're basically done with the design now. They were able

to give us a more accurate up-to-date uh estimate for what they figured that the project would cost. Uh which was uh 1.31 million I believe. Even if you add in the 10% contingencies to that and the soft cost, that's what gets us to the current uh total estimated cost that was presented at the October 30th uh publicformational meeting, which was the amount of 1,873,765. We still do have the CRP grant funds secured in the amount of 746,536 which would leave a city share of 1,127,229. Now there are some opportunities to still secure additional grants towards the project. Um but as I stated uh nothing is um nothing is uh for sure or secured until it has been uh granted by those entities metricog uh through whatever program that we're able to secure some funds. So um planning on not getting that but hoping to get that if the project were to proceed. um that uh basically I wanted to cover that piece of the information because there was also a cost of why did the cost of the project jump between presentations and it was that uh the original presentation in April was based solely off of the estimated construction costs by the original transportation engineers. So hopefully that clears up a little bit of the questions as far as why have the project costs changed. Um tonight before you is just the engineers report that is reflective of the most updated costs that we do have. Um this does not uh mean that the project is moving forward. It's accepting the report but the anticipation would be if the report is accepted and the project is moving forward. Our next step is to submit the project uh the signed final design to

the core for those permits that we need to cross the river. um those uh those permits are not uh reviewed until they receive a final designed uh set of plans. So uh HDR the consultant uh they have uh basically finish the design and if we did decide to move forward with the project the next step would be to submit for those permits. That can take up to 6 months. If it goes sooner than that there is a chance that it could bid out in late uh spring. If not, if we aren't able to secure those permits in time, it would have to be likely an October 26 bid letting uh for a 2027 construction project. Obviously, if we are able to bid it out in the springtime, it would be a 2026 project. So, uh with that, I would entertain any questions.

Questions for Mr. Hansen? Um could you touch on the environmental aspect of it uh with all the concerns that the uh the public has had with regard to uh habitat and that type of thing? Yeah, absolutely. There was an environmental done. Is that correct?

Yep. Um part of the whole process of getting the federal funds and and things there there was um environmental work that was done for it. Um originally the path had considered being right on the edge of the park district's property on the northern edge of their property. Um but if you if we were to have placed it there um basically it would have been clear cutting the outside swath of trees. Uh it was upon uh field review uh it was discovered that there's basically a a fairly cleared out area through those trees uh where from the initial thought of the design being right along the park district's property line uh to move it inside the trees and in doing so actually reduce the amount of trees being taken by um according to HDR almost 100 trees uh were reduced from that original design to actually moving it within within the trees into that clearing. Um there was a wildlife biologist that did go out and uh and inventory the site for any type of nesting. There were near no eagle's nests um reported back to me. Um from that they did find some squirrels nests and things of that nature. [clears throat] And also as uh um it was mentioned before uh right before the project begins, before that clear cutting begins, the bio the wildlife biologist would need to go out there and inventory the site again just to make sure that there is no nesting going on. And she was correct that if there is nesting going on, it does delay the project or you need to move the project. Um you are allowed to do a project in a nesting area if they're not nesting uh at the time. Um so the intent especially with there being no eagle's nests or or those type of nests uh existing today would be to proceed um with the the plan as proposed. And obviously if we did find that there was uh challenges such as nesting birds at the time of uh right before we start the project the

construction of the project we would have to pivot and either delay or move the project as well as she stated. Thank you. One of the folks that spoke today was u apparently she's she's counted the amount the number of trees that have been marked. I was on site this morning as you well know to [clears throat] make sure that I understood exact direct uh how the path was going to be built. Uh is that a accurate number 150 160 trees? I honestly I don't know the actual number. I couldn't couldn't speak to that. All right, commissioners, any other [clears throat and cough] questions, comments?

Commissioner Anderson? Yeah. Um, yeah, I think uh I'm going to make a motion to uh deny the engineers report and uh to stop work on this [clears throat] project. I'll second. Do I have a motion? That's a motion.

And I have a second. And I have a motion in a second on project number 6060, Riversbend Multi-use Path and Pedestrian Bridge uh to direct and approve the engineer's report. And the motion is to deny the uh engineers report and to stop work on the project. Is there any further discussion? Any further discussion? All those in favor of denying the engineers report, please signify by saying I. I. I.

Opposed. I. Motion carried. On a 3 to one vote. Again, Commissioner Zundell is recusing herself on this. Moving on. Item number five. Thank you, Mr. Hansen. Item number five is improvement district number 308, Meadow Ridge Development Reconstruction Phase One. We call on Jerry Wallace, the city engineer for the city of West Fargo, is to approve and amend the engineers report. Mr. Wallace, good evening and welcome. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Commission President. Uh that was a difficult decision you had to make there, so I'll try to be respectful with your time here tonight. Uh I'm here before you for improvement district. Mr. Wallace, would you take just a minute?

Oh, yes, sir. I think some of our friends that uh come this evening are are going to exit and let [laughter] Thank you.

Thank you. Please continue.

Uh yes, sir. Uh again, I'm here before you uh to present improvement district number 3008. Excuse [clears throat] me. This is a uh uh really boils down to uh you know, we have several areas of the core area where uh um we can acknowledge they're in tough shape. Uh you know, this one in particular, uh we're looking at the Meadow Ridge portions of the Meadow Ridge neighborhood um and uh looking at moving forward with a reconstructive effort. Uh the action I'm looking for tonight uh pending your approval would be to approve the uh an amended engineers report. Uh essentially what what we're looking at in this situation um we've launched in at at a previous meeting um we were directed to begin preparing plans and specifications. uh we've we've dove into that effort and uh one of the things that became apparent was that uh there is a Meadow Ridge Court essentially uh is uh in a similar condition to a lot of the rest of the project area and they will be impacted by the project for uh various reasons. um primarily uh uh the the intersection that they're going to be using to get in and out of uh the court there uh is going to need to be uh improved and and impacted by the construction. Um uh because of that uh the age of the uh the uh the water man that uh sits in the in the court and uh the condition of the street. Um, we're here tonight, I guess, to recommend that, uh, you know, that court be added to the project. Uh, we're in a unique position where we're able to take advantage of, uh, some, uh, state, uh, grants potentially and low interest loans. Um, and so, uh, we're confident, I guess, that, uh, that's the right decision that, uh, we'd, uh, be comfortable recommending and moving forward with. Uh on that note, uh in

your packet here is the amended engineers report uh draft benefit methodology um and the associated resolution uh should you decide to proceed with this amendment. Uh and again the staff recommendation would be to approve the amended engineers report. Um there will be also if we do continue to proceed a uh public meeting uh that we have scheduled for December 3rd and I encourage anyone who would like to to attend that. Uh but again with that being said uh we're looking for approval of the amended engineers report and uh I'm available for any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Walsh? Commissioner Zundell.

I'm so sorry not a traffic engineer as I already discussed earlier. Can you clarify by adding that court were those people already getting special assess? So the special assessment district didn't change. We don't have to do anything different with that. That that's correct, Commissioner. And we are adding what in that court specifically just redoing the pipe that's going

um we would be looking at uh full reconstruct. So the sanitary sewer, the water man, uh we would be adding storm sewer because right now there is no storm sewer. That was another thing that kind of spurred this discussion is that in order to tie in storm sewer, um it'd be most beneficial to be doing it under this project. Um and uh yeah, essentially everything, street, sewer, [clears throat] water, all that. So to clarify, they were in the assessment district originally because the adjacent roadways would have been their way out of the neighborhood.

They were in the district solely because we just um created a a larger district than the than the project footprint and traditionally we've done that just because of uh oddities like this that can come up over the the project development process. Uh there there by no means is any intention of assessing anyone who's not going to be seeing direct benefit from the the footprint of the project area, but uh that's essentially what brings us here tonight. Okay, sounds good. Thank you. You bet. Anyone else?

All right. Move to approve. Commissioner Anderson moves to improve to approve the improvement district number 308, Meadow Ridge Development Reconstruction, and to approve the amended engineers report. Is there a second? Second. Commissioner Jorgensson seconds. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor of improvement district number 308, please signify by saying I. I.

I. opposed. Motion carried. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. Uh item number six is also yours. That's an improvement district number 309, a First Avenue East reconstruction Cheyenne Street to Fourth Street East. Uh conducting the determination of protest sufficiency and approve an associated resolution. Mr. Wallace.

Uh thank you again, Mr. Commission President and Commissioners. Uh really quick, I'm I'm here before you again tonight. uh improvement district number 3009. This is uh going to be uh looking at 1 Avenue uh um portion from Cheyenne Street over to uh uh 4th and we're essentially uh looking at something similar. Um the infrastructure is in uh pretty tough shape. Um we're looking at uh bringing forward uh neighborhood reconstruction for the area. Um we've launched into the process again of uh we're um we've been directed to prepare plans and specifications. Uh we're proceeding with that. Um and some of our legal requirements here are uh essentially uh um conducting the the determination of of protest sufficiency um in regard to our resolution of necessity and then uh approving that associated resolution. Um uh multiple notices were published in the uh forum uh in regard to our legal legal obligations there. Um uh the 30-day period for uh that protest period uh has come to an end. Uh we did actually receive one letter um that was probably uh call it maybe a little misconstrued. They uh they sent a letter in that where they were protesting the amount of their special assessment. uh they were not by any means protesting uh the need for the project. Um I can certainly share that with with anyone who would like to see it, but uh that was the crux of that letter and we're actually working with that resident um you know to uh address their concerns. Um if we do proceed and continue on uh we are also planning a uh public meeting on December 8th and uh once again I would invite anyone who would love who would who would like to attend to to

attend that. Um, with all that being said, um, we have the affidavit of publication in your packet here. Um, the mailer that was actually sent to the property owners just, uh, letting them know that this this public hearing was coming up. Um, and the, uh, associated resolution of ins insufficient protest, uh, should you choose to proceed. Uh staff recommendation again is to conduct the the determination of protest sufficiency and approve that associated resolution. Um and again with that I'm available for for any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Wallace.

I move we approve. Commissioner Zundell moves to approve the improvement district number 309 and conduct and determination of protest sufficiency and approve approve associated resolution of necessity I would assume. Is that right? Yes, sir. Second.

I have a second. We have a motion and a second to approve it to approve improvement district 309 from 1 Avenue East. Excuse me. From Cheyenne Street to 4th Avenue East. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carried. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Wallace. We move on to item number seven. Number seven is to authorize the RFP uh request for a proposal for a new ERP system. We're going to call on Mr. Willie Galindo, our finance director for the city of West Fargo. Good evening and welcome.

Evening, commissioners and commissioner president. It's pretty amazing that um a year has gone by and tomorrow will be two months since I first started working here for the city of West Fargo back in September of 18, 2024. And in that time frame, I've had an opportunity to observe and evaluate our current ERP software system. Um, I've also been able to attain feedback from team members of the finance department and colleagues from other departments as well on propositions for looking at modules and software um that are include but are not limited to procurement and capital improvement planning software. Um, so in that time frame, all that data that has been collected and the feedback that I received has culminated into the document that I present before you tonight. With this said, I request and seek authorization from you to proceed with publishing the request for proposal to bid out for a new ERP software. And I also stand before you to take any questions. Any questions for Mr. Kindo? Could you move the move that up a little [clears throat] the schedule of events? Thank you. P. Let the public see that.

Um, may I ask please who your committee was that did this review? Um we're actually going to be developing an evaluation committee and uh the committee will be involving um the commissioner and uh the commissioners that does the primary and the secondary portfolio. Uh in this particular case it would be you as the mayor and Robin Anderson as commissioner and along with that we'd have other team members that include myself uh a member of public works and a member of engineering department. So those would be the members of the evaluation process and Nick Lee who is a senior director for administrative services.

Very good. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions for Mr. Gundo? You ready to get signed up for another committee? You two? Yeah. [laughter] I move we approve. Commissioner Zundelle moves to approve the authorization of the RFP for a new ERP system as presented. Is there a second? I'll second.

Commissioner Jorgensson seconds. We have a motion and a second to authorize the RFP for the new ERP system. uh request for proposal for a new financial uh software. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carried. Thank you, Mr. Glendel. Thank you.

Item number eight is policies. Call on Dustin Scott, city administrator. We have uh five items this evening. the uh city employee policies for sick leave, personal leave, vacation leave, overtime and uh compensation time and holidays. Mr. Scott. Well, thank you, Commissioner President Dartis and commissioners. As um Mayor Dartis just said, we've got five policies. We are continuing our efforts to update all of our city policies. The five before you tonight are um updates to what is currently in our handbook. There is a highle summary of proposed changes from our 2025 employee handbook to what uh will be implemented in Lexi pole. So again these are policies relating to leave overtime and our holidays. So with that I would stand for any questions.

Questions for Mr. Scott? Commissioner Zundell.

It's me. Um, the only question that I had was on the use of vacation leave. Um, it would be on page three, Emily. And then 420.7 use of vacation leave. Uh, I I noticed that they must submit something at least 2 weeks before the requested leave date and there doesn't really seem to be any flexibility with that. Is there a reason or I guess is that current practice? Is that practice changing? Well, that's an excellent question, Commissioner. Uh, I will have to look into that a little further. Um, I I'm not 100% sure if that language is taken from our 25 handbook, but we can certainly look into that. And if it is too rigid, uh, should the commission want us to add some flexibility there, we can certainly do that. I'd say in common practice, yes, we would be certainly more flexible with our staff um, at the discretion of our department heads and supervisors.

Okay. So, we can certainly look to amend that language just to match the the practical practice. And then my other question, and this could be because it's in a different policy somewhere else that we're not viewing, but on page four, Emily, when it says exempt employees who work four or more hours in in a workday will be considered to have worked the full day, does it matter where they work from? So, for example, are they allowed to work virtually? Do they have to be physically in our space? Do we have a separate work from home policy or I guess

yeah again uh thank you for the question. Uh so predominantly yes they they are working from the office but there are special considerations by which uh they would be allowed to work at home. Again that is left up to discretion of department heads given the uh nature and functionality of their position. Not all positions, in fact, most positions would not qualify for that. But there are positions that are um productive whether they're attending a conference or working from home. There are some uh circumstances where they are not accumulating those four hours in the office.

And then my other question, um you brought up conferences specifically. One of the things that came to mind was travel. So if they're not physically in the office but they are traveling that day does that count? Again uh there can be different circumstances. Yep. These things and that's where we generally try to provide some flexibility within these policies. Uh we rely on our department heads and our supervisors to exercise their judgment and ensure that we are really not only complying with the policies but doing what is you know common or good practice.

And then the very last thing that we talked about as far as giving credit um within a year of separation from the city is that what we're currently doing in practice. So Emily, if you went all the way down the last sentence, so an employee who returns the service of the city within one year of separation will be given credit for prior service. Is that what we're currently doing or is that Yes. Yes, I believe so. I again, I'd have to confirm the actual language in the 2025 handbook, but I believe that's current practice. Okay, sounds good. Thank you.

Again, I can follow up with a confirmation after looking into that. Anyone else? We are looking for a motion to approve. Oh, motion to approve. Commissioner Jorgensson moves to approve uh the Lexipole policies uh item number 417, 419, 420, 422, and 433. Is there a second? Second. Commissioners Unell seconds. We have a motion and a second to approve these policies as presented. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. [clears throat]

Opposed. Motion carried. Item number nine is the city administrator's report. Mr. Scott.

Thank you again, Commissioner President Dartis and commissioners. Really just have one uh update for you, one staff update. Uh we have started the search for a new director of human resources. Uh we are accepting applications through mid December uh with uh interviews planned for the early part of January. Um we're already seeing strong interest in just the last 10 days of of posting the position and uh excited to see that trend continue. Uh Nick and our HR team are doing an excellent job handling some additional responsibilities to keep our HR functions operating smoothly for staff. So, uh, kudos to them. Uh, again, our staff are our most critical assets. So, we are doing everything we can do to ensure that there's no disruption in in HR services for them. So, that's really all the updates I have for you and would stand for any questions you have.

Questions for Mr. Scott. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh all correspondence has been distributed are either in your mailboxes were given to you this evening at your desk. U does any commissioner have any non-aggenda item that they'd like to bring forward at this time? Madame Secretary Emily I would request that the u the schedules for that Mr. Wallace has talked about his meetings in December that we as a commission get a notification for those uh meetings with the public. Uh if if we can make ourselves available, that'd be nice for us to be there as well. and also uh when the final schedule comes through with regarding to the uh RFP uh those of us that are involved in that discussion uh be nice to have a schedule reminder [snorts] and anything else non-aggenda commissioners any department head have anything for us this evening

commissioner Jorgensson motion to adjurnn commissioner Zundell Second, we stand a journ.