City Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Monday, March 16th, West Fargo City Commission meeting. Would you please join the commission in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Before we start the meeting, I'd ask that everybody in the crowd please silence their cell phones with the exception of emergency personnel. Madam Secretary, please call the role. Commissioner Jorgensson, present. Commissioner Zundell present. Commissioner Dardis here. Commissioner Olsen here. Commissioner Anderson

here. Let the record show all commissioners are present. Uh item D is to approve the order of the agenda and it has been distributed and in the packet. Move. Commissioner Zundal moves to approve the order of the agenda as presented for March 16th, 2026. 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. Next order of business is to approve the minutes of March 2nd, 2026. They have been distributed. Move to approve. Commissioner Olsen moves to approve. Is there a second? Second.

Commissioner Jorgensson seconds. We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of March 2nd 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, they have been distributed in your packets and before you. Motion to approve. Commissioner Jorgensson moves to approve the building permits as presented. Is there any second? Second. Commissioner Olsen 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. Next order of business of business is the consent agenda. We have items A through F. No, there's more than that. K. Oh, I'm sorry. A through K. Excuse me. Move approve. Commissioner Zendelle moves to approve the consent agenda items A through K. Is there a second? Second. Commissioner Olsen seconds. We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda items A through K. Is there any discussion? Can I have one? Mayor, please.

Uh, for item E, project number 2300. When that gets brought back, when bids are when we're look when you're asking for bids to be uh, accepted and move forward with the project, can we get a short presentation and the cost analysis on prior public works mill and overlay projects, please? Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. Absolutely. We can work on that. Okay. Thank you.

I absolutely agree with Commissioner Anderson on this. And uh in that analysis, the city needs to make sure that we have a standard procedure on how we apply cost with regard to uh depreciation, all of those types of things. How you uh uh estimate overtime hours at what rate. uh what the quiz equipment rates are and all of that type of thing. Yes, absolutely. So, yeah, we I will work with public works and engineering and we'll have something prepared.

Thank you. Again, we have a motion on the consent agenda. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. I opposed. Motion carried. We move into the regular agenda. The first order of business on the regular agenda is public comment. Madam Secretary, has anybody signed up for public comment? I do not have anyone.

We have no public comment this evening. So, public comment is closed. We move on to item number two, which is public hearings uh in which the public can address any item that's on this on this evening's agenda. None of the agenda items require a public hearing this evening. So, thus public hearings is also closed. We move on to item number three. Item number three is the Gate City Bank neighborhood revitalization program. We're going to call on Aaron Nelson, our director of planning and zoning for a presentation. Good evening and welcome.

Good evening, President Dartis and commissioners. So item three is this year's annual renewal of the city's neighborhood revitalization program with Gate City Bank. This program provides low interest home improvement loans for qualifying homes within West Fargo. And the city has been partnering with Gate City Bank since uh 2019 on this program. The recommended action tonight is to reapprove the program for 2026 by directing staff to continue to partner with Gate City Bank to to promote and administer this program. Uh prior to taking action, however, we do have a few or excuse me, a couple of folks from Gate City Banks who would like Gate City Bank who would like to address the commission if that's all right. Uh otherwise, I'm certainly here for any questions after the fact. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Good evening and welcome.

Good evening. Thank you for having us. Um, my name is Brandy Olsen and I serve as a retail manager. Be help if I help if I press the button, right? So, um, good evening. Thank you for having us. My name is Brandy Olsen and I serve as a retail manager at Gate City Bank. At Gates City Bank, our core purpose is to create a better way of life for our customers, communities, and team members. We're incredibly thankful for our communities we call home and we're proud to invest in them so they remain beautiful for years to come. Today, I'm excited to share how our neighborhood revitalization program will help create a better way of life for the residents of West Fargo. The Home Improvement Partnership does just that and is one of our similar programs we offer across our region and is designed to revitalize neighborhoods, helping homeowners make repairs and upgrades at below market interest rates. In 2026, we're happy to allocate 2 million for this initiative, which will encourage the preservation of our wonderful homes and add long-term value of properties and neighborhoods. Qualifying projects will range from patio additions and new garages to safety repairs like furnace replacements and accessibility adjustments. Funds may also be used to address code and structural corrections, energy improvements, general property upgrades. Um, so we've been supporting our community since 2000 our surrounding communities since 2003, contributing over 127 million to date. In 2026 alone, we have allocated 23 million for um communities across North Dakota and West Central Minnesota. Um so we're super excited to continue this partnership with the city of West Fargo and continuing um to revitalize our neighborhoods for years to come. So open for questions if you have any. Okay, city.

As a great community partner for the city of West Fargo, we thank you for making these funds available, $2 million, and at a lower interest rate uh to help those individuals that have a assessed value of their home of less than $300,000. So, it's a great program. We're grateful. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for having us. Any other questions, commissioners, the gate city folks? All right. Any qu any questions for Aaron? Okay. I move we approve. Commissioner Zundell moves to approve the neighborhood revitalization program with Gate City Bank as presented. Is there a second? I'll second.

Commissioner Jorgensson seconds. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. Opposed. Motion carried. Thank you. Thank you. Have a great evening. be sure and pass on our thanks to the ad uh administrative team in Gate City, Kevin Hansen, who is a president of Gate City and a resident of West Fargo. We will do that.

Thank you. Next order of business is item number four, project number 2293, 9th Street Northeast, grade separation. We call on Dan Hansen, the senior director of community and development. The order of uh of this discussion is to approve plans and specifications, direct an advertisement for bids, and approve a task order number 9-3. Mr. Hansen, good evening and welcome.

Good evening. Thank you, Commissioner, President Dartis, and commissioners. Uh our city engineer, Jerry Wallace, is serving in the military and will be gone until the beginning of April. Uh so after uh thinking he could flex his muscles by bringing only eight uh items to last month's to the March 2nd commission meeting, I needed to come back up here and stress my authority over him for that respect. So anyways, I will try to be respectful of time and get through this. Um for this project here, 2293, this is the 9th Street Northeast grade separation. If you recall, this is the bridge uh that we received the raise grant for and subsequently prairie grant funds uh to construct a bridge over the BNSF railroad. And uh the plans uh we do have the agreement uh finalized with the FHWA and with that we were able to uh have our consultant complete the plans and specifications and uh they are not in they're not all included in the packet because the packet would be uh huge. So, uh there's a portion of it, but they're available if anybody would care to take a look. Um so, anyways, um we're looking to direct advertisement for bids for that project. Uh that would bid out in uh early April as well. And so, that's exciting news to move forward with that. And then along with that uh our consultant Houston engineering uh we have uh task order 9-3 in the packet that basically has uh a lot of their work uh for the construction administration of the project and everything. So all the costs that are included in the what's shown in the increased fees of the task order have been included in previous uh cost analysis for the project. Uh so this uh this was expected and uh with that I would answer any questions.

Questions for Mr. Hansen. Move we approve the plans and specs and uh go off for advertisements and approve the task order 9-3. I have a motion. Is there a second? Please second. Commissioner Anderson seconds. We have a Commissioner Olsen moves. Commissioner Anderson seconds for project number 2293 to approve the plans and specifications and direct an advertisement for bids and approve a task order number 9-3. Is there any discussion hearing? None. All those in favor please signify by saying I

opposed. Motion carried. We are now on item number five. Item item number five is the 2026 concrete pavement repairs. Again, we call on Dan Hansen, our senior director of community and development. The purpose of this discussion is create project number 2299 and direct the engineer to prepare an engineer's report. Mr. Hansen.

Yep. Thank you, Commissioner Dartis and Commissioners. Uh this is a standard project that we move forward with each year uh where the engineering staff works with public works to identify um concrete panled roadways uh that are uh that are cracked up and uh falting which can potentially uh ruin snow blade uh snowpaw blades and things of that nature. So those uh those areas have been identified and so for we're looking to move forward with this year's uh 2026 concrete pavement repair project. Uh each year uh in the capital improvement plan, we do budget a million dollars for both the concrete pavement repairs as well as another $250,000 for uh the replacement of pedestrian ramps. Uh we do have uh mostly the concrete pavement repairs in this, but we do have some pedestrian ramps as well. Uh the um so anyways uh what we're just looking to do tonight is just to create the project direct uh engineer to prepare the engineers report that will be brought forth back in front of the commission again for approval uh to move forward with the design of the project. With that I'll entertain questions.

Questions for Mr. Hansen. A motion to approve. Mr. Jorgensson moves to approve. Is there a second? Second. Commissioner Zundal seconds. We have a motion and a second to approve the 2026 concrete pavement repair plan and create a project number 2299. Direct the engineer to prepare an engineer's report. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor please signify by saying I. I. Opposed.

Motion carried. We are on now now item number six. Item number six is a 32nd Avenue and Fifth Street West pedestrian improvements. Call again on Dan Hansen, the senior director of community and development. Purpose of this discussion is to create project number 2304 and direct the engineer to prepare an engineer's report. Mr. Hansen.

Thank you, Commissioner, President Dartis, and Commissioners. Uh this is a project that was originally brought to our attention by the West Fargo Police Department that requested the engineering department uh look at providing some pedestrian improvements on 32nd Avenue in the area of the lights. Uh right now when we have uh events at the lights, um there is a tremendous amount of people that cross over uh 32nd Avenue in the location of Fifth Street. I'll jump down into the report here. Uh this is showing more or less what the improvements would look like. Uh basically if you in in the consultants report that's attached um they took a look at one of the events that was occurring at the lights and there was about a thousand people that actually crossed over that roadway during that day with the peak happening obviously uh after the event had uh completed uh to I'm assuming uh to go and visit some of the establishments on the south side of 32nd Avenue. Um this has been noticed to be uh not a a safe situation for that amount of people to be crossing uh without any form of pedestrian um uh crossings at that at that intersection of 5th and 32nd. So what we're proposing to do and what the the engineers report that is or not engineers report but the study that was done by the consultant supports is there is an eastbound left turn lane that goes to the north uh that would be filled in and create a a median uh basically a refuge for pedestrians crossing uh that intersection. Um there it looked at uh three different options making Fifth Street a right in right out from both sides. It also took a look at potentially uh moving that pedestrian crossing on the east side of the

intersection of Fifth and 32nd and also this location here on the west side of Fifth and 32nd. Uh this is the preferred uh and recommended um safety improvements to be implemented uh with this project. Um, and the reason it wasn't chose to be on the east side of it is to give uh pedestrians more u distance between the Cheyenne intersection and the crossing. So that way uh anybody that's turning westbound from Cheyenne uh they would be exiting onto Fifth U before they hit that crosswalk. So some of those uh some of those vehicles would be exiting 32nd Avenue. And then also again to give the crosswalk a little bit more um room between uh the Cheyenne Street and that crossing to give motorists more time to react to pedestrians in that crossing. Uh they did take a look at three different types of of improvements. One would be a signal. Found that a signal is not warranted. Uh they also looked at for Lamemonster it's called a hawk system where you see it's a pedestrian crossing and it looks like a full-blown signal with uh red lights that you can see it on 8th Avenue near Concordia for example over in Morehead. That type of a signal system. Again that system also needs uh warrants through uh the uh federal uh standards and those were also not met for that. So neither of those type of improvements were an option for us. Um, but the rapid reflecting flashing beacons, the RFBs, that is a fairly standard thing that's in use around here that uh drivers are normally used to seeing. It does uh uh it's a push button that basically lights up and oscillates between uh sides and it is a very good indicator to traffic that there are pedestrians uh located in the intersection that it's coming up to crossing. So that is the recommendation

uh for this and uh there is a couple different things in that uh study that I wanted to point out is uh number one uh is by um putting uh by closing off this access uh for the northbound traffic here. Uh and uh they're they're saying that there is potential that there is going to be additional traffic obviously that would be turning northbound on Sixth Street before if if somebody's coming eastbound and going to the lights, they would be turning up north on Sixth Street. um in that in that uh I can jump down into the you can see right now there's where I'm circling right now there's there's 31 people or 31 cars vehicles that turn northbound. So and that is uh for the AM peak hour the PM peak hour is even less than that. Uh and you can see right now turning northbound on six is roughly about if I can read that five or five or six uh cars. So those cars that are those 31 cars turning northbound over the course of a day. Uh that would be um would be turning northbound on that left turn, they can't anymore. So they would be turning north on Sixth. Uh six does not actually extend as a city street. So those those 28 vehicles that would be turning northbound on 6th uh would basically get to the lights through that parking lot. That's not ideal and it's not a public rightway. Uh one of the things that was uh discussed in the report is that Sixth Street eventually had a plan to uh go to the north and then eventually curve to the east and connect with Fifth. Um there if you take a look at an aerial photograph, there is actually street lights that are out in that green space in preparation someday for that roadway to go in. So it did

recommend in this report that if we do these uh improvements here that we might want to take a look at potentially uh extending Sixth Street over to make that connection over to Fifth in con not, it says in conjunction with this project. It could also just be done as a separate project to be looked at at some point. Um, but again, we're we're talking about uh 31 vehicles. So, it's it is not a tremendous amount of vehicles. And also, you could make the argument that some of those vehicles were actually going to the hockey place. That might be just taking the Fifth Street northbound uh left turn. Uh so, some of those would would be going through that parking lot anyways if if that was their destination. Uh there's no way to tell for that, but it is not a tremendous amount of vehicles, but given the fact that we have a thousand people after an event crossing Fifth Street and we have it was noticed in the video u by our consultant when they were looking at it and putting together the study, they did notice that there were a lot of vehicle and pedestrian interaction. Uh luckily there wasn't any vehicle pedestrian accidents that they reported uh having seen. Um so um people were able to navigate but it's only it's only a matter of time uh without doing something here and given that the PD uh asked us to take a look at this and see if we can't make some improvements this was the solution that is supported uh basically because there are no warrants for any form of signalization of those intersections. So we would be looking to create this project and then direct the engineer to prepare an engineer's report that would be brought back in front of the commission for approval to move forward with uh design. And uh the other thing that I would like to mention with this is we did uh apply for some funding. Uh that funding was uh let me scroll back up to the agenda here

on January 5th. Uh we had approved staff uh to apply for the grant funding uh to help with the construction of this project and we were successful in being awarded uh carbon reduction program funding in the amount of $184,448. The engineered estimate for the actual construction, not including soft cost, but just the construction side of this project is $230,560. So, we were able to attain basically about $184,000 of that $230,000 to be applied towards the construction of this project. So, um very well funded with that grant program that we thank MetrooG for helping us facilitate. And with that, I would entertain any questions.

Commissioner Olsson. Thank you. Um Dan, have we do we have a backup plan in case the uh the school or whoever is managing that parking lot puts up a no through traffic sign there or on the north side? The the answer would be to extend sixth over to fifth. Okay, that would that would be the only because say we were to do this improvement and they were to say no through traffic, uh we would need to work with them on getting Sixth Street. But with regard to Commissioner Olsson's, could you put the map back up so we can absolutely make sure that we understand where this where the public understands where the school property is. I think all the commissioners are are familiar with it, but

so this is the this is the school the sports arena. Um, Fifth Street is right here where we're looking to put the improvements for the walkway is right here. Sixth Street is located right here. And you can see the street goes north, not through public right away. It is just it does it does end there. Um but uh you can see around the north side of the parking lot, there's a there is green space right there. And uh as I stated earlier there, I believe there's actually uh lighting in place for that future roadway. This is where we would look to eventually extend this street north, sixth street north, curve to the east, and then connect with fifth street right there. It should also be noted that uh there is a signalized intersection that's uh just north of this aerial photo that people are able to access the lights area off of Cheyenne um through it through that signalized area. That's that's not shown on this photograph. But

and thank Commissioner Zundal. So I think one thing I don't like about this traffic study, I love the fact I love the intent. I like that we're looking for solutions. But am I correct in assuming that they did this I think I saw on July 31st or something like that is when they collected the data. Uh they did collect the data uh last year. Um like 24 hours of turning movement data was collected on Thursday, July 31st. Yeah. And they they picked that date because that was the day of a concert.

So that date is not in hockey season. And where you're going to have a ton of traffic in and out of this is going to be hockey. Like our parking lot at Vets Arena is packed all the time. I mean 31 is going to be the parents dropping off kids for morning practice and then they're going to come back in potentially to pick them up. Mhm. Um I think eliminating a left turn into the sports arena at that location is going to be very very problematic on all of the other days of the year. Sure.

Um specifically for what I would presume to be arena operations. Um my other question would be have we talked to the businesses in the lights because I think even people going to the bank I think that's a very natural way to get into how you would go into the bank teller line. I think preventing a left turn or just cutting off traffic from there in general might create some problems. So, I guess in summary, a I think if we're going to do this, we we really should reevaluate traffic when hockey is in season. And I would honestly recommend a day that there's a tournament there because they host tournaments. There's two sheets of ice. There's people everywhere. Um my other thought would be is there temporary traffic event management things that we can do? Can we basically can we do a crosswalk and then create some type of preventing a left turn when there are events of a certain threshold as a part of like their event permit or something like that?

Uh you you'd have to basically do that manually. Um obviously with like flaggers or something like that if a person if if we were to do something like that um you wouldn't be able to put the RRFBs out there for that if it's just going if we're not going to be able if we're not creating the crosswalk there. Um and uh a couple different things like our previous comments is that uh people coming in and out of their um people leaving the lights right now are not allowed to take a lefthand turn to head east towards Cheyenne. Uh because that is just two um Yep.

it's a 3/4 access intersection right now. Uh, so everybody that's leaving the lights currently must be going through if they want to get out to Cheyenne, they're either heading north that signalized intersection or already going through that parking lot. So, uh, there would be some of that. Um, the other thing is as far as most people dropping off, u kids that are going to be playing uh, hockey there. Um, the majority of the traffic would be coming from Cheyenne. um people that are coming from the rest of the community, um they'd be going westbound and they'd be able to still get in there.

I don't think that's true because you have like for example, Horus High plays at that sports arena. So all of the traffic that any kid who plays from south, a lot of times they're going to be practicing here. So, a lot of them I I think when you're coming in and out or you're cutting off traffic, depending on where they're coming from, if they're driving down 9th Street taking a right on 32nd Avenue to loop into there, I suppose they could loop in on six and then loop back out. But

well, if if they're coming from the west, uh if we close the if for a hockey drop off, so people that are going for a hockey um tournament or something like that are coming from the west, they would still be turning northbound on sixth to to get to that spot. Um they I don't know how many are going past sixth to get to fifth to turn north and then go back into the parking lot. I don't I mean there obviously could be um it could be that people are driving in from the east side going up fifth so they could pull in drop somebody off and then head back to sixth to get out of there and be able to to loop

to take a a left onto 32nd. We don't have that data. Um we it is something that we could reinitiate another uh traffic count during uh a hockey tournament and we could go back to the consultant see if they would run the same analysis uh to get us traffic counts during a hockey tournament day if that is something that is desired. I just worry if we're going to be making any long-term decisions or we think we're creating problems potentially on six or anything like that. I guess my other followup would be like, have we talked to the school district about this or even West Fargo events who manage the arena

or like Bell Bank or any basically any of these major stakeholders who are going to be affected by removing a left turn access into an area.

Yeah, there has not been conversations for that because we really haven't created the project and this this is basically creating the project um going out for the report. But I would expect for us to have the engineers report. Um it is during that time frame after we've gotten buyin from the commission that we want to even proceed with or look at proceeding with the project that we would reach out. Um if this doesn't look like something this the commission would want to proceed with. Uh there would be no need to talk to all of the all of those people in that in that area. Um but u moving forward if we do proceed with an approval for tonight uh we can definitely uh send out mailers, get uh phone numbers for people that we can reach out to uh go over this obviously talk to the school uh we could talk to the West Fargo Hockey Association and other entities that would be using that building um and maintaining the building to let them know of this. I do think that the recommendation from the report that we extend sixth is a very good uh project that we should proceed with. I do think that it is uh this is an economic development type of a project because it's direct access to the lights in a place where a lot of people are coming to to play hockey and so that is definitely bringing commerce to the town. So, I would think that the sixth to fifth connection would be something that we would be able to look at with utilizing economic development uh sales tax dollars to to do that project. Um, so that would be the route that I would eventually assume that we would be coming back with on how to pay for that. Um, and if this is something that we want to move forward with tonight, uh, that would really trigger us to also not only have conversations with them about what's going to happen with this access, um, but we would also start also talking to them. Uh, because if we're going to be extending six, that's also crossing private property as well. I know that when there was uh some development discussions of what might happen to the

site before they were actually talking about building buildings across sixth um so that would if we were to dedicate that as right away and extend that roadway obviously then there would not be an an avenue that we could extend six. So we would really want to have a there would be a longer discussion on the ultimate development of that area as to whether we could extend sixth and if not um we would look at see and see what would what is the appetite for um these proposed improvements from the perspective of the the school district and the and the Fargo parks and and the hockey association and people that utilize that facility.

Long answer to a short question. That was a couple of questions so you couldn't get a long answer in there. I couldn't agree more with Commissioner Zundell with regard to having a conversation with West Fargo events who manages the hockey arena for the school district and you know you're the long-term plan even the discussion you're having about extending PIP uh and you're talk Dan you're talking about economics development sales tax money uh but you know that is school district land and you know that is an interesting possible uh potential uh we set a precedent that we're not going to assess the school district for any of these improvements and and I think that Commissioner Zundell's point about Bell Bank and some of the other uh businesses that are at the lights uh that they ought to they be should be made aware before we create this quite honestly.

Mhm. Mr. Scott, did you have something that you wanted to interject? Thank you, Commissioner President Nurtis. Uh yeah, just real quick, uh the extension of six through the school's property there that is uh encompassed in an easement. That roadway was meant to be extended at some point in the future. Um, so I just I I did want to clarify that it is within a platted easement. It is a plotted easement, but what about assessments?

Yeah. And that you rais a very good point there. So there hasn't been any recent discussion as to how we would fund that project. And yep, a lot of the coordination that's been talked about here is uh certainly going to have to take place before we get to that that particular option. But I did want to just clarify that it is within a an platted easement and was intended to be extended at some point in the future. Great point. Thank you. But the point being if if we're if we're going to make these changes, uh, everyone that's involved in this should have uh some discussion about it, should be included. Commissioner Olson,

the point is we're looking at safety for the pedestrians crossing 32nd because there probably isn't ample parking north of 32 and they cross it to get over to the parking that's available on the south. So, how long do we want to wait before something happens there? Somebody's crossing the street without any protection at all. So, I I think it's a it's a good idea. It's just and until we get feedback from the businesses around there, I think we we should approve it and then then find out and then we can always squash this later. This isn't a done deal at this point, right, Mr.

Correct. Uh all this does is it basically just creates the project which um staff moves forward with with the engineers report. Uh part of the engineers report is would have to be in this case public outreach. And then if if I could get back to the assessment discussion just the reason I had brought up the economic development is that currently everybody that is wanting to access that area be whether it is the sports arena or the lights has that turning lane uh ability right now um by us taking away that turning lane u we're creating a situation where we are directing public traffic over a private parking lot and that's where um where I was saying that uh if we were to use economic IC development funds to do that. Uh we would be basically restoring the access that we're taking away right now uh from them. Um obviously there's it it's any new roadway is an improvement. Uh we could look if there is potentially any assessments uh to the area. Um, but uh, as far as the city's portion of how we would pay for that, I would at that point in time recommend whatever the city's portion of it, whether it be 30, 70, or 100%, we would take a look and see if economic development sales tax dollars is fits that situation.

Commissioner, you had another point.

I think it's again a great anytime we can enhance safety for pedestrians, I I think that's a a great opportunity. My concern is I think it's way cheaper again through a special event permitting process to mandate the people that are holding the event that are making money off of the event to provide traffic control management whether that be flaggers whether it be people they designate like I think there are cheaper ways in the interim to approach this with if we've identified that there is a safety problem than doing a roadway improvement project. I'm not saying the roadway improvement project is a bad idea. I just feel like okay if we talk about an engineers report rough estimate what is an engineers report cost to do something like that for this project?

Uh it would be done by internal staff. So like how many staff hours?

Um with the amount of conversations that we're going to need to have I wouldn't say it would be less than 80 hours probably to put it together. And then again going back to the cost of the improvements here, the the local cost of the construction it'd be the $46,000 for it, not the full $230,000 because of the grant that we that we had received. Well, I my position on this is going to be that of Commissioner Olsen's and that's the let's create the project. Let's have the dialogue with the school district with West Fargo events and the businesses there and uh being it's internal uh as we as we move forward this evening uh I find that acceptable but there has to be conversations and all those entities need to be brought into the conversation.

Absolutely. I move we approve. Commissioner Wilson moves to approve and create project number 2304. Is there a second? Second. Commissioner Anderson. Second. We have a motion and a second. This is at 32nd Avenue and Fifth Street West pedestrian improvements. Is there any discussion? Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. Motion carried. Thank you, Mr. Hansen. We move on to item number seven which is an improvement district number 3006 westward edition reconstruction. Uh again we call on Mr. Hansen our senior director of community and development and approve a task order number 64-7 with more engineering. Mr. Hansen.

Thank you commissioner president and commissioners. Uh this is uh obviously the Westwood edition reconstruction that occurred in 2025. Uh was very successful and uh there was it was uh a great project uh for that neighborhood. Uh Seline Brothers should be commended for the work that they did as a prime on that project. Um just as a shout out to Selene um they had the people of the neighborhood actually making um supper for them and and uh we've received a lot of positive feedback for the contractor on that project. So um but uh what we're here for tonight is that there was some change conditions that were found out in the field uh last year. there was some unsuitable soils that caused the project to be delayed uh where Selen Brothers had to basically export a lot of material and bring in a different material. And then also we if you recall we had a very wet fall that uh delayed a lot of construction and uh just made the project go longer than necessary. And then outside of that, there was also identified as there was a when a when the sidewalks go over driveways, uh it's called the sidewalk crossing plate in those driveways. Uh the contractor that poured the driveways, uh the sidewalk crossing plate and the aprons down to the roadway. uh they were pouring uh portions of it in one pour where they were like for example part of the driveway was poured and then they would also pour that sidewalk uh crossing plate through the driveway at the same time. Uh it was discovered and it's it's tough to see um just when you when everything is dry and being poured that anything was miss but um after some rain events there was some standing water that was noticed on the sidewalks. Uh so our consultant more engineering went out and uh basically took a straight edge and uh and a a smart level to all of those crossing plates and they

identified a number of sidewalk crossing plates in exist in newly poured driveways that there was a little dip that was formed in in that sidewalk crossing plate where water can stand and for example outside today free the freeze thaw conditions it would leave uh some ice on the travelable surface of that sidewalk, which isn't acceptable. It's also not acceptable per ADA standards. So, all of those areas were fine tooth combed and identified as defective work that needs to be reconstructed. Uh this year, uh there was letters sent out to the neighborhood identifying driveways and letting people know that, hey, we had a great project last year. Unfortunately, there's going to be a little bit more work that needs to be done in some driveways for warranty work from the contractor. Um there is no payment for this redo of this work. This is something that was identified as defective. Uh so the contractor is going to need to go out and fix those crossing plates and those sidewalks. So uh residents were notified that there's probably going to be about a twoe period between taking it out, forming it up, pouring it, and letting the concrete cure uh where they're not going to be able to access those driveways. Uh the contractor is going to work with the homeowners to make sure that they're able to um access their properties, but at least the street is done, so you'll be able to still park right out front of the property out on the street and everything. But but obviously uh we're going to need more engineering to be out there and uh doing the construction administration for those corrections as well as some of the final closeout uh items that need to just be closed out uh to finish up the work from last year. Uh so with that there is a task order uh number 64-7 in the commission packet. Uh this uh pays for a number of different things. One being the the extra work that was done last year as the project went further into the season than anticipated

originally as well as anticipated hourly costs for construction administration of the upcoming work yet this year. uh the task orders in the amount of $235,000. Um overall for the financial analysis um when we opened up bids uh we did present that the uh total cost of the project was estimated to be $8,350,000. Uh we are still even with this task order and the ch and the change orders that were issued during the project um still planning on on approximately $8,215,000 as an anticipated final dollar amount uh for the project. So we are still about $135,000 less than what was anticipated with the bids plus uh some construction uh contingencies in that. And so um and then not only that we we did uh get a lowinterest loan uh from the state to help keep the costs down from that perspective as well as we were able to obtain uh some uh from the DEEQ. There was uh some grant money for the replacement of the water man within the neighborhood. So u not the full amount of this project is what is u total cost to the city or assessed. Um, after we take those grant dollars out, then the assessments would be based off of that remainder value. And the city is paying 70% of all costs towards the project after the grant dollars have been applied. And then the assess portion of this is 30%. So with that, um, we're looking for approval of task order 64-7. And I would field any questions.

Commissioner Anderson, I have a couple questions. Um, are we pursuing any options for or are the residents going to be on the hook for the replacement concrete costs? And then are they also going to be on the hook for some of this additional money that we're paying more to handle those issues?

Yes. Uh, two two-part question, two-part answer. There is no cost to the project or the city for the construction or the replacement of these driveways as it's defective. Uh we have withheld payment on the on those driveways in excess of the amount of what uh they cost and so um they will get recon they will get reconstructed and it won't the cost of that construction will not be part of the project. Um as far as what the additional engineering fees are for for con for overseeing the construction side of that uh more engineering does keep track of that separately. So when we they move into the construction season this year uh they will be taking into account um what uh what they're doing as defective work construction administration. So they're going to keep track of that. Again, we we have withheld uh dollars from the contractor in excess of the amount of what it's going to take to do this. And we do have liquidated damages that are part of the project that we can take a look at. That is uh basically an assessment uh against the cost of the project that can be withheld. Um those are done through pay requests. When the pay request comes through for the work, eventually what's going to happen, we'll get a pay request to finally pay for the driveways once they're acceptable. It's in that pay request, we take a look and see what additional costs did they go over. And at that point in time, the city will have the right to withhold liquidated damages from the contractor uh to and the purpose for the liquidated damages is to basically pay the engineer for uh doing the construction inspection during that time. So, uh we would not need to put that towards any of the costs to the residents or assessments. Short answer is no. They won't be assessed for this additional work.

That's another way to put. Okay. Thank you.

And it be the deduction for the Moors supervisoring these improvements. Well, dollar for dollar. I mean, every every dollar that more engineering spends on this project will be deducted from the contractor's final payment. we are we're allowed to with withhold the liquidated damages amount that was part of the contract. We we do not take a look at an invoice and say this is the dollar amount that it is. Um, basically when the liquidated damages amount that was calculated to be withheld in the event that we need to, um, it was calculated based off of an X amount of hours per day over this amount of time as well as some other factors such as project admin administration because we all know that there's the inspector out in the field, but there's also the engineer in the office that's corresponding, keeping track of things. Um, and so all of those costs were estimated when we were putting together the amount of the liquidated damages in the contract. So, uh, I can't say that it's going to be dollar for dollar, but what I can say is the amount of the liquidated damages that was calculated is a reasonable amount that we would expect it would take in a in a day. So, it it it'll be very close.

Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Hansen on this project? I move we approve. Mr. Zendelle moves to improve approve district number 3006 and it's task order 64-7 with more engineering. Is there a second? Second. Commissioner Olsen seconds. We have a motion in a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. Motion carried. We move on to item number eight. Item number eight is the improvement district 308 Meadow Ridge Development Reconstruction Phase 1. The purpose of this discussion is to accept a bid and award a contract contingent upon the North NDEQ. Help me with that. What's that? North Dakota environmental. Yeah. North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality. Quality. Yeah. and an an and an environmental review approval. Mr. Hansen.

Thank you, Commissioner Dardis and commissioners. Uh we did move forward with uh uh the bidding of this project that was authorized at the February 2nd commission meeting. Uh we did receive four bids uh ranging from 3,245,39.90 to 5,294,615 uh with Dakota Underground uh being the low bidder in the amount of $3,245,39.90. Uh that was 20 12.23% less than the opinion of probable costs in the engineers report that was approved back in November of 2025. So that was uh that they were good bids. Um this project obviously is uh is is very needed. It was one of the highest ranked uh projects identified in the core area study. Uh we did receive very good bids uh from Dakota Underground who is a contractor we've worked with on numerous projects that has the ability to come in and and get that project completed. Um, one thing that we're um, also moving forward with is we had approved uh, uh, moving forward with applying for grant funding for the water main replacement that would effectively give us a 60% grant funds towards the replacement of the water man. Nothing in here uh, in the packet actually reflects that because later this week we actually have a uh, there's a meeting uh, with the state on and getting those dollars. So, I would expect it is a funded program and that we're going to get those. So, eventually those dollars um if we're successful, uh which I believe we will be. Those will come off the total uh dollars for the project. And um with that, uh I would request that we accept these bids and award the contract contingent upon the NDEQ environmental review approval. And uh that is necessary wording in here because we are not allowed to approve it until they have went through that approval. We're

expecting that very soon, but haven't received it yet. So when we accept the bids and award the contract tonight, uh it won't officially be awarded until we get word back from the state that they've approved it. So with that, I would entertain questions. Mr. Olson, thank you. Um the low bid is 3.2 2 million and change. But under your financial analysis, you list that the amended engineers report estimate, the total cost is 6.1. Where's the difference? How we come up with an almost an extra $3 million. Where does that come in? So, this bid just for certain parts of the project.

Well, this is just for the construction of the project. That doesn't include any of the soft costs uh that would be involved. And actually I I I believe um not having the number in front of me I believe that I I believe I No, I don't believe it was in this. Well, yeah, it was there's an engineer statement of cost down as we move forward here. So you can take a look on this sheet here that the construction came in at at the 3,245,000 that there is because it is a reconstruct area. There's a lot more in the ground that we might find than a barren field obviously. So there's 15% contingency. So that that adds a half a million getting us to about $3.75 million. After that, you can see the soft costs getting us to uh with the bid an estimated $5.1 million total cost for the project. And that's prior to us um again applying for and receiving grant funds for it. In the end, after those grant funds are re reducing the total project costs, uh the city is u we're paying for 70% of the cost of the project and assessing 30% per the 2022 CIP recommendations. But the total cost you list there is 5.1 million which is still a million less than what you're So that's why I'm just questioning this

the so the amended engineers report was not the final um let me go back actually here I don't mean to put you on the spot no that's okay I Mr. Scott, do you have something to add? Well, maybe more of a question for Dan is the um amended engineers report that was prepared some time ago, whereas this is the engineer's statement of estimated cost. The two documents are different in that the statement of cost is prepared after bids are received. Yeah. Whereas the amended engineers report was prepared prior to bidding. Okay. I don't know exactly when that occurred but

yeah I was I was going to say that the problem is is that this says the for under the financial analysis it says the amended engineers report estimates a project total cost of 6.18 million earlier in the first paragraph it says 12.23% 23% less than the opinion probable cost. Also in the engineers report those two things generally speaking cannot be true. Um there's there's a I did the math in my head. It's not true.

No it is not true. Um so what I'm expect Jerry had put this together before he left. I had reviewed it. I apologize I did not catch that. But I think that there is u an opinion of probable cost in the engineers report. I believe what um that first paragraph what that should have stated was not in the engineers report. I believe that would have been the final bidding engineers estimate from when we went out when we approved it to go out to bids is what I'm guessing. I can I can report look into that and report back on that if you'd like, but I I'm assuming that it's 12.23% less than what the engineers estimate was after the design was done and when we went to bidding. The engineers report would have been before we even started design on the project. So that's where I that's where I believe that the first paragraph should have stated that it is 12.23% less than what was the final bidding engineers estimate. That's typically what we would see in that paragraph.

So, when when is this actually slated to get rolling? If let's say if we approved it tonight, when when would it be done? I I know we have to wait for that, uh, EQ review to be done. Um, so, uh, what I can say is that Dakota's already submitted everything that they need to submit to have precons and we need to move forward with this to just to get things rolling as far as the uh, construction schedule for for this goes. The other portion of this is that uh with the grant money that we are going for uh for the um not only for the the water main but we're also looking to go out to get low interest loans uh for the Meadow Ridge development so that way we can take advantage of that 2% state loans um moving forward tonight is is critical for that time period as well. Um, so by delaying it to the next meeting, would that cause

Yeah, I think that actually would cause um a little bit of a little bit of problem, but what I can say is that the bids that we got are from a very qualified contractor and they're very good. Uh, so I think any I think it would be better for me to just verify what should have been stated there than for us to not award it given the the bids are the design was good, the bid was good. Um, and we we would want to move forward with the project as fast as we can. So that way way we're in in the contractor can order the materials and we're ready to go cuz um, usually it can be mid to late April when they can start construction of a project. The other thing is is we want to schedule a neighborhood meeting because we had an initial neighborhood meeting with with all the folks in that area prior to bidding when we were first setting up the project. We did promise them that we would have another neighborhood meeting after the bids come in. Uh with this award, we would look to schedule that neighborhood meeting very soon. Uh so that way they can be introduced to the contractor. We can answer a lot of questions on how am I going to access my house during construction and things like that. So um I I wouldn't recommend delaying it given the fact that the the pertinent parts are the amount of the bid and the and the qualified contractor that did it. And I will I will answer the question on on if that should have been engineers report engineers report or if that should have been final engineers bidding estimate or or what that would have been. Uh but I believe that's more of a clerical error on the part of

what you've got up on the screen is what we're basically going to go off of. That is that is exactly what we're awarding and anticipating. Yep. Correct. We're awarding 5,100,000. We are awarding uh a bid to the contractor in the amount of $3,245,39.90 to Northern Improvement, which sets the stage for a project that would estimatedly cost $5.1 million. And are we just are we convinced that the million-doll discrepancy in the opening paragraph? Because how can you have neighborhood meetings with these people if there's a differential of and they're going to be paying 30% of it and we're talking about a million dollars difference.

These the numbers you see on your screen are the numbers that are correct and would be presented.

Okay. And even if you go back down um you can see um it's also broke down on the percentages on for what part of the project cons construs uh the different dollar amounts and then also what the city funded portion is of that $5.1 million would be $3.57 million and the 30% that would be special assessed as 1.53 million. That's what would be presented also with the carrot out there that future grant money for the water man would be reducing these numbers. Okay. But the we're we're very certain that the dollar amount from that bid is correct. It is a good contractor to work with and the numbers that you see in that engineer statement of cost post bid, these are the numbers that are true and and moving forward with. Um, I suspect that the 6.1 the the 6.18 million that is down in the financial analysis, I believe that that is true to what was in the engineers report that was put together prior to the design of the project. So the $6.18 million is something that when we first initiated the project, we did a feasibility study that was generally speaking we try to be very conservative with our estimates of costs for that because we don't want to paint the rosiest picture and then come back with higher costs. Uh so there is also when that engineers estimate was put together off of the feasibility study projects hadn't been bid out this year. We've generally seen that there's been a lot of projects that have been coming in under what was paid last year. But standard practice is is you take a look at what you paid last year and you say, "Well, there's going to be some inflation, so we probably should bump those dollars up 5%." Where we're actually seeing them down sometimes 10 15%. That creates a 15 20% movement just

in that. So, so the 6.18 million I'm very confident in saying that that was put together pre-esign and that was from the engineers report. Where I think there's a discrepancy is in the first paragraph that probably should not have said the engineers report. I believe that that should have been the final bidding the final engineers bidding estimate after the design was completed and we went out to bids. We expected the bids to come in um at at a dollar amount that would equal those that 12.23%. And I I think you'll hear back from me that says a statement that says yeah that shouldn't have said engineers report there. That should have said final engineers bidding estimate is my estimate.

So what you're asking for tonight is the approval of the 5,100,000. We're uh asking for to accept the bids that came in from Northern Improvement in the amount of 3,245,000. Dakota Underground, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Uh yeah, Dakota Underground in the amount of 3,245,39.90. That's all you're asking for? Yep. Yep. And to award the contract to the contractor for that. So, because I want those numbers very specifically in the motion that if they're if it's different than what the $3,245,39.90s is, Yep. you need to come back here. 100%.

Got it. Okay. So I would recommend a motion that accept the bid in the amount of $3,245,39.90 to Dakota Underground Company and award them the contract at that dollar amount contingent upon the NDEQ Environmental Review approval. Do we have a motion that motion? Commissioner Zundell makes that motion. Is there Commissioner Anderson? Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion hearing? None. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Hansen. Yep. Item number nine, project number 6064, transit shelters. Mr. Hansen, senior director of community and development. Purpose of the discussion is to approve the engineer's report and direct the engineer to prepare plans and specifications. Mr. Hansen been a busy boy today. Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner. We're like being hard on him too tonight.

Commission meetings were just going way too fast. So I came back. Um so uh thank you Commissioner Dar and commissioners. Uh this is uh the project where Matt Bus has uh 10 available shelters uh to give to the city of West Fargo. Uh we were waiting to install these because we were taking a look if you recall at the end of last year if we were going to move any of the diff the the routes to different locations. Uh so now that that study has had been completed and we have finalized with map bus the routes that are going to be serviced uh we took a look and we determined the five locations that we're going to start with to place these these five shelters. Um this was in front of you on March 2nd where we created the project directed uh the engineer to prepare the report. Um that report has been completed and uh so we in the process of uh moving forward with plans and specifications. So, um, in that engineers report, you can see we're estimating a total cost of, uh, $40,000, uh, for the construction of basically some pad sites, uh, where these shelters can be placed. And, uh, we would be doing this design obviously internally with our engineering staff, uh, and public works department, I believe, to to construct these areas. Uh, so we would be looking to approve this engineer's report and direct the engineer to prepare plans and specifications so that way we can

Could you could you put the map up again, please? I sure can. Mr. Hansen, and I know that uh, Commissioner Jorgensson had some very good questions last commission meeting about placement of these. There's no map.

There is no map in there. All right, Commissioner Jorgensson, do you have some additional questions? Go ahead and pull it up. But I do. So if we have 10 available and the RLER finalized, why are we not putting all 10 in? That's an excellent question. Uh the one thing is that we were looking at doing the five locations, which is the the where the most ridership is located, the biggest pickup areas are. Um and then uh we're because we're looking to do this with our staff, we're looking to do this amount and then we can determine if we want to proceed if there are other um higher pickup areas that we want to use the other ones with. There are some areas that really they're they stop, but there really isn't a lot of people waiting uh for for it. Um, not that it's not important, it can be used, but um, we did, I believe they picked those five locations based off of the top five

and basically the amount of work that we figure public works is able to to handle. Let's see how it goes and then plays out. No, it's item 10. You had it. You had it there, Emily. Item 10 on that one. You had item nine on that. No, she's going back to the last meeting. Oh, let's get the map up. Okay, there you go. That's the one I asked for. Yep.

Sorry. I can't I can't zoom in or or not. So, if you can see in there's it's where these stars are located. There we are. So you can see there's one up on Fourth, another on Seventh, another over here on 9inth. Seventh at the highrise. Yep. 32nd Avenue down by the lights. And then also just off of 32nd Avenue Cashwise.

The Cashwise. Yep. On the south side of Cashwise. Anything else, Commissioner Jorgensson? No. Okay. Anyone else questions on this project? My motion to approve. Commissioner Jorgensson moves to approve project number 6064 for transit shelters five to be placed within the city of West Fargo. The discussion is to approve the engineers report and the directing engineer to prepare plans and specifications. Is there a second? Second. Commissioner Olson 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.

I. Opposed. Motion carried. We are now on item number 10. Item number 10 is project number 9021, wastewater serviceability and risk reduction study. Again, we call on Dan Hansen, our senior director of community and development. Purpose of this discussion is to approve purchasing of flow metering equipment. Mr. Hansen.

Thank you, Commissioner Darson. Commissioners, um we are in the process of completing uh the excuse me, the wastewater serviceability and risk reduction study. Uh this was a study that we were able to receive uh grant uh from the state uh for us to uh basically take a look at our entire sanitary system. And right now everything that we have in the city pumps through SA40 which is the main lift station that pumps all of our sewage uh over to Fargo. Uh right now if there was issues with that station or if that station were to go down uh what is the answer? Uh that was the answer that we were looking for in this study. Uh there if you've been a part of any of the growth area master plan uh discussions that we've had and there's some more stakeholder meetings coming up with that. A portion of that is also talking about what are we going to do with the lagoon areas as we're decommissioning those lagoons. Uh that also is something where we're um we're we're keeping the north and south those there's three lagoons on the east side right now that run north and south of 12th Avenue. And the ultimate goal would be that we were actually going to reduce those to basically two smaller cells, a primary and a secondary. So we have a little bit of capacity to treat the peaks of some storms. So we don't have to pump pump a whole bunch of storm water over to Fargo and pay them to treat it where we can treat it ourselves. Eventually we could as the whole north area growth area builds out. Uh we could just go straight to pumping, but we wouldn't be doing that until that whole area builds out and there's revenues coming in for us to be able to afford to do that. So in the meantime um that that's an example of one of the solutions that's coming out of this uh wastewater serviceability and risk reduction study. So part of what more engineering as our consultant has done

is they've also have HDR engineering as a subconsultant that basically modeled the entire sanitary sewer system for the city. uh that has been completed and that uh that model that they have put together is based off of pump curves and surveyed elevations of pipes and things of that nature. We know the d diameters of pipes. So in theory the model is very good and it works. Um we've been able to test it based off of some known information from previous rain events. Um, but what would really make this model uh calibrated so that way we know exactly that what the model shows is is accurate is to purchase these flow meters where we can install them in certain manholes um in prior to upcoming spring rain events that we generally have. So then we say we have a one one inch rainfall that that's over two hours. We can actually take a look with these meters dropped in there and see is the is the sewage in the system flowing to what the model is saying it should and then we can compare the model to real world examples and then we can uh we'll have the ability to calibrate that model. Um having that model in place is going to have a lot of benefit to future projects. Uh, for example, we, if you recall, we just uh rehabilitated all of the sanitary sewer lift stations north of I94. Now, we're moving forth with rehabilitating um project or sanitary sewer lift stations south of the interstate, starting with this year's rehabilitation of SA27, which is the main uh sewage lift station uh just off of Cheyenne that pumps everything south of the interstate up to SA40, for example. So, that's a project that's happening right now. Uh, and so in the future, uh, we're going to be taking a look at all the lift stations on the

south side. And as you have we as we've talked in the past, um, we've got some INI. A lot of that may be caused by people putting their sump pumps into the sanitary sewer. So, we've been pumping a lot of that storm sewer. Um and so not only that but we've also are aware of there is some development that has been uh discussed at pre pre-construction meetings to occur you know west of the existing Cheyenne diversion and horse Cheyenne diversion and then between that area and the new FM diversion there's basically going to be a strip of land that a developer is looking at developing potentially upwards of 200 250 homes over the course of a number of years. They obviously wouldn't be able to do that project until after the FM diversion is done and FEMA has put out new flood insurance rate maps that takes that area out of the flood plane. But in preparation for that, I would say in probably 2028 or so, uh that would be about the time that that developer is going to want to start doing some improvements in there. Well, right now, our sanitary sewer system is at capacity. Um we do have a plan that was done. We we did do a study of all of the southside lift stations that basically triaged all of those lift stations to set up an order of which ones that we need to take a look at and increase capacity and rehabilitate because some of those lift stations are now approaching 20 years old themselves. So having that uh that model calibrated is uh critical that we have that accurate information. So that way when we're when we're taking a look at an a storm sewer or I'm sorry a storm event of a certain amount that we can predict what is that going to do to our system? What does that do to our lift stations? So that way when we do rehab those lift stations we're actually designing them to realworld data. So that way we're in a good position in the future to have

capacity in our southside uh lift station. So uh that is the purpose for us uh having these flow meters on uh the agenda tonight and recommending that we uh purchase those flow meters so that we can use those to calibrate the model, help us with design. But ancillary benefits to it is even after we're done with this exercise, these are mobile. So, say public works wants to grab them and put one of them up in the core area to find out um if we're expecting this much uh sewage up in the core area to be coming through this pipe, we can throw one of these meters in there and find out how much is actually coming through there. This will also allow public works to maybe identify problem areas of where we might have some inflow and infiltration. So, there's a lot of good that can happen out of these meters in the future as well. So with that being said, there's really uh two vendors that we work with to get uh estimates from for flow metering and that's ISCO and HAC are the two vendors. Uh they came back uh with HAC uh they had a lower cost of $141,77360 compared to ISCO's proposal of $150,885. That being said, um, public works, uh, which I included in the packet is they did an analysis of both. They've talked to Sou Falls, um, who uses the different, uh, systems, and they're more comfortable with the ongoing costs being lower to go with the more expensive ISCO uh, purchase. So, it's about uh $9,000 more to purchase the ISCO flow meters, but they believe that there's going to be better representation when needed from the vendor and also ongoing costs

would be cheaper with these. So, overall the best interest of the city and as recommended, we would proceed with the purchase of the ISCO flow meters in the amount of $150,885. And that's what's being proposed with this evening's um agenda packet. So with that, I would entertain any questions. Questions for Mr. Hansen? No, I'd just like to say I'd like to commissioner give the public works department kudos for doing they're fully researching this deal even though it's a little more money up front. It's less money in the long run. So I'm glad they reached out to other entities and got their opinion from somebody that has used them.

Absolutely. And and it was more engineering consultant HDR that suggested and and that to put these flow meters in and they were also the ones that also suggested us reach out to them. So um it was it was through their suggestions public works I believe reached out to these people. But um we're in appreciation to getting honest feedback from the cities that they did reach out to and and again public works they did their homework with this. um obviously with with the report that they put in into the packet. So very good work. Yes. Um what kind of ongoing costs will be associated with this?

Well, for the most part, it's just more or less just maintaining them if they if they need to be fixed. Um say that we get out there and they're it's we don't believe that they're performing properly. Being able to get a hold of the vendor, finding having them come in do uh work on them. Um the there's there's moving parts in it. So obviously things wear out. Um we just have a a better feeling based off of the research public works did uh that these are durable um less chances that those things happen, but they're also very confident in the service that they're going to get provided when they do make a phone call to those vendors. I didn't know if there's an ongoing subscription to their software. It's

it's all part of that. It's listed down on page seven of the packet there. I just hoping that it's worth the extra 9,000. But any additional questions for Mr. Hansen? Item number 10. Move we approve. Mr. Olsson moves to approve project number 9021 purchasing flow metering equipment from ISCO for $150,885. Is there a second? I second. Commissioner Jorgensson seconds. We have a motion and a second for approval. Is there any discussion? Any additional discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. Motion carried. Thank you, Mr. Hansen. You've had a busy evening. Yep. That's all I have for you tonight. So, Oh, that's all. That's it, huh? Thank you. We move on. We are now on item number 11. And this is a resolution authorizing the participation in the national opiate state uh settlement. We're going to call on Katie Schmidt, our city attorney. Mm.

Uh thank you, Commission President and Commissioners. This proposed settlement is with the six remaining defendants who are part of the national opioid lawsuit and they're asking uh political subdivisions to opt into this settlement like we've seen with with other settlements. The settlement proposes a potential maximum payout by the defendants of $97,625,000 uh which will then be split between the participating political subdivisions. The initial proposed allocation to the city is 0.003% of the overall payout amount. This may change depending upon the number of political subdivisions that participate and whether or not any of the defendants ultimately decide to not participate in the settlement. Um, in exchange for the payment, the city would release any claims that we have against the defendants. The draft resolution authorizes the city's p participation in the settlement. And I'm available for any questions that anybody has.

Questions for Mr. Schmidt? Anyone? Move. We approve. Commissioner Zendelle moves to approve the resolution authorizing participation in the national opioid uh settlement. Is there a second? Second. Commissioner Anderson seconds. We have a motion and a second to approve. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed.

Motion carried. Thank you, M. Schmidt. Item number 12, West Fargo representative on the Greater Fargo Morehead Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors, Dustin Scott, City Administrator.

Good evening. Thank you, Commissioner President Dartis and commissioners. Uh, as you see in your packet, the Greater Fargo Morehead Economic Development Corporation has reached out to us. Uh, according to their bylaws, they're looking to uh, uh, direct their or fill their board of directors uh, to serve a term from April 1st to uh, March 27th. Um, I'm sorry, the term begins on April 1st, 2026 and extends through December of 2027. So, it's an 18-month term um or a little longer than that. And so, they've they've requested that we make a recommendation for their consideration to have a West Fargo representative on their board. Uh Mayor Dardis has been serving on that board. And so, as you see in my correspondence with Joe Roso, I recommended that we just we nominate Bernie to continue serving through his term. And then, of course, as we know, uh the board and committee assignments are done after the election. And so at that time we would revisit this committee as well as others uh with that process. So again uh stand for any questions but my recommendation is to nominate Meridis to continue serving through his term.

Are you up for it? Interested? I'm recusing myself. I'm making no comments on this one. I move we approve. We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Commissioners motion by Commissioner Olsen, second by Commissioner Zundal. Is there any discussion? Any discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Madam Secretary, let the record show that there were four four one recusing myself. Thank you, Mr. Scott. We move on to the city administrator's uh report. Please continue.

Thank you again, Commissioner President Dardis and commissioners. Few updates and then I'll get to the exciting part of the evening and introducing our new HR director. Uh first, uh we did receive uh correspondence last week regarding the spring flood outlook. Uh the outlook for the Cheyenne River is very low. Uh but public works in all of their diligence is preparing to operate the diversion should the case uh or should the need arise. and not just operating the diversion, but obviously there's other uh flooding preparation that they do each spring. So, uh fingers crossed the the uh water stays low. Uh second, the uh public works, police, fire departments as well as the library are all wrapping up their annual reports and we hope that they will be in front of the commission in the uh meetings of April. So uh they've been diligently working putting all that information together. I think you'll be uh very impressed with with the work that they'll be presenting and again be looking for that in the meetings that take place in April. Uh the growth area master plan uh during one of Dan's items he mentioned that uh the work is starting to wrap up. It's culminating into the first draft that they have been preparing. There is a technical committee meeting scheduled for April 8th and we are anticipating that this will be back in front of the commission at some point in April if not early May. So work has been progressing nicely there and um excited to see that that take shape. So and then my last update before I introduce Beth is the um capital improvement plan. As you can tell, there's been a lot of engineering projects in front of the commission these past couple meetings. Um, Dan Hansen's been working hard on the uh

next 5-year capital improvement plan and hopes to bring that forward here this yet this spring prior to getting uh the preliminary budget in front of the commission. So, I think he's anticipating sometime late April to early May. So, any questions before I make an introduction? Questions for Mr. Scott? No. All right, I won't do a drum roll, but um I am excited to introduce to you uh Miss Beth Wiggman, our new director of human resources. Thank you, Dustin. Good evening, Beth, and welcome.

Good evening, Commission President and Commissioners. I am excited and honored to be able to serve the city of West Fargo as the HR director. And over the next several months, my focus will really be on building relationships and listening, learning, and understanding how HR can best support the employees of the city of West Fargo. Any questions for Beth? Okay. Not yet. Right. Again, welcome. Thank you. That's okay. Nick asked her about 30 questions this morning, so Okay. Uh yeah, with that I will stand for any last questions. Otherwise, any questions for Mr. Scott?

Move on. Very good. Thank you. Uh all correspondence has been distributed. Your mailboxes are full. Uh so you might want to check them. Mail box is you might want to check yours is right below mine. So I noticed that likely story been there. Mine's empty. Uh, does any member of the commission have any non-aggenda item you'd like, Commissioner Olson? Uh, just one thing to let you know, I will be not available to attend uh the first meeting in April. Okay. Not by Zoom or Teams or anything. So, all right. I appreciate that. Going underground. We'll see if we can just so you all make it without you. Yeah.

You're not wondering why I haven't showed up. Uh, Rachel, would you remind me the board of equalization Paul sent out a notice is April 15th, 14th, 14th, excuse me. Board of equalization will be meeting April 14th at 5:30. Yes. And that is a Tuesday. Okay. Anyone else? Commissioners, any department head have anything you'd like to bring forward at this time? Sit on down. Yeah, sit down, D. I don't know. Deputy Chief Anderson had a real smirk on his face over there, too. I I was really concerned of what he might bring up.

He was just thinking of tasing me back home. Oh, I see. He He's going to handcuff you to the table and keep you down. Huh. All right. With all of that folity, uh, Commissioner Jorgensson, motion to adjurnn. Commissioner Zundell, second. We stand adjourn. Thank you. Have a good evening. He was freaky cuz he's