We'll call the meeting to order.

I invite you to join us with a pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance.

Roll call, please.

Colpack, here.

Pepcorn.

Strand.

Here.

Turnberg?

Here.

Mahoney.

Here.

We came out of the executive session and I have two motions.

Motion one, I move to approve the city of Fargo opting into a settlement agreement regarding opioid litigation with Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family.

And authorize the city attorney's office and mayor to complete any necessary forms and paperwork to complete the settlement process.

We have a motion.

Move.

Sir second.

Second.

Moved and seconded.

Any discussion?

Roll call vote, please.

Strand.

Yes.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Mahoney.

Aye.

Motion two.

I move to approve the city of Fargo opting into a settlement agreement regarding opioid litigation with AvaGen Amnian Apotex.

Zidus, and authorize the city attorney's office and mayor to complete any necessary forms and paperwork to complete the settlement process.

Do I have a motion?

So second.

Uh roll call vote again.

Strand.

Yes.

Pepcorn?

Aye.

Colpac.

Aye.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Mahoney.

Aye.

Tonight we'll be showing a video featuring first responder training held earlier this summer in Fargo.

Participants included the Fargo Police Department, Fargo, West Fargo, and Moorhead Fire Departments, Gas County Sheriff's Department, Red River Regional Dispatch Center, Sanford Ambulance, Simulation in Motion, North Dakota, as well as Fargo and West Fargo emergency management.

The training exercises were designed to be realistic scenario to practice security, sheltering, and evacuation plans.

Purpose of our training is for a quick response and a coordinated response.

We want to work with all agencies to quickly and efficiently extricate patients from the building.

Training is always important to prepare yourself for any type of incident.

We've seen an uptick in violent crimes over the last decade.

And we just want to make sure as a community we are prepared if something were to happen in the city of Fargo, Moorhead or West Fargo.

The scenarios that we train for, we hope they never happen, whether that be fires, active shooter, car accidents, but we have to be prepared for all those types of situations.

Hands-on training is always vital to our response.

By doing hands-on training, we're able to be better prepared.

We want to get those mental reps in.

We want to be able to have hands-on training.

When your stress level goes up, you revert back to your training.

And so when we do hands-on training, it better prepares us for scenarios.

We had an opportunity to get in the schools this year, and we want to jump at that opportunity as it's a great building that presents a lot of challenges for us as far as corridors that intersect.

It's not just a linear building.

We all have very similar missions, but everybody has a different way of going about it.

So by having us train all together, we learn more about how each agency operates and allows us to operate efficiently as a whole.

This training is absolutely vital to have all these agencies come together.

Communication is always a challenge, whether it's just in one agency or over multi-agencies.

We definitely see more of a communication challenge when we work with numerous agencies.

Everybody has different language they use, they have different expectations.

You know, it's amazing how far we've evolved in the last 10 years with this.

When we look at it, we're constantly evolving.

We are not a finished product.

Every year it's an opportunity for us in training to see how we operate as agencies together.

We identify the areas that we need to work on, and through the winter months, we usually work on those weaknesses, and next year we come back and we do it again.

So it's an annual thing that we will continue to improve and continue to evolve.

Very well.

So moved.

Sir second.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion carried.

Sir motion to approve the amendments of the July of the August 4th, 2025 regular meeting.

That's a move.

Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carried.

Is there a motion to uh approve consent agenda items?

Consent agenda items one through 35, moving uh 25 and 31 from it.

So move.

Sir second.

Second.

Roll call vote, please.

Strand.

Yes.

Cole pack.

Hi.

Pepcorn.

Hi.

Turnberg.

Hi.

Mahoney.

Hi.

We first agenda is presentation of the 2025 accreditation renewal for the Fargo Fire Department.

Our new fire chief Gary Lorenz is here.

And I guess we brought their old chief round too.

Is that Dirksen there?

I'll start out and then we'll let him take over.

Um what this is is the fire department's work accreditation.

Um the first one occurred back in 2010, and then every five years after that, there's a new accreditation.

Not necessarily a reaccreditation, but a uh reaccrediting a gift, I guess is what was possible.

Um so this last five years, we have Craig Nelson Division.

There we go.

So with me I have uh division chief Craig Nelson, who was the accreditation manager for this last cycle.

It's quite a it's quite a task, it's a it's a lot of work for the department, and it has been institutionalized into the organization, meaning we try and incorporate from the the bottom up into it to try and help with the 250 plus performance indicators and all the things that have to go to the accreditation cycle.

And through this last process, former chief Steve Dirksen was also a board member on the Commission for Fire Accreditation International representing communities over 100,000.

And so it was uh this being his last time on the board accrediting, he was actually on the panel hearing.

I will say uh being there, he recused himself from the vote, but as one of the um board members for the commission on fire accreditation, he he offered to come up here, and we gratefully uh accepted his offer to present this last accreditation here in front of the commission in the city of Fargo.

So yeah, mayor.

Um, your fire department now is one of three hundred and thirty-six fire departments across the world that are accredited, and so um there's a hundred and thirty-six that are accredited, 127 of them are an ISO one, of which Fargo is one of those.

Accreditation and ISO really don't have anything really to do with each other, other than they really help each other, they help the fire fire department determine what its status is and how to use it, and that's how far Fargo is able to move from an ISO class three to a two to a one, and so just this information and dedication that the city and the and the community invests in accreditation on a every five-year basis.

It's really it's every year because it's not it's not a project, it's a process, and it has to be in order for it to work um for the organization for a community.

So um, for me, I want to say thank you for the opportunity that city granted me to serve for nine years on the commission for fire accreditation international.

I've got to do this um from Miami Dave to North Carolina to Kansas City to end the present these at City Commission meetings, city council meetings, uh two fire departments.

And I couldn't think of a more fitting way to end my term on the commission is to uh present here at the farm fire department, and I really look forward to watching what happens five years from now when Fargo comes up for accreditation for the fifth time and becoming a legacy agency within the commission on fire accreditation.

Um that not very many agencies have hit that.

I think there's less than 30 that are at that point.

So it'll be a big uh milestone for the city to be at that point.

So with that, I want to say congratulations to the city of Fargo.

Thank you for being part of the Commission on uh the Center for Public Safety Excellence for accreditation, and I'd like to present you that here flat.

So congratulations and she went to help for guard retired.

Thank you.

I'm gonna be joined by uh Steve Sprague here as well.

So we want to go through a couple legislative changes that will affect um our home rule charter and in our ordinances in the city of Fargo.

So first one is House Bill 1297.

So this bans cities from using approval voting or rate choice voting.

So the city of Fargo has used approval voting in the 2020, 2022, and 2024 elections.

It was approved by our voters in 2019.

But as you can see, House Bill 1297 said approval voting or rain choice voting may not be used in any election to elect or nominate a candidate for any local, state, or federal elective office, which would include our mayor race and our city commission race, which is where we use approval voting.

So moving forward, Fargo is no longer allowed to use approval voting.

We'll get into the mythology it will use, but no surprise, you can vote for as many um seats as open.

For the mayor, there'll be one seat open, you can vote for one person.

For city commission, there will be two seats open, you can vote for up to two people.

Uh House Bill 1307 goes a lot further than 1297.

So we have a home rule charter, and our home rule powers come from a state ordinance.

As in but before uh August 1st, 2025, that ordinance said that the city had the power to provide for all matters pertaining to city elections except as to the qualifications of electors.

So all powers except for one is what the city of Fargo had.

Now we're sort of doing the reverse.

You can see what HB 1307 does now is to provide for all matters pertaining to a single subject, which is the signature threshold for nominating petitions for cadets for city offices.

But that does affect the city of Fargo.

So right now, if you're running for city commission or the mayor, you had the choice of either paying 100 or getting 300 signatures.

And as I understand, almost everybody does the 100 dollars.

Moving forward, so for next year's election, you have to have a petition signed by 300 people in the city of Fargo.

So you can no longer pay 100.

Uh so these are the three primary effects as it affects Fargo from HB 1297 and 1307.

One approval voting is gone, so for mayor, it's one vote.

Uh for city commission, you'll have two votes.

Can no longer pay the 100 in lieu of providing a nominating petition, and you must reside in Fargo nine months prior to the election now.

Previously, it was six months prior to your nominating papers.

That's probably not much of a difference because six months prior to your nominating papers play was close to nine months before the election.

But if you want to run in next year's race, you gotta be gotta be a resident of Fargo nine months prior.

Um so prior to this legislative session, the city of the city commission would not have the power to amend our home rule charter.

Instead, we would just have a home rule charter which had provisions that would be void and we couldn't use them.

Uh House Bill our set uh House Bill 2324 provides the uh city commission, we can pass resolutions now with a specific purpose of to uh basically getting rid of language in our home rule charter that's preempted, superseded, or invalidated or void.

So, really what we're trying to do here is just clean up our home rule charter to take out approval voting and also to clean up our ordinances so that you can no longer pay 100 um and that you have to live in the city of Fargo nine months prior to the election.

So we have two motions in front of you tonight.

One is for the resolution, so this deals with the home rule charter, so these will take effect immediately.

Let's switch to motion too quick.

And motion two deals with ordinances.

So this is obviously just receive and file.

We'll have it twice more on first city commission.

You'll see the first ordinance talks about uh relating to the date of the city elections.

We're not changing the date, it's still the second Tuesday in June.

It says that state law specifically says it's the second Tuesday in June, and our city ordinance says it's based on the primary date of uh the state elections, which is a which is also the second Tuesday in June.

But in case it ever switches, we want to specifically say second Tuesday in June.

So that's what we're doing on motion two.

Motion one.

So we're looking for um, we're happy to answer any questions, but if there's no questions, we'd ask for the question.

Any questions by the commission?

Let's go to motion one.

Do I have a motion?

So moved.

There's second.

Second.

Any discussion?

Roll call vote.

Call pack.

Aye.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Pepcorn?

Strand?

Mahoney.

Do I have a motion from motion two?

So moved.

There's second.

Second.

Any discussion?

Roll call vote.

Call pack?

Aye.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Pepcorn?

Strand?

Yes.

Mahoney?

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 38 recommendation or approval of the second amendment for developer agreement and Grove Enclave.

Jim Gilmore to explain.

Thank you, Commissioners.

This is a request to amend a development agreement we've had for the redevelopment of the Kmart site or former Kmart site on South University.

About a year ago, there was a first amendment that gave them one additional year to uh complete the project.

At that point, they had not done uh the two uh kind of out smaller buildings towards the front, and they needed we gave them an extra year to do that.

They have completed one of those uh buildings and are continuing to work on a second one.

Uh at this point, the uh economic development incentive committee uh is recommending we just simply amend that uh agreement and consider one building sufficient.

Overall, they've built more on this project than was required.

They were required to build 20,000 square feet, they've actually built 30,000 square feet.

Um so the developers certainly to their benefit to get the other site done.

I know they're in negotiations with one business, and so hopefully that'll come together.

But just with the economy and the demand for retail space, it's taking them longer uh than they would have wished.

Uh you know, the developer benefits more square feet footage that goes in.

And the city benefits too, we can simply close this project out and begin that 15-year terms rather than you know continuing this to be open another year and waiting to start that 15-year uh TIFF term.

So recommendation of the economic development committee is to approve the second amendment that would uh simply require just one building uh out front of that uh strip mall rather than two.

Do you have a motion?

That's the move.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion, Mr.

Strand?

Thank you.

Jim, I'm I'm just curious.

What were at the committee discussion level?

Were there any cons to doing this?

Um I don't really see any cons.

I mean, in desperation, they could probably throw up a little shack and call that compliance, but rather than have them kind of play that kind of game.

Um, I'd like to see them continue to try to bring in you know a nice established uh building and business uh on the site.

So there's there's really no cons to doing this.

And are there any openings we create by uh approving something that wasn't what we approved necessarily as far as future projects where they change what we're looking at seeing?

I mean, I think the projects uh generally change.

Generally, what we've seen is that people kind of underpromise and overdeliver.

Uh you know, this yeah, we've had the other uh case where Roars simply uh where there were townhomes that really were a benefit to the neighborhood.

The um having one more small business in front of this doesn't isn't a huge benefit for the community or some detriment that it not if it's not there.

So a little different with this case.

They've had trouble filling the space, economic downturn.

Uh Jim, did I see Randy's is moving over into the building, so yeah, Randy's is uh moving into the building.

They have um they have about of the 20 of the 30,000 square feet, they now have 9,000 square feet leased, and so that Randy's is moving over and another business is is moving in uh is being built out soon.

I don't recall the name of that one.

I think this developer's been honest with us, the difficulties they've had Commissioner Pipcorn.

Did I just talk to you at the economic meeting?

No, we're good.

Mr.

Stran.

Remind me, Jim.

Uh that's you, Brenda.

It's it's nothing to sneeze at.

Um when this started, was this a competitive bidding process for that location for other bidders to develop there conceivably?

I mean, the city didn't own the in any way own this site.

It was owned by um uh a group that had long held the uh Kmart building.

They teamed with Long Enclave to develop this site.

Uh one of the things we worked with the count uh the developer early on was to get some affordable housing into that, and so that they did deliver on.

And so that they did deliver on.

There's uh almost 40 units of affordable housing.

They'd hope to have a second unit that financing for that fell through, but beyond shelter did put their office building on that site.

Uh there's a car wash on the site, and there's one other commercial lot uh for sale.

So in the long term, it was a an overall benefit for the community.

We looked at a couple different or the developer was looking at a couple different options.

One was a real basic development that wouldn't have added much value.

The other was um a much larger development, but it would require greater incentives than we really couldn't could have been able to file or provide.

So this was sort of nice medium between those two.

Any other discussion?

Roll call vote, please.

Pepcorn?

Cole Pack, aye, strand?

No.

Turnberg, aye.

Mahoney?

Aye.

M39 recommendation to drop possibly that requires business operations to begin in construct again or construction to start within three years of city commission granting property tax exemption.

Go, Jim Gilmore.

The uh when the city provides a new industry exemption or uh payment in lieu of taxes, we really haven't had uh a deadline to get started.

Most businesses are anxious and they get going right away, and it hasn't been an issue.

But uh with the weaker economy, we do have a business that was granted an exemption um last year, and they're wondering now do I need to reapply?

Nothing's really changed, they're just being delayed uh for a year.

Uh we have another housing project beyond shelter, it'd be a low-income housing project.

It was key on getting some tax credits from the state last winter.

They did not get those, they want to reapply.

And so rather than run them through the process again, uh we felt that we should give them you know a reasonable period of time, that being three years to get going.

Uh we've had some where you know they never they don't get started for five years, and the assessor's office and myself are wondering you know, is that project dead or are they gonna come back in five years and expect the accept the exemption?

And so we felt it would be good to give them a firm deadline.

Seemed like after three years, enough has changed that they should have to come back and reapply.

So um again, I think both the assessor's office and myself would prefer a hard deadline and the committee, and so we suggested the three years would be sufficient time to get all your financing in place, even for a low-income housing project and get started.

It doesn't mean you can't come back and reapply, but that's why the assessors don't have to wonder if a five-year-old project is dead or if it's gonna come back and try to ask for an exemption five years later.

So Economic Development Committee recommends this motion to establish that there be a three years to start a project.

Do I have a motion?

That's a move.

Second.

Second.

This is really to clean up some stuff is get people going if they're gonna develop develop it.

If they're not, don't do it, don't do it.

And I think it's good to have a time frame.

I think Commissioner Strand, we talked about that one of the developments we had that was before us before is if we're gonna start, let's get going.

And I think a three-year window is enough for people to get going.

Any other discussion?

Mr.

Strand.

Thank you.

Um Jim, I'm just curious if and sometimes people are getting incentives and sometimes they're getting properties from the city and so on.

But what about lost opportunities?

If we have a developer, a commitment that's made and we lose three years, we've lost the moment to get somebody else to do that, maybe.

That that's a lost opportunity.

Is there any valuing if a project falls through and there isn't a project?

And somebody else could have maybe done it in theory, but we didn't even have a chance to.

You know, usually if a site is vacant for a longer period of time, someone else, the you know, the property owner may move on and offer it for sale to someone else.

Uh so it's unlikely someone's you know holding a project for three years, but you know, in the case of a low-income housing project, they just often take time to put together, very competitive at the state level, and so sometimes it's not unusual to see someone apply three times before they finally are selected.

And and the low-income housing I understand, but if it's a private market rate developer, you know, they should have I mean that window is different than it, I think.

I mean, I think they've there still intend to go ahead, it's still gonna create jobs, and it's just that maybe the interest rates are too high or they found the construction you know uh costs were too high this year, and they need uh another year to work on it.

Um so it's not unusual to see it get delayed a year or two, but yeah, if it's too long, then I would agree that it's time to kind of move on and take a fresh look at it if you're going to uh have another application.

And I'll wrap it up here, but I I think at some point we need to look at uh like we have look back's clawbacks, we need to at some point have a uh a protection for the entity of the city if a project that we're expecting doesn't happen and there's lost opportunity for others.

That's what I'm that's my concern.

Um I think that's very important when it's a city owned property.

Exactly.

Any other discussion?

Roll call vote, please.

Pepcorn?

Hi.

Call PAC.

Hi, strand.

No.

Turnberg.

Hi.

Mahoney.

Hi.

Recommendations approve core neighborhood housing payment in lieu of taxes guidelines.

Jim Gilmar to explain.

Uh currently we've had a policy that encourages some pretty much just small apartment buildings and older neighborhoods.

And the policy was to provide a uh five year pro basically a tenure property tax exemption with the first five years at 100 percent and the second five years at 50 percent.

Um, the assessor's office has found this more difficult to track because if you're changing the percentage of exemptions each year, they have to track it manually.

And so what they suggested was can't we just you know have an on and an off that's easier for us to track.

And so we looked at what's the present value of you know the five plus five, and really if you give a hundred percent exemption for seven years rather than five at 15 and 50, it's about the same.

And when I say about the same, actually is a little bit less valuable in the short term by a couple percentage points.

And so that's one of the reasons for the the change and the shift to seven years.

The other changes are is with these small projects, we have to we really wanted to uh document um extraordinary costs, and that becomes kind of cumbersome for myself and the planning department on a very small project.

And so, really the most important thing is do they need the incentive or don't they?

And do they meet that financial test where it won't happen if we don't give the incentive?

So I removed a lot of the language on the um you know that tests for you know, did they actually have extraordinary costs?

We see that there are some, you know, it's usually it's a deteriorated site, but to actually do all the accounting and keep track of it when we're dealing with housing units that have really varied from six to eighteen units.

We're not dealing with large projects.

I think if there are still large projects, we'd still use the TIFF process where we would document all those costs.

Um the recommendation would be to change this policy.

We have one application kind of pending right now that would go either way, and it kind of works either way for them.

Again, it's actually a little easier to operate, but it's slightly less valuable to them to have the seven years at 100 percent.

But uh, I think that'll work out, and I think their committee felt this would kind of simplify that process.

I included a couple other policies in there on low-income housing and downtown.

You'll see those are much uh shorter and simpler to understand than this core neighborhood uh process was.

So you happy to answer any questions.

Any questions?

I move their second second.

Any discussion?

Commissioner Strand.

Thank you.

Um why don't we do this across the city for all developers?

I guess for for if it's new development, there um you know, it's just the market needs to drive it.

These are in our core neighborhoods where we're trying to encourage that infill.

If we're doing it on the edge, then we're just giving the same incentive to encourage you know, growth on the edge that where the incentive really isn't needed.

So they would have to meet the butt for test, uh, Commissioner Strand.

So basically, part of the pilot is does do they need it?

If they don't need it, we would give it to them.

So oftentimes new development wouldn't get a pilot, but it'd be more the core neighborhood that we get a I just know while I'm up here talking about this.

We'd hope to have a report on the uh jobs created because we've documented you know who's reported and who has it and how well we're doing.

So we'll hopefully have that at the next meeting.

The EDC wasn't quite ready for that, but uh I want you to know that that's still in the works.

Here's where I'm at.

I I think, and you've all heard me say this before, but we need to have an overall comprehensive conversation on tax incentives, especially in light of late legislation that's come our way with caps.

You know, and I'm just really cautious right now.

I know over the years past I've been one of the ones supporting tax incentives, but I'm hesitant now because I'm not so sure it's the same situation it has been, and I'm not so sure it'll pan out for the taxpayers yet.

And I I need that assurance, you know, that that it's a smart, wise, prudent decision fiduciarily from our perspective to incent people and then delay the revenues coming to us.

So I'm I'm I'm really of the mindset right now that we and we have a new commissioner, and we haven't yet convened to talk about tax incentives with our new commissioner, which we usually do.

So that's I'm I'm hesitant to vote for any changes or modifications or new incentives right now till at least I've landed on a place where I'm comfortable and that we we're all aware that what we're doing fits what the state has sent our way with regards to taxation caps.

And I think we did report to your either you or the finance, you're acting as a finance committee on kind of the results of all the incentives and seeing how well you know those are working.

And I think for a lot of these incentives, we're not giving up anything, we're just getting future revenue that we wouldn't otherwise have because in the if we don't do anything, we don't get revenue for five years.

If we give it a five-year incentive, we get revenue after five years, so that short term is the same.

But basically, uh Commissioner Strand's concerns, these are the recommendations that came out to redo the policy in the question in the EDC meeting, basically, Commissioner Pipcorn.

You guys looked at the policies, and these are the recommendations to make it better.

But I'll have Jim forward to the report he gave.

It was very good report on the use of our incentives, seems to work very well.

Commissioner Pipcorn, you saw a huge rise in values of the property and a huge rise in the amount of taxable income that comes to the city.

So it appears that our policies are working, even in light of the three percent tax cap.

We're still getting properties that are coming forward and increased tax revenue to the city.

So maybe Jim, you could forward that report that you gave for the EDC.

I'll do that again, and you know, this year that 3% cap doesn't apply to expiring TIFF districts.

So, you know, the horse park TIFF ended, and so that gave us additional property tax revenue that we wouldn't otherwise had, as did the second phase of bison block, and more tax revenue that would the city can apply as if it was new growth.

Mr.

Strand, here's where I'm at again.

Uh we we've, you know, downtown we've had lots of project discuss discussions about the dynamics of the successes of downtown.

Part of our challenges downtown is yeah, we've had this success, that success, that success, and that success, but but there's a five, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five year delay of revenues coming to us to pay for the expenses affiliated with growing your downtown.

That's my concern is is there's a lag of the revenues coming to us.

And and I'm not so sure that path is viable or right right now.

I just don't know.

So we've had lots of successes, but then we're gap-filling the needs that come with growth.

And the tax revenues don't come to five years or later.

That's my concern.

Yeah.

And perhaps we could have this discussion of one of your upcoming finance committee meetings and or a combined group meeting with the incentive committee to work through every single incentive that we have.

You're welcome to do that, Commissioner Stern.

I would welcome it.

We could go through that in the issue as a large city by us, but 20% growth 10 years.

We have a lot of different developments that have happened, and things that Jim started years ago or with the economic team that did years ago are now paying off.

So it's it's a cycle, basically.

We didn't just do it one year, we've done it for 20, 30 years.

So all those things are are cycling.

So I have a motion and a second, no any more discussion?

Roll call vote, please.

Pepcorn?

Cole Pack?

Aye.

Strand?

No.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Mahoney?

Hi.

Yes, they are three-year terms, but um at this point, um, we're asking for Scott just for one more year to allow for the completion of the land development code.

Gotcha.

Any further discussion?

Roll call vote, please.

Turnberg.

Aye.

Cole pack, aye.

Pepcorn.

I strand.

Yes.

Mahoney.

Hi.

Item 25, Bed Award of the amount of 182,000 in agreement with K to LG Engineering, Design Construction Planning Service, Police Department Headquarters.

Uh move by consent agenda.

Mike Rylinger and Becky Majoris to explain.

Or maybe just Becky.

Good evening, Mayors and Commissioners.

Tonight I'd like to present a brief history of the police headquarters building, just to put into context this project to renovate the HVAC system.

In 1984, the current building, which is often referred to as the BSE building or the Border States Building, was built.

In February of 2017, the city began leasing the building from Red River properties.

And through 2018, they renovated the building for better space utilization and department function.

In quarter one of 2023, we brought in consultants KLJ and MBN, and they completed a condition assessment for the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems.

The major HVAC equipment is original to the building and was rated fair or poor throughout the entire assessment.

Also, the electric heating design is very expensive with regard to utility costs.

On December 31st of 2023, our lease expired and the agreement was extended month to month so that we could complete a building appraisal and negotiate a purchase agreement.

On June 24th, 2024, the Commission approved the purchase.

And on November 20th, that sale was closed.

So why did we buy?

Even if this were approved today, it would still be four to five years before the department could actually vacate their current location.

The city of Fargo continues to grow, and if and when the PD does move, the current facilities location adjacent to public works and central garage makes it an ideal site for future use by other city departments.

The 2025 budget was approved, including funding to replace the antiquated HVAC equipment and the automated controls.

So that brings us to today.

KLG, KLJ, along with MBN and FOSS Architecture will be designing a more energy and cost conscious solution.

Compared to the existing 40-year-old chillers and air handlers in that building, today's models are much more energy efficient.

Additionally, switching from electric heat to hot water heat will result in significant utility savings.

This was proven in a smaller yet very similar project at the Public Works Administration Building, which is directly north of PD.

The building was unoccupied prior to the project, but even after occupying the building and moving in, the utility bills reflect an average annual savings of 37%.

So if we were to calculate a conservative 30% savings at the current PD headquarters, that would equate to over $26,000 just for the first half of this year.

So this project is an investment in a city-owned asset as well as an opportunity to reduce our annual operating costs.

No, I had some residents call with some confusion.

Does the city own the police headquarter building or are we leasing?

But I just wanted to put that on the regular agenda so it was communicated to the public that they understand that the city does in fact own it because the concern was why are we putting so much money into a leased building?

So thank you, Becky.

Yes.

Do you want to make a motion then?

Um I saw move.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Kolbeck, you have a mic on or no?

Uh Roll Cobalt?

Turnberg.

Aye.

Pepcorn.

Hi.

Colpac.

Hi.

Mr.

And Mahoney.

Hi.

Thank you.

Item 31, member I'm understanding it shields all sports department police department on the establishment use of remote work station within the Fargo Shields facility, Chief Sabalski to explain.

This is a great uh great uh effort by the police force to work with a business owner and come up with a great solution.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh a little background on this also.

Um January of 24, the commission approved our facilities management plan.

The top priority that came out of that was the need for a functional South Site substation.

And in the attached document, you'll see the difference between a remote workstation where we just basically file reports and it's a secure location for our folks to go and a fully functional substation.

Uh so as that progress or that process uh continued.

Uh we were also shortly thereafter in 24 lost access to the West Acres Fire Station, which was our closest to a south side remote work location that we had uh with that renovation there.

And so for the since that time, we've our team has been trying to come up with another solution.

Uh it's been tough because to locate something that is secure uh for police use and in filing the reports and taking breaks and using facilities uh has been difficult.

We've worked with both area hospitals over the course of the last year.

Um, and at times we thought we had an agreement that we didn't.

So in December of 24, SHIELS approached us and offered up an area that they were going to be refurbishing their store in 45th Street South that they wanted to make available for our use, and they have done this in other communities in the United States.

So I really appreciate their generosity and their partnership with local police to accomplish this.

We've been working on it since December of 24.

And they've also had to do some refurbishing and repurposing to make it available.

This is a no-cost MOU.

It's really just a use MOU, so there's parameters on the use of that facility.

City attorney has reviewed it as well and uh has no issues with it.

And then we'd respectfully request uh approval of the agreement so that we can make this available to our folks.

Mr.

Turnberg, you pulled this as well.

Well, I I love free ideas, and I think that's wonderful, but it seems like we have preferential treatment of one business, which then breeds contempt and distrust.

Have any other businesses?

I mean, why wasn't this put to a public notice in any business that wanted to donate space, uh time it allowed to do so?

Sure.

Uh we actually did vet several.

We had other people that have offered things in the past.

Our team looked at it, and we have to have something that's a secure location.

Uh this works out brilliantly because the way in which the building is set up.

We have our own uh 24-hour access to a building that doesn't necessarily provide access to the proper the retail piece.

Um it's secure, and our folks can go there and do at least do some work and stay as close as possible to their south side beats and keep them down in that area of town.

I mean, I had as soon as I got on the commission, I had business owners.

I had the CEO of Petroserve USA just bleeding to have officers come fill up on gas, they give us the exact same rate as the city.

He would feed officers for free, just come in, use the bathroom.

They just wanted a presence.

I just find it hard to believe that there weren't other businesses that would want the exact same.

Plus, he was spending over a hundred thousand dollars a year on private security.

So it just seems like this should have been more publicly open.

I think it came to us a huge surprise just coming on the agenda, and then of course now we have articles written about it, and it just seems like another thing that's kind of flying under the radar.

The owner you talked about did offer us a space, but that space didn't work for us, nor was it free rent afterwards.

The valibid of this and the free rent is one of the things that attracted us to this, and it's a site that's close to where we need to be.

Uh there's other issues about separate entrance way and separate areas like that.

Uh I don't know, Chief, you wanted you could have a public discussion.

Uh it this is a time for public discussion.

So there are other discussions to have a motion.

I move to approve.

Sorry.

I move to approve.

Sir, a second.

Second.

Any further discussion?

Mr.

Stran.

What's the role of the downtown substation?

Is it similar or it's a remote work station also?

It's not a true substation.

It's called that, but it's really just a work location and uh remote work location.

Officers can go there and file reports.

Uh, you know, it's a secure location for them.

But again, if you know, look through the material, the difference between that and a functional substation.

Uh, not only because of the geography of Fargo, uh, but if something were to happen to our main headquarters, we don't have we don't have a secondary place to operate out of.

Uh so that's why that was deemed like a top priority from the report itself.

And uh, you know, we'll continue to work with the commission and and budget on trying to continue to fund that project before we end up in a crisis.

So we're trying to plan ahead strategically and uh get that moving.

In the interim, this was a big concern for our personnel, uh, especially you know, evenings and and nights and things like that for working those south side beats or those west end beats, having to traverse the city to use a secure bathroom break room, do their reports.

So, you know, this isn't the ultimate answer, but it's a great intermediate step while we work on the larger project.

Mr.

Strand.

Bear with me.

Then what's the role of the substation that was or is connected to public health?

That uh actually was consumed by public health.

So that's gone now.

Yep, right.

Yes.

Any other discussion?

Roll call vote, please.

Call pack.

Hi, strand.

Yes.

Pepcorn?

No.

Bernberg?

No.

Mahoney.

Hi.

Thank you.

Uh Liaison, Commissioner, uh sign, uh, Commissioner Pepcorn.

No update.

Mr.

Turnberg.

No update.

Commissioner Mahoney, don't update at this time.

Come on, call back.

Yeah, I have two slides, two updates.

Um I think maybe you read about this first one this week.

I think maybe you read about this first one this week.

Um, the Metro Fire Academy is, as we know, a collaboration of the three exceptional fire departments of Fargo Moorhead and West Fargo.

And the chiefs from the three departments spoke to the Academy's newest recuse on Wednesday and shared their insights on what the recruits can expect as they begin their careers in the fire service.

There are 10 recruits and they're undergoing 18 weeks of intensive firefighter training, and this week they will be learning how to respond to cardiac and respiratory emergencies.

Anyone interested can check out more information at Fargofire.com.

So good luck to the new recruits for their 18 weeks of intensive training.

And then the next update I have is this weekend.

I took part in an event hosted by the North Dakota Employer Service of the Guard and Reserve.

Um there were 10 other employer representatives who participated in what's known as a boss flight.

A National Guard pilot flew us in a Black Hawk helicopter to a site 10 miles outside of Lisbon, North Dakota, where we watch demonstrations of a sling load.

That's oh that picture's not on here.

And then also where we watch demonstrations of of and engineering maneuvers with a lot of equipment.

The city of Fargo has many employees, in fact, more than 32 who serve in the National Guards.

So thank you very much to them.

And I just want to add a couple comments that Fargo would not be Fargo without every employee who has decided to work for the city and its citizens.

So for all who serve our residents and to those who have served, thank you.

And those are my updates.

Mr.

Stroud.

Thank you, Mayor.

I I hope all of us tomorrow can attend the airport parking ramp ribbon cutting.

This is something been coming a long, long time, a thousand parking spot ramp at the airport, which will be transformative.

And our our commission's relationship with the airport authority was critical to the juncture of getting to the point where we talked about it and ultimately to have it.

So that's two or two thirty tomorrow, two o'clock.

And I want to say we have significant leadership from Fed uh nationally and locally at the state level uh hearing.

I think you're speaking, mayor.

Yes.

I hope you all have it on your agenda.

If not, uh it's a big event for all of us, and go park your car in the ramp.

Very good.

Uh we have four resident uh comments.

Uh Brad Schaefer is first.

Yeah, I just wanted to.

Uh I mean you guys had a pretty interesting couple of weeks here, and uh it's I don't know, it's not like been a dumpster fire with one thing after another.

Um I don't know where to start.

I mean that so you listen here tonight, just more stuff comes up.

You know, you got a police station now that you guys don't hear about.

Uh there seemed to be a lot of dysfunction going on with you guys.

And uh it's just I mean, your leadership is not happening.

Um I want to get into the the police chief stuff.

I mean that's been everywhere, but uh you got your uh communication guys resigning.

Uh so anyway, I I just I just want to ask you guys just a little better.

Uh I've been I've been in sales my whole career, and there's uh a book that Jim Collins wrote called Good to Great, and you guys are the city's good.

It's just a really good city to live in.

I've lived in uh Denver, I've lived in Casper, Wyoming, Dallas, uh been here for 20 years, and this is by far and away the best place I've ever lived.

It's the cleanest city, uh crime percentage-wise, whatever you want to call that.

Uh for the city size of the city is is good.

Uh I've seen a lot of bad stuff in cities I've lived in.

But it talks about in the sales book I've read, it talks about good is the enemy of great.

And you guys have a chance to be a great city here.

You really do.

But you're you're complacent with being good.

And uh I mean, I know some people to jail, and this whole deal with the jail is just baffling.

Uh there seems to be a if I understand it right, it's it's kind of confusing to read, but the whole hold up with the jail situation is what do you do with the guns of the people you're arresting?

I mean, I hope that's not the sticking point.

I mean, I mean, dead gummit, uh, who's gonna store the guns?

Well, like, is that really an issue?

Just don't let them have the guns.

I mean, it to me is pretty simple.

Uh all right.

Well, I just want to leave that with you guys.

You you guys can do better.

I think the leadership can do better.

June of 26 is gonna be, you know, three guys are gonna be gone.

Uh Dave, you might hang around in another capacity.

Brandlin Batt Batty.

Hello.

Um, my name is Brandon Beatty.

I am the executive director of the Indigenous Association in Fargo.

Uh, I was one of the founding board members as well.

Um, I'm coming here today just as you guys are are looking at the budgets and looking at the the different things that you're gonna put the resources of the city toward.

I just wanted to come and tell you a little bit about what we do.

Um we do receive some funding from the city of Fargo that was worked out through the Native American Commission, and then that money was was uh put toward the Indigenous Association.

The cities had a really close relationship with our organization, helping it get off the ground and working with the Native American Commission uh to help make sure that that the things that the city wants to do and the city finds valuable are done um outside of the city, and I think it's been a cost-effective and really um community-based way of doing some of the the achieving some of the goals of the city uh in a more community-based space.

Um so since 2020, since the founding of our organization, uh we've we've been doing the Native American community picnics that we uh we had one yesterday.

Uh we had probably about 200 people there from all, I saw people from Fargo, West Fargo, um, Moorhead, Dilworth, uh White Earth, uh assisted in Wapitan, like people, native people from all over the region um came together for this, and it's just a great time for our community to come together and um and build community.

Uh we've also been the the host space for the Gladys Ray Awards um and the Indigenous People's Day programming, uh, which has been great.

I've seen a lot of commissioners there, I've seen um the mayor, you've been there several times.

Uh our space in downtown Fargo is amazing.

It's very um it's very well lit, it's very nice space to have uh big events like that in um so during that time we've had uh community events and we've had well host of well briety meetings, workshops, cultural activities.

Uh we have maternal child health programming, uh youth programming, arts and cultural programming, collaborative programming with native and non-native organizations, and we've built relationships with uh local governments, local organizations, local leaders, uh, to really be a hub in our community for uh for space, uh for space and gathering.

Uh and so as we we uh as you're looking at the funding, I just want to let you know that uh we are here and we I invite any of you to reach out to me if you want to learn more.

Um and uh yeah, hope to hear from you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Brandon.

Candy Smith.

Hello, um, I'm Candy Smith.

I'm a registered nurse international board certified lactation consultant, and I also work with um Brandon at Indigenous Association as the maternal child lead.

And I too want to just um appreciate the support that Fargo gives the Indigenous Association for our programming, and I wanted to share with you all um one of our newest projects that we've started, which is Milk Run Bridge Bags.

And so at Milk Run Bridgebages is um we purchase donor breast milk from the Minnesota Um Milk Bank for babies, and so any milk that we purchase has been um the screeners who've donated or I'm sorry, the donors that I have donated their breast milk, their screen to make sure that it's it's safe, and then the milk bank um pasteurizes the milk.

So it's the same milk that we provide to our families um that are hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care units.

And so um, my grandson was born down in the Minneapolis area, and it's pretty common for babies down there to have access to donor breast milk.

And so we're really excited at the Indigenous Association because this is the first milk bank or the first bridge bag program that has been available in the state of North Dakota.

And so prior to our bridge bag program, when babies are discharged out of the hospital, they have limited access to breast milk if their moms aren't able to provide enough milk for them.

So usually what they do is they turn to like sharing.

So they'll just, you know, nowadays it's it's actually common for moms to reach out to a mom that they don't even know on Facebook marketplace and just ask for breast milk for their babies.

And so we're really excited that we have an alternative option to that.

Currently, the World Health Organization, the recommended um food for our babies is breast milk, um, preferably mother's own milk.

But our second um choice is actually donor um breast milk that is pasteurized from a milk bank.

Um and then the third would be shared milk, and the last would be um formula.

And so yeah, it's really exciting that we actually have this as um an option for our families.

Um, because prior to this we only had usually formula.

And so again, I appreciate the um funding that you've provided to us, and we really encourage you to continue to invest in the Indigenous Association and the families that we serve.

Thank you, Candy.

Christopher Cole.

Yes, Christopher Cohn, Fargo resident.

And uh this is the first year that I've really taken a strong interest in the budget process.

And um this is a difficult year because we have a six point eight million dollar deficit that we're facing, and I wanted the public to know some basic facts about this, because uh I think there's been some misinformation from both the political parties in the state as well as some parts of the media, and that is that the city of Fargo has lost a million dollars in federal grants, and also costs have gone up.

Costs uh due to inflation, tariffs, and the increasing costs for medical benefits for staff that provide essential services.

So I think we all like to get the these city services, but we you know when it comes to paying for them, we don't really want to pay for them.

So but then if we but if we if we think that way, we have to decide which services do we want to lose.

So uh I want to encourage all the Fargo residents to decide which ones do you want to lose because there are going to be big cuts this year, and there's going to be increases in fees.

Uh I mean for next year, 2026.

So uh you know, public should be giving feedback to the city commission regarding that.

What kind of fees do you not want to see and what um um what services do you not want to lose?

Personally, I don't want to um lose the $640,000 um cut to public health.

I don't want to lose the $240,000 cut to the libraries that are really value that.

However, um then I have to think about okay, what do I want cut?

And that's the hard part.

Uh because almost all the city services are essential.

We have engineering, we have roads, uh, we have infrastructure, um, we have water treatment, we have sewers.

Um you know, almost all of it is is really essential.

There are certain things we can do for efficiencies and so forth.

Um, but there's there are these rising costs, and if we want to keep the services we have, we have to pay actually pay more to pay for the rising costs.

And the city's growing, so we need more services.

So you know, now the city is capped.

Okay, thank you.

That's all our uh president comments.

Uh we are adjourned.