We'll call the meeting to order.

We'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance.

I invite you to join us.

Pledge allegiance to the play in the United States of America.

Roll call, please.

Call Pack here.

Papcorn?

Here.

Strand?

Here.

Turnberg?

Here.

Mahoney.

Here.

I think there's a video we have said you guys are going to show it now.

Yep.

It was a very proud moment for me going up to Grand Forks and assuming the role as chief in that community.

It's a great community.

I've learned a lot.

Uh met a lot of great people up there.

But coming back to where I started and starting to see the familiar faces and the fire stations and the people that I spent most of my career with was very heartwarming.

It was it was a good experience to come back to that.

Wow, this all looks familiar.

And it's a great community, and I'm really hoping that the experiences that I have, I can bring something to the department and the city.

There's been a lot of those things that have helped shape my leadership.

One going back to college and finishing my bachelor's degree, going through the first accreditation process with the City of Fargo back in two thousand nine, ten.

I did that for about a year and a half.

Going back to the National Fire Academy for numerous classes, including the executive fire officer program, and then having the opportunity to go to Grand Forks and having to learn a whole new community, a whole new staff of elected officials, a whole new department, and being able to navigate that and navigate it successfully.

Those experiences and all of the things that I've done combined, uh, including the emergency calls that I've been on over the years, the floods here in Fargo.

They've all contributed to my knowledge.

The people that I've worked for, I've had some great leaders in front of me.

I've worked for technically five different chiefs in my career, and I've learned something from every one of them, as well as my direct line supervisors.

All of those years of knowledge and experience, as well as my education, have definitely culminated this event in my life.

And have a lot of respect for Chief Dirksen and the chiefs before him, Chief Hoover, both both progressive, both pushing the department forward.

Uh, you know.

If if we're staying, if we're standing still, we're moving backwards.

And so my first priorities are one to learn the needs of the department, what's changed in seven years, where's our priority, where's our focus?

When the community voted to support the public safety community with the public safety sales tax uh vote, uh, was a clear message to me.

And I believe one of the most important parts of my job is to meet the needs of the community.

We got to make sure that this organization is providing high quality service to the citizens who we serve.

Very good.

Uh there are some people that I wanted to speak on 64th Avenue interchange.

I think there's a group of about seven people, and we just ask those people to reach out to Kimber, and we could set up a meeting to discuss some of the concerns.

Uh we have had our public hearing for Metric Cog prior to this, so if those people will just contact her this week, we would be able to maybe uh sit out and visit a little bit.

Is there a motion to approve the order of agenda?

Mr.

Chair.

May I can we just get a second first, please?

Can I get a second?

Second.

Now discussion.

Commissioner Turnberg.

I would like to request an addition to the agenda.

Okay.

To the agenda.

Is there a second?

Second discussion.

Mr.

Chair, I just don't know what to do.

Mr.

Strand, what is this request?

The request is what uh people around the country are talking about, people around the city and the region are talking about, social media posts, which I know you are aware of, Commissioner Strand, what city policy is, and how do we deal with staff feeling unsafe?

Mr.

Chair, members of the of the commission, um, I we have policies in place to address personnel issues as our governance policy state.

The only direct oversight we have of staff as a commission is of our city administrator.

Um we have all agreed to those governance policies, so I know that any personnel concerns are being addressed in the protocols we have in place and um under civil service requirements, and so um I won't be supporting this addition.

Mr.

Chair, uh we are perfectly within our rights to take action as a city commission with employees.

That's uh part of our prerogative if we wish.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Any other discussion?

Commissioner Strand.

Mayor, could you, in a balcony view, tell us how it's being addressed at the administrative level?

Administrator and HR are meeting with the employee, going over the policy that the city of Fargo has, and uh it's addressing that issue.

The employee in question pulled down the post within five minutes of the post, regrets it, obviously, and we just have to let the process follow through the process.

We'll be HR, we'll uh meet with the employee, make recommendations to the administrator, uh Mike Redinger on that particular issue, and then take the actions that are required.

We really as the Commission cannot fire this person, it's really up to administration to if somebody wanted to be fired.

So, Mr.

Church, this is a question from uh from uh Nancy Morris, our city attorney.

We are within our rights if we wish to to remove an employee, the city commission is correct.

Yeah, no, I I don't believe so.

Actually, it is the um hiring authorities.

Now you do have some rights to um provide that information to the hiring authority, but the the civil service um process would also be applicable under those circumstances.

So, Mr.

Chair, we are the hiring authority, the the Fargo City Commission and the mayor are the hiring authority.

The hiring authority, all those people are advisory committees and advisory people to us.

If we wish to take action, we can take action.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Chair, I believe.

I believe this deserves some discussion.

I believe it deserves transparency.

I think for us to not discuss it is a disservice to those that we serve.

We only serve at the public's discretion, and I think it is a cument upon us to discuss this, and by denying that, I think that shows lack of transparency and tells our public that they do not deserve to hear the truth.

Any other discussion?

Commissioner Stratt.

You know, we're going down some rabbit holes lately that are just out of our lane.

And I'm not gonna be part of that.

I'm gonna stay in the balcony.

I'm gonna follow the guidance guiding principles and guardrills that we have established.

I'm going to adhere to the commit to the protocols we've agreed to for how we behave and how we act.

I'm going to endorse our our staff who are in it who are charged with handling personnel.

That's our job.

That's their job.

It's not our job.

This is a pattern now in several weeks in a row where we have our staff being or people being attacked at the dais.

And it's not proper.

So just to be clear to the public, the commissioners all have received a uh correspondence from Nancy Morris regards to freedom of speech and what policies are within the city of Fargo.

And basically states uh that the HR and administrative team is supposed to take this under advisement and uh work through the process.

Present time that is not all completed and it would be proper as they would report back to us at the end of their uh inquiry and then tell us what they have made recommendations to do.

We can have discussions about public policy as far as what we can face uh do on Facebook and what we do in other uh alleys, but the uh policy we have is you're not supposed to post on Facebook if you're a city of Fargo employee, anything that could be harmful to the city of Fargo.

Uh difficulty in this is freedom of speech.

So that's one of the issues that is brought forth by Nancy Morris, which the rest of the commission is very well aware of.

And Nancy, could you just explain one thing about that in particular?

There's a court case in which freedom of speech was appealed upon.

Yes.

Um I did advise the uh commission of a recent A Circuit case that addresses a Facebook post by a firefighter, um Melton versus and I have it here.

Um it does address the uh um city of Forest City, and uh just advised the uh commissioners that there are First Amendment implications with respect to Facebook posts by by public employees.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

May I?

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

When a person is charged with safety, health and safety, then to post something celebrating the assassination of someone that we all watched in real time.

I have had employees reach out to me telling me that they will not attend to any meeting, that they do not feel safe.

So, yes, anyone can post hate speech, whatever speech you want, the government cannot put you in jail.

You can post it last week, take it down, you can post it today, you can post it tomorrow, but that doesn't mean you are free from consequences.

I would say, and I have confirmed with my attorney that because of this person's position in health and safety, it is an oxymoron to keep someone in that position where other people feel unsafe.

Mr.

Chair, Mr.

Strand.

Without debating what you're talking about, Commissioner, and I'm not sure people disagree with the horrendousness of what's happened.

Um, the motion is to modify the agenda.

That's what we should be debating, whether or not we modify the agenda.

We're debating the topic, which is completely out of line.

How to start.

We have to uh approve or not adding this topic to the agenda, which would then open up the discussion at the appropriate point.

That has not happened.

So I think we're calling to question, John.

We just recalling the question.

Yes, we would.

On the motion to modify the agenda.

Roll call vote, please.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Pepcorn?

Aye.

Cole Pack, no strand?

No.

Mahoney?

No.

Motion to approve the agenda.

So moved.

It's moved and seconded without the amendment.

Any discussion on that?

Roll call vote, please.

Pepcorn?

Aye.

Cole Pack?

Aye.

Strand?

Yes.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Mahoney?

Aye.

Sir, motion to approve the minutes of September 2nd, 2025 regular meeting.

So move.

Sir second.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carried.

Sir motion to approve the extent agenda items one through 27.

So move.

Sir second.

Second.

Roll call vote, please.

Strand?

Yes.

Colpack?

Aye.

Pepcorn?

Aye.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Mahoney?

Aye.

505?

Yes, it is.

Public hearing.

Public comment on the 2026 budget.

Can we have the slides up, please?

Susan, did you want to comment?

So we had presented a budget previously, and this is an opportunity for the public to speak to that budget.

We have time frame which we have to do.

The final budget would be in 29th, we would vote on it at that time.

Tonight we're just hearing public hearing.

Susan, have there been any substantial changes in the budget since we had the preliminary budget?

We are working through a few things.

So we'll take into consideration again what's heard today as well.

So on the screen is the chronology of the budget.

Today we're doing the public hearing in two weeks.

We'll have the final budget approval.

And then I need to get it to this the county.

And then I think the next slide shows where we left off with the preliminary budget.

We have uh balanced budget.

This is the general fund revenues and expenses of just over 140 million dollars.

Thank you.

So any public wish to speak to the uh to the uh 2026 preliminary budget.

Christopher.

Christopher Cohn, Fargo resident.

The my main concern with the 2026 budget is that it goes after vulnerable populations and low-income people too much, including minorities.

It's heavily shifted in that direction, or at least the parts of it, the butt of the cuts that I'm concerned about are have to do with those things.

And it's uh and the biggest cut of all that I'm concerned about is one to MAT bus because it's 33 percent at best, and it could have been as high as 45 percent.

And so we could really we could actually wreck mass transit with that kind of a uh cut.

And I think that uh instead that um and then there's also snow assistance removal for people who can't remove their snow, and there's uh affordable housing issues, and there's uh um events for uh black Americans that are sponsored.

And um, and I think there's alternate cuts that we can make.

So, you know, we can do some of that, we can do some of the street paving cuts, not as high as what was proposed, maybe 25 percent instead of 50 percent, and um we can take 10 percent out of some of the nonprofits that we have grants to.

So uh like TAP for the arts and the downtown community partnership and uh the Indigenous Association because I think we should take 10 percent out, because I think there should be pain sharing.

So I think we gotta sh, you know, it's gonna be painful for everybody.

These are the 6.8 million is a huge cut to make.

Let's spread it out a bit so we don't damage any one thing too much.

Um then I had ideas about some fee increases.

We could raise up the utility franchise fee just a little bit.

Um less than much, much less than one percent, and we could we could fill holes in the budget, and there's also the excavation fees that are uh right now they bring in just under 200,000.

We could raise them up by a percentage, bring in some more fees.

And also, what about the airport?

The airport, Metbus is taking 33 percent cut, airport nothing.

How about cut airport just five percent and we'd save ninety thousand dollars?

So I mean, uh why is airport travel prioritized over mass transit?

Um, you know, because uh working people, um there's a lot of low-income, I mean a lot of low-paying jobs in the city, and working people rely on mass transit to get to those jobs.

Employers aren't even tolerant of lateness.

And um, you know, we're gonna reduce the number of stops on some of these routes, um, in particular the most heavily used route, which is Route 15, reduce it um from stopping every 30 minutes to once an hour.

And think of that in the middle of the winter in the middle of the summer.

It's gonna reduce ridership, and then we're gonna lose federal funding.

There's gonna be a spiral down.

And then uh some of our city partners in the MetroCog uh relationship.

They also have concerns about this because they weren't consulted.

And so as a result as a result of us only cutting Fargo routes, they are not and and those other cities, their routes are not being cut, and they don't I don't think they want them cut, but now they're gonna be paying a larger proportion, a larger percentage of the overall MetroCOG budget, and that could also cause problems with the Minnesota government because essentially they'll be uh propping up North Dakota's low low tax policy through through their policy of higher taxes but returning it in services.

So uh and if they do that, then Moorhead might have to cut a routes, and then it would be a spiral down.

And you know, we could completely wreck our mass transit.

And the mass transit is taking a lot, we're saving a lot of money in a lot of ways because it's taking all that traffic off the roads.

The streets and roads are extremely expensive.

The maintenance, the rebuilding them, the snow removal, the potholes, and uh we want to reduce congestion.

We have when we have less cars, we have less accidents, and then police don't have to respond.

Police are very expensive, and uh that's it, thank you.

Is there anybody else which is speaking of the budget?

My name is Glenn Knutson, resident in Fargo.

Um examining the budget, there's some concerns that I have.

I don't understand how you're going to address some of the problems of the city with the current budget.

One is I want to look at the police portfolio and budget, and looking at the estimate of calls for the upcoming year, it basically was made level from the previous year, and I'm wondering how can that be.

What are we determining is a crime and what's not a crime.

I have a man that I work with who is works in one of the stores in town, and he's been told you may as well not call the police department when there is uh theft going on in the store because they won't get here in time.

Don't bother the people that are stealing because they may harm you.

So that it our police chief can say crime is down.

I live in Prairie Wood.

I've never heard gunshots before, but I hear gunshots more than once from the apartment buildings that are behind me, and uh uh I don't hear about it on the news, but it sure sounds like gunshots and not backfiring cars.

I have seen situations where I have a uh a relative whose son is an Uber driver.

He told his parents do not go downtown Fargo at night, and there are certain places in downtown Fargo you don't go during the day, but crime is down.

Then on top of it, you have the downtown engagement center, which in my opinion encourages crime.

There is no accountability.

I've dealt with homeless people in our church, and a few years ago we had a young couple come, and they wanted our church to put them up in a motel, and it was cold out.

The YWCA.

I was told I know my rights.

I said, What do you mean your rights?

I've got the right to drink, they won't let me drink there.

Where's accountability?

We didn't get them a motel.

There needs to be accountability for actions.

And by that I mean fecal matter and urine out of the entrances to the businesses in downtown Fargo.

When we've got crimes, we we can't go to a store and deal with theft, but our police officers can go downtown Fargo and clean up human waste.

And I want to know why it's there.

I've lived in the city, and I have dealt with being downtown Fargo not recently, but years ago, and we didn't have those problems.

But we also didn't invite homeless people to come to Fargo if you can't, if you're getting kicked out of other cities, and putting ads in the paper saying you're welcome here.

But you're never going to help people by enabling them.

And when you enable people, you only encourage them to continue in behavior that is destructive to themselves and destructive to others, and in the meantime, your citizens that are paying the bills are suffering.

You as a council are responsible for that.

Your decisions, I can't make the decision because you I you're making the decisions.

But I have to go to individual council members if I want to talk or hope I can get as one of twelve people to talk to the council.

Right now we've got a situation I think is a serious problem with our police department.

We have a police chief, he does all his own exit interviews.

Nobody else, him.

I don't know the exact number because I didn't check, but I heard there was about 50 officers that have resigned since he became the chief, most of whom were experienced officers.

And you have someone who won't even listen to the mayor running it and giving directions to young officers on how to be a policeman.

I'm concerned because I'm concerned about the safety of the citizens of Fargo.

I look at a budget, and we've got money to give needles to people, but we don't have money to hire policemen.

And then we need to give raises to our firemen, but instead of putting it in the budget and really having to work at it, we just put more taxes on the people.

I thought that's what you were having doing this exercise for was to have a budget for the city.

You need to understand what it is to run a city.

I drove by there just to make sure they were still there.

Today we're making it so everybody's not accountable to anybody.

We can steal in our stores, we can poop in our in downtown Fargo, we spend millions of dollars making downtown look beautiful.

But our people can't come down here, and you're seeing boutique after boutique open up and close, open up and close.

And then you wonder, I don't understand what's going on.

I want to tell you, mayor, you asked me during COVID when Portland was having all their issues.

What's going on in Portland?

I can tell you what's going on in Portland.

Same thing that's going on in Seattle, same thing that's going on in San Francisco, same thing that's going on in New York.

They are making the people that are the criminals the ones that are justified.

And we support behavior that's not made accountable.

And we justify it because, oh, those poor people.

People make choices.

Everyone in this room makes choices.

And we have to be accountable and live with our choices.

My problem is my taxes keep going up.

Two years ago I came in and testified at the and at that time there were people that couldn't afford to stay in their houses because of the taxes.

And you mayor talked, you talked to me afterwards and said there's this program.

The lady said she'd applied, but she couldn't couldn't get it because she had paid all her bills.

But now she was paying her taxes on the credit card.

I mean, what a disaster.

We have a long night tonight.

Can you finish up, please?

We have a long night.

Keep your points, please.

You need to make some serious decisions.

And the decisions need to be dealt with.

Who is important?

The citizens of the city and the ones that are paying taxes and the ones that have to endure all of the things that are going and that we can't even.

My wife says I don't even want to come to downtown Fargo anymore.

Because of the situation, and we don't have police protection because well, we don't have enough sales tax to cover police salaries plus firement salaries, I guess.

I don't know.

You need to make decisions.

And you need to start looking at your budget and cutting areas that can be cut instead of just adding to areas that shouldn't be added to.

Thank you for listening.

Anyone else?

You have to come up to speak.

I uh have some statements that I'd like to submit to your counsel.

My name is Michelle Fogarty.

You're close to the mic, please, so we can all hear.

I have a couple statements here I want to submit to your counsel.

My name is Michelle Fogarty.

I grew up in Ledgerwood, North Dakota.

I spent four years in the Air Force Guard here in Fargo in the 80s.

Um with corruption in police departments.

William Finney, the ex-chief of police of St.

Paul, Minnesota, fired in 2004 for misconduct, criminal misconduct, is stocking me and settling claims on his own crimes against me with my sister's daughter, Sarah Murray.

Um they have been afforded or allowed by O'Hara, the chief of police in Minneapolis.

This goes into Bismarck and Fargo here now.

This is about the budget.

What are you speaking about is about the budget?

It goes into Bismarck and Fargo here, if you just let me finish.

So they were allowed to dress up individuals who are on no PD payroll anywhere.

Again, we're talking about the budget.

Can you address the budget, please?

This is not an open forum.

Well, this isn't about the budget, but it's about me going to the Fargo PD.

No, it's not appropriate at this time.

We're only talking about the case.

Is there any opportunity in this meeting for me to address this?

But uh you can cut the mic.

She's not talking about the budget.

Okay.

So, Mr.

Chair, she could speak at the two and a half minutes at the end of the meeting.

So if you want to go back and talk to Kimber.

Yes.

Okay.

Anyone else want to talk about the budget?

If not, I'll close the public hearing.

There's no motion tonight.

Next item is uh revisions item 29 revisions of the public comment policies to align North Dakota state law.

Michael Redinger to explain.

Thank you.

Can you read Commissioners?

This item uh number 29 is just a discussion item for the commission.

There's no uh staff suggested motion here, but it did prepare a couple of motions should the commission wish to move forward, and I'll pull those up on the screen here.

If I could just have those that pulled up, please.

Um the North Dakota legislature in its last session did uh update its language.

This came out of Senate Bill 2180 that pertained to public comment at governing board meetings.

And so here in the city of Fargo, we had already uh had accomplished many of the public meeting and public comment objectives that were defined in Senate Bill 2180.

However, there were a couple of outstanding matters that we are just looking for uh feedback from the commission on.

Uh, number one would be whether or not uh to limit public comment at these uh city commission meetings to those items that are on the current agenda as well as the immediately preceding agenda that is uh provided for in Senate Bill 2180 as adopted.

So the city commission could, if it's so desired, uh limit that comment uh to just the meeting agenda as well as the item right before it.

And then the second matter uh relates to whether or not the city of Fargo would want to limit virtual testimony.

Virtual testimony is not required under the uh provisions of Senate Bill 2180.

We have done that here in the Fargo uh City Hall for some time to allow for virtual commenters.

But the one thing that has changed is that now you no longer need to be a city of Fargo resident or business owner uh to provide public comment.

So in the event of virtual testimony, you could be from California, you could be from uh Washington DC or somewhere else outside of Fargo and still provide that virtual comment.

So I've uh provided for two options there.

This is motion number one, and I'll come back to this.

Motion number two, I think there's a couple of options.

If you want to remove virtual public comment from all future meetings, that would be uh motion to A.

If alternatively, you said that you still wanted to provide for an opportunity for City of Fargo residents and businesses, that would be motion to B.

Again, you're not required under uh 2180 to provide any virtual opportunity, but this would be a way to continue uh providing that uh should you do so in the future.

Um the other thing that we could do, of course, is no action.

Uh, that would be option three, no motion.

That would just be the current practice.

You could be a a resident, non-resident speaking on any uh such item for public comment, and uh we would just move forward as well as for the virtual piece as well.

So again, these two motions have been prepared for consideration.

We're happy to work with the city attorney's office in drafting the appropriate policy updates and changes.

But if we could uh start first on the uh direction on public comment and whether we want to limit public comment and get that more restrictive, again, this is consistent with state law, and then we can talk about the second motion after that.

Thank you.

So just to be clear, when you do public comment when people do it on agenda items, they could speak to that.

When we have resident comment, does that influence that at all?

Correct.

This would be related really to the resident comment and whether or not you would want to change that general open comment period we have at the end right now.

Currently time limited, and that's uh at the end of all of our meetings right now.

So that's really what we're talking about here.

So if we wanted to continue the policy we have, we would do no motion.

That is correct.

Okay.

Discussion.

So, Mr.

Chair, just a couple things.

First of all, it is this is a business meeting, and so I do I would support having it just be on the topics, because last year we were having comments about worldwide events, which is great for everyone to have their opinion, but to have that at this just that seemed like uh I don't know.

There's nothing that we were gonna vote on to do anything about it.

And so to me, that was the one thing.

And and the virtual comments, I I I support, I think the way that we're doing it now is has been working well.

That's just my opinion.

The virtual comments uh for me personally, they do not have the same impact.

When somebody calls and uh it just doesn't have the same impact as somebody coming in person and saying because it's it's it's uh it's symbolic.

But however, there are some people that they're not able to come here because of multiple reasons, and so that's why I think we should continue it.

I would say it doesn't have as much impact, but it's still a good option for some people.

One of the questions, Commissioner Pipcorn is should that just only be Fargo residents or Fargo business people, because otherwise, if you do virtual, you're opening up to the nation.

Anyone could make a comment.

But if you but Mr.

So if you limit that, but some people own businesses in Fargo and they have issues, and to me, they should be able to talk.

And there's people that live in Moorhead that have things.

So I to me I would I would be in favor of leaving it open, but that's just my opinion.

Okay.

Any other speakers.

I have a call back.

Excuse me, Mr.

Chair.

Um so the change is that now any comments don't currently our policy is people can sign up to speak if they're a resident of Fargo or they own a business in Fargo.

And the new changes to the public comment policy makes it available to anyone, whether you live here or not, to make public comments.

So just to clarify, so the current policy now with the law change is that you no longer require the residency or the business ownership.

So right now, today you can be a West Fargo or a Moorehead person and sign up.

This question is whether you would want to just limit that comment only to agenda items.

That's really a question number one.

Uh but right now we are already consistent with state law by making that change to remove the sign-up and proving that you're a Fargo resident.

Mr.

And so the reason we can have restrictions on virtual is because it's in addition to the policy we're already complying with, correct?

Correct.

So in the case of public comment right now, you you really are providing more than the state law would require you to do.

So that's this question number one.

And then on this question, that is correct.

Uh, Commissioner Kolpak.

Uh we provide virtual, not everyone provides virtual, but uh this is just something that if you wanted to clarify it further to honor resident and business feedback only, you could do that, or simply uh remove it altogether.

You're not required under the law change to have any virtual person.

The first motion, Commissioner Pepcorn's comment is that it would only be agenda items for this meeting or last meeting, right?

Even if they're virtual, it could only be for an agenda items that they could speak.

Okay, just I want to clarify.

Commissioner Strand.

Thank you.

I how many hours did we spend on this topic?

Quite a few.

You know, and and we heard a lot of viewpoints from folks about every approach possible.

But we landed in a place I think that's worked, relatively speaking.

You know, yeah, the state came up with legislation requiring public comment.

Well, we were way ahead of that, already doing it.

And for the right reasons.

We want to hear from our people.

You know, sometimes we don't hear things we like to hear or want to hear, but it's that's who we serve.

Other people, so I'm in favor of just continuing the path we're on, uh, acknowledging that other government jurisdictions are getting there too, like they should be.

And if we have uh needs to modify it, we can visit that down the road.

Mr.

Dernberg.

Mr.

Chair.

I agree um with with what the other commissioners have said.

I think if we can stay on topic, as Mr.

Redlinger suggested, uh speaking about world crises and items that the commission has absolutely zero control over is a waste of our time.

Actually, so I I agree having that ability to have a virtual ability to access the meeting for those who perhaps physically can't get here or are out of town.

I like what we're doing, but to keep it on track.

Thank you.

So you have motion number one.

Do I have a motion for motion number one, please?

I'll make the motion on motion number one to approve.

And is there a second?

I'm sorry, I will have public hearing in just a minute.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Olivia, for reminding me of that.

We have two virtual work two speakers.

So I have virtual speaker, Olivia Fisher to speak.

And I have an in-person Christopher Cohn.

So I didn't mean to interrupt you.

Um I just wasn't able to speak last time, so I thought that was happening again.

Um I go first.

Can you hear you?

We can hear you.

Okay.

Sorry.

Um, hi, my name is Olivia.

I'm a Fargo resident.

I'm speaking tonight to encourage you not to agree to remove non-agenda public comment opportunities nor limit the virtual comment option.

These changes are unnecessary, and approving them would only cause you trouble because residents will be upset.

Community members want to be heard, and that is not a big ask considering your job is to do what is best for us.

The only purpose of taking away the option for citizens to comment on city issues that aren't on a date the agenda is to silence us.

Considering you're already faithfully free speech by not allowing signs in public meetings, that this decision would not be received well by community members.

We are already seeing the silencing of community members in Harwood, North Dakota, where the mayor recently promised the public would get a chance to speak on the data center, only for the council to not provide a public comment opportunity before their final vote last Wednesday.

If you remove non-agenda comment opportunities, how should we trust that you won't do the exact same thing?

There are talks of Harwood residents demanding a recall election because of this behavior.

So it is not recommended that you follow in their footsteps.

As someone who frequently attends and speaks at city commission meetings, I truly see no reason to limit public comments, both in person and virtually.

There are typically what one to five people who comment at the end of these meetings.

Sometimes there are no public comments at all.

Allowing non-residents to speak isn't going to drastically increase the number of comments you receive.

Not to mention, if non-residents care enough to sit through these meetings in order to speak, they've probably got something important for you to hear.

We live in a border city, so there are many non-residents that are still impacted by the choices you made.

You've already limited to 12 speakers per meeting, limited our speaking time to two and a half minutes and have moved public comments at the end of the meeting, which has effectively reduced the amount of sign-up.

The only time there are a lot of speakers is that the community has a lot of concerns.

You should not be on the commission.

Last November, you all discussed potentially removing the virtual comment option entirely.

You made the right decision to keep it available.

I ask that you make the right decision again tonight and do not limit virtual comments whatsoever, and that you do not remove public comments of any variation.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Furcall, want to come up and speak, please?

Yes, Christopher Cohn Fargo resident.

I just wanted to comment about the first part.

Should the public comment items be limited to only the agenda items and those on the proceeding of the preceding meeting.

And um first of first of all, um, I think uh uh a main issue here is transparency.

So the city uh attorneys or staff, I can't remember who it was, talked about um essentially should we just meet minimum requirements?

And I don't think that's sufficient.

I don't think that should be the goal to just be the threshold should be the lowest level, the minimum requirements uh of the of the law.

So I think it should they should be higher, and we should have more transparency than that.

And so I uh I think this should comment should not be limited to just agenda items.

Um and yeah, people come and talk about international issues that have nothing to do with the city.

But if you if you prevent us from talking about things that are uh not on the agenda, then you're gonna block people from coming and talking about city issues that just no one up here or in the in the city staff is concerned about or doesn't know about or has political considerations and can't you you you guys can't speak about those issues.

I don't have political considerations, so I'm willing to bring up controversial issues that really ought to be talked about.

Open like open records requests um that were being delayed for weeks and the North Dakota attorney um state attorney uh his um open records manual says that those should be uh responded to within days in that week.

So that's one thing I brought to you when it wasn't on the agenda.

Um I brought to you the issue of uh uh commissioners not following the ethics code.

When's that going to get on the agenda?

I mean, uh that's a concern.

I taught I brought uh an idea of uh the city creating trained alternative responders so that the police don't have to respond to non-police issues, and we would save a lot of money.

It's a really good idea and and we should look into it, but that would never end up on the agenda because the idea was coming for me.

Thank you.

Mr.

Turking further discussion, Commissioner Pickbart, can I ask?

Can I respond to him?

Just so an open discussion, you can respond to everybody.

So Mr.

Cohn, the one thing is when you talked about an issue, let's say you had an issue that you were concerned, then you could contact any of us and we would put it on the agenda.

So if you talked about that, or if you were worried about, hey, uh this topic isn't being talked about, they can call us any time, the the city, the city offices, and we would put it on the agenda.

So I does that make sense to you?

His kind of one of his concerns was that, and and we would gladly put it on.

Any of us we can do that.

Uh obviously Kember has a cutoff time, so you can't uh do it after a certain time, but we would be happy to any issue that a citizen has, we can put it on the agenda.

Thank you.

Commissioner Callback.

Yeah, I I appreciate that, Commissioner Pepcorn.

We have a number of ways to contact us in between, but I'm gonna go back to my um original opening comments about this topic myself is I don't know what's broken right now.

We spent a lot of time on determining where we land.

We have um more abilities than other municipalities in public speaking.

Um I will share that there might be a concern in the future of now virtual comments in public comment being open to anyone in the country, really anyone anywhere now.

If that becomes an issue, we can revisit it, but I'm comfortable leaving um our policies where they are today.

Any other discussion?

Mr.

Strat?

Just help me understand.

Are there further motions coming, or is this the only motion, or are we vetting each of these individually?

And then this is the first motion.

There's a secondary motion to talk about virtual.

This is gonna talk about what we want to hear for public comment policy.

And the major change for what we had in the past is it's uh getting commission agenda and passed agenda.

So it would limit it what we could have.

Is that correct, Michael?

So Mr.

Chair, could I ask your pick?

Can you just flip that again to the next?

There's only two motions.

So that's the second one.

That that's all we're doing tonight.

That's that's the correct, Mr.

Chair?

Sorry about that.

We haven't decided on the second motion yet.

So it'd be first motion we need to address first.

But again, to give a point is we're being more restrictive in what people can comment.

And so status quo, no action tonight would be that you continue with your same procedure for resident comments as well as non-resident comments.

Uh that's the law change.

And so if if if no action on motion one, we would just keep doing what we're doing today.

Uh motion number two is just uh again looking for direction for the attorney's office and administration if there is a desire to change any of your virtual procedure today internally.

You can be more restrictive here because you're already providing for something that the law does not require.

So we'll go to motion one.

Any other comments or motion one?

Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Turnberg.

Perhaps we leave it as is, and if things become out of hand and people are bringing up national or international issues, we revisit this.

But I think it has been working.

I agree, transparency is of utter importance, and so far so good.

But if it gets out of hand, then maybe we revisit.

Okay.

So that might be a change in your vote because you supported.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Roll call vote, please.

Pepcorn.

Aye.

Turnberg.

Aye.

COLPEC?

No.

Strand?

No.

Mahani?

No.

Item number two.

Virtual comment.

Which one of the ones you would like?

Do you have a motion 2A or 2B?

Do I have a motion?

So if we didn't have a motion, it stays the same.

That is correct.

Mr.

Chair.

And then COPE.

If as I said in my comments, if it becomes an issue of we have several out-of-state people hijacking a meeting with a national issue that's not germane to our business, we can revisit them.

We can revisit the policy.

Okay.

So again, I have no motion on item 2A2B.

Is that correct?

We stand no motion.

We'll move to the next item.

Thank you.

Item 30, recommendation to continue engagement service 2026 and authorized staff begin outreach for potential relocation.

Brenda Darion's been working long and hard on this, and she's finally getting to present.

So thank you, Brenda.

You are welcome.

Uh good evening, uh Mayor and Commissioners.

Uh today I would like to visit about the engagement center.

You know, over the last couple of years, there's been much discussion regarding the engagement center, and if it is in the correct location, and frankly, the city's role with the engagement center.

So today I would like to look at what it is and what it should be, along with answering the questions.

Do we continue supporting public health's operation here?

And if so, are there other different locations to consider?

As you look at the housing continuum and regional response, we all have our roles.

There is the coordinated response for downtown concerns, which we the city respond to.

The police and health departments continue to work on the coordinated response efforts in downtown.

We then have the Metro Support Response, which is the United to End Homelessness Initiative.

I have been in touch with Chandler, and they are making progress.

She and Taylor want to provide the city with an update at one of the next two meetings.

Lastly, we have our city direct programs.

Along with mobile outreach and the engagement center, we also have our Fargo Planning and Fargo Housing Authority continuing to work on regional housing projects and head administration.

Earlier this year, we had an update with the city commission on the Bloomberg Association work.

Since then, there were state budget discussions along with coordination with the state as part of the legislation.

The mayor has been coordinating.

The mayor has been coordinating with the state and private partners as they've reached out to him directly to provide suggestions about private investments in the community.

The mayor has had a lot of direct feedback from downtown stakeholders on their interests.

Staff has continued to stay engaged with Bloomberg and associates since they provide direct technical support for the challenge we challenges we have at no cost.

Today I am here to discuss further what the next steps may look like in hopes of getting your input for further direction.

As we have heard from the stakeholders in the community, we are at a decision point on the engagement center.

Tonight we would like to confirm what the city's role is in the engagement center's vision.

If confirmed, we would continue to the next steps of future site feasibility and public outreach with an open house on Tuesday, September 23rd.

We would then bring back more information to the City Commission along with the finance plan.

When considering timing, we know many community members are seeking resolutions, and we also know that the winter is coming.

The existing building is approximately 17,000 square feet, but that is spread out on three floors in a section layout.

This creates a need for additional staff to manage all of the areas.

With the inefficiency of the space, this does not allow our partners the ability to be available to connect with the participants as often as they would like to, up to five days a week.

The space constraints also create spillover onto the streets, and the existing building layout doesn't allow staff to manage that activity.

Five years ago, when we considered setting up the program, we weren't sure if the providers and users would access the space.

The daytime service connections that we're making have been successful and impactful, and the data shows us the need is still growing.

Staff recognize that the services would be better served in different locations.

If we are able to relocate the center, it would allow us to set up an operation for a one-stop shop that service providers can proactively connect with participants to a multitude of services.

More agencies could come on site to join, such as mental health, therapeutic programs, legal aid, and county and state support services.

And volunteers and community members could provide their services such as daytime programming events.

The benefits and expected outcomes would be faster pathways to treatment for clients with potentially less disruptive disruption on the streets.

We want to fill the critical gaps and expand service offerings to include mental health.

Space for our partners will be able to provide consistent and approved access to services and programming.

By having a space that is on one floor with greater internal visibility and security, allows more appropriate program spaces to access clients to assist clients.

The efficiency of the space allows us greater staff efficiencies also.

A better location with on-site exterior space also allows for better outside activity management.

As you can see here, we have many partners today, and with a better layout, we can enhance the connection points with our participants by these partners having a permanent location for direct client connection.

This reduces our staff needs as well.

Stakeholders and property owners have presented some options for consideration for the new location.

So three of the sites now that would meet the size of what we are looking at would be 610 North University, 72014th Street, and 2001 First Avenue North.

There are no neighbors immediately abutting this site.

It is still available for rent or purchase, but we know there is a public concern with the feedback we received earlier this year.

At 72014th Street, this site is a block west of the previous site, site and a block north.

There are no neighbors immediately abutting this site, and this site would be available for rent or purchase.

The last site that has become available is at 2001 First Avenue North.

This site is outside the preferred location, but we feel it would still be viable as an option due to the proximity to other city facilities, and currently here we could look at a lease.

So why am I here today?

At the staff level, we have run a cursory analysis to affirm any of these three sites would be a better site than where we are today.

The idea would be to commit to staff operate for the city to commit to staff operations.

But financially, the facility and renovation would come together through private funds.

It is our understanding that community stakeholders believe there is an importance of having a location in which the provider and those in need can come together for direct service connection.

There is still much work to do.

However, before we invest any more time to have clarity for the public, we would like discussion to seek your guidance and input.

If we are going to consider a private public partnership, they are looking for a commitment from the city to fund the engagement services operation.

So we need to support to determine if we're going to continue to support the continuation of the engagement center services for the next year budget.

I would then like the authorization to begin outreach and gather feedback and proceed with coordinating with the property owners and return back with the findings in two weeks.

So I have a variety of speakers that respond at this time.

I'll open that up first and then we'll go back to questions from the commission if that's okay for you.

Absolutely.

I have a virtual speaker, Camille Brant, if you want to start, please.

Thank you, Commissioners.

I appreciate this opportunity.

My concern is again accountability.

City of Fargo has done a wonderful job in renovating the downtown for our community.

But through that process, we see justification, which has impacted the unhoused and their opportunities for affordable housing.

We also have businesses who have been continually renewed for their liquor licenses and off-sill that goes late into the night.

Their businesses are poorly lit, the alleys behind them frequently sites for stabbings and shootings at three in the morning.

And I think data would show that.

So there's accountability to us as community members as to what's allowed as far as businesses, and then there's also the results of gentrification.

A beautiful healthy downtown Fargo, though, needs to expand far beyond Broadway.

As a business owner, I have an elementary school on 301 North University Drive.

We enjoy the Dairy Queen across the street, Collins Nursery, lunches out at 701.

The university at six the locations proposed for 610 and 14th would very much damage these businesses just due to the impact of people receiving services for behavioral issues, drug use, sanitation and health concerns.

We must place child safety and security as a priority for our community, as well as those of us who have invested tens of thousands of dollars into our businesses.

We do not receive public funding to pay our rents or buy our supplies.

Business owners, children, students at NDSU who frequently bike and walk North University.

We need to consider the long-term effect and the long-term output of how we want to truly serve the unhoused in ways that are compassionate.

And I will end because I see my time is up.

But I think city funding is necessary.

Yeah, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay.

Um, hi again, Olivia Fargo Redden.

I have witnesses continuous discussion about moving the deck over the last several months.

And it's disappointing to see it on the table again, especially after they have now been closed on the weekend due to the budget cut.

I don't quite understand how we don't have the budget to keep at least one person in the building to provide support on the weekend, but we somehow have the funding to move and expand the deck services entirely.

How can we trust that you will create a new community center once the deck's current location is shut down?

How can residents receive support and the time it would take to get all of these new services set up?

And can you guarantee that anyone who were to utilize the new community center would be able to receive all of the same amenities that the deck currently offers, if not more?

Folks rely on the deck for a place to take a shower, store belongings that so that they aren't stolen, grab a snack, get out of the heat cold for a while, and the supportive services.

By moving the center out of the heart of downtown, you are intentionally displacing on health residents, especially those who cannot for whatever reason stay at the shelters.

Anyone who regularly utilizes library services will have more distance to travel if they also want to visit the deck.

This also means that our week team may have to have to cover wider areas of town to offer support.

A potential name change was thrown out to change it from the downtown engagement center to the resource and recovery center.

This name change was in the mayor's budget presentation on August 4th, which tell me tells me that this has been in the works longer than the public has been aware.

If a vote is made on this at all tonight, that gives the public very little time to digest this information and share their thoughts.

It would be beneficial to hear from more people who regularly use these services or from the deck's current staff.

Without that input, how can you make a decision that benefits those who will be most affected?

Another question I have is if the deck is moved and still only opens five days a week, will the new location provide transportation to an alternate warming center on the weekend, or will they be stuck with nothing?

I encourage you to take your time in making any decisions that affect our on-house neighbors.

They already have so many restrictions on how they can exist in the city.

Please do not make that more difficult for them.

Listen to their biggest concerns before you start projects that you think are best for them.

Thank you.

It is a vital lifeline and an essential part of our community's effort to make homelessness rare, brief, and one-time.

It provides a clear entry point for assistance and real pathways to permanent housing.

The deck primarily serves people who cannot access other services, representing our most vulnerable and most disconnected neighbors.

It is where people can rest safely indoors, meet basic needs, connect to healthcare, and begin taking steps towards housing.

It also serves as a coordinated hub where agencies work together to move people from crisis to stability.

Some say the deck attracts homelessness, but the truth is it reduces it by bringing people indoors to connect with help rather than forcing people to survive on sidewalks and in doorways.

That makes the deck not just a comprehensive, a compassionate response, not just a cost-effective intervention, but an essential function of public safety.

You all have been grappling with the city's role in addressing homelessness.

Even if you believe it is not the city's job to end homelessness, it is the city's responsibility to respond to the public's concerns about homelessness and safety.

That responsibility requires evidence-based solutions, not ideas rooted in opinion or politics, but approaches proven to deliver outcomes.

The evidence is clear.

A HUD report from 2019 showed that when low barrier centers close, unsheltered homelessness becomes more visible in public spaces, and cities end up spending more on police and emergency services without solving the problem.

The CDC has found when people lose access to safe indoor spaces, both unsheltered individuals and the broader public experience increased risks related to safety, health, and sanitation.

By contrast, communities that sustain centralized hubs like the deck see the opposite.

People exit homelessness faster, public safety improves, and taxpayer dollars are used more effectively.

As you consider the future funding of the deck and its potential relocation, I urge you to lead with evidence.

Choose what has been shown to not just address the symptoms of homelessness, but to create real pathways to ending it.

That is both the compassionate path and the fiscally responsible one.

Thank you.

Benjamin Eary.

Hi, my name is Ben.

I am the program director of a mental health and housing agency that works on both sides of the river.

We utilize the DAC quite a bit when it comes to a place to meet with our clients that is both safe and allows many of our clients that are in acute mental health crises or have some type of substance use in a way that is safe for both the clients there and our staff.

We have successfully we have identified at least eight individuals that we've successfully put into different housing programs over the last year that were staying at the DAC at the time.

That has not only improved their quality of life, but has also been significantly significantly taken away significant cost to the local community.

The last thing I would like to briefly talk about is I've spent 21 years in this community, primarily working in social services, homelessness, mental health, and I remember a time before the deck was created when I was a case manager, and in that time, we still had the vast majority of our chronically homeless folks downtown downtown Fargo, and we were put in situations where people were sleeping in between buildings, we had increased law enforcement presence.

And so as you look at both the motion to continue the engagement center and as it's relocation, really think about what are the long-term goals from both the fiscal standpoint and from a quality of life standpoint for many of these folks.

Because these individuals are people that are brothers and our mothers and are people that are struggling in many cases for a number of complicated reasons.

And the deck has been one kind of one place where we have been able, as a provider, we've been able to engage people and successfully transition people into housing.

So thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, and good evening, Commissioners.

I want in my name is Sarah Hasbargan and I work in Fargo.

I wanted to share a story about a veteran from the Fargo area who came to the downtown engagement center on a bitterly cold day in January 2024.

The veteran was struggling with serious health issues and had nowhere to go.

The deck provided winter overflow shelter for a couple of nights, just enough time for our team to step in and meet them on site.

From that moment on, things began to change.

The veteran was placed in a hotel while housing was secured, and within six weeks they had their own apartment.

Today they are living with more strength and stability than they've had in years and have been successfully housed for 18 months.

If they hadn't had the deck to turn to that cold January night, it is very likely they would not have survived.

The deck did not just give warmth and safety, it gave them a path to stability, health, and hope.

It is a lifeline to interim and permanent supportive housing for veterans and many others.

This is the kind of impact the downtown engagement center is having in our community and why its work is so critical for Fargo.

Thank you.

Christopher Cole.

So I watched the Bloomberg associates analysis of the potential eight new sites back in January, and I and I got a copy of all their documents.

And I've heard that uh the additional sites were added since that time by the city.

And um as far as um where where the deck is located right now, I think it's it's in a really good location uh because the homeless can access all the services uh that they need right in that area.

It's just not the right building.

So the city owns it.

That's what's good about it.

But it's it's a it's a bad building for I accept that uh we we you know we probably do need a new building.

One of those, I mean the ones that are one floor.

Um but I think the process should be uh first of all.

Um I think the city needs to be transparent about the reasons for um a new the need for a new center and relocation.

What are the reasons for the relocation?

We're not uh really being told that.

And um and you know there's good reasons.

Definitely tell us.

Uh I mean you think you can share.

Um you know, the site number six was uh most uh favorable site on the uh Bloomberg Associates list, and it was just outside of the downtown core, and they thought that it was sufficient, so it sounds like sounds like it is.

Um, and finally, um second secondarily, um we have to address the cost because uh we have a six point eight million dollar deficit uh for next year.

So, how are how are we gonna pay for this right now?

Thank you.

Cumber uh companion.

Hi.

I'm okay.

Let's do that.

Is that better?

I'm Kimberly Companion.

Um I'm a concerned citizen that lives near, works, and frequents many businesses downtown.

I am concerned that there is even a question to continue the services of the downtown engagement center.

In February of 2024, I attended the community conversation on ending homelessness.

I watched the video, listened to the panel, and believed my elected officials wanted to end homelessness in the Fargo Moorhead community.

However, this is unfortunately not the first time since then that I've had to remind the council of their promise to partner with people and organizations that are making the ending homelessness a reality.

The deck provides services to around 120 people per day.

These are people in various points in their unhoused jersey journey.

Some are at the beginning and looking for someone to help weed through the forms and questions that need answers prior to receiving any help.

Others have been on this journey for a while and are just looking for a place to be until the call comes in.

All would be on the streets visible.

Do you think that taking away the services of the deck would make the friction between the businesses downtown and the unhoused easier?

I'm sure that all of the people that come to Fargo for buys and games, concerts, and to mark off their 50 estate would love to go home to tell everybody about how we don't take care of our neighbors.

I have taken the time to talk to Jan and learn what the deck does.

Can each of you say the same thing?

Do you know the stories of the people you will be impacting by taking away their services?

Do you know that one of the biggest issues with finding housing for people is reaching them once a place has been secured?

That getting a place to live is only the first step.

Knowing where they can go to get essentials like toilet paper can mean staying in a home when they get one.

Jan knows each of the individuals at the deck knows.

They have formed relationships with the people that everyone else has just passed by and wishes they didn't have to deal with the awkwardness.

When I moved here in 2008, my I only plan to stay until I finished my degree at N DSU.

I stayed because I saw how everyone worked together to save the city in the spring of 2009.

The power behind people working together for good.

Where is that sense of community now?

Tell me how are you keeping your promise to end homelessness, and how are we the city of far more if we don't even make helping our neighbor a priority?

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners.

My name is Jasmine Bosacek.

I'm a behavioral health liaison at Southeast Human Service Center.

Prior to this role, I spent four years providing outreach to some of our most vulnerable community members in downtown Fargo, offering connection to mental health and substance use services.

I'm here tonight to express strong support for the continued operations of the downtown engagement center.

The deck is a critical access point, safe, welcoming, and low barrier.

It provides essential services like showers and laundry while connecting individuals to community resources that address broader social determinants of health.

At Southeast Human Service Center, our teams conduct daily outreach at the DEC.

We provide support through crisis risk assessments, suicide risk evaluations, mental health and substance use assessments, and referrals to care coordination and peer support.

Because of the DEC opens its space to providers like us, it removes significant transportation and access barriers for the people we serve.

The engagement center also fosters meaningful cross-agency collaboration.

By working side by side, providers can coordinate more effectively, leading to improved engagement, better outcomes, and greater stability for individuals navigating complex challenges.

In my years doing outreach downtown, I've seen firsthand the impact a consistent, welcoming space like the DEC can have.

It offers more than basic services.

It builds trust, reduces isolation, and opens doors to long-term care and support.

The DEC plays a vital role in our community's behavioral health response.

Discontinuing its operations will leave a major gap in services for people who already face some of the highest barriers to care.

Thank you for your time and for your continued commitment to supporting all of Fargo citizens.

Summer Sterloxon Good evening, City Commission.

I'm here to talk.

My name is Summer Sterlixon.

I am a resident of Fargo.

I'm here to talk in my support of the engagement center and its continuance.

The Downtown Engagement Center has provided a necessary resource for thousands and thousands of people in the only walkable part of our city.

The diversion and outreach services they provide to the unhoused population, those in poverty are an essential part of our community.

The Fargo I've grown in, grown up in and come to love, looks after and takes care of our neighbors.

We don't shut the door on those who need us.

We extend a helping hand.

To reduce or dismantle the downtown engagement center is to put a strain on the already overloaded service providers in our area.

Let me be clear.

Discontinuing of the engagement center does not mean other services in our area will pick up the slack of such a selfish decision.

It does not make homelessness disappear.

It means you will see more desperate, sick, suffering, and forgotten humans wandering the streets and dying on your doorsteps.

Spend a week with anyone in our community who works or volunteers in this field.

Your perspective will change.

You will see that these are our family, our friends, co-workers, and fellow humans just trying to survive in an ever-increasing and difficult world.

Being of service to our fellows and uplifting those who need it most in the world is what is needed most in our day or country today.

One of God's greatest gifts we have been given is to be kind for the sake of being kind, to love thy neighbor, and to take care of all of his creations.

You are now faced with this choice, and I pray that you make the choice that will sit right with your soul.

Thank you.

Sarah Lilis Strand.

The Just Strand.

You probably can correct that, sir.

Lil Strand.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and honorable city commissioners.

My name is Sarah Lillistrand, and I'm the co-owner of Holland's Home and Garden at 420 University Drive in North Fargo.

We believe that it is in the best interest of the Broadway businesses, residents, and those seeking the services of the center and the entire community that the downtown engagement center be relocated.

We also believe that there is a great need for this homeless engagement center.

We believe that safe housing, food, and health care are basic human rights that all should have.

We also believe that there are not nearly enough resources in our community to meet these needs.

And the necessity for these services will only grow as our city grows.

But this center has caused great safety issues for the businesses and those that live and work in the area of Broadway.

Any location in the downtown corridor, including the former Fargo Brewing location or the warehouse to the west of that, will do nothing to stop the problems, the issues that you're seeing on Broadway.

And will bring safety problems to the businesses, homes, and schools located on University Drive.

The only viable option for relocation of the engagement center is the 25th and First Avenue North by the Fargo Police Department.

This is close to public transportation.

It is close to the public health outreach on 25th Street.

It is along a major thoroughfare for emergency services.

There are no emergency services at downtown Sanford.

It is away from high-density residential properties, schools, and businesses.

And close to law enforcement for the safety of our whole community.

I urge you to vote for the safety and well-being of the citizens, students, and businesses, business business owners, and for the unhoused in our community.

The only option for the relocation of the engagement center should be the 25th Street and First Avenue North.

Thank you.

Rocky Schneider Good evening, I'm Rocky Schneider, Executive Director of the Downtown Community Partnership.

I'm happy there's two motions up here.

I know I spent over 10 years on the city's planning commission, and to me this comes down to the second issue is uh inconsistent land use.

I know it was chosen during COVID.

I think it's one thing we all agree on that it needs to be relocated to a better um location that both adequately serves the need and doesn't have as many negative impacts on the surrounding areas.

Appreciate Brenda's presentation calling out some of those.

I don't think we need to go into those.

This was studied and extensively.

It's in the downtown and focus plan.

Um there it very much says those working at the deck itself say it is not adequate to provide the services, nor does it adequately address this or support those being served there.

Um I think we should all be able to move forward on where we all agree.

We should move it somewhere where it doesn't have the negative impacts outside that are spilling over, and it should also be somewhere where it can adequately serve the needs.

The current building does neither of those, and we're hurting both aspects, and I don't think we're doing either side justice, and oftentimes it gets pit against each other.

The businesses should not be on one side and those serving homelessness on the other.

I don't think that's how serves our community or serves either side well.

I believe they both can be addressed.

Um I work almost daily with those in harm reduction, and I believe we have very shared goals on homelessness and what we're trying to do for the community.

It's not our place to say how to do that.

That's up to you and those providers, but we see where the deck location is failing and causing issues elsewhere.

Um, I don't think that's necessarily on those at the deck, it's in the location that is chosen right now and the inadequate areas we all agree on.

So I just would appreciate the commission giving clear direction.

Their layout four steps in the in-focus plan.

This is what we're asking is step two.

It's been two years to get to step two.

We hope the next steps happen.

We can't afford it not happening.

And um, you'll continue to see the detrimental effects of an inadequate building and in its current location.

And I think we all agree on that.

We should be able to move forward and appreciate everybody's attention to this.

Um, I do have preferences on those locations, but I appreciate the amount of work that's gone into picking those three.

I think they're all viable to some aspect and are uh far better than the current location.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Brenda, we'll call you back up.

That's the end of my public speakers.

Uh, any questions commission has of Brenda?

Mr.

Chair, Mr.

Callback.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, appreciate all the comments.

I might my first question is I'm I'm not sure what the need to confirm continuation of engagement services is since it's currently in the budget and the services are being extended until my point is we could we could authorize the second motion and come back in two weeks and have a conversation with that knowledge.

Absolutely understood.

Absolutely.

You're correct.

Mayor, I uh for the sake of the sake of discussion.

I I move the recommended motion to confirm the continuation of the engagement services into 2026 and authorize the staff to begin outreach and gather feedback along with necessary project development documents on potential relocation sites and report back to the city commission on Monday, September 29th.

I'll second that.

Discussion, Mr.

Turnberg.

I would like to speak for all the people who I assume all of the commissioners have spoken to, downtown business owners, and here is the reality.

They are dying.

Dying.

It is an insult to blanket statement that this is a homeless problem.

The problem is drug use and mental illness.

And that two blocks away, we have Broadway.

I have visited with business owners.

I have watched people injecting, smoking meth, fighting in the middle of Broadway, almost fornicating in the fountains at Broadway Square.

It was within an hour.

This woman had people come into her business and urinate right at the counter of her beautiful business.

I know you have businesses pleading with us to move this.

I say let's all do better and compromise.

Why don't we?

The weather is perfect.

We have business owners that have offered to even help fund this.

We close the deck, we move it next to the police department, which is a perfect location, just as Ms.

Lillistal said, and realize that the deck provides zero housing.

It is a lounge, it is open during daytime hours, it is now closed on the weekend.

It was never intended for what it is.

These businesses are dying.

Look at downtown.

My portfolio is the library.

You should see what they have to go through.

My homeless friend who I have become very close with over the last year and a half hates the deck because he is sober.

He hates seeing his friends dying of overdoses, getting needles, walking two blocks to Broadway, injecting, overdosing, and coming back for Narcan.

How far away from are we from Denver and Portland who employ nurses to supervise injecting safely?

Again, as Mr.

Knutson so clearly stated earlier, we are enabling bad behavior.

Instead of giving money to needles, why aren't we giving money to treatment?

Why aren't we helping people rather than enable?

Is that funny, Commissioner?

I'm agreeing with you.

I would love to see us compromise.

The weather is perfect right now.

Let's light a fire, let's get it done.

Government works like swimming in mud.

Let's get it done, move it next to the police station, continue the services, help the people that need it, and it may take till the next election.

I would love to see us stopping with needles and helping people with treatment and those resources rather than just this continuation of addiction.

My friend hates it.

He came here to speak a couple weeks ago and had to walk over people laying in the sidewalk, passed out with needles in their arms.

Is that what we want for our community?

So let's stop enabling.

Let's just decide, close it now.

The weather's perfect, no one is going to be hurt, light a fire, get it done, move it next to the police station.

It's a big building, there are not residences, there's not a Montessori school next to it, it's not downtown.

We can help people and continue what we're doing.

And just so people know, we have almost 2,000 nonprofits just in Fargo alone.

And the entities that are in the deck would not stop if we close the deck.

They would still keep going.

They would still help people.

They're just in one spot right now.

We need to move it out of downtown.

Next to the police station without housing is perfect.

And let's not say that this is homeless because it's not homeless.

This is more addiction and more mental illness, and not every homeless person struggles with those afflictions.

Mr.

Stran.

I wasn't laughing, Commissioner, because I uh found it funny.

Um I agree with a lot of what you said there, but I'm going to add to it.

We have a failure at the national level in the health care delivery system to take care of people who fall through the cracks.

And we're stuck with the results.

You know, we don't have universal health care.

Those are different debates, but we don't have health care for people.

We have people that just don't get services or are outed from the system.

Then they're on Broadway decomposing, decompensating emotionally, because that's where they go.

Where do they go?

We don't have systems to take care of them.

Uh uh last year I went to Brazil.

I saw 12 homeless people, and then I was asking, but why what's the difference?

Is well we take care of our people.

Well, what's that mean?

And then I found out they have health care.

We don't for everybody.

That's the basic thing.

We have to fight for what they need.

Because in the meantime, when those needs aren't being addressed by people or that are in need, it's on us.

And then and on our businesses and in our community.

This is untenable.

We have human beings that just need help.

And if we can join forces and get those people more help, that will be a result that will be good.

And we're not disagreeing about this.

I I just how do we get there?

And it's not just us, it's every city in the country.

And and so I'm I'm I'm hoping that we can rise to the occasion, like when somebody mentioned we all fought the flood.

Let's all fight this human condition with heart.

It's real, it's there.

And it's not going to go away until the solutions are there.

Not just health care, but support systems, safety nets.

We know how to provide safety nets for farmers.

I have a friend up at home, an acquaintance who who anecdotally says you sp you spend more money on mosquito management.

But that's how people see us.

We have this blaring issue.

Let's rise up to it and let's put our hearts into it.

Let's team up.

Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Colpeck had something to say, and then I'll call you back.

Mr.

Thank you.

Um thank you for the public comments that were really insightful.

I think the there would be closing the deck overnight certainly would bring another group of problems and issues that we are not currently set up to manage overnight.

I support moving the deck.

I've had several conversations with many business owners and citizens.

And I agree this was always a short-term solution in a building that's not adequate to provide the services.

We fought really hard in the last legislative session to find funds to move the deck months ago.

My only wish is we could have done this sooner.

But I certainly support moving it to the right location with expanded services that will help people get the service and and help that they need in a really pragmatic, thoughtful way, but with community input.

But my my one request is we do this with real urgency and collectively as a community, get engaged in this so that we together really sincerely can find solutions to this complex problem.

Commissioner Strand, I think we just agreed on something.

This is working together.

We're compromising, but we have to do it.

You know how slow government works, and this will take forever if we don't make a motion to get it done.

There's not dangerous weather.

We can get the workers, we can move it.

Brenda, pardon me, can we can we attain that building and get a lease for a year and and get workers in there and set up?

Commissioner Curnberg, I'll just remind you there's a motion on the floor right now, which is both these motions, none of them pertain to Well, I just needed some clarity.

No, but there's no closing the deck as of right now.

So I just remind you the present present motion is the two motions to combine.

So I think the question is is what I'm hearing from from the leadership, which is what I need is how do you move expeditiously, right?

Um so you know our our thought was is we we understand the urgency, and so how do we look at, you know, our our thought was if next Tuesday at five we can have a uh public forum, um, have a group of people that can answer some questions.

You know, we're already starting to hear from the public maybe where a preferred site would be.

You know, how do we parallel that with how do we get a lease moving forward as quickly as possible, also, so that we can maybe be back here in two weeks to talk about those those options.

What we need to look at too is is the conversations of we've had some conversations on um private donations to help carry that cost to move it to another location.

And so we need a little bit of time just to I have support, so we need time to be able to say we are now garnering that support, and we would like to move forward with those items.

We think that this is the way the fastest action we can take to get to where you want to get the same issue is to move the deck and to move it into a building.

We don't think we can suspend services right now.

We have, I don't know how many visits every day with people in the deck and with people in the community, but we have a big group of people here tonight, they're very concerned about it.

So I I think we can make government work rather rapidly, but the suggested motions, we do want public input.

We started to get public input tonight.

We want the neighbors to know what's going on.

They can come, and it's just like when we do anything in city government, we have a neighborhood meeting and let people interact and tell us what they think and come back with the best recommendation to the commission.

So as the president stands, if we have a motion that Commissioner Strand is made accomplishes that, unless there's a suggested amendment, uh we would then do roll call on the vote.

Commissioner Turnberg, do you have a recommendation?

May we make an amendment to have a meeting with prior so we can vote on this in two weeks, so have that public meeting, perhaps a brown bag or something.

She's doing a public meeting next Tuesday.

So Tuesday, uh September 23rd at 5 p.m.

And we will get that out, and we would have it here in the commission chambers so it can be live streamed also.

Mr.

Strand one thing I think is worth noting is that not that many months ago, we were very close to getting through these goalposts, and the state was close to partnering with us until some of our own people went and c and and and uh and undermined the state's support of this effort.

We were this close, I understand, and some of our own legislators voted against it after somebody at our dais lobbied against this effort.

So let's all work as a team.

Let's and because I'm not so sure I'm I'd love to know the state will deliver, but in case they don't other discussion?

Roll call vote, please.

Strand?

Yes.

Cole Pack, yes.

Pepcorn, no.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Mahoney?

Aye.

My applications for property tax exemption improvements made to buildings.

Do I have a motion?

So move.

Sir second.

Second.

Uh roll call vote, please.

Pepcorn?

Aye.

Colpac?

Aye.

Strand?

Yes.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Mahoney?

Aye.

Uh liaison uh assignment updates.

Uh Commissioner Peckborn.

What do we got?

Liaison assignment updates.

Ah, no update, sorry, Mr.

Chair.

Commissioner Turnberg.

No update.

I'm going to defer Commissioner Kolpak.

Yeah, two updates.

Um, the comment.

First is on fire station number five.

You probably have read as we get the slide up here.

Appreciation to the communication team for helping me put these together each week.

It's a service offered to all commissioners.

So I just wanted to thank them and give them a shout out.

Um the first update is on fire station number five.

So if you remember September of 24, the station was closed for renovation and construction.

There was a wall that was slanting and causing some issues and structural concerns, and it also was the opportunity to modernize number five, which is over by the mall.

Um during construction, the West Fargo Fire Department was kind enough to house our crews, which allowed us to maintain services to the area without interruption.

We're also deeply grateful to our neighbors in the West Fargo Fire, and I know many relationships were formed.

And when the fire team left and went back to fire station number five, West Fargo was was a little sad that they they left because the relationships built.

So it says a lot about collaboration among cities.

It was recognized reopened last week with upgrades to the living quarters and decamination areas that aim to ensure the long-term health and safety of our firefighters.

I also want to share that last Friday afternoon I had the opportunity for four hours to work um to to support the firefighters local 642 in their national efforts to raise funds for MDA.

A lot of people don't know local 642 does a lot of community service and work.

And um it was wonderful to see the community support.

And my second update is on Fargo Youth Initiative.

The next slide.

Mr.

Strand, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

You know, reductions in boards and commissioners and commissions is a ripe topic.

The Sustainability Resiliency Committee had its second to last meeting recently and will be concluding in December.

I know at the Human Rights Commission level at the Native American Commission level, we're all looking at reinventing our futures, what they look like, what's best for today.

We welcome public input about boards and commissions and what what things should look like tomorrow, but that's that's our role front and center uh issue, and yet we need people to help us shape this these policies.

Thank you, John.

This evening I want to take some time to update the community regarding some matters that have been brought up publicly.

I want to clear the air about incorrect information that has been circulated in the media.

Much of this information involves the Fargo Police Department.

I'm the city's commissioner's liaison to the police department, which means it's my job to work with them and keep the commission informed on what's happening there.

One of our city commissioners has claimed that we have received hundreds of complaints about the police department.

The actual count that was shared is really eight or nine emails.

Many of those are anonymous, meaning they could come from anybody and from the same person.

It's also alleged the complaints against the police department are being ignored.

This is far from the truth.

Every email, every communication we receive from citizens about our police department is reviewed and evaluated.

Employees can also file complaint within our human resources department.

Each complaint goes through a process to determine its credibility when we receive a credible complaint.

It is investigated, always.

We have many city employees, so occasionally complaints can be expected from them as well, or about them as well.

And it is our job to make sure credible complaints are investigated.

It's us also our job to give credence to complaints, not give credence to complaints that are unfounded.

We have received criticism that we have not arrested the homicide suspect, Tyreene Jones.

Reality is the Fargo Police Department is using all available resources to search for Jones, as well as using federal partners in event he's fled the area.

As Sheriff John recently pointed out in a forum article, there are nearly 3,000 active warrants in the Cass County, and 850 of those are felons.

Jones is one of those warrants, and our detectives are working hard every day to track him down.

It's only a matter of time before he will be caught.

Also, this commissioner has claimed falsely.

The Fargo police officers are leaving the department in droves.

The truth is the rate of the departures amongst warm F Fargo police personnel has actually declined over the last several years.

We had a huge exodus in 2021, and at that time it was 13 percent.

We are now fully staffed, we have nine officers coming on next year.

We have turned over many of the things that we had difficulties with.

And the reality is if you do the count, it's over 50.

It's like 60, 70 people.

But oftentimes people have retired or they found better jobs, or they're at 55, where many police officers retire.

But a plethora of people that were older officers, and that's part of what we faced in 21, 22, 23.

And to be honest, in 20, a lot of people just said I'm not gonna do it anymore.

Fargo police captain Bill Alfelt, who I have great respect for, recently took a job as assistant chief in Moorhead.

In his exit interview, here's what he said about Fargo PD.

I've been honored to work with the City of Fargo for the past 23 and a half years.

I've been provided unbelievable opportunities which have aided my professional development, ultimately affording me to take a new role in Moorhead.

I'm only leaving Fargo because of the incredible opportunity I have been offered.

It has been an honor to work with the current past administration at the police department, and I wish them all the best.

And if you look at his scores, there are 10 all the way down.

Same commissioner has alleged our city government and police department are corrupt and wants North Dakota Attorney General DRigley to get involved.

Last week, Wrigley told me that he fully respects our police chief, our police department, and the city of Fargo government.

He said he's not going to step in because he believes the City of Fargo is well equipped to handle its own employee matters.

And lastly, this commissioner has been speaking publicly about a personal matter involving my son.

And in due soil, we have crossed the line.

In all my years in political office, I've never experienced such a vicious attack on my family.

I'm a surgeon, been a surgeon for 50 years.

And the Hippocratic oath says do no harm.

Think about what you're doing when you do harm.

Not only to my wife and my family, but to many in the community who are struggled with either mental health, suicide, or other elements in their life.

This surely makes it hard for other people in the community to be open about mental health and seek help for it.

I'm extremely grateful.

I'm a surgeon.

I called somebody.

Police officers came over.

They handled it in a professional manner.

My son got help.

I appreciate that.

But you harm my son, and you are my wife.

I hope none of you ever have this experience as a parent.

And it's difficult to deal with.

But I did not go into public life to have my family picked on.

And it compounds our pain as well.

My hope in speaking to the community tonight is to elevate the conversation.

My hope is to re-establish the civic civil discourse in Fargo politics.

In Fargo, we have always strived for a brand of politics that is rooted in mutual respect, understanding, and civility.

We leave personal matters out of it, and we never ever attack family ever.

I want all our residents to know I want to represent you in the entire community.

You can be confident in your city government.

You can be confident in your city police department, and you can be confident in your community public safety.

With all employees in the city of Fargo who work day and night to deliver a great product to you, I'm sorry that their reputation has been mismerged.

But they all do an excellent job, and everyone in my apartment heads do excellent work and are uh credit to our community.

Thank you for listening.

We'll go to public comment.

Have two people, Kathy Brennan in person.

Speakers as to mean to brind it we cannot uh use this forum to criticize or complain about a specific employee or commissioner.

The Board of Commissioners' interest in your comments and will listen carefully, but is not obliged to respond or debate issues in the forum just if you don't understand that.

We do not uh mention names in our discussion, but you're free to discuss the issues that you feel relevant to the Commission.

Kathy.

I find that ironic that the social media posts that I'm here to speak on tonight can't again be referenced directly due to the council's own policy on vulgarity.

I'm a big girl.

Vulgarity doesn't scare me, but volatility and rancor do.

The social media post showed not only a lack of empathy for the death of a man, a husband and a father, but for an entire group of people simply who have a different ideology from this post's author.

This post originated from a City of Fargo employee.

The vitriol contained in this post made me wonder if I, someone who apparently doesn't share the same viewpoint as that manager, can even feel safe in the City of Fargo.

I was born and raised in Fargo and have lived here a majority of my life.

It was a place I could feel safe living in, no matter what the neighborhood or time of day.

I've I've relocated to Hillsboro until recently I returned to shop here at least two times a week.

That will be ending.

Fargo seems to depend a lot on sales tax, yet it likes to ignore the opinion of the people that live in the outlying cities that used to come here and might want to still come here.

And add to the economic development of the city.

This social media post reflected not only the mindset of the employee, but of what I view to be the employer.

If an employee feels so comfortable making such posts, they must be very assured there will be no discipline or comments from their leaders.

Fargo is not the city I grew up in anymore, culturally or spiritually.

I say emphatically, I do not feel safe in the city that allows social media to be used in such a vile manner and do nothing.

I'm not talking about sensitivity training, do nothing classes used to placate people who question the conduct of an employee or limp apologies made after being caught.

I'm talking about substantial changes.

I, my family, and others I know plan to stop shopping, visiting trips, vacations, and other outings in Fargo.

We will find a more accommodating city.

This crushes me from the city I grew up in.

I can only imagine how an employee who was forced to work daily with this manager must feel if they have a different ideology.

I know how I felt when I read that post.

Thank you.

Christopher Cohn, Fargo resident.

So I didn't uh I want to touch on a homelessness issue that I didn't touch on before because it wasn't the right time to do that.

And because the uh agenda item before you was the continuing planning on the relocation of the deck efforts.

But I want to say that uh I think it's really unfair that the homelessness are being smeared with drug addiction and crime when they I don't think they have any higher drug addiction or commit crime than than the the homed, the rest of the population.

Even if you follow all the media stories of the crime, most of them are not homeless.

I could maybe find two or three that are mentioned as homeless.

All the rest have homes, but nobody ever notices that when they're homed.

It's almost like race.

When we see people who commit crimes and they're white, we don't notice the race.

But if they're not white, then we notice the race, then we associate crime with people of color.

And you know, I really don't know about the you know complaints associated with activities around the the deck uh because I don't live in that area.

And um but uh I just personally haven't uh had any bad experiences with the homeless homeless uh because I walk by them every day on walks and they never bother me uh you know for years at a time, and not even a bad look or anything.

And um and I see their tents along the river, and it's not in my personal experience.

So uh these complaints are another people's personal experience, and um uh also unmentioned is the fact that a large percentage of these people, maybe even the majority of the homeless are working.

They have jobs.

So they're different than we think.

Thank you.

And the public comment work returned to the city.