The pleasure of allegiance.

Are you ready?

I pledge.

Through the play.

United States of America.

And to the Republic, which is there.

One individual.

Thank you.

Roll call.

Cole Pack here.

Pepcorn?

Here.

Strand?

Here.

Turnberg here.

Mahoney.

Here.

We're going to start with uh highlights of the police department's wellness program.

That we have video that was shot in regards to that.

It's a new program that we started that's working very well.

Number one priority is taking care of our personnel, obviously, the most important asset.

It's important for our profession as a whole, but specifically for our department.

And it's a huge recruitment and retention tool.

Officers deal with and see so many things throughout their career throughout their days that a lot of people don't really understand.

It's kind of an interesting thing.

I've sat around a campfire before with different people that aren't cops, and the question is always is what's the craziest thing you've ever seen?

What is the craziest thing you've ever dealt with?

And I always ask the question what's your definition of crazy?

What's your definition of the craziest thing that you've ever seen?

To me, that's completely different than what somebody who hasn't gone through that or gone through different things.

So it's an interesting conversation to have with people as to what the craziest thing I've seen or gone through.

Officer wellness is incredibly important.

So they're able to go out and do their job and do it well.

And also outside of their employment, it's important for them to have the healthy and happy life outside of work as well.

A lot of times officers will experience what is called acute stress, and that typically happens anywhere from three to thirty days after a critical event.

And so it's really important that we're able to take opportunities to meet with them and help them work through those incidents in order for them to process through it and move on to the next critical event.

There continues to be a stigma when we talk about mental well-being.

However, I feel like we're getting away from that stigma.

But it is critical that people recognize the amount of tragic and critical incidents our law enforcement officers are exposed to in a monthly basis, is more than what the average person is exposed to in a lifetime.

Officer wellness is a value in our department, and uh it's a huge component across the board.

And we don't offer it just for our swarm personnel, but our civilian personnel as well.

Um everyone's received resiliency training.

The services are available to everyone in terms of our wellness coordinator and the mental health support.

I think it's a really big thing.

Uh it's a big thing in the law enforcement police profession, and our department is excelling in that area.

We want to keep the ball rolling in that direction, and we see the positive results that it that it brings back.

We've heard from our personnel about how certain trainings and how things we have done helped them get through certain traumatic events, and I think that's that's huge.

Very good.

Is there a motion to approve the order of agenda?

So moved.

Sir second.

Second.

Any discussion?

Well, uh, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carried.

So a motion to approve the minutes of the September 15th, 2025 regular meeting.

So moved.

Sir second.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion carried.

Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda items one through 34?

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Oh, excuse me, uh, roll call vote, please.

Strand?

Yes.

Call pack?

Aye.

Pepcorn?

Aye.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Mahoney.

Aye.

We're going to public hearings item 35.

Public hearing, special assessment list for the following improvement districts.

All have been approved by special assessment commissioner 9425.

Steve Sprague to explain, as well as Doug Durgen.

Yes.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners.

Um item 35 are our 24 improvement districts that we have completed and certified.

Uh the Bennett benefit has been approved and verified to be less than the cost by the Special Assessment Commission at a hearing that was conducted uh September 4th earlier this month.

These uh 24 improvement districts total just over 43 million in uh special assessed amounts affecting 5,097 parcels.

Uh this is the final step, and we're looking for your confirmation of the essay list this evening, and would be glad to answer any questions.

Any questions from the commissioners?

Is there anybody present who wishes to protest the the uh special assessment?

Anyone want to comment on the special assessment?

If not, I'll call the public hearing and I ask for a motion.

I'll make the motion, sir.

Second.

Second.

Any discussion?

We'll call vote, please.

Pepcorn.

Strand.

Yes.

Mahoney.

Aye.

Number 36 special assessment for 2025 new and reconstruction of city ordered sidewalks, project SR24A.

Steve and Doctor explain as well.

Yeah, so Mayor, if it's okay, we can do 36 and 37 together.

They're both sidewalk projects, SR24A and SR24B.

Um these are both our citywide sidewalk projects that were uh certified and completed.

It affects 227 parcels, and the amount assessed is 749,695 38.

Uh, these two projects are done citywide, and they follow a different section of ND Century Code uh 4029 than our previous approvements.

That's why we separate these two out from the rest.

So uh this is the final step for these as well, and we're looking for confirmation of the essay list.

We'll be glad to answer any questions on these two.

Anybody wants to speak to the sidewalk assessment?

If not, I'll close the public hearing.

Do I have a motion for items 3637?

I'll make the motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Moved and seconded.

Uh roll call vote, please.

Pepcorn?

Hi.

Turnberg.

Aye.

Call pack.

Aye.

Strand?

Yes.

Mahoney.

Hi.

Keep working our way through these.

You guys are kind of busy, huh?

Item 38, special assessment of business improvement district.

Stuart.

I'm gonna do this one very good.

Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners.

Um, our bid is this is an annual assessment.

Um, and the bid in case uh you know you're wondering that that helps us maintain the downtown area.

Um we collect the assessment and then we turn the money over to the downtown community partnership who uh oversees the bid operations, and the bid's uh primary goals are clean, safe, maintain, and beautify.

And so uh the work that you see downtown emptying garbages, cleaning up this the sidewalks, um, you know, changing out the flags, doing different things like that, how helping promote and beautify our downtown area.

So anyone president wishes to speak about Bowtown Business Improvement District.

They want to speak about the business district.

If not, I'll close the public hearing.

Do I have a motion?

So moved.

Sir Second Second.

You guys are kind of quiet tonight.

Too much sunshine outside or whatever.

Roll call vote, please.

Call pack, aye.

Strand?

Yes.

Pepcorn?

Aye.

Turnberg, aye.

Mahoney.

Aye.

So Steve Sprague, is that the last time you have to do the bid?

Yes, it is.

Okay.

Which application we use for renting a residential town homes.

Jim Gilmore to explain.

Uh thank you.

In keeping with the policy change that you had made um early earlier this year.

Um, we've changed what the limit would be for um kind of infill projects in the core neighborhoods on multifamily.

In the past, we've done it over a 10-year period with 100% for five, and then 50% for five years.

Uh the new policy is to limit that to just seven years, but allow it to be at one uh hundred percent.

That makes it easier for the assessor to keep track of the um the exemption.

Um this particular location is on the corner of 17th Street and 11th Avenue North.

There's one vacant house on the property.

If I get to the next um I'm gonna have trouble here, you can tell and we can see that location on somebody can help me get to that PowerPoint.

Yeah, so this is the um PowerPoint that shows the the existing conditions.

Uh so the future land use would be um yeah, right now what we have is two rundown uh rundown property and a vacant lot.

Uh there's a garage on the site.

Um, kind of falling down.

Uh I feel like I should have Sean Rudnik up here to talk about dangerous buildings.

That this seems like it would qualify, but um, you can kind of see the conditioner of this house.

It's not something that somebody's gonna be able to go in and uh restore.

I think it's too far gone.

I think the um the owner of the property, um, the previous owner of the property had sold it recently uh to these developers.

They had inquired or acquired it in this condition.

They're not the ones that uh let it get to this condition.

They um manage a lot of rental properties in the um uh neighborhood, and so what they like to do is to you know get this see the exterior here.

Anyway, so you know their conclusion when they acquired this was clearly it had to be torn down.

And so this is a proposal for six town homes that would be uh developed on the site.

When we look at the uh land use plan and the zoning, the land use plan is for future multifamily, uh the zoning is university mixed use, which would allow this.

The uh again we had the uh dissent to our financial advisor.

Uh their return, even with this incentive is just uh a little less than nine percent, which is actually lower than uh most developers would even take this on.

Um a lot of investors wouldn't take on a project with that rate of return.

Uh the planning department did have some concern about the project, whether or not it's consistent.

Uh they went through this site plan review for planning and planning reviewed it.

Uh but this would be contingent on them being able to get a building permit.

There seems to be some minor things on the trust plans and inspections and some of the utility hookups for engineering, but it the kind of things that people kind of work through at the end.

So the um recommendation from the economic development incentive committee is to approve the 100% pilot exemption uh for seven years.

Uh the developers are here.

I'd like to have them come up and talk about the the project a little bit and what their vision is for this uh area.

Hi, good evening.

Good evening.

Um so this project kind of landed in our laps.

We manage the property directly across the alleyway from um the location and have looked at this land for quite some time.

Um it's been just kind of something that we have stumbled upon, and we're excited about the prospect of being able to um improve the land that's right in our backyard.

Yeah.

Yep, and as you can see, it's pretty run down.

We just want to create a safe, more modern thing for our students.

Um, you know, kind of getting away from like baseboard heat window units more, just modernized and uh convenient for them as well.

So yeah, are there garage spaces with them as well?

There is no garage spaces.

What you can see is open air parking in the front, and then in the back um where the alley is gonna be there is parking designated back there.

Parking as well, okay.

Is there any questions?

Thank you.

It looks like it's gonna be a marked improvement.

Yeah, much better.

Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

Anybody else want to speak to this uh or pilot?

I'm sorry.

Anyone president wanted to speak to the pilot?

If not, I'll close the public hearing.

Do I have a motion?

I'll make the motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion?

Commissioner Strauss.

Thank you, Jim.

Just to remind me, when did our board here approve that change in policy to consolidate it to seven years average versus spreading it over time?

It was about four months ago, give or take a month.

Was that on our consent agenda?

No, it was uh policy change that you had looked at.

We had looked at a couple other policy changes in terms of how long applications could be held uh that evening.

I'm possibly confusing it with Renaissance.

It's that's the difference.

We're different years for the Renaissance and pilot from the county from the county.

Yeah, that I think the Renaissance zone has been discussed earlier with us because the state now allows those to go eight years, but the county has limited them to five.

Okay.

That the county may only participate in the first five years of this.

Uh quite frankly, we never know what the county's gonna do.

My apologies.

I was confusing the two.

Jim, can you make Mr.

Strand aware of uh questioner Grinberg's letter to us in regards to what to allow on tax exemption?

Yeah, it's there was their letter as well, Commissioner Strand.

Yeah, they'd send us a letter, it was a little unclear, uh, but they seem to be more focused on the job creation projects.

They're comfortable with those.

Uh, they're comfortable participating in low-income projects, but other redevelopment projects and even new housing projects like this.

I think their goal is to limit them to more five years and maybe at a 50% rate.

Um the language was unclear, and so we're gonna go to their meeting and try to get that clarified.

We, however, had a policy discussion in our committee came up with the seven years, which remember the commissioner sometimes used to go five years for 100%, 50 percent for five years.

Uh we used to be a lot longer, 15 years, and we're all cutting back now.

So really the new policy reflects looking at that and having something that's reasonable to calculate and a defined time of seven years.

So any other discussion.

Roll call vote, please.

Pepcorn?

Chernberg.

Aye.

Colpack, aye.

Strand?

Yes.

Mahoney?

Aye.

Number 40.

Uh annexation to 49.91 acres, more or less located in a portion of the west half of the northeast quarter section 14, township to 140 north, range 49 west of the fifth principal meridium, Cass County, North Dakota.

First reading of the annexation ordinance.

Donald or Donald Crest to explain.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Donald Cress of the Department of Planning and Development.

I'll be presenting the next two items.

Both of these items include ordinances prepared by the City Attorney's Office.

Our first item here, item 40, as the mayor has stated, is an annexation of a portion of the west half of the northwest quarter, section 14, Township 140 North, range 49 west.

Locate that here.

This is 37th Street.

This is 52nd Avenue Northeast of the City sewage lagoons down here.

Property looks about like this here.

These photos are a couple months old.

I went out there Friday, but there's road construction, so I couldn't get any closer.

So we're using the previous photos.

Again, here the surrounding zoning is uh agriculture and agricultural and industrial.

This property is zoned agricultural.

As stated in your staff report, this entire property will be included in the 46th Avenue Industrial Park 2nd edition, which will be the next item on our agenda.

There's the plat, just a rectangular plat there.

The uh planning commission reviewed the proposed annexation at their June 3rd, 2025 meeting and found that it is consistent with the Fargo Growth Plan 2024, which designates this area as General Industrial and Flex Warehouse.

The applicant Andrew Thill of Lowry Engineering is with us this evening and they wish to address the Commission.

The recommendation is stated in your staff report and shown on the screen.

That concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

And then this will roll right into the next one, which this will be a part of.

So anyone president wishes to speak in regards to this annexation.

Anyone present wishes to speak.

I want to start off by saying that I condemn in the strongest possible sense of the word Fargo's annexation of this land.

As a commission, it should be an absolute priority of yours to foster the goodwill not only between your constituents, but also between the city and its neighbors as well.

With this annexation, you will only be creating further animosity and deepening the divide between our communities.

As someone who has been intensely involved in the conversation and protest regarding Harwood's proposed data center, of which this annexation affects.

This doesn't affect Harwood.

No, sir.

May I clarify something, sir?

Um this is separate.

This let me just show you something here.

So this property, um, this is this is all within this is surrounded by the city of Fargo.

This is a separate thing from the from the separate action from that actually.

It's not included in in Harwood's.

No, this is entirely surrounded by the city of Fargo.

It's just uh part of a larger plat.

Okay.

So I will speak the rest of what I've written with that in mind.

You can speak to this annexation if you want to speak to the annexation of Harwood, that would be in public discussion.

Okay.

I will concede my time until then.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

Do I have a motion?

I'll make the motion.

Second.

We'll call vote, please.

Aye.

Colpack, aye.

Strand?

Yes.

Chernberg, aye.

Mahoney?

Aye.

41 public hearing, 46th Avenue Industrial Park, 2nd edition.

Or we'll recommend it by Planning Commission 6325, zoning change from agriculture to limited industrial.

First reading of the rezoning ordinance and a plot of the 46th Avenue Industrial Park, 2nd edition.

Thank you, Mayor.

This this map here shows the surroundings a little better here, the context a little better, uh illustrating that uh this property here is the one we just uh your commission just voted to annex.

So uh that annexation the other gentleman was referring to as further to the north.

Uh so this is uh 46th Avenue Industrial Park 2nd edition, a major subdivision, and this plat includes the area of the annexation that your commission just approved.

Uh the subject property is located uh around here, 37th Street North, 52nd Avenue North, uh 46th Avenue North.

Uh property looks like this, it is undeveloped.

Uh here's some shots of it again from a couple months ago because I couldn't get any closer when I was out there last time.

Taken from different vantage points here.

And here is the plat in your packet.

The plat is over several pages, but we asked the uh the applicant to prepare a single sheet page here so you can follow this clearly.

So again, there are uh three blocks, five lots, two large lots here, two smaller lots here, one uh midsized lot here, and then the city has an easement here for uh lift station.

And there are dedications of right away as are specified in your staff report.

Uh the zoning here is uh is all agricultural at this time, and the proposed zoning will be a mix of limited industrial and agricultural.

Uh that is these two lots are large lots.

There is no development proposed on them at this time, so they'll just be egg as sort of a holding zone.

We've done this on a couple other projects before, with the idea that when those properties are ready to develop or may be replatted in the future, that the city would generally support uh zoning to the appropriate industrial zone for those.

The uh plat also includes, we'll go back and look at the plat here a moment.

The plat also includes a waiver of uh block length.

That's a uh specification in our subdivision ordinance of a maximum block length of 1,320 feet a quarter mile.

As you see, some of these blocks are longer than that.

But these are industrial blocks, they're intended for very large scale development.

Uh there will be pedestrian connectivity on the sidewalks of the streets that surround it, but uh that requirement of is in a residential zone where you'd want to break your blocks up and have pedestrian access is not an element that's necessary for this industrial uh development.

So there is a waiver for block length, and that's included in the plat approval motion.

And there is also a separate document that's attached in your packet, which is an airport proximity agreement.

Uh properties that develop in proximity to the airport and the city of Fargo sewage lagoons are required to sign that.

That's a standard form, it's been before your commission many times.

And we do that in cooperation with the uh Hector Airport executive director uh Sean Doberstein.

The uh the uh applicant as a representative of uh Mr.

Andrew Thill of Lowray Engineering is with us tonight and may wish to address the commission.

The recommended motion is stated in your staff report and shown on the screen.

That concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

Anyone president wishes to speak to the zoning change.

Anyone present wishing to speak?

If not, we'll close the public hearing.

Do I have a motion?

Make the motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion?

Roll call vote, please.

Pepcorn?

Cole Pack, aye.

Strand.

Yes.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Mahoney.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Thank you, Dom.

Discussion regarding 64th Avenue Interchange.

We will have an explanation by Tom Nockmas, and then we will have three speakers to speak to that issue.

And Tom, you will start it.

Sounds good.

Just waiting for the presentation.

Thank you.

First of all, just want to remind the commission, just providing an update tonight.

Uh, no asking for no decision this evening.

Uh that will come in the coming months when we bring back uh all the public comment and any additional information that the commission would like before we ultimately ask them to make a decision.

So I thought it was important just to provide some background of how we got here to the 64th Avenue uh interchange uh because there has been quite a bit of conversation uh about it recently.

So uh this all kicked off back in um early 2006, 2007, 2008, but ultimately city commission received a report uh about a corridor study on 25th Street and 64th Avenue back in October of 2008.

Um then ultimately also uh voted to receive and file that report, but also authorized staff to implement the study recommendations.

Uh so it's a pretty large corridor study, uh so on 25th Street from 52nd Avenue all the way down to 10th Avenue South, and then on 64th Avenue from University over to 57th were veterans.

Uh tonight I'll just really be speaking specifically about those items relating to uh 64th Avenue and the overpass or interchange at I-29.

So here are a few statements that were uh I pulled from that report.

Uh just trying to remind the uh commission and the public of um you know the mindset and and what was all going on at this time.

And so uh the report talks about one of the key elements of the report was to analyze both the grade separation and interchange at 64th Avenue.

Um at that time, currently um there was an interchange at 52nd Avenue, uh, and then the next to the south was at 100th Avenue South.

Uh and it did talk about in the long range transportation plan one being uh planned at 76 as well.

Also a reminder back in this time, that's when uh 52nd Avenue as it is today, that interchange was being constructed.

And so it was a lesser interchange, more rural interchange prior to that.

Uh, but back in this era is when that uh interchange was being constructed.

Uh also uh found interesting in here, it also talked about how the city had uh initiated a study uh back in 2006 to preserve right-away uh in the northeast quadrant of I-2964th Avenue for a potential future interchange.

And the reason why is that uh Maple Valley edition was proposed at that time, and without preserving that right-of-way, uh, we would have lost the ability to do so had that plat moved forward at the time.

So we initiated the study in 2006.

Ultimately, Maple Valley uh edition was platted in 2007, and the city acquired the right-of-way uh for potential interchange at that location uh in 2007.

Um there was also a comment in here from the study review committee that just said um you know the intent was to continue to preserve right-away for the future interchange.

They acknowledged that an overpass would likely be needed before a full interchange, uh, but that accommodation should be made when we ultimately build an overpass so that ramps could be added when they are needed.

Uh the study did also have a number of recommendations and timeline, and I'll I'll go through this in a little bit more detail.

But um, you know, they laid out kind of a roadmap of of near-term, mid-range, and long range plans of when some of these features would be added.

Uh, and so they discussed uh overpass at I-29 being in the mid-range of 2013 to 2017, and they um foresaw an interchange um being necessary in the long range of 2018 uh between 2018 and 2027.

So uh skip forward uh from 2008 when that study was in front of City Commission to 2015.

Not a lot happened down there.

Uh but in 2015, City Commission approved us to go after federal funds for the construction of an overpass.

Uh in 2016, we were awarded funds for that overpass project, and City Commission uh authorized the hiring of a consulting engineer to complete the environmental documentation and design of the 64th Avenue overpass.

Uh in that time, we're also working on that overall uh corridor, and so the city constructed 64th Avenue from 25th Street to University Drive in that year.

Uh jumped forward a few more years in 2019.

Uh, that's when the city started to acquire right-away and talked to some of the adjacent landowners uh along 64th Avenue, and that was for the construction of the roadway just east of I-29 from 33rd Street to 25th Street.

Uh, also in 2019, um, in October of 2019, MetroCog Policy Board did vote to include the 64th Avenue Interchange Ramps in the long-range transportation plan.

And in December of that year, City of Commission approved uh us to apply for federal funds for the interchange at 64th Avenue and I-29.

So then in 2020, we were uh notified that uh funding was awarded uh for 64th Avenue Interchange Ramps, and at that time uh the North Dakota DOT programmed that project for 2025 and included it in their statewide in uh sorry, statewide improvement plan.

Um also in 2020 uh we completed design for the 64th Avenue overpass.

At that point, we knew that the intent was to add ramps in 2025, and so our design took that into account.

Uh, in that year, we completed uh 64th Avenue Roadway from 33rd Street to 25th Street.

Uh, and then also in 2020, we acquired the right-of-way for the other three quadrants uh of the interchange.

So the Northwest, the Southwest, and the Southeast.

In 2021, we started uh constructing the 64th Avenue project.

In 2022, that project the overpass project was completed and open to traffic that same year.

Uh, so was 64th Avenue west of the interstate, uh, connecting over to 45th Street, and part of that project was also on 45th Street up to 52nd Avenue.

Uh City Commission approved in 2022 also that we hire a consultant to complete the environmental documentation interstate justification report and design of 64th Avenue Interchange.

Uh in 2023, we were notified by the North Dakota North Dakota DOT that they were moving uh the programming of 64th Avenue Interchange from 2025 to 2028.

And it was really just because of a funding issue on their end.

Um, with their statewide needs, uh, they moved that project back three years.

Um, so again, during that time though, we've been continuing to work on design.

Uh currently uh working on environmental documentation and design on August 28th.

Uh, we held a public input meeting uh at the Fargo Sports Center.

And I think that's where a lot of the conversation started after that meeting.

And then just to let you know where we are again now.

In the coming months, we'll be back to provide more information, including the summary of the public comments before we seek a decision.

When we come to City Commission, we as part of an environmental document, we always ask for a decision document.

And so as part of that, we provide alternatives, uh, try to make recommendations or at least give you the information you need to consider the various options.

Uh, but there's always also a no-build option, uh, a do-nothing option that uh is considered by city commission with that.

So if the city commission does uh choose a build option, uh we would continue working on design through 2026 with the intent of starting construction in 2028.

So like I said, that corridor study had laid out um recommendations for when roadways were would be constructed.

Uh again, those recommendations were based on anticipated growth.

Um I I thought this was important just because we were very intentional to not get ahead of development, uh, but we also don't want to leg it too much either.

So I'm just gonna skip through this real quick.

So again, recommended in 2010, actually built in 2016.

The next portion was recommended in 2012, uh, actual in 2020.

Um the overpass was recommended between years 2013 and 2017, uh, that opened to public in 2022.

The next portion was in part of that long range plan between 2018 and 2027.

The actual is 2022.

Uh the next portion they also recommend as part of the long range.

Um, that portion is not programmed currently.

Uh and then the uh interchange itself was uh also recommended in the long range between 2018 and 2027, and as you can see, uh currently proposed for 2028.

So again, what happens after tonight?

It again, we're gonna compile the public comments, uh, work to finalize the environmental document, uh, and then ultimately bring that information back to city commission.

Uh we would likely do it in in two a series of two, providing that information to city commission, and then at the following meeting or the the meeting after that, even ask for an actual decision.

But uh I to me part of the part of the um point of this update tonight is uh we want to know what the public needs for information before we ask you for for a decision, and we also just want to understand what the city commission is looking for for additional information before we ask uh you to make a decision.

With that, happy to take any questions.

Mr.

Pepper and So, Mr.

Chair, so Tom, can you talk a little bit about so obviously down the road 76th and 100th would also be potential?

How do you reserve those corridors, even though right now they're not in the you know plans?

But how can you talk a little bit about how you do that?

Yeah, there's a number of ways that we do it.

Uh part of the way that we do it as part of the 64th Avenue uh interchange project, City Commission also approved the studying of 76th Avenue Interchange for the same point that that was done back in 2006.

We want to be sure that if any developers come in to develop that land, we know it needs to be preserved for an interchange.

And so part of this current study uh looked at what would be necessary because we have Selkirk Fourth and additional plats coming in that area uh adjacent to 76th Avenue where we know we need to preserve right away.

So that's one way, and then the other way is just being sure that we're uh reserving appropriate right-away wits when developers come in and plat along 76th Avenue.

Can I ask one more follow-up?

So can you talk?

So, do you like uh obviously the technical groups with do you work with Horace to make sure that we are compatible with like obviously the high school is out there uh and about their vision, so it's so it goes together.

Yeah, a big part of that uh is Metro COG and the corridor studies that they do.

So there was a corridor study that MetroCog led on 76th Avenue that provides a lot of that information for us to know what should be considered for right-away wits, corridors, and and all that.

We have three speakers tonight.

Brent Mitchell, you want to come up to the podium, please.

You're gonna have two minutes and thirty seconds.

Thank you for your opportunity to hear my input.

Um, I want to say very clearly, I am directly opposed to having an interstate interchange at 64th Avenue.

I feel it is a tremendous missed opportunity by the city from a development perspective.

If you look at any interstate interchange in the city currently, they are thriving hubs of commerce.

Both of the plans proposed through MetroCOG currently have the large roundabouts on the east side designed intentionally to slow traffic down and dissuade from traffic eastward.

That area is a closely built-up residential neighborhood.

It will never provide the city with strong commercial tax incentives.

76th still has those options.

I was there at that meeting on January of 2019 that wasn't in the presentation, where we were told point blank it would only ever be an interchange would be an overpass because they needed that transit corridor to feed into Davies to feed the neighborhoods to provide a good way for us to transit inside the neighborhood without having to hit the interstate and increase true congestion.

Now what we are seeing is a plan that is the worst of both plans.

We are having a halfway interchange that will be bottlenecked from the get-go and slowing down.

It is now currently on the 2050 tip for the 76th interchange.

2050, not 2028, not 2030, 2050.

Why is the city giving up the opportunity for that tax revenue and that growth by pushing off a prior designed interchange for this half to baked notion to try to satisfy commercial interests on an eastern half or the western half of the road?

We don't have a 64th road.

Thank you for your time.

Robert Cost.

Hello.

Um, I guess uh I'm Rob Cost.

You probably have heard about me in the news lately.

Um I'm uh been coordinating a lot of the public input on this project.

Um presented at MetroCog a couple times.

Um, 64th Avenue is a residential district on the east side.

It's not designed for this type of traffic flow that the projections are are telling us two to three times what it is today.

Number two, 76th Avenue is designed for this.

The backyards are 276th Avenue, not the front yards, the side yards, as 64th is.

This is gonna ruin our neighborhood.

We live in a great place right now.

It's gonna turn it into a highway.

Not okay.

Number three, Fargo Horse, West Fargo will benefit from the 76th Avenue Interchange.

In fact, the planning commission of Horace is planning for 76th Avenue, not 64th Avenue.

I received a public comment from that.

It just doesn't add up.

The 76th Avenue Interchange is the best choice from a value, annual property tax, and construction sales tax.

Uh Eagle Run Development reached out to me.

I didn't solicit them, and they provided me this information.

It's 2.65 times better deal from an economic perspective.

It's the best business choice.

Number five, South Fargo, east of I-29 has reached 76th Avenue.

South of Davies, we're there.

The interchange is needed at 76th Avenue.

Please make the right decision.

Thank you.

Walter Samuel.

Hello, I'm Walter Samuel.

I'm a resident on 64th Avenue South.

Uh, I've been out there, my folks moved out there in 1976.

Um just gonna talk about a few things.

One, it's trust.

Say close to the mic, please.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um first thing I want to talk about is trust.

In 2019, this the uh city had a meeting at Bendon Elementary in January that talked about what the interchange or the overpass, excuse me, is gonna consist of.

Excuse my voice, I'm a little nervous.

I haven't stood in front of this many people for a while.

Um in that in that meeting at Bennett Elementary, they talked about how this would only be an overpass.

And that's referenced by Jeremy Gordon from the city and Scott Middle from KLJ.

Less than 11 months later, I have your timeline.

Thank you, Tom, for sharing that from the engineering department.

That talks about in December.

They funds were allocated or called or funds were gonna be uh such the let's what does it say?

City commission approves application for federal funding for full interchange of 64th Avenue on I-29.

So in 11 months, the city commission changed from what they were gonna do and what they promised to what they're now doing.

It is difficult to trust the city when this happens.

And the biggest part is is there has been no public communication to those that are gonna be impacted the most in this situation.

I have five kids.

I was raised there.

It is very difficult to have this happen.

Would any one of you want to live where we live?

Right now, you would come out to my place.

I would love to show you.

Eight acres, horses, we got a paradise.

It is not gonna be a paradise.

It is disrespectful to do this.

The integrity of the city is gone because they are not following what they initially said.

My father was a city planning commissioner with Mark Bittner, who had integrity and stuck to his word.

They planned this territory.

My dad was on for 17 years, and they planned 52nd as an overpass and an interchange.

64th as an overpass or an underpass, like 40th, mayor, as you've talked about, and 76th as an interchange.

Don't change the game on us.

Do what's right.

Come and say, I'll have you out on my porch.

I'd love to show you in place.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Tom, no decision tonight.

And you're gonna kind of give us the rest of that, come back to us and give the data at some point.

We'll have to make a decision.

Yeah, thank you.

I just want to thank the speakers tonight.

I will I will share with the audience and and those watching that the reason it's on the agenda tonight for discussion is because Mr.

Cost reached out and asked to have it added to tonight's agenda for discussion.

So we did that, and there is a PowerPoint in today's agenda packet that he submitted.

It's part of that background as well.

So I just wanted to shout that out.

Which all the commissioners had so they were able to review it, and anybody in the public could review it as well and see the discussion points that they brought out tonight.

Tom, you want to make any further comment?

No.

Any other questions or discussion?

Thank you.

Update on the potential relocation sites for the resource recovery center, following known as the downtown engagement center.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners.

Um, tonight I'm here to provide an update on our public meeting last week, along with the survey that we had in association with that meeting.

So, as I presented uh two weeks ago, um, we had discussed three properties that would have a potential to be able to relocate the engagement center.

One is at 610 North University, the second one is 720 14th Street North, and the last one was 2001, First Avenue North.

So last week we had a really good turnout um at the public meeting.

We had a panel of providers that are at the engagement center.

Um, and they talked about some of the services that they provide at the engagement center, and then we had a full hour of question and answer um period, and then we also had about 30 minutes of just one-on-one discussion after um after the streaming of the meeting was completed.

And so some of the concerns that came up was were concerns related to safety for both residents and businesses to the two North Fargo, the 610 and the 720 um sites, and then just a lack of clarity, kind of the why now.

Why are we looking now?

Um relocating the engagement center.

I know we've had some conversations over the last year, and so just that question was raised, and then just the clarity on the need to move um the engagement center of downtown, and why it's no longer suitable.

Um, and so for everyone's interest, I know we've talked about this a few times, but the engagement center really formulated from the COVID era, and so we had a building available, we needed space, and so we had some overflow and shelters, and then that that is when it turned into after that it evolved into the engagement center there.

And so we had a building available, we needed space, and so we had some overflow and shelters, and then that that is when it turned into after that it evolved into the engagement center there.

Concerns related to decreased property values, increased foot traffic, transportation concerns with the guests who would utilize the services, and then just challenge, you know, for the one locations a little further away, challenge getting there, and just a desire of more information on the costs associated with each location.

So we did have a public survey that ranked all the three sites.

Um in a matter of let's see, we had about nine days we had the survey out.

We received 521 respondents, 500 completed the ranking, and then in addition to that, we had 272 respondents that provided comments and feedback that we reviewed.

So a lot of the comments followed the comments we heard at the public meeting.

Um top of that, we heard comments in regards to you know, remain having it remain where it is.

So we had you know just under 50 comments on having it remain.

Um we did have you know 10 comments on closing the center also.

Um so just we had a variety of feedback that we received that we went through.

Um, some of the additional questions or concerns we kind of we saw in that public survey that we had too was just the relocation sites aren't near some of the downtown amenities, such as a Salvation Army, the transit depot, and then the downtown library.

So the ranking, so what our survey question said was please rank the locations according to your preference.

And you can see here 2001 First Avenue ranked first, and 720 14th Street ranked second, and then the 610 University Drive ranked third.

So we had about 303 votes for the first rank ranking first, and 279 for the um for the 720 site.

So our staff team of public health harm reduction facilities and planning has have at a very high level looked at each of the sites, and there are pros and cons to each of the sites, and so looking at it at a technical level, you um the 610 university is ideally located for clients, it's got a layout, an ideal layout for programs.

It is it would be the fastest move in readiness timeline.

Um, we do have a lease to buy option, there are no abutting neighbors, but we also know that the neighbors and area businesses do oppose this location.

And so when you look at the 720, you know, that's a good location for clients, a good layout for the program.

It does have a lease to buy option.

Um, we do have an owner willing to partner with us on different upgrades to the building and the site.

Um, there's no abutting neighbors there that are touching the property.

Um, and then we would have a second floor available for future lease and to another agency.

But we still do have concerns by the neighbors in this location.

At the 2001, we understand it's a little further from downtown.

We still feel it's a fair location and a good layout for programs.

Um, but the downfall is that it is the furthest site, and it potentially will not be available for purchase.

So looking at the site review and looking at a matrix, um, we are looking at this very high level.

I was just in front of you two weeks ago, and so what I did is kind of is look at um green being more favorable, right?

I came from engineering, green, yellow, red, and so um, green being more favorable, and then um last would be red.

And so taking that public feedback and really looking at you know where that ranking looked at right now where we're at with acquisition and lease costs, renovation costs, availability for purchase, you know, to me, I would think that would be a pro, ability to move quickly.

There are a couple of the sites that have a little more building constraints, um, and then access to transportation.

And so, as we continue to evaluate um the sites further and gather more information, um, some of these designations will change.

So this we're still at a very high level, and we're still review reviewing all the different sites.

So, what do the next steps look like?

Um, we have been in conversation and we are working with the FM area foundation um to do an agreement to set up for community donations.

Um, we continue to work with the architecture team that will help lay out what the renovation plan would look like.

And we are we are securing some professional and technical resources to help us understand.

I want to be able to come back with a full story so that you understand all the pros and cons as we dive into those sites, and then we'll continue our public engagement and present the final plan options to the commission for consideration and final approval.

And with that, I would take any questions.

Oh, we have three speakers to go to questions, Brenda, if that's okay.

First in person is Sarah Lil Justrand.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and honorable city commissioners.

I am Sarah Lilistran, the co-owner of Holland's Home and Garden at 420 University Drive North in Fargo.

We believe that there is a great need for the resource and recovery center in Fargo, that safe housing and health care are basic human rights that all should have.

Since the process of relocating the center started this spring, I have met with 68 business owners on university, 10th Street, Broadway, 2nd, 4th, and 8th Street in downtown Fargo.

Only one of those business owners said that they did not care.

A few have said that the centers should be closed.

The overwhelming majority said that the center needs to be relocated to an area that is not around businesses, schools, or housing.

Some business owners with tears in their eyes recounted stories of people coming into their stores and urinating on the walls or aggressively demanding money.

The reality is that when people are under the influence or experiencing a mental health crisis, safety issues arise.

At the public meeting on Tuesday, multiple people on the panel said that they could not guarantee public safety.

That of course is true.

It is not the job of public health to ensure the safety, but it is your job.

You were elected by the citizens of Fargo to enact policy that determines the safe the health and safety of all.

Thank you.

Olivia, are you on?

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

All righty, hi.

My name is Olivia.

I'm a Fargo resident.

I'm speaking tonight.

We yet again point out the fact that there is truly no reason to move the deck other than to appease businesses that feel threatened by the presence of homeless people.

I know that the current reasoning being given is that the current building isn't feeding the need for all of the programs that the deck offers.

During the town hall, we were shown the map where area the town were highlighted, highlighted to show possible areas for relocation above the specific preferred area for the deck.

The only location within the preferred area of downtown Fargo is where the deck currently resides.

So my question is why is the city so eager to relocate from one of these relocations when they are also not ideal?

What is the point in moving from one building that supposedly isn't working to another building that is also not going to work?

I fear that the further away it gets, the easier it will be for all of you to ignore unsheltered vote.

We have all watched you totally approve more and more harmful changes, but some of you once seemed to heavily oppose.

Such as the camping ban, and now this relocation.

How long will it be before you decide to shut it down entirely?

As it sounds like city members want that to do to happen as well.

The competitor proposal makes zero sense considering the deck has been losing funding and closing on the weekends.

How do you expect an even larger building to function when you are barely even funding it as is?

Which, mind you, is why I asked on Tuesday about the funding why and why it is not being used to open the deck seven days a week instead of relocating.

So when Mayor Mahoney grabbed a mic and avoided the question entirely, leading me to then get no answers on the panel either.

I also assume that they will then not receive this funding if the deck doesn't move locations.

The green is appalling.

I can't explain to you just how angry it is in your city staff talk about how much they care about our residents, only to not listen to them.

It makes me question if any of you have ever taken the time to get to know the folks to know the folks that utilize the deck services, or if you visited the deck recently to get input from people about the relocation.

I've spoken with multiple people who have been greatly impacted by its closure on the weekends and feel that the relocation is just another way to displace them.

This will increase their travel time to get around the various services available downtown, and with how voodoo I want to get that will bring further hurdles to their day-to-day lives.

It deeply sickens me to hear the horrible lives being spread about unsheltered folks.

To hear fellow community members make statements and attempts to humanize homeless individuals because some people only see them as dangerous criminals.

I interact with many unsheltered folks here in town, and they all have much more compassion than the commissioners, which read in misinformation about them.

Camille Brandt is virtual as well.

Camille, are you on?

Hello.

I am.

Hi.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, commissioners, for this opportunity.

It's great to be part of this process.

It's great to see the scouts there tonight.

Uh democracy in action.

Um, Children's Montessori Fargo.

The deck emerged from COVID, that's been shared so many times.

It wasn't planned necessarily.

It emerged.

People responded to emergencies.

And this is the result.

And more and more folks have joined in, and and they're doing a wonderful job with a lot of passion, helping people who are unhoused with basic daily needs.

No one is arguing that the engagement center itself has wanted to move because of lack of resources and space.

That has been very quick.

I also want to reiterate I firmly believe that the issue at hand is not about people who are unhoused.

It's about people who are unhoused, who also have addiction and also have mental health issues, who at times behave in ways that put the general public at risk.

And this is what we are talking about.

This is a concern.

A carefully planned community center would make clinic medical service available, referrals available, emergency beds, housing, work and training opportunities, VA contacts, legal health, laundry rooms, showers, training for guests, training for the community.

Not all of us are experts in mental health.

So, yes, we have concerns.

There are people who live and work around the North University corridor.

My concern is about some, not all individuals, because of general safety for children, youth, students at NDSU, property along that area, sanitation, health, public health.

In regards to their very real and valid concerns and fears.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Any questions of the commissioners or Brenda?

Just a couple comments.

I would encourage you to uh schedule to appear in front of the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association.

I'm sure they'll be uh excited to hear your perspective on locating that in their neighborhood.

And then also I find it ironic that the other site is right next to one of the four finalists for our new uh convention center.

It's literally right across the street.

So that's my comments.

Any other comments or questions, Chris Tristran?

Thank you, Brenda.

Could you help um us understand who will our partners potentially be at this new site and what services?

I hear different names and different entities and service providers, but how might that look regardless of where the engagement center uh facility might land?

They're there today, but they're not there every day, nor can nor do we have the space for them to be there every day.

Um homeless health has stated they will go with us regardless of the site we pick.

Um they all work for them.

Um then we have also been working with um Southeast Human Resources, and so they're their presence, they're trying to increase their presence um assisting our staff also.

And so what we're what we're seeing is with that additional space, um, we can also look at expanding the frequency of when our partners are there because right now they can't be all there at once.

Anything follow up, John?

Well, how is I I know we have communicated with the Bloomberg folks and leaders, and they've helped guide us down this path.

And we had uh the Mathies from Milwaukee here.

How how is that all looking going forward?

Are they on board with us, these partners like the Bloomberg Association?

Are we mirroring what they see as successful in other communities?

Or I just don't know where we're at with any of that interaction.

Thank you for the question.

So where we we are at with that, Commissioner Strand is they're still helping us weave our way through sites, and so as we look at a site deter and try and determine is it even a potential site?

Um they're helping us flush that that through, looking at the program needs and what what are um what we would be needing for a valid site.

So they're helping us navigate um those paths.

Um and then what I would say too, in regards to housing, we have our metro-wide initiative, and that is um with um United Way and Um the and Chandler, and so that's really looking at um to that what that metro initiative on getting our unhoused house Commissioner Pepcorn.

Is this gonna be in the budget for this year?

And uh how much money is this gonna cost, and how much is it gonna cost the taxpayers of Fargo?

So right now, our our recommendation is the what we are recommending is we are covering the operations like we uh we have this year.

So the operation and utilities.

I I guess I would need to just know the specific amount of money that we're spending now on the downtown engagement center and what the acquisition of this building would cost, also the fit up of the building, all those things.

I need to know how much money and I want uh I would be voting against the taxpayers of Fargo funding something that's a regional service center, uh enabling center for vagrants.

And so I think we need to uh see this in the budget, and uh a lot of this is hypothetical funding, and I don't think we uh are gonna be doing that when you start adding it all the debt that we have in the city of Fargo.

Uh we can't afford this right now.

That'll be presented the next time.

Correct.

The decision finally is made by presently now.

We got another 200,000 from the state and a hundred thousand from the county to help us defer the cost of about a half a billion to six hundred thousand we spend on the engagement center.

So that part will be covered.

We're going to offer private donations to help cover the fit up cost and the release cost of the new procedure or new building, whatever we choose.

So we're trying to keep it at least uh costly to the taxpayer, and the county's also looking at ways in which they can help us.

We will also look to other partners, nonprofit to help us.

Mr.

Uh Turnberg has talked about that numerous times, and let's get the nonprofits part of that.

We have a couple entities that have kind of approached us and want to be in the building, want to lease space from us.

So it's a total different approach than before it'll resource and referral center with uh hopefully have partners that will help defer the cost.

Mr.

Strand.

Thank you.

Um with looking uh ahead just a little bit, we have winter coming.

And you know, we have I think if I recall where we're at right now, we've discontinued weekend services at the deck, but we have still an anticipation of winter warming come winter.

Is that in fact the case?

I'm gonna let you get outside my wheel.

I'm looking soon we have a time change, soon we have winter, and I'm that's my sense of what that we're gonna be, even though this long path is unfolding, we're gonna still be able to put people because they're not on the rivers anymore, they're not camping, they're not we've so when winter is what will we do?

Well, I think if I can before um Jen jumps in too, I mean, through our conversations, I mean at least my conversation with the mayor.

I mean, this is our priority too.

How quick can we shift into a larger and how quick can we figure out that finance plan and will it be approved or not?

So I mean that is high on our priority list also.

And so we understand that seasons are gonna change, and we need to try and move as quickly as we can, also.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners.

Yes, winter is coming, and we've had those conversations after that last snap of cold that we had.

Um, we do have uh the location that had been occupied last year by the winter warming that's within the Fargo Cast Public Health Building that was under contract conversations to be occupied, that's on hold right now, so that space is currently available.

Should we move through that winter season?

If we were able to move into any one of these locations, we could use it maybe as the winter warming area, it would need to be assessed for it to be safe with their construction or other things happening, but having a safe zone for winter warming.

Some of the facilities don't have HVAC or heat uh in the bays where like the first Avenue North that we would have to have heater areas.

Um, so we're trying to move that along as quickly as we can in the assessment and decisions as they come forward would help us out.

Okay, Mayor Lasting I'll say is um I think um I I've had interactions with some prominent business leaders downtown, and and I also not only do I wear the public health uh portfolio hat, I wear the downtown hat as far as our portfolio goes.

We have some really major prominent business lead business leaders that are very eager to help us move forward and invest in a vision that in the bigger picture addresses the the their view of of services and also protecting downtown's investments.

So I I think that is important too to not shoot ourselves in the foot if there are people willing to help us finance this effort going forward versus delaying it or delaying it and not getting there, and then we lost our support financially.

We we really need it.

And and I think it'd be appreciated.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Commissioner Turnberg.

Sure.

I'm just curious why why the deck not in West Fargo or Moorhead or Horace, Oxbow, Harwood, Castleton, why the deck not there?

This is one instance, as in many, many, where Fargo residents are paying the bill for a regional nationwide service.

We have people bust here to Fargo for these services.

Now, Commissioner Strand, you are often speaking out boldly about worrying about people freezing to death, as we all should be.

I agree with you.

But where is your concern for the people dying of overdoses?

We are delivering the needles to let people inject illegal drugs, which is totally fine, and then we supply the Narcan when they overdose.

You can quote me stats all day long that it's a healthier way to do free needles.

Is it the right thing to do?

Is that is that what we should be doing, or should we focus on recovery and treatment and helping people, helping mental illness instead of encouraging drug use?

I have spent a lot of time with businesses downtown.

They are dying because they have people coming doing drugs in front of their business.

I've watched it.

I've watched women and children being harassed.

This is not people who are sober.

It's not people who are in a good mental state.

But instead of helping with mental health and treatment, Fargo residents only are paying for this.

Not West Fargo, not Moorhead, not Horace, only Fargo.

And it's close to a million dollars a year.

Before we closed weekends, it was $800,000 a year.

Why are we bussing people here?

Mayor.

I I thought it was $57,000, but we'll get that information on the deck.

We had it up.

No, the reason these services are Fargo Cast public health is here.

You know, that's what we have here.

We're the Center for Health Care, so that's where these services come out of.

It's not out in those rural towns, it's here.

And and I understand, and I you know, I look forward, I think we're going to be partnering in ways that'll be pleasant and surprising people.

But but this notion that lately we've had this mindset that we're not going to take care of people who come to our town, maybe.

Well, they all come to our town.

We want people to come to our town.

We want them to shop at our town, we want them to state hotels our town, we want to come to events in our town.

This is what we want.

And when you're a regional center, you're a draw.

So that's what we're stuck with.

We it's hard to parse out while you're from West Fargo.

How much is West Fargo paying?

And I understand this dynamic, but it's difficult when we're this an economic engine of the region.

It is difficult, but who do you represent?

Go ahead.

Commissioner Strand, are you done?

I'm I'm okay.

Commissioner Turner.

I agree with you 100%.

However, who do you represent?

You represent citizens of Fargo.

So we are having citizens of Fargo footing the bill yet again for services throughout the area.

And and keep in mind that every nonprofit located in the deck is still going to be a viable nonprofit if the deck wasn't there.

The deck is a building.

It's providing a space for the nonprofits to get together.

Would you like to give me 10% of your yearly salary so I can decide where it should be sent charitably?

I mean, that's what we're asking residents.

Why are we taking on nonprofit duties?

Let's let's hand this to the nonprofits.

Why not that?

I don't think anyone is saying don't help people, but why are Fargo residents once again footing the bill?

And it's many things.

It can be fire protection, it can be hospitals.

How many we just had a meeting?

How many hospitals are in West Fargo?

None.

I mean, we represent Fargo residents.

And if we do get more state money, then more people from other cities ship people that they don't want to Imperial Cass to Fargo.

Mayor, I was just gonna ask one question.

I'd like verification that they're bossing people here.

I don't know that's the case.

If it is the case, I would like to know it.

Because this again, it's I'm not I'm not aware of that information.

Your question of where who are we representing?

Three of us at least here are from other towns.

All of people in Fargo from little towns out there, they're not all from here forever.

So we're representing the region.

We're representing where they're from.

We're representing their connections to, I mean, we're all from the area.

And people come here to for all their reasons.

You know, I don't want to put a wall around Fargo.

Can I have staff explain?

They were going to explain some of the questions.

John, you wanted to respond.

Commissioner Turnberg, to your first question, why Fargo?

It was in the 2018 downtown in focus summary by citizens that it was identified the need to have an engagement center.

This was to help bring all of the nonprofits to one place so that those who are on house as it existed in 2018 would have one space to come based on having them have to travel across the community to be able to reach those nonprofits you're identifying was was a hindrance to them being able to actually seek the help that they needed using the bus transportation or by walking the various miles between the nonprofits that they needed to have access to.

Having them in one location assured their ability to be able to get to all of those nonprofits and have better housing opportunities and access to the services that they needed.

The other part of the question about the funding of it just being Fargo residents in 2026 is going to be the first time it's not just the Fargo residents funding that.

We have 200,000 coming from North Dakota State Aid, and we also have 100,000 coming in from Cass County.

And that was negotiated in the budget of this year moving into 2026.

We had reduced it from the 800,000 to the 600,000.

So the total federal or the total general fund to the operations of the engagement centers $300,000 this year moving into 2026.

Well, I did go over your information from our budget workshop quite with a fine-tooth comb, and that does not align with what you presented at the budget workshop.

I'm not saying don't help people at all.

Is it our responsibility as and and to say that we're all from the area?

I'm from Minnesota, but I wasn't elected by Minnesota residents.

That makes zero sense to me, Commissioner.

You represent Fargo residents.

We sure do.

Okay.

Any other questions, Brenda or Jed?

Mr.

Colfax.

Just a couple of comments.

Uh, just to close it out, thank you for the information.

It is 300,000 currently with an offset of 200 and 100.

Is the expense out of 132 million dollar total operating fund budget?

Um and I will share that I and I shared this earlier with administration and the mayor that um there is real urgency to find a solution to moving the engagement center and taking a different approach with partners and community partners as well as a very robust um process underway to secure private funding as well.

And there's a commitment from both.

And so I just I really appreciate these are complex issues, but I intend to be fully informed and thoughtful in finding solutions to these really, really tough challenges that we have as a large community.

Thank you.

Very good.

And a 44 recommendation delay and definitely a full-time mayor position.

Only comment I would have is in the budget, and the actual cost of the budget is 25,000.

There's a lot of discussion in the paper media, but that's really the cost to that at this time.

Commissioner Strand to explain his motion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I I know it's in the budget for half of a year.

I understand it's projected and proposed, but we've never acted on it, is my point.

And until we act on it, it's not official.

Until this commissioner or a future commission chooses to make that a formal decision that a mayor is full-time, however they define that, then that's the point they've gotten to, but we haven't gotten there.

And it was in fact brought to this table months ago and delayed for 30 days and never came back.

Technically, it should have come back.

So that's what I see is and and yes, 25,000 is in this next budget, that's because it's half a year.

All I know is the board needs to decide if this is what we want or what a commission wants and what they're choosing to do, and then that's enacted in the budget.

And if until if it hasn't been chosen or acted upon, it's it shouldn't be in the budget.

So that's my point.

Uh it was delayed.

I'm I'm before I make my motion to extend the the the to delay it indefinitely.

I'm I'm curious to hear from everybody up here.

Mr.

Turnberg.

You're curious to hear from our yes or me.

Our commissioners, my president.

Well, we need to vote on it and decide whether or not.

And I think we need to, well, we can discuss when we get to the budget portion.

Okay.

I I make the motion to delay that action on making the mayor full-time indefinitely.

Is there a second for sake of conversational second?

There is a second conversation discussion.

So my my point for the discussion is to make sure we have the thoughtful conversation here.

And I will share that I think I think Fargo is ready for a full-time mayor.

I it is a full-time job.

We're North Dakota's largest city.

We're not talking about a significant increase overall to the budget.

It is earmarked in the budget, so the funds have been found.

Um and we've heard I've had many conversations with citizens and residents of Fargo who assume it already is a full-time position.

And so I I when you look at cities like Sioux Falls, who has a full-time position, um, you know, and being North Dakota's largest city and knowing the demands of the job, which I see every day, frankly, and the ambassador part of the role, the policy and legislative part of the role, every legislative session and in the interim, federally and statewide.

I think we're ready for a full-time mayor that people should know about ahead of the next election.

Any other discussion?

Might I ask Mayor if this uh doesn't prevail.

I would hope we would have a motion that would direct our budgeting process with an action rather than just an assumption.

You know, right now we haven't acted, but I'm okay with it.

But if as long as there's an action from this commission, not just assuming that's where we're at, because we haven't acted formally roll call vote.

Strand.

Yes.

Colpac?

No.

Pepcorn?

No.

Turnberg?

No.

Mahoney?

No.

You want to make the option that now we make the motion to make it a full-time mayor?

I'll let one of the other commissioners make that motion.

I think we need to dig into the budget more before we do that.

It's like already presented it's a $25,000 impact and it's covered.

So For Huh?

For next year, but then after that.

It's an additional $25 after that, basically.

Mayor.

I'll say one more thing just for the sake of added humor.

I'm not running for mayor.

I don't have any vested interest in this.

Other people, it might affect their choices whether to run for mayor or current candidates running or not.

It's a big part of their lives.

How much of your career you sacrificed to be a full-time mayor or a part.

You know what I mean?

So but I'm not running for mayor.

I don't have any vested interest in this for me.

I I and I'm the one who brought this to the table months ago.

But then it was delayed.

And that's where we are.

It was delayed.

Until it's acted upon, it's still not acted upon.

Item 45, recommendation to approve proposed transit route changes effective January 1st, 2026.

Julie Bob and to explain.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, Commissioners.

Waiting for the presentation.

But I'll go I'll go ahead and get started.

Or the past several months, you've probably heard me talk more than you ever wanted to hear about proposed route changes and such.

A big portion of that was to um help with the budget efforts and get the get the numbers down a little bit for that purpose.

But we wanted to keep service out there as best we could for folks that utilize the system.

The first slide will be a list of proposed changes.

Pardon me, just it should be in the City Commission folder.

We don't have them there.

Okay.

In the S.

Right there.

Bingo.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, thanks.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

So these were the proposed changes that were brought forward for the public hearing on September 2nd.

And I will I won't go through them again, but uh of these proposed changes, there were a couple that rose to the top as being the most impactful to the budget and least impactful to the partners that are part of our uh joint powers agreement for transit in the area.

So tonight we're bringing forward the recommended um and supported route changes uh that were from the MAP bus coordination committee and members of that committee, there are several of them here.

Uh but the discussion was Route 16 would be eliminated, and the Industrial Park on Demand Service would also be eliminated.

And there were a couple of realignment changes, Route 14, uh, which normally or currently travels what we call inbound, so back to the downtown area, north on 10th Street, and the proposal is is to adjust that over so it comes north on 4th Street and doesn't follow Route 18 or Route 15 up 10th Street, but then we pick up that section along 4th Street that includes the old Lashkowitz high rise area.

Uh so when the the new housing comes on online, we would have service there coming in and going out of the GTC.

And the second proposed change for Route 15 would be um we had started doing this in May to test out how it would be as far as going from a 90-minute route, which we could not keep on time, to a 60-minute route.

That has gone well.

And the proposed alignment adjustment would be to pick up the cash-wise on 13th Avenue.

15 travels east and west on 13th Avenue out to West Acres, Walmart and comes back downtown.

Uh but Route 16 currently serves that cash-wise.

Some of the additional assumptions we uh included in the budget uh was that one of the existing positions we have would be suspended, uh not filled in 2026, but the FTE would still be retained.

Uh we would hold open vacant positions as we evaluate the impact, bring the drivers in-house, uh FTEs would still be retained.

And uh diesel fuel, of course, was adjusted for the service level changes.

We estimated based on industry standards, excuse me, about a two percent reduction in ridership uh if we are adjusting the routes, uh, and with the cash fare rate increase.

We expect that to impact our routes, although if Grand Forks is any example, they raised their rates and their ridership went up 25 percent.

So that was good news to hear.

Marketing budget, we would reduce it down to 50,000.

Uh drivers in-house for approved services would remain.

And with the final budget numbers, we initially started out, I should say the initial budget numbers with payroll and health insurance not included in there, the increase in health insurance.

They are currently included in there, though.

Uh and what we boiled it down to through several meetings with the MAT bus coordination committee was landing on these numbers, the highlighted yellow squares at the top of the um graph, you see would be the contributions, the local, as we call them contributions.

Uh, then you see the next line is state revenues, and the following line is federal revenues.

So you see what the grand total commitment to the system is by each of the partners in the joint powers agreement would be.

Uh and again, the yellow is the local contribution.

Uh and the suggested action is to approve those route changes that we covered.

Uh and I listed them again just so there was no confusion on which ones were asking for approval for.

Uh, they would become an effective January 1 of 26, and the resulting proposed budget.

And Julie, the West Anchor's station is still going to exist, and we didn't eliminate that.

So, and what you did in some of your recommendations, you've cut back on some of the discussion points we had before, but just so the public understands that that has not been eliminated.

I think Commissioner Strand visited with you on that.

So, yes, that's a good point.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh I have one virtual speaker to speak, Olivia Fisher.

Olivia Aragon.

Yep, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Sorry.

Hi again, Olivia Fargo resident.

I'm speaking on these proposed bus route changes as someone who is privileged to own a car and has the funds to keep it running, as do all of you, I presume.

There are many neighbors who do not have that same privilege.

And so tonight I'm speaking on behalf of the concerns I have heard from them.

I've heard about multiple frustrating instances from friends who ride the bus, both we recently and in the past across Fargo and Moorhead.

The recent changes have caused confusion and disruption to the normal bus paths as drivers and passengers navigate the changes.

I've heard instances about the bus skipping stops completely, even when people wave them down.

I know someone who had to get off in the middle of a street because of the driver going off-route, and I've heard that the bus app has not been correctly updating because of the drivers going off-route.

So to see even more changes being proposed before the current problems are addressed is incredibly frustrating, especially big changes like the one happening to the West Acres Transit Hub.

That is a very centralized area of town that many people rely on.

Abrupt changes like this will again lead to some people walking longer distances in the freezing cold this winter.

It would be your responsible for the city and the transit office to move forward without offering a chance for the public to give input on how the current changes are going.

Well, I know that emailing you all is an option, we rarely get responses.

So the least you can do is hold another town hall for bus passengers to attend and notify you about any challenges or upside they have faced from the current changes.

If you do hold a town hall, it would also be appreciated if the announcement would go out with ample time for folks to actually hear about it.

The city could even close wires up at the bus stops to ensure more residents know about it.

The transit offices office themselves note that they expected two percent decrease in passengers due to the fare increases.

Does this not concern you?

That 2% of the population cannot access public transit due to the due to the cost that you voted to increase.

They are not just the number, they are people that now feel even more of a struggle to get to their appointments to grocery stores, work, pharmacies, et cetera.

Whether it access the transportation services is worth more than however much money you are saving by making these changes.

And if you truly care about citizens' well-being more than money, you need to show that through productive, helpful action.

Thank you.

Any questions of Julie?

Commissioner Turnberg.

Julie, could you just um confirm for me?

Will we be keeping Route 15, Route 18, and Sunday paratransit?

Yes, we would on all three of those, Commissioner.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

I move on to the Colpak.

Sorry.

I move for approval of the suggested motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Strand, do you have something to say?

I do.

Julie.

Could you help us just understand in the balcony view the this is Fargo we're talking, but it's way more than Fargo.

It's it's it's the a metro transit.

And we're partnered.

And and and we've shifted sizes and that's that bigger picture.

I just think I'd like to have us couch our decisions and conversations in the relative to the partnership we have with Moorhead and others.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you, Commissioner Strand.

We and you serve on that committee as does Commissioner Colpack, so you probably have more insights into that.

But of the four partners that we have part of a joint powers agreement.

Um so we've got NDSU, City of Fargo, City of Moorhead, and City of West Fargo.

So we work with all of them and uh try and balance it out.

So we have a cost allocation plan.

It's a it's that spreadsheet that we punch literally every line item into every every cost, and every time you make a change or an adjustment, it filters throughout that cost allocation plan and and it demonstrates what the impacts are to the other partners.

So far go cutting routes significantly, like we initially proposed, very negatively impacted the partners, and they would have to pay significantly more.

So there that hopefully isn't in a nutshell, but that that's what it looks like.

Thank you.

Yeah, I also sit on the transit committee with John with Commissioner Strand, and um we spent many hours going through this and reinstating many of the originally proposed cuts, including the West Acres Hub, which by the way, they never wanted gone, West Acres.

Um they always wanted to keep that hub there.

So that was good news.

Um I I will just part of the outcomes and and follow-up work that's coming.

Number one, we worked really hard in the legislative session.

I see Cales here from the chamber on working Julie team with your counterparts around the state on getting either the formula changed, which is now in study, so long term there's still some concern there as North Dakota's largest metro and transit.

Um, but also getting we in the end got money and funds for paratransit that offset some of this at a at a at a good clip.

So um not cutting paratransit was very important to us.

It was the wrong signal right now, so that's reinstated and back in.

I will also add as part of the conversations with the community partners.

One of the takeaways locally was to look at that formula that's used on how allocations are made to each of the four partners.

So that was an important takeaway.

Um in the end, I'll just close with this.

It was very much public comment that changed this conversation and um informed the final decisions that reinstated many of the routes that were part of the initial cuts.

And so public comment was very important to this final outcome and and having services there, um, including paratransit.

So those are my comments.

Any other discussion?

Roll call vote, please.

Call pack.

Aye, strand?

Yes, Epcorn.

Hi.

Turnberg?

Hi, Mahoney.

Hi.

I'm good.

Okay.

Uh recommendation for the final budget of 2026.

Susan Thompson and Michael Redinger will help us out.

Uh, we'll now discuss the uh budget.

As you recall, we presented a preliminary budget on August 4th and engaged public hearing on the budget during your city commission two weeks ago.

The budget team worked diligently to meet the budget objectives of 2026 while thoughtfully considering the new property tax relief and reform policies approved in the 2025 legislative session.

We believe a balanced budget has been developed that accomplishes these objectives in the spirit of collaboration and compromise.

The preliminary budget and supporting schedules are posted on the city of Fargo website.

Subsequent budget changes were detailed in tonight's commission meeting of materials.

City administrator Michael Redinger and Finance Director Susan Thompson will provide an overview of the 2026 budget process along with subsequent adjustments and the final 2026 budget for your consideration.

Uh Michael Redinger, just start.

Great.

Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners.

Good evening.

Uh, first of all, thank you for your time this evening to receive this brief presentation.

We just have a few slides, and we're happy to answer any questions that you have at the end.

First, I just wanted to highlight this is our chronology of events that have occurred on the budget.

Um as the mayor mentioned, uh, we had the preliminary budget approved on August 4th.

Then you conducted your public hearing on September 15th.

Uh, we, as we all know, however, uh the 2020 uh six budget process actually began much much earlier than that.

If you go all the way back to earlier this year, our department heads really started working on their budgets as early as January and February, and had their first deadline to submit materials into the finance department in April.

And so, in general, our budget discussions uh were occurring as early as uh the winter months in January and February.

The final budget that you see tonight is really a culmination of all of their work, all of their efforts, and we're very appreciative of that.

On slide number three here, you can see that these are the budget team priorities and approaches as we uh got into the 2026 process.

These are really five priority areas.

Number one was to implement the new property tax cap approved by the legislature.

Number two was to incorporate the voter approved public safety sales tax.

This was discussed thoroughly at the city commission earlier this spring, late spring and early summer.

Number three, we knew that we needed to do everything that we could to retain our city staff and provide for a cost of living adjustment that kept us with the market.

Number four, we also wanted to assess our rate structures for those services to ensure that we are optimizing our service revenues.

And so you heard that earlier this year as well.

And finally, we wanted to very carefully balance the available revenues relative to expenditures.

The City of Fargo is extremely respectful of the legislature of the property tax cap and property tax relief packages that were approved at the legislature this past year.

We want to acknowledge the efforts of the legislature and honor that.

We also noted that our department heads took that charge very seriously as well and did everything that they could to really try keep their expenditures constrained as much as possible.

And they deserve a lot of credit for the information that's been compiled here into the budget document for 2026.

These reductions were very significant, they were occurring in several several departments.

But as we tried, we really tried to keep our long range focus on our residents and on our businesses, and so you'll hear us talk about that pretty extensively.

The next slide represents where we left off on August 4th.

So this is really the last time you saw this this balancing of the scale.

This scale at the preliminary budget approved a budget at 140,287,021.

As a reminder, the 2026 general fund also includes nearly 5.9 million dollars in the new public safety sales tax revenues.

These are transfers in now to the general fund.

This is related to offsetting expenses associated with the new pay plan for public safety as well as new staff and public safety equipment.

The city commission, as noted earlier, previously approved all of these activities earlier this year and got all these plan elements really put into motion.

So now I'm going to turn it over to Susan.

She's going to discuss the subsequent updates to the budget so we can talk about what happened from the preliminary budget to present.

Good evening.

An already challenging budget process is further complicated by the relatively early budget deadline and a fact that the fact that data is constantly changing.

So even after the preliminary budget is approved, the budget team continues to seek new and more current information to incorporate into the final budget.

Since the August 4th meeting, we've identified new revenue and expenses, both positive and negative.

The net impact of these changes is an additional 400,000 to the general fund budget.

A summary of this new information and the related budget changes was provided in the commission materials, but I'll provide a brief overview.

This was based on efficiencies associated with bringing the drivers in-house along with proposed route adjustments.

Following public comments directed primarily at the route adjustments, the route adjustments and changes that were required to arrive at that 3.5 million local share for Fargo.

The Metro Coordinating Committee, which represents all of our transit partners, was not comfortable with the scope of those changes.

And instead, they approved the adjustments that Julie just presented.

The resulting local share for Fargo became $4.33 million, which requires an additional $830,000 in general fund transfers.

We should acknowledge though that this is a reduction in over a million dollars from the 2025 expense, and a legislative transit study will be underway in Fargo, which may garner additional state funding for the future budgets.

Second, we were notified of our 2026 health insurance premium increase.

The preliminary budget was prepared at a 10% increase.

The final is a blended increase of approximately 12%.

For the budget, we can serve conservatively calculate the new benefit cost as if everyone stays at their current plan and unfilled positions are at the most expensive plan.

However, the benefit renewals, as you approved tonight through the consent agenda, include new options, which continue to provide excellent coverage, but at a lower cost for both the employer and the employee.

We're confident that there will be budget savings here, which is included in our salary savings estimate.

We added back a contribution to the community land trust of $25,000 to support the city's commitment to affordable housing.

Typically, we had reported net revenues from autoimpound activity due to a new state ruling.

So there's no change in the budget, it just looks a little different how it's presented.

Then to offset these net additional expenses, the budget team is proposing the following adjustments.

Cass County Electric recently notified their customers of a 14% rate increase.

So we anticipate additional franchise fee revenue above what was already included in the preliminary budget resulting from XL Energy's planned rate increase.

Public works contracts for six months in advance for diesel fuel and gasoline based on the price reductions for first and second quarter of 2026.

We anticipate a reduction in expense from the preliminary budget.

While a new department head is hired and onboarded and department priorities are re-established.

And then as we've discussed on many occasions, our payroll budget assumes every approved FTE works every day for the full year.

We know that isn't realistic.

So we estimate and offset salary savings, incorporating trends, new options for health insurance, and being mindful of the elimination of some vacant FTEs discussed in the preliminary budget.

The budget team revisited the budget's allocated salary savings estimate and made adjustments.

So this slide incorporates those adjustments into the preliminary budget to generate a final proposed general fund budget, which is the $400,000 increase that I mentioned.

So we are proposing a budget, a balanced general fund budget of $140,687,211.

This information was included in the commission packet for this agenda item.

So to simplify, the cap is the greater of 3% of the base year levy, which is the great the greater of the levies for the last three years.

And for Fargo, that was just over 48 million, 48.6 million dollars as shown on the screen.

Or we could use the adjusted year levy, which incorporates true property tax growth, which includes new construction or any tax incentivized parcels that are going back on the tax rules.

Fargo's growth results in a higher adjusted year levy, so we're using the 50.3 million dollars as our cap.

That's the circled number at the bottom.

And then this slide represents the total tax levy and the mill implications.

So again, circled, that's our property tax cap.

Both the city's general fund assessment and the airport counts towards our property tax cap.

So you can see how it's allocated based on the preliminary budget, 48.6 million gross to the general fund, 1.7 gross to the airport.

Property tax legislation exempt several levies from the CAP.

One that's pertinent to Fargo is the levy for the city's share of special assessments.

The city's assessments are slightly under $1 million, but previous years levies estimates have generated a surplus.

So for next year, we're only levying enough to make that to bring that fund up to the million dollars that we need.

So that's $350 that's listed there.

So the gross property tax assessment will be $50,696,330.

And if for those of you that are still looking at mills, the current estimated value of a mill is $883,880.

So that generates a mill levy of $57.36, which is an increase over last year of 0.36 mills.

And then we just did a quick calculation on the bottom.

So based on a medium median home sale price of $353,500.

The increased fractional mill will add $573 to $5.73 to a homeowner's property tax.

Slide nine is a reminder of the rate adjustment proposal from the preliminary budget presentation.

We are only bringing forth rate adjustments for the solid waste services.

Solid RAST is also provide proposing rate increases for commercial roll off and landfill as an ode.

And I will turn it over to Michael to wrap up.

So just in conclusion, we just want to note uh as a budget team, we're very grateful for all the time of our department heads, uh, our executive leaders were were very, very participatory within this process.

We really are appreciative of all of their efforts to get us to this uh point in time.

So what we presented today is really the result of all of their work.

It's a lot of hard work, a lot of collaboration, and no doubt a lot of compromise as well to try to get to a balanced budget.

Uh we've also uh we've also uh accomplished this objective uh against again the backdrop of the implementation of the new property tax cap.

So that's been fully incorporated.

Um as Susan just highlighted, that resulted in a very small uh mill increase if you're still backing into mills of uh 0.36, and then uh also excluding for the public safety sales tax uh implementation, the general fund then was increased by 1.8 percent overall compared to 2025.

So that's just one other baseline number uh that we wanted to provide and that was not planned.

Turn the lights off, yeah.

I'm gonna do that.

Game's over.

I'll tell you that that was not uh a part of the plan in the presentation, but uh but I will tell you that uh again the uh yeah just just want to acknowledge too uh all the the talents of of our of our staff that uh really came together uh to get this done.

Um one other highlight I just wanted to make it.

Is this the brown art they talked about, Commissioner Pepcorn where they brown us out every down there?

Uh so just want to note too uh we're also uh able to accommodate that cost of living adjustment, that three percent.

I was just very appreciative of that, and uh again appreciate the commission's interest and wanted to retain all of our our staff.

We believe in their talents, we believe in their gifts that they provide the citizens of Fargo, the business of Fargo every single day.

And so this is really um a critical critical investment in team Fargo to make sure that uh they see a future here as well.

Uh so I just know in closing that really the the 26th budget was really about restraint, uh really about minimizing general fund growth.

We're able to do that uh by being a particularly diligent within the department uh budgets and throughout the general fund as well as our enterprise funds to scrutinize our various uh expenditure budgets and make sure that we were aligning um our expenditures and our revenues as best as we possibly could.

Um so we believe that again we met the expectations that the state of North Dakota really laid out for us uh to come into compliance with the property tax relief and reform legislation.

Uh, we'll really also achieving a real reductions in general fund spending uh within uh the general fund departments, and that these reductions were really necessary to align our expenditures to available revenues.

And so now to close this out, the mayor will uh take the last couple of slides, but again, uh commissioners just want to thank you for your time to receive these few slides tonight.

All right, good.

Thank you very much for both your hard work and the teams behind you.

As you can see, our final budget is a little bit different.

It's 140 million six hundred and eighty-seven thousand two hundred and eleven dollars.

As you know, that's just less than six dollars per cost of an average house in our community.

I think uh Parton Heads uh did a tremendous job trying to keep our expenses controlled.

And uh less than two percent increase in general fund is outstanding.

So uh would uh recommend that we accept this and uh approve the final budget related to property taxes as presented.

That would be the suggested motion.

Mayor, yes.

For the sake of dotting our eyes and crossing our T's, I just want a budget that's reflecting approved actions.

Uh and this I'm not sure there's not an order, but I would uh go back to the last item and I would move that we commencing I would move commencing June 1st, our mayor position be funded as full time going forward.

So that's in our budget and it's a decision of the group.

Is it an amendment, John?

It's not amendment, it's a separate motion, but then it will filter into the budget overall right now.

Right now it's the end as it's there's no amending error in there.

There's no motion pending, so this would be motion.

He just needs a second.

So I would move that we uh designate the mayor's position full-time command commencing June 1st.

Okay, is there a second?

Oh second.

Any discussion roll call vote?

Strand?

Yes.

Colpack, hipcorn?

No.

Turnberg?

No.

Mahoney?

Aye.

Okay, now can I have a motion for the budget?

I move for approval.

Sir, second.

Second.

Discussion.

I think we still have I'm sorry.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I think we this is fantastic.

I know Susan and Michael, you have been working tirelessly on this, but I could we not still cut.

Do we need a million dollars for travel and education?

Do we do we I mean there's a there's a lot of things that just seem like a a lot of money.

Just now Julie posted that we're lowering the marketing budget for MAT bus to 50,000.

If you need the MAT bus, do you need marketing?

Don't we have all the information on our website?

I mean, I think could we not maybe cut some more anybody else?

Yeah, Copeck.

Sure.

So again, thank you to finance administration and every department head.

There was a lot of work that went into this.

And actually, if you think about the public safety sales tax, this work began in December.

Um and then we had several meetings there.

I alone had over 30 different conversations and meetings with my five departments and administration and public safety sales tax teams and um really dug into this.

I can tell you there were compromises that that I know we all made as part of the final getting to where we got, including the changes at the end to transit that were so important.

Um with hopefully legislative changes coming next legislative session with you know the formula underway conversation.

I will share one of the deal breakers with for me, was no less than a three percent COLA.

Um and and the fact that we came in at under 2 percent overall and increase in general operating funds, which is just under $6 a household at $350,000 is remarkable when you consider that steps alone is $2.5 million automatic each year with the way that our grade system works for employees, and then you add the 12% increase to health insurance.

Um that's over three million we're starting out of the gate right there.

And and so um with a three percent cap with the restrictions that were made, again, we all made compromises, but um I'm very comfortable with where we landed, and I know that every single department scoured um in that first prelim budget round, we did eliminate open positions and um and and I'll I'll close with this.

One of my requests with my last uh budget meeting with administration was we think about how we strategically plan long term on a rolling basis and do it differently along with an associated capital five-year plan and associated personnel plan so we can plan for where those future needs are gonna be, understanding the cap is in place for now, and then how do we communicate with our legislature on where to changes have to be to the three percent cap to make it sustainable?

So appreciate very robust conversations and all the work.

Any other discussion?

Commissioner Turnberg?

Have we voted on changes for the communications department?

Is that in the budget as it was, or is there a new number for the communications department?

Yeah, Michael can explain uh so uh mayor and commissioners, Commissioner Turnberg, uh, we have reduced uh two FTEs, so that was just highlighted in Susan's comments, and so still would intend to move forward with a realigned uh department and a director in the future, but uh that'll be an event that will happen after the budget is approved.

Uh, but there is a reduction in personnel as well as reduction in personnel in other departments.

I believe a total of 9.8 FTEs in total were reduced in the general fundamental.

A director would be hired, and then we would look at that closely.

I think you made some recommendations we would look at that.

Any other discussion Mr.

Strand?

Thank you, Mayor.

I boy, it's this is this has been a tough year for the budgeting and and and uh a challenge.

We're all have it in our own lives too.

So I just want to thank our team and our people for rolling up their sleeves for the community.

I don't think transit would have landed there if we hadn't heard so hugely from the people affected by our decisions.

You know, and and it's important we serve the people.

You know, this whole engagement center helping people with struggle.

We're really we just are making sausage on a daily basis here.

And and um and to have to land on a budget we can go forward with uh to to have the the relationships that we have with our our government or other governments, you know, but we're not out of the woods at all.

And and and Susan, I don't know how much sleep you've lost in the last few months.

I can't imagine what you wrestle with at night when you're going through our Michael, too.

Um but but good work, everybody.

And and let's just we got there somewhere, we got somewhere.

Um, but but gee.

Next year, in the year after, and new mayors and new leadership will have three new members potentially up here next July.

So uh I just want to thank everybody for putting their their effort into this to make us get through the goalposts as an and everybody lost something potentially in their in their favored services they want.

I just want to thank the team for getting this budget through, but I also want to thank the commissioners for actively engaging.

Every one of you engaged with Michael and Susan, had your concerns heard.

I think this is the most transparent we've ever done a budget to show that long term a little concerned about the decrease in capital investments.

That will be a long-term issue.

I'm glad I don't have to do the budget next year.

But I I just think that the warning out there is that we really are holding tight on our capital investments, and that'll be the difficulty a large city has is to keep up with all the technology and software and equipment that you need to run a big city.

So my hope is is that we continue to have growth within the city, but there are some uh looks at uh what does the community need and what will you do going forward?

But again, I want to thank the team and everybody that worked on this.

Uh they did a tremendous job.

Any other discussion?

Roll call vote, please.

Call pack?

Hi.

Strand?

Yes.

Pepcorn?

No.

Turnberg?

No.

Mahoney.

Hi.

No update, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Turnberg.

No update.

Mr.

Mahoney, Mayor Mahoney.

Uh, we did have a League of Cities meeting last week, and uh the police chief was elected to president of the uh police chief association.

Uh because they'd like to have somebody out there to help us out and do some things.

So that was a great thing that it happened and it was a great meeting.

Otherwise, we had our people reinstated for the Lawa Board and the Associated Fred River, so that came forward out of that as well.

Commissioner Kolpak.

So first I'm sorry about that.

First is a fire department, October 5th through the 11th is fire prevention week.

And this year the National Fire Protection Association and the Fargo Fire Department are focusing on lithium E and battery safety.

The department wants residents to know that while lithium batteries are efficient, excuse me, they can also overheat and even catch fire.

Residents are encouraged to follow three basic safe battery practices to help prevent fires by only listed products when buying a product that uses the lithium EM battery.

Look for a safety certification mark.

Charge devices safely, um, always use the cables that come with the batteries and don't overcharge, and recycle batteries responsibly, which talks about some services through the solid waste team that are available as well.

But don't throw lithium EM batteries in the trash or recycling bins if they can start a fire recycle at your device at a safe battery recycling location, which we offer.

Do the fire stations have recycling?

No.

Chief, you know?

No, you don't.

No.

Pharmacies always have strafe drug places, so you guys you're looking for fires, you don't want them in your station, eh?

Right.

Okay.

Um on water utility, excite very excited to say we're making progress in the lead service line replacement program with bids set to open to contractors on October 22nd.

We have just over 2,000 lead service lines to replace.

We know where they all are.

Phase one of the project is scheduled to start in the spring and will occur in the neighborhood bound by Main Avenue, South University, 13th Avenue South, and 18th Street South, which is my neighborhood, by the way.

And I mean anyway, I'll leave that there.

I encourage all phase one residents to sign up and replacement costs will be fully covered.

If you remember, we previously passed that at a at a at a former meeting.

Visit Fargo ND.gov backslash LSLR.

And the last to your point about North Dakota League, Mayor, I just want to congratulate you for receiving the 2025 Leadership Excellence Award from the North Dakota League of Cities.

It was a well-attended luncheon last Friday.

Commissioner Strand was there as well, along with Greg and Katie, who nominated you for the award from former communications folks.

And this honor is well deserved for his years of leadership to Fargo and the steady and approachable leadership.

These comments were shared at the at the luncheon.

He has helped advance major projects like the FM Diversion, Red River Water Supply, Downtown Revitalization efforts that have strengthened Fargo and made life better for our community.

It is not only a reflection of Mayor Mahoney's efforts, but of all of Fargo's public servants.

And this recognition shows what can come from a shared commitment to serving the residents of Fargo day in and day out.

So congratulations, Mayor.

Thank you.

Commissioner Strand.

I was going to talk about the League of Cities, but I it's all congratulations, Mayor.

You know, just to see all those cities.

There's 350 some cities at the league.

And most of them are under a thousand people.

You know, and it's really important that they we meet them and they meet us.

And when the mayor of Fargo or Grand Forks walks in, it's pretty significant to those folks because they hear you on the news all the time.

But congratulations on your service.

Twenty years is really something to have that at the helm or at the at the at the dais in a city like Fargo.

And they acknowledge that deserved very deservedly so.

Congratulations.

We have one public comment.

Olivia, you've been around all night.

This is the third time up.

So Olivia Fisher.

Yes.

Can you hear me one last time?

Yes, we can.

Okay.

Thank you.

Olivia, again.

Um just speaking that lastly, because I'm very concerned that you all seem to have not discussed the winter warming center yet.

And worse than that, I worry that you simply don't care.

Just like Moorhead City Council, who has not implemented a warming center despite fees from the public.

It would be wise for you to not follow suit if you don't want people freezing to death on our streets this winter.

Because you are the reason they can't wrap up in a sleeping bag or block themselves from the wind and attempt.

I also want to note for those who don't know that the commission made the decision to remove park benches downtown, or at least some of them.

This is not discussed at length publicly, which is upsetting concerning how this affects the accessibility of downtown Fargo.

It especially troubles me that the benches were removed during the town hall last week.

While folks were expressing concern over how unsheltered residents are getting treated, benches were being removed because of the misinformation being spread about those very residents.

It is just plainly so cruel.

It was appalling to find out that the benches were removed because of a recommended motion from one of the very staff members who presented at the town hall.

This is a new law for the city of Fargo, and I truly hope you feel ashamed.

Residents cannot trust you to make decisions that are beneficial for all of us, not just business owners.

In no way is that okay, and I highly encourage you to reevaluate your morals going forward.

Lastly, I want to address Michelle's question from earlier about the deck being in Fargo.

It was expressed at the town hall last week that you attended.

But on house people have always lived around in the downtown area.

The deck was put there because of that.

Also, there are services in Fargo than other smaller.

There are more services in Fargo and then other smaller towns in the city.

As for the needles, I don't know how many times it needs to be explained that clean needles are harm reduction.

Of course, it is hard to see people struggling with addiction, but nothing will change so long as they keep being beat down by society.

If you take clean needle programs away, you will wind up with people dead on the streets.

And that should disturb you more than the supposed downfall and success from down businesses downtown.

Isn't that against the case?

I'd rather help people than fund corrupt institutions like the police or to support the genocide in Palestine.

And I'll finish by saying it is a wish to hear these continued claims about people who aren't sober causing harm when you yourself have been that person.

I hope you all have the day you deserve.

Thanks.

Olivia Commissioner Turnberg thinks that you're not following policy.

Do you want to explain, Commissioner, what your concern is?

Well, you cannot call out individual people.

Public speakers may not.

We may not.

People who call in may not.

I'm concerned why you are not interrupting her and telling her to stop.

So Olivia, in the future, we are not supposed to call out individual commissioners.

You can call out policies or discussions that are held in the commission, but it is recommended you do not.

If I happens again, I would have to cut you off.

So thank you.

That's the end of the agenda.

Adjourn.