Call the meeting to order.

We'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance.

I invite you to join us.

Okay.

Roll call, please.

Cole Pack.

Here.

Pepcorn?

Here.

Strand?

Here.

Turnberg?

Here.

Mahoney.

Here.

Tonight we have a video about the Fargo name, a garbage truck contest.

So we'll start off with that.

My name is Kyle Blanchard.

I'm equipment operator too here at uh City of Fargo Solid Waste.

Recently I've been dumping the uh child care center at Sanford, and every day there's kids coming in and coming out, and everybody's got to stop and see the garbage truck work.

I've never met a kid that doesn't like a garbage truck, and it's so much fun.

They're either uh asking us to honk the air horns or wanting to see the truck work and get dumped, and it it's a lot of fun to see.

Well, I think it's really cool for them to give them a sense of uh community involvement.

You know, they're just probably starting to learn about civics and giving back to the community and stuff like that.

I think that it's nice to see them uh have the opportunity to give an active role to be a part of what goes on in their community, especially for the winners.

Like how cool is that for them to see their name truck come by on their street or buy them.

It's gotta be a pretty cool experience.

So the Solid Waste Department contacted our communications team for help doing this name a garbage truck contest.

And from there, uh, it was posted online asking residents to submit their ideas for names of garbage trucks.

All those results were forwarded to us at Solid Waste Department.

We narrowed it down to ten names, and then it was put out for public vote, and that's how we got to the three names that that were selected by the public that you'll see on trucks now.

There's actually over 200 submissions for naming a garbage truck, so I feel like it was popular with uh the residents wanting to participate.

Because it just kind of fits changing it from Trannosaurus Rex, not much of a change, but really applies to what we're doing here at the Solid Waste Department.

Um, so that was an easy kind of transformation to incorporate garbage or solid waste into that name.

And then um, I would say the the top pick is the truck Norris, because who doesn't love Jeff Norris?

Uh also his recent passing.

Uh we thought it would be a nice way to remember him and incorporate him into our daily operations.

So I thought it was really cool.

Like uh, we're kind of on our own island out here, like you said.

So it's it's really neat that uh we I don't know, get some fanfare on the social media and seeing you know these trucks rolling around uh on different videos or news platforms.

It's pretty neat for us to get recognized because it's outside of cleanup week, nobody really knows that we exist, their garbage comes and goes, and they're happy about that.

Especially uh any of the kids that maybe tried to name the truck or even especially for the winners to see the the stickers on these trucks and oh there goes truck Norris right down the road.

I seen him in North Fargo yesterday.

Now he's in South Fargo, or now he's at uh this career fair.

I think it'll be a cool cool thing.

Nicely done.

Thank you.

Do I have a motion to approve the order of agenda?

So move.

Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion carried.

The motion to approved the minutes of the May 11th, 2026 meeting.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carried.

Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda items one through twenty-three?

That's move.

Is there a second?

Second.

Roll call vote, please.

Pepcorn.

Call pack, aye.

Mr.

Hand?

Yes.

Turnberg.

Aye.

Mahoney.

Aye.

We move to public hearings.

Item 24, 20.5.

Are to be continued till 622.

Could I have a motion for 24 and 25 to be continued?

Move to continue 24 and 25.

Sir, second.

Second.

Roll call vote, please.

Pepcorn?

Hi.

Turnberg.

Hi.

Colpak?

Aye.

Strand?

Yes.

Mahoney?

Aye.

Hearing number 26 application by the Fargo HRA low-income housing for a payment in lieu of tax exemption pilot for a project located at 1711 25th Avenue South with the applicant that's been used for 65 unit low-income multifamily residential apartment building.

Jim Gilmore to explain.

This is an application from the Fargo Housing Authority along with Blue Line Development.

Blue nightline development is a partner in this because they're able to obtain and sell low-income housing tax credits.

That is an excellent in financing in one way, and the other is the problem because it makes portion of the pro the project subject to property taxes.

And so that's the reason for the property tax exemption.

If you're going to provide low-income housing, you can't afford to pay the full property taxes, especially on a project like this that's serving very low-income people.

You can see the general location of the project.

So if you have 0% income, if you have zero income, you pay zero for your rent.

So that's truly a low deep subsidy income for this unit.

One other thing to add is both the Fargo School Board and Cass County have voted to fully participate in this exemption.

Any questions, Chris?

Mayor.

Mr.

Strand.

Chris, initially, thank you to you and to your staff and to your team and to the Fargo Housing Authority Board and to Blue Line and for others in the lane in our community, you know, that lane of providing housing in our community.

I guess my question is this.

How much is ahead of us to still do for housing?

What do you see on the horizon?

What's coming our way?

What do you just what is really the reality that we're facing?

Well, there's such a need for low income housing.

We have, you know, we just opened Lashwitz Riverfront over here, and we're filling that up right now.

We have over 600 people on the waiting list for a hundred unit building.

Uh that's not counting the waiting list for our regular HCV vouchers or any of our other projects.

That there's a there's never a problem filling any type of low-income housing that we may build.

It's uh it's only gonna increase more demand as as we continue to grow as a community.

So I I think you know we we plan to continue to build more low-income housing.

We plan to redevelop our Borel and Colonial site just to the north here.

And uh we're looking at some other locations throughout town also, so we can we have some other tools that a lot of other low-income uh developers don't have.

We have uh fair cloth uh to rad uh conversion, where we actually have the uh the maximum number of public housing that we once had in the city of Fargo, which was over 600 units.

That's dropped down to to under 300, so we have that that change at 300 units that we still have the availability to get funding for if we provide the housing.

So there's a there's a uh a method through HUD to actually put something new into public housing, you know, for a day or instantaneously, then we do a conversion, take it back out.

But when we do that, it takes those vouchers along with it so we can continue to add more subsidy back to our community, and that's truly what we need to do.

Any other questions?

So anyone present wish to speak to this uh low income housing project.

President wishes to speak.

If not, I'll close the public hearing.

Do I have a motion?

I'll make the motion.

Or a second.

I'll second.

Any further discussion?

We'll call vote, please.

Epcorn?

Hi.

Call pack.

Hi.

Strand?

Yes.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Mahoney?

Aye.

Item twenty-seven.

Thanks, Commissioners.

Application by the ex software for property tax resumption for project located at 201 Fifth Street North.

Which the application, the applicant will use for technological services in a software development company.

Jim Gilmore to explain as well.

This is a software company that's proposing to move into the 14th floor of the Radisson Building in downtown Fargo.

Uh they're currently located downtown.

They'd be moving to this location so they could both add jobs as well as the employee people that are no longer in the Fargo metro area or maybe have never been in the Fargo Metro area and bring them here.

Very very good jobs.

They can talk about their vision and how they're what they do and how they hope to expand here in downtown Fargo.

Thanks, Jim.

Mayor, members of the commission.

Yeah, I this is uh one of those examples of uh the great work that we get to do, and there's all these great companies that are operating in our marketplace that are in uh primary sector nature, um adding value to uh goods and services and um using IP to develop software technology companies, and so this was one of the the stories of Najaxa Software, a company that was formed in Las Vegas in 2018, moved here after COVID, going through some expansion and growth within their company.

As Jim mentioned, they're located above Halberstats on Broadway, in about 2800 square feet of space.

The company's growing uh needs to bring on more team members to capitalize in some of the business opportunities they have in front of them.

So they're moving to a uh from kind of um I'd say semi-remote work to uh everybody back in the office, which includes um several people coming and working full time uh in the Fargo market that aren't currently here, and then with this expansion, they'd be adding two people every year for the next uh five years.

So these are high paying jobs, 81,000 plus uh average salary.

Um the company is looking at other locations to expand in other marketplaces, and so um I with me today is Jamie Evanson, one of the founders of NIJAX, and I'll let her tell you more about the the project and their expansion.

Yeah, thank you guys.

Um so like Ryan mentioned, Jamie Evanson, founder CEO of NutJAXs software.

Um we're a staffing technology company, so we build staffing solutions, SaaS solutions that we offer to uh staffing agencies that are roughly 25 million to a billion plus.

Um we operate outside of the state of North Dakota and we operate in Canada as well.

Um so all of our revenue basically comes from out of state.

We don't have any customers in the state of North Dakota at this time, and not sure if we will, but mostly we're looking outs you know outside of the state.

Um, like you mentioned, we are looking at bringing everybody in-house.

We just find that we collaborate better and we make better products when everybody's together.

So people that live in Minneapolis market, we're having a move here so that we can continue to regard our team.

Um the idea is that we'll you know bring on two plus a year.

Right now, the way that it's working out is that um that goal is maybe a little light uh considering with where we're at right now, but at a minimum we'd like to see two people plus per year.

Any other questions?

Any questions?

I should note the academic development incentive committee recommended approval uh based on our scoring criteria.

It's 178.

We need at least one twenty to recommend approval.

So this is a very good score.

Mayor.

Mr.

Strand.

Thank you.

Uh it's great to have people moving to our city and community.

I'm just curious, Jim.

What type of um, what type of a look back clawback topics or uh inclusions do we have in not just this particular uh uh project but all of them going forward?

Is it will we measure the two per year and will we calculate it?

What how does that get?

Yeah, we're we're updating that uh Eric Johnson's been working on a new um business incentive agreement, which they would be required to sign.

There'd be annual reporting until they met their job goals through the that first five years.

If they didn't meet it, it would come back to you to give decide do you want to give more time or do you want to end the incentive um possible claw back?

I think it'll be a much better uh agreement than we've had in the past.

I thought we were on path to already implement those changes, those requirements that you don't just look back, but we actually have that in place up front, what the consequences are if there isn't a meeting of the established schools.

We have those in place.

What we're trying to build in is an actual annual reporting and sort of an automatic end that we don't have in place right now.

And the European last question is there is there a requirement to report?

Because we in the past we've had entities that don't even give us their reports.

You know this again, this would be a firmer requirement that they report.

Um I think in the past some of these fell through the cracks and we didn't get signed agreements, and the EDC has been doing a good job now and following up on all the current agreements.

Admittedly, we haven't been following up on them as regularly as we could.

I think I thought the assessors were doing it and they thought I was doing it.

So anyone president wishes to speak to this property tax exemption.

Any president wants to speak?

If not, I'll close the public hearing.

Do I have a motion?

Make a motion, sir.

Second.

Second.

Any further discussion, Commissioner Kolpak.

Yeah, thank you.

Um appreciating this is truly international the uh work that you're doing with both Canada and the United States.

Can you share a little bit about your experience working with both the city and the EDC throughout this process?

Um actually I didn't, I wasn't aware of the EDAC before this.

Um we moved into our place two and a half years ago about um, and I can't remember if it was you, Ryan, or if somebody else is.

I mean Joey.

Joey had reached out, and at first I honestly thought it was like a sales pitch for something, and I was like, I don't know if I want to do this, but then he assured us that it was you know gonna be in our best interest to see what we had what they had to offer.

Um so the process has been quite great.

Uh it's been wonderful because a lot of times when you start a company, you don't really know who to go to or the questions that you don't know to ask.

Um, and the EDIC process has been exceptional, um very easy to meet with, and of course they're downtown too, so it makes it really easy for us to get together if we need to.

Um so definitely it's been a good experience, and I would recommend it to anybody who's starting a business in Fargo.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Roll call vote, please.

Hi.

Call pack, aye.

Strand?

No.

Turnberg?

Hi.

Mahoney?

Hi.

So every year we are in front of you with an annual allocation for uh HUD for the city has uh chosen to participate in community development block grant funds and home grant funds.

And we are on year two of a five-year uh consolidated plan.

So every five years we have a big overarching goal setting process, and then we um follow those goals over the course of the next five years.

And so today in front of you, we have year two of five, and much like last year's presentation and updates, uh, I'll have that for you today here.

So just as a reminder, the two grant programs are uh the community development block grant funds, which are primarily used for uh public facility improvements, property acquisition, uh community programs, really construction related, and then the other program home investment partnership program that is primarily specific to providing more housing.

So the city has chosen to initiate a new program, tenant-based rental assistant program in partnership with Senca, our local action agency, and then for the community development block grant funds for a majority of those funds.

We have chosen to pivot for internal use for alley paving in our core neighborhoods.

And so I have a little bit more about those as well as we move forward.

So in the five-year plan, uh through public outreach, through our comprehensive plans and a core neighborhoods plans, our housing study, et cetera, we have formed formed these five goals related to affordable housing, ending and preventing homelessness, the public infrastructure, and then fair housing, which is a requirement.

And the actual dollar amounts this year.

Uh approach.

And so we were notified uh just about 60 days ago on what these funds are going to be are allocated for us, and we've chosen to uh fit those into the programs we already have going.

So that includes 202,000 for uh administration, 120 for public services, 550 for capital neighborhood, that's the alley paving project, and then for the housing related to the tenant-based uh rental assistance, and we always carry a little bit of coverage or contingency if uh a program needs to be adjusted.

We are part of a public hearing tonight.

Uh we have a mailing list that we notify people that have signed up.

It's also published in the paper and on the website.

We are on a 30-day public process right now.

Uh I will be back in front of you uh June 8th.

It'd probably be on consent agenda unless there's any concerns or comments that are received looking for uh approval of this action plan.

As part of this plan, we also are doing an amendment to the 2025, um, the first alley paving project uh that we are starting to queue up with engineering and through the environmental review process is in the Madison neighborhood, so focusing in on the Madison neighborhood related to alley paving projects, and we would be back in front of you as we get closer into those uh details and working with engineering.

And then we have a standard requirement uh through HUD with the citizen participation plan.

And this is pretty standard.

This is a lot of rudimentary updates where if we make edits to the citizen participation plan, we have to notice the public.

So it's a lot of government speak.

I apologize on that, but it's really just trying to simplify the process for when we do amendments and updates, which is um things about like notices in the paper, notices online, and the verbiage related to that.

We had a document based that had been previously advised by our regional director that was some 25 pages long and really probably only needs to be about five pages long, and so we've just made that shortened and it's all available online and to the public.

But basically, when any when anything there's an amendment, we come back in front of you as part of those amendments, and that's the nuts and bolts of it.

And then we have a public notice standard.

Um, I'm here to answer any questions.

I know I ran through that really quickly.

Glad to talk about any of the programs more directly as you might have questions.

Any questions, Nicole?

Thank you.

Um Nicole, when you say it's 1.3 plus million.

Is that increasing or decreasing the amount of allocation from the federal bids?

How is that looking overall?

It's a little bit uh I wish I had those numbers right in front of you, but it's about the same overall every year, it varies maybe by 50 to 100 grand every year, and it really depends on if other jurisdictions have fallen in or fallen out, so very much as a formula versus uh anything that's a congressional movement of any of any point.

Anyone president wishes to speak regards to this plan.

Mayor Mahoney and Commissioners for the record, my name is Dan Madler, and I serve as the CEO of Beyond Shelter.

And thank you for the opportunity to comment on the city's 2026 HUD Action Plan.

First, I would like to say I appreciate the work that goes into administering CDBG and home.

These are important federal resources, but they also come with significant compliance requirements and risk for city staff.

I also appreciate that tonight is a public hearing, and the final action is scheduled for June 8th.

Next, I would say I want to be direct.

Based on the meeting packet, the city expects to receive a little over $835,000 in CDBG, and a little over $508,000 in home funds.

As currently proposed and outlined, 550,000 of CDBG is allocated for public infrastructure, and 390,000 in home is allocated for tenant-based rental assistance, and only $70,000 is identified as a Choto set-aside placeholder with no project identified.

So respectfully, that is not a meaningful investment in housing production.

It is a plan weighted towards short-term assistance and infrastructure, while the city's most limited federal housing dollars are not being used to create long-term affordable housing assets, something that would serve the city long term.

To be clear, I am not saying the proposed rental assistance program lacks value.

It can absolutely serve as a purpose and as a bridge for households in crisis.

I am also not dismissing the need for neighborhood infrastructure improvements in the Madison Unicorn Park area.

These are real needs.

Housing development does.

Housing development creates long-term community assets that can serve Fargo residents for decades, and represents one of the highest long-term strategic investments that the city can make.

And with that, I would say the local demand is clear.

Beyond Shelter has developed 406 affordable senior housing units in Fargo.

And as of April of 2026 of this year, only three units are vacant.

That is a vacancy rate of less than one percent.

That is a signal of sustained demand and under-supply.

Also, as of December of 2025, those 406 units were serving 423 residents with an average resident age of 73.

Average household income was approximately $22,500 per year.

Those are extremely low-income tenants and seniors, and they need more options, not fewer.

One Fargo resident on Beyond Shelters wait list, Diana, she's age 76, described rent as maximizing my budget down to pennies, and said she is trying to keep a roof over my head, but it's getting more and more difficult.

Those are the voices this plan should answer.

I understand timeliness pressures and administrative constraints that come with these funds, but those challenges should not prevent the city from making strategic long-term investments in housing, a predictable housing funding pipeline and partnerships with experienced developers can allow the city to remain compliant while still producing meaningful housing outcomes.

And my request is straightforward before the June 8th vote, revise the action plan to set clear housing production goals, and dedicate a meaningful share of the CDBG and home funds to affordable housing development in Fargo.

Not just a placeholder, but through real projects that will deliver measurable housing outcomes.

Fargo needs more housing supply, and these federal funds are one of a few tools the city can use to create it.

And with that, I would like to thank you for your time and consideration.

Sir, anybody else wish to speak?

If not, I'll close the public hearing.

Nicole, do you want to comment anyway?

Through those comments.

Yes.

I think Dan and I have had uh lots of conversations about this.

I think the fact of the matter is these funds are increasingly impossible to use for the types of projects that beyond shelter builds these funds.

Um this direct allocation for 500,000 in a multi-million dollar construction project for a city staff of basically two people to administrate over 20 years is not a sustainable plan.

And so we've thought long and hard as we've pivoted the consolidated plan is uh what I'd like to uh to use as uh as a guide.

I'm glad to have an informational meeting and deeper dive on the difficulties.

The fact of the matter is we have several projects that are not in compliance with regulations to date, and it's really impossible with these regulations to kind of keep our non our subrecipients in align with the regulations, and that's what's making it really hard for these large multi-projects.

So the easiest people to find compliance with is internal when we can manage our internal audit and our internal financial systems.

So part of what you're saying is internal audits and what the government recommends or has, is made difficult because it takes a lot of time.

This is a nationwide issue.

I don't want to just point to beyond shelter.

It's a nationwide issue nationally.

All the local jurisdictions in North Dakota and the state have turned away CDBG funds uh from using in this regard, and then for home funds for using a new construction.

It's really impossible with section three and Davis Bacon laws.

Thank you.

Commissioner Strain?

Thank you.

Um Nicole, I'm just curious.

You know, a few years back, I think we were talking about creating a housing authority board that oversees all of these entities, the Cascad Committee Land Trust, Beyond Shelter for the Housing Authority, Habitat, and and so on.

Is that did that ever happen?

Um, honestly, uh it has not happened.

Uh I have a number of reasons why.

Um I think at the metro-wide level, we're having trouble with our joint jurisdictions in picking up the baton with the regional housing study.

What I'm wondering is if if it's possible to just convene those members and others in that housing just to have them know we heard them before the June 8th vote.

And maybe they might, I don't, I don't know, but I'm sure they all you all can learn from each other, and um, but this whole affordable housing topics just ripe.

Would that be possible to convene them for coffee or something?

I can try.

And I'd be happy to join you if I can.

It's public notice, they could come.

They're they're they're very aware of what it has.

I know.

I just want more uh thorough in informal conversations.

And I agree completely.

Uh we're in our dead tight deadline.

Otherwise we're at risk of these funds being allocated to Fargo.

Mr.

Commissioner Kolpak.

Yeah, I was gonna follow up on the I was gonna actually ask for an informational session, inviting those partners.

Absolutely.

Just share their frustrations, because they know it's not just municipalities that are struggling with some of these same challenges, and have just a real frank conversation with the public, you know.

Then and let's highlight what are the what where are the challenges and where are the associated opportunities for improvement and I know you've had several independent conversations with those same groups over the years and um let's just be really transparent about about it.

Thank you.

There's no action tonight, it's just information.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Number 29, plat of Lake Agassiz Edition, 417 and 501 Main Avenue.

Approval recommended by the planning commission 5526.

Donald Crest to explain.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Donald Cress with the Department of Planning and Development.

I'll be presenting the next two items.

These items include uh ordinances prepared by the city attorney's office.

Uh item 29 is the Lake Agacy edition, a plat.

A plat of a portion of the Northeast Quarter of Section 7, uh Township 134 or 139 North Range 48 West, located at 417 and 501 Main Avenue.

A little history here for you, Commissioners.

Uh, if this looks familiar to you, a plat of the same property, which was known as the LJ Laffine edition, was conditionally approved by your commission on May 3rd, 2021.

Subsequent to that conditional approval, the city's relationship with the development partner changed.

And that plat was never finalized.

It has now been withdrawn.

This is an entirely new plat that that original development partner is not involved in.

Uh it's a major subdivision because it dedicates right away along Main Avenue.

Uh these photos show the site here.

You're probably familiar with this.

There's a city parking lot there on the uh west side, and on the east side is Lake Agassiz Regional Development Corporation building.

Uh lower photo here.

This actually, we've been walking on it for a long time.

This will actually be dedicated as part of this plat as part of Main Avenue.

And there's a couple other views of the subject property here on the Lake Agassiz Regional Development Corporation side, and then looking along Fourth Street here.

The zoning is DMU, downtown mixed use and no changes proposed.

The city did receive one inquiry from a nearby property owner, just uh wondering what was going to be happening there.

And we responded to that for him.

The uh applicant is the city of Fargo.

So we're here tonight.

Uh myself and Mr.

Gilmore.

So if you have any questions for us.

The planning uh the plat looks like this.

Again, you won't really see any difference.

Just pretty much divides the property down on the Lake Agassiz and city side there.

The planning commission's recommendation is stated in your staff report and shown on the screen.

That concludes uh Steph's presentation, just to recognize we do appreciate the cooperation of the Lake Agassiz Development Regional Development Corporation in preparing this project.

Thank you, Commissioners.

It says existing and proposed, no change, no change, no change.

So what what is this action doing?

This is basically taking that property which is still um described as township and range property.

It's just a meets and bound subscription, it's never been formally platted.

So just formally platts these two properties.

Um not like the regional, like I see Regional Development Corporation gonna be there the same place they are, and then the city will have a platted lot to be able to, I believe our goal is to sell that in the near future.

Is that correct, Mr.

Gilmore?

We'll take that as a yes.

So one time we sold that lot, this allows us to sell it again in the future.

I don't know.

Did we I'll let Jim answer that question.

I was not part of that negotiation, sir.

I'll go back to the plaque.

This property is unplatted as you can see in uh Southwest Corner, Main Avenue kind of cuts across this legal description.

So when you sell this, we do not want to sell a portion of Main Avenue.

So this gives us a clean legal description.

So the property when you decide to sell it, it'll be lot one, and it won't be this long description that is difficult to understand.

So Jim, this is basically cleanup work or cleaning it up so we can have a legacy to clean it up, clean theirs up too so they decide to sell or refinance, it'll be much easier to do it.

Most property in Fargo is been platted.

This was owned by the railroad up until 20 years ago, and so it was never platted as a lot in blocks.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So anyone president wishes to speak to this uh action.

No one wanting to speak.

If not, I'll close the public hearing.

Do I have a motion?

I'll make the motion.

Sir, second.

Second.

Moved in second, Commissioner Strand.

Thank you.

I'm just curious, Donald or whoever could answer this.

What or legal?

What is the status of that property now?

We've it was sold, it went into litigation potentially.

Is that done or resolved or I defer to Mr.

McLean, sir?

That was resolved last August.

We we own the property.

It's completely done and resolved.

Correct.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

We'll call one of please.

Epicorn?

Hi.

Turnberg.

Aye.

Call Pack.

Aye.

Strand?

Yes.

Mahoney.

Aye.

Item 30.

Uh Lost Creek First Edition.

Removal recommended by Planning Commission 526, 5526.

Zoning change from AG, agricultural single dwelling residential, SR5, and multi-dwelling residential with conditional overlay and public institutional.

First reading of the rezoning ordinance and a plot of the Lost Creek first edition.

Nicole Crossfield and Donald Crest to explain.

Good evening.

Yeah, so just uh it's a little unique case, so I thought I would do a little intro on some how kind of how we got here, hand it over to Donald as he uh walks through the normal subdivision process and uh comments, and then um uh I'll come back as part of the recommendations, and then as we uh conclude the public hearing, then uh we would have a lot of staff here if you have questions and such.

So just to um bring us to a bit of how we got here.

Um today we have um uh the review elements related to the planning department staff, and as part of that, we look at the adherence to the growth plan, the future land use plan, and utility master plans and serviceability.

Um there's uh uh a lot of coordination with the finance departments, public works, public safety, the school district.

That's within your staff report.

And then today in front of you, we actually it's kind of confusing.

We have three motions for your consideration, and that would be including staff's recommendation, the planning commission uh decision, which is different than the staff's recommendation, and then a continuation of that so your desire.

So I'll be here to walk through those.

I'm gonna turn it over to Donald to proceed through.

We only have the one script between us.

Uh so going forward here, uh Lost Creek First Edition is a major subdivision and zone change.

The Lost Creek First Edition is located here.

Uh this is the city of Horace here.

The top line is 64th Avenue South.

And uh this the east line here is Veterans Boulevard, formerly known as 57th Street South.

And so we're just across the street from Horace here.

This is Lake Fargo uh up here.

Um this property is uh a little different history.

Uh this was actually annexed into the city some time ago in 2006, but no development was proposed at the time, no services were ever provided.

So this area is in the city, unlike, for example, when we did uh went across the interstate to do uh Selkirk Place, that we annexed it and then annexed platted zone, annexed platted zoned as we worked our way down.

This is already in the city, so we it's a little different uh background on this property here.

Uh these photos show the site from a few days ago.

It's uh basically an open field.

Uh 64th Avenue South is being graveled this year, but not paved.

This is Veterans Boulevard.

This is the drainage channel that is on the uh east side of the property that is part of the Lake Fargo system.

A little better shot of that drainage uh property, and this this drainage uh channel is included in the plat as uh lot 14 of block four, and then this is uh lower one here is facing southerly along Veterans Boulevard.

The uh the plat here is uh creates 193 lots, including 181 residential lots.

These larger ones are zoned MR3, multi-dwelling residential with a conditional overlay.

These three on the west side here are zoned SR5 for town homes, and uh the rest of these are zoned SR4 for single dwelling residential.

This lot over here, lot 14 is the uh the drainage channel lot.

Lot 13 down here is a going to be a public park.

That plot actually continues on another page here, uh bringing those uh the pan handle down here.

I don't know that they'll call it panhandle park, but um and a couple of these other lots here are uh that don't have designations, are uh future park and connectivity lots that uh staff still uh working out a couple details on.

The zoning here is agricultural, and the proposed zoning, as I just talked about, was uh was uh uh SR4, SR5, MR3, and then the publicly owned lots would be zoned PI, public and institutional, which are the appropriate zoning for lots owned by government entities.

And then here's that zoning exhibit.

Again, these are a little different colors than we use, but uh the multi-dwelling, the town home, and the single dwelling, and then the green are the publicly owned lots.

Uh this Lost Creek First Edition is part of a larger master plan for the entire west half of section nine of uh Township 139, 138 north range 49 west, uh which is a 320 acres, it's the entire west half.

And uh as you see, it stretches from uh 64th Avenue South to 76th Avenue South and South Side.

Um it's uh cross the street from Horace here.

As you know, uh as you saw in the photographs there, uh Veterans Boulevard is not yet developed, it's a uh minimum maintenance road.

Um I did my truck does have four-wheel drives, so I got out there okay.

And uh we are working the city of uh Horace and the City of Fargo are working on a memorandum of understanding for all Veterans Boulevard down to 100th Avenue South, that whole corridor, and that is uh that is in process for that MOU to become effective, as you commissioners probably know.

That has to be approved both by the Horace City Council and the City of Fargo, uh your commission here.

This property is located within the West Fargo School District, and at the Planning Commission hearing, as is uh summarizing your staff report.

Mr.

Mark Lamere of the Park of the West Fargo Public Schools came and addressed the West Fargo Public Schools situation for this.

And we've also had cooperation with the Fargo Park District and uh their investments and their uh their trail planning for this as well.

Uh our commissioners are our uh 2024 growth plan uses this grid system to prioritize development order prioritize orderly development in the city's undeveloped areas.

And uh this subject property is located.

This actually doesn't have the pan handle on it, but subject property is located in super grid A.

See the A back here, super grid A, in section four.

When you look at uh grid four in detail, grid four down here, in relation to the development and the other uh grids in that super grid A, you see that uh grid one here is about 50 percent developed.

Uh you know, here's the uh sports center, Fargo Park Sports Center, our landmark Walmart here.

Uh there's residential development.

There actually is a little multi-new multifamily development here, commercial development, uh, multifamily development here, uh, the new hospice.

Um, so that's about 50 percent developed just based on area developed.

Uh grid two, uh, other than Lake Fargo is undeveloped.

This actually is outside of the city.

This uh this east half of this section is outside the city.

Uh three is uh Capstone Academy and North Dakota State School College of Science is there now.

There is some pending development.

Uh Cubby Ranch Third Edition has been to the planning commission.

Uh recently back 40 edition, which would develop this over here, uh, was submitted for a future planning commission probably in July, but even uh if when those do come online, that'll be about 50% developed.

And then the subject property is located over here.

So as you see, there is a considerable distance from development here.

Uh this is 45th Street South, 64th Avenue South.

There is a distance from development there.

And uh so there is that undeveloped gap, which again is partly the way this was annexed, this was annexed before all the stuff from the interstate over was annexed.

So that creates a situation which we don't have very often in terms of uh of uh the this orderly development.

You know, usually we annex adjacent to the city and then platten zone at the same time.

Uh so that's the growth plan background on this.

At this time, commissioners, I'm going to turn it back to Nicole uh to uh take on the uh options for um the motions.

Thank you.

So one of the reasons uh we're here today with you in front of uh so this came to the planning commission, and you know, they were balancing between the need for housing.

We know we need housing.

We develop over 300 lots a year, and it's part of the economic development of growth of the of the region, and we know it's an really important part.

And what's unique to us is when we routed this plan, we started receiving review comments about the timing of this development.

And so it's not necessarily that this is the wrong development being proposed in this location.

It's more about the pace and timing.

And as we are receiving review comments from some of our peer agencies, including the school district, public works.

Um, we started having more meetings about the funding and the financial plans in relation to as we look out five, 10 years in the future.

And so it's about this investment costs, the immediate connection to the 27 budget, and normally we would have these policy discussions as part of a brown bag as part of an informational meeting, in lieu of coming to you in front of you with a denial recommendation.

And so staff's not here necessarily recommend denial that this is like a bad idea.

It's really about trying to create pause in how do we have these policy discussions while we have a live application.

With the live application through century code through um zoning ordinance, we have you know legal responsibilities to act within so many days.

And so that's why it's so important to have the public hearing today.

While there might need time for a continuation or a recommendation for um denial or accept uh can our approval with conditions, we can do that.

And so it's trying to balance those recommendations.

So I'll walk through those a little bit real quick.

Um if the city commission were to choose for recommendation uh to to support the planning commission to take their recommendation, we would ask for conditions related to uh working with engineering for review of the infrastructure design, the amenities plan, the um special assessment and funding allocation plan, the 2027 budget with the finance department, and most importantly the uh MOU with the City of Horace because we're along the western um edge with Veterans Boulevard and sharing those costs with the city of Horace.

Uh normally we would uh have time to work through these levels, but the developer is on a timeline and a deadline, and so that's why we're in front of you today as part of that.

But we know these are all steps that need to happen anyway.

So we just want to make sure that's clear and that the city commission is part of those processes as we move forward.

If you were to uh I think staff's recommendation is pretty straightforward.

Um really it's a timing thing and trying to fit in how we have those policy discussions within a review process, and then three the uh continuation.

Um, if the city commission were to choose and want to hear the discussion today, we could always uh continue the item for discussion in June 22nd or in July, depending on how you want to um tease this up for your body, or knowing obviously we're on the heels of an election process.

So uh with that we have um three different options.

I don't like bringing different options to you, and so um uh with that we would um be here for questions, or I would encourage, I'm sure the developer has elements or the public have elements that they want to discuss.

So it is a little complex, but I do think there's a couple things that I have to figure it out.

There's a budget question of adding staff to public works, but DOSBED Claire, some of the things he can or cannot do.

There are some ideas of where we're are leap progress, uh shortly prog, or what do we have to do for infrastructure?

There's a question on specials, which Mr.

Pepcourt has brought up and talked about before.

Do we do it different for this development?

It appears all the ducks aren't really in order quite yet for that.

But it might be better to have a continuous so we can talk about it.

But Mayor Pep Garner, you had a question?

So I just want to talk about the city's timeline as well.

And so the diversion is going to be done this fall, which we're all gonna celebrate that, but then it has to be certified.

And so once it's certified, that will impact flood insurance, but also it will impact the construction.

They will no longer have to use as much fill and things like that.

So and then the other timeline we have is the land development code, uh, which is also I believe that has to be completed before we do this.

So the developers have a timeline, but the city has a timeline as well.

And the other thing that's happening, if you look at that proposed development, do you know what there's not out there?

A tree.

And so if you have multiple blizzards and you have blowing snow, uh you're gonna have blocked roads, uh, like on 1984 19th Avenue North.

Uh we had deaths on 19th Avenue because of blowing snow, people were killed.

And so that could happen.

Because that what happens is the blizzards come, but then even if it's a snowy day and the wind blows, the roads get blocked.

And if the roads get blocked, then police and fire can't get there.

So to me, our priorities take priority over the developers' priorities.

And I I mean, obviously, we know it's gonna develop, and that's great, but we have to be prudent and cautious uh at this point.

Thank you, Mr.

Churr.

Any questions, Nicole?

I have to do a public hearing.

Any questions for the thank you, Nicole?

And uh, I'm just curious from the balcony view.

What are the pros and cons of us holding off just a few weeks to have a brown bag or informal discussion or to listen more to each other?

Are there are there immediate deadlines we just will miss or the developers will miss?

Um I'm sure the developer might have some opinion on that.

I think uh, in all fairness, the developer might say be seeing the continuation recommendation for the first time tonight, and so um probably just like you are.

And so um uh in terms of staff deadlines.

Our main concern is just having the public hearing, um, because we have a application a live application.

Yeah, Mr.

Kolpak.

Yeah, I if we could, Mr.

Chair, I would like to hear from the developers next, and then I have some comments after watching the planning commission meeting a couple times.

But there was a number of arguments that were brought forward.

I thought it was a thoughtful discussion, but it's your call, Mr.

Chair.

Well, now I'll open it for public hearing.

Do we have anybody who would like to speak on this?

Yeah, thank you, uh Donald and Nicole.

Uh mayor uh um commissioners, John Eunice with Eagle Reach Development.

Um taking a step back, we've been talking about this project for a number of months.

This isn't something that we've just rushed and and gotten in front of you without any real uh discourse with city staff and talking through some of the hurdles.

And I do appreciate the time that city staff spent on this, and they've been very upfront about their position from from the get-go.

Uh some of the things that the reason why we feel it's important for this to move forward now is that frankly, there is a single-family lot shortage in the city of Fargo.

At the time of planning commission, we we went had someone drive around and count it.

There was 125 single family vacant lots that were available for construction.

Since then, there's been about 25 starts.

So we're really sitting at about a hundred single family lots that are available.

City of Fargo's average 360 single family starts uh every single year.

It's gonna take time to build through the deficit that we currently have.

It's not gonna happen overnight.

This project is gonna take time.

We're just at step one of the uh of this entire development.

Getting the entitlements approved is is the first uh piece that happens.

Then we have to work with city staff on the design, then we have to go through the bidding and construction process, and then eventually it gets to the point where there's single family homes that public works is is then out there having to service the roads and those types of things.

That's we're talking two years away from these lots being able to be really delivered to where you can get single family homes.

That's two years where there really isn't any additional single family lot inventory that's gonna be brought on to the city of Fargo.

I mean, that's you think of the the financial impact that new construction has on uh the economy as a whole.

That's 300 less starts that are happening in the city of Fargo, which means less sales tax, it means less residence.

There's a cascading impact.

It's you know, everything down to the Amazon purchases they that go to these single-family homes when they're when they're built and people are living in there.

Um the next thing I want to talk about is that the investment that the city of Fargo's already made in this area.

Just like a month ago, you guys approved the 64th Avenue interchange.

Having pavement stop less than a mile from the on and off ramps and hitting a gravel road.

To me, the whole the reason the discussion came up between 64th and 76th was that was a lot of the connectivity issues.

We know 64th has to get paved.

It's paved to the west of us and it's paved to the east of us.

There's a stretch that needs to be paved in the middle that our development fronts on.

There's been almost $80 million of investment that the City of Fargo's made in this area between the new interchange that's going in, Lake Fargo, the extension of all the infrastructure down 45th and 64th Avenue.

There's a new fire station that's you know under two miles away from this property.

Then the other thing I want to talk about is the housing study.

It was brought up earlier.

You know, that housing study says that this that there needs to be somewhere around 7500 to 8,000 single-family homes built between now and 2032.

Without lots, available lots, it's impossible to get to those numbers.

And what impact is that gonna have on housing affordability for our region.

So with that, I'll I'll open up any any questions you guys have.

Here's HS, you get to speak to what you need to, unless there's a question.

Can you um let us know what the price ranges of these homes would be?

Are they starter homes mid-level high end, or what are we looking at?

Yeah, so these lots range in sizes.

So we we have some uh lots that are 50 feet wide and they go all the way up to 70 foot wide.

Uh I'm expecting home prices to be in the 350 to 650,000 price point, depending on the lots.

Um the smaller the lot, the less special assessments.

Generally, you can get a more affordable home on them.

Mr.

Callback.

Yeah, it was after, as I've said, watching the planning commission meeting and the and the I thought was a very thorough good debate between the commission members and the staff.

Um and it's in and for additional information on kind of impact of this kind of process, I would I would recommend others taking a look at that if you haven't seen it.

Um, and I was prepared to come in and support the recommendation of the planning commission, which did go against, which is very rare.

The staffing recommendations.

The other thing you didn't mention is the 250 million dollars of new value that this development brings to the city in taxable um revenues.

Um in addition to the 140 other homes you're gonna be adding in the next year in other development.

To your point, we still have a we still need about 360 homes a year just to keep up with pace, which housing is a workforce issue as well, which we know very well we have a shortage here.

Um I'm hesitating here now on on the on the recommendation.

By the way, this is a half mile away from the existing sewer infrastructure.

The other point that was made by staff, which I thought was really important to Ben Dow's point, was we're talking about the addition of two additional staff for snow removal and and that recommendation has been brought forward as part of budgeting process to staff and leadership over the last five or six years.

That with a growing city, we need the staffing to support that growth and making sure we can provide the services.

And so, you know, unfortunately, I'll say it this way.

I have complete confidence that the entire cabinet leadership team with the directors of every department can can in the next two years find a solution to add two more staff to public works to manage this growth for for general services.

Um, and when you add the investment already made to date, the need for housing.

To me, the planning commission recommendation to approve this really made a lot of sense.

So that that's my my comment, and I'm happy to make a motion here in a second.

My question is but is three continuing the application to provide more time to come back with some of these questions that remained open at that discussion before in a date certain time by the end of June for consideration.

Um an acceptable remedy for now that would work with the development and the work that's been done to date over these last several months.

I don't know if that's an appropriate question for the development and the staff.

I just want to put all the cards on the table there.

Well, I'll I'll jump in real quick, and um you did bring up a good point on the new value, and that was just for this one this one phase, the 250 million dollars.

This is phase one of a four-phase and ten year project.

In total, we're talking about over a billion dollars of additional property value in this area.

So it's not a this isn't an in inconsequential amount of construction that's gonna happen here.

It's gonna be focused growth for a long period of time.

Um in terms of the continuation, you know, we've had these same discussions with city staff.

Um a lot of the issues we we think that the the issues they bring up, well they may be valid, they're a little disconnected from what we're actually asking for right now.

We're all we're looking for is a plat approval and zoning.

Um we're not there's no infrastructure request in front of you.

Um eventually we'll get to that, but that's a step down the road.

Um, you know, I feel like there's plenty of time between now and then for for staff to keep working um and come up with their uh their needs for this this new growth area.

Is your company prepared if need be to pay for the specials of the project itself?

Not the not the roads, but the entire internal what's your housing?

Uh we'd have to have we'd have to have continued discussions with city staff on that.

That would have to be a discussion.

Yeah, I I would say that um changing from the norm is is would be uh I think there would be a lot of policy-related changes that the city would have to go through, and I don't think that those are something that would happen just from our discussion with with city staff.

Oh, just on the land development code, there's been some discussion of perhaps a developer said are we going a hundred percent is perhaps the developer takes twenty-five or forty percent and city takes sixty percent just in a way to keep our bonding down.

But that's uh to me, that's a discussion point.

That's something that would have to be discussed on the infrastructure costs.

Yeah, and I I think we can we can have those discussions.

Right now it's it's hypothetical, because we don't have a project that can actually move forward.

So uh when I talked to Mark Phelan, he said that you guys would be willing to do that.

So I think there has to be a discussion.

So Mr.

Pipcorn.

So Mr.

Chair, the developer said it's two years away.

And so we have time, and that's why I would support option number three to continue this to get more of this clarified all these things.

And then on top of that, I you might think that's not that big of a deal, but having a certified to be flood protected, that's a big deal.

That's that's the other thing is in two years the land development code hopefully will be completed by then.

And so all those things would would make it much more clear uh what's expected.

Then on top of that, hopefully we'll have reforms of the specials.

And so uh I do think that's another thing that will have a very big impact on everybody, the developers and the city.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Stran.

Thank you.

Um Wow, that's an amazing investment.

Those numbers are hard to comprehend sometime.

I guess as I'm seeing the discussion, it's boiling down to smart growth versus focused growth, and where's the middle?

No, and what would that what could that look like?

Nicole, maybe you might remember and I think I have a sense of it, but this reminds me of the Davies expansion discussion when they moved the high school way down beyond any development.

And people are going, that's never gonna fill up.

How long did that take?

Do you know to fill up?

It reminds me of that exactly, as well as the Osgood area.

And you know, so any time you're you know venturing into uncharted greenfield territory, um, what we've seen is you know, fills up within 10 years.

Um so the demand is there, you know, and um it's really about the financial implications and the carrying costs and um the services that go with that.

Our our number one concern, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'll just have to call it out, but in the planning commission um discussion that came out is with the three percent infrastructure um cap, you know, and so when we don't know where that funding source is coming from to support general fund operations, which includes public works, um that is part of our major questions.

And so you're really just for the planning for the city commission to understand in you know, I'm stepping out on my out of my lane here, but it's really tying your hands as a commissioner to the July uh to um the 2027 budget process.

And and there is time, as John mentioned, you know, whether it's the 27 budget, 28 budget, or 29 budget, but just to know that's a question that now gets funneled in.

And to John's point, um, everything about this application is unique and different than how we've been doing business for the last 30 years.

And so staff is it this is new territory for all of us, and so to have these deep discussions on how our systems are gonna have to change to accommodate the 3% is um is part of it.

Mr.

Stratener.

I am done.

Mr.

Sherry, Mr.

Turnberg.

What are the ramifications of delayeness?

Would you consider moving to a different city to develop there?

Would you move to Horace or West Fargo or Moorhead, and then Fargo would lose out on all of this development?

Yeah, the great question.

It it takes a lot of effort to get these developments moving on the front end, and um, you know, delaying ultimately a delay right now ends up delaying when that infrastructure gets designed and when it gets constructed.

Um it's gonna take time for city staff to work through these designs.

I mean, there's sewer that has to be brought from 45th Street over, there's about a half a mile of extra road, but it's there they're they're big projects that take some time to design.

Um we do have projects in the area, and uh you know I hesitate to say that we're gonna focus all of our efforts there.

I mean, we're Fargo developers, and and we you know we've we've made it our business to continue to provide uh housing options for people in this community, and we're gonna keep trying to do that.

Mr.

Pepgar.

So, Mr.

Chair, uh, what we all know is once the diversion is done, we know how of a finite boundary.

And we all know that's eventually gonna fill in.

So we're we should be in no rush, and we certainly shouldn't uh if they start threatening us uh act because of threats.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Stran.

John, I'm just uh curious with this development.

So you tell me again how many units of single how many single family housing units?

There's about 180 in this phase.

And in your in your modeling, are you anticipating uh a two-year tax exemption for new homes?

Uh we don't we didn't model any of that into our um into the budgeting on the home side.

Would that be on the homeowner side?

That would be on the homeowner side.

So we work to provide lots to the builders and then the builders sell to the homeowners who then apply for that.

Because I know there's discussions, people want that gone, those incentives, those exemptions, but thank you.

Just because it's a public hearing, John, I have to ask if anybody else wants to speak.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for allowing me the time to speak.

I'm Don Dabbert, uh president of Deborah Custom Homes and president of Lost Creek.

Uh in conjunction with Lost Creek, we're also developing Colby Ranch, which is a mile to the east.

Um so a lot of these have some parallel uh discussions points between that are very similar between all of them.

Uh some of the things that I guess John had commented on whether or not we can go somewhere or not, that's really kind of beside the point because we're Fargo, Fargo builders, Fargo developers, we want to be here, and obviously it's more of a need for housing in the metro.

Um I uh addressed the planning commission that I remember uh quite some years ago, Mr.

Gilmore and I would always look at the number of lots.

Uh we'd have a map, and there is usually a healthy inventory, was two to three years.

Uh we're probably two weeks to two months worth of inventory right now.

And we're definitely seeing that because there's a number of people that we are meeting with on a continuous basis that say we have to go, they have to go somewhere else because there is no there's just no lots available in Fargo, so they have to make the choice between a West Fargo or Horace or something else for that.

And um again with the school districts and everything that they want to be there, so we definitely want to have it there.

But um I think what's important is that whether it's too um delayed today by four weeks or even two months, it's a much bigger question that we have to solve and a problem that isn't gonna be solved in the next four weeks or even two months, because to some of the questions about specials and how will we uh maybe come up with a hybrid of some financing that we don't yet know, and what will that look like?

But that's all stuff that has to happen.

Uh I can tell you we're also developing stuff in in Horace, which is on the other side of fifty-seventh, which has been going on this proposed MOU for about five years.

So my my confidence that anything's gonna happen with the MOU any time soon.

I'm hopeful.

Hey, you know, there's there's always a chance.

So my point is that I think we have to have a catalyst.

And by at least accepting this to go forward to the next step, we're not ordering pipe, we're not putting anything in the ground yet.

It's it's still a very, very long process before we can actually begin construction and then actually uh start building homes out there.

But be able to have something in the pipeline to be able to show where we're at to have somebody to be able to plan accordingly for that, I think is what's so important.

A lot of good points brought up about the diversion and everything else when that will be certified, construction will be done, certification uh a number of years out yet.

But uh we're just looking to be good stewards of of not only just uh the resources of the city, but to be uh good good partners in the community.

And I think it does go a long way to help this get started.

Deer Creek, Davies, I mean uh Osgood.

I can tell you all of them.

I probably could go back and look at my testimony from all those, and it's probably gonna be very similar.

And they've all been successful developments.

So thank you.

Open any questions or comments.

Thank you, Don.

Anyone else wanting to speak?

Close the public hearing.

A couple things could be managed by the delay a meeting with the horse mayor next week.

We have a sewer project we've talked about for five years now, and that will decrease the cost of the infrastructure if we have a deal with horse to help pay for that project, which would help in the construction of the road.

There is a discussion on specials that we're taking up, which I don't know to delay till the new commission is seated or to have the discussion now, but whether developers take part of the cost of the specials has been part of the discussion.

The other issue that we got into is the budget, and I don't know if Mike can reveal in the budget if we're talking about uh two people in Ben's department and or a new grader, that's a considerable cost.

But Nicole hit it on the bucket.

Is that 3% cap has really made it very difficult for us in a sense to grow?

And the community's growing by 20% in 10 years.

We've had the biggest gross Midwest area or the growing cities.

The difficulty is we've never stopped construction before.

We've never slowed down in development.

Last year we had 200 new homes.

We normally run 400 to 500 homes a year.

Last year, 200 homes.

This year we'll be lucky if we even come close to that.

West Fargo has 50 lots.

We're down to 100.

I mean, we used to have 500, you know, lots available at any time.

You could drive around Fargo and figure out where you wanted to live, north side, east side, wherever we wanted to live, you'd find something that you could at least look at.

I don't think there's anything gained by rushing this if we at least have some discussions June by June, at least have an open meeting, which the commissioners can become aware.

But when I taught Tom Knockmost is where is it gonna put a CIP?

Because where is it gonna put the money that we do on a yearly basis?

Where are we gonna put our growth?

Is it gonna be on 64th of the concrete road or 64th of the paved road?

What are the things we're gonna put in there?

And I think the commissioners have to weigh in.

I don't think it's something that's lightly made.

Not wanting to slow down growth and development, it is time for a pause and have a discussion.

So I would favor the third option so the staff could have more discussions, and the developer can be in the room and have an honest answer to what they think they can afford as well.

So I'm looking for a motion.

I'll make the motion for option number three, Mr.

Chair.

Is there a second?

Yes.

Second, Nicole, what did you want?

Is it possible to select a date, June 22nd or July 20th?

Christian Pepcorn, Mr.

Chair, I'd recommend July 20th just because even if it just everything takes time, I guess.

Well, that's all right.

They've been talking about specials.

Well, and that's what I I do think you have to it's gonna take time to let everybody participate as well.

So I think the I would recommend the July 20th if that if that's acceptable to everybody else.

John, you'll be there.

I would prefer the 22nd, but of June because we're still sitting here.

Even though it may continue, but I I just want to know where this group's thinking is prior to it a transit passing of the baton leadership wise.

That's just my thoughts, Mr.

Chair, but uh Commissioner Strand, the other, but we have to include everybody, the builders, the developers, the public, the and that just takes time.

But if if we can get it done, I I totally get what you're saying there too.

Do you get what I'm saying?

You would go with the 22nd with the knowledge that it could continue and may well continue to the next commission.

I'm all for it for seconding that.

So 20th 22nd of June?

Yes, with the option to continue it if necessary.

Can you make that part of the motion, please?

Yeah, I think the motion is it's option three, which would with uh June 22nd with staff having discretion to move it to July, July 20th, if need be.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

With that, I'm sorry, Mr.

Chair.

With it being June 22nd, I'll support this, knowing there's a finite window here.

But I respect that this I was gonna vote number one, but I'll support it with that date.

Any other discussion?

Last thing I'll say, Mayor.

This is amazing, this type of uh of a scale of a development of housing.

I mean, I I just can't be in, you know, it's a it's it's bigger than a lot of cities in this date.

You know, 160 homes.

So uh, you know, and I just think it behooves us to to do everything we can with our staff and their expertise and their guidance to do everything we can to help this city uh grow smartly.

Mike, I see you at the table.

Do you want to say something?

I was just going to address the question uh mayor that you had posed just about the 27 budget process, and that is that we are just getting that underway.

But I just want to support our staff and note that that three percent property tax cap uh piece on revenue constriction is real.

It is something that we're gonna have to think about long term, and it is something that we just need to really be really thoughtful about how we grow, how we develop, and uh just want to support our planning department, support the public works department, and also the implementation, the proper implementation of our LDC to really make sure we're listening to that.

We're being thoughtful and comprehensive.

Uh so that's all I wanted to share.

But uh certainly with your motion tonight, I will look forward to the conversation with the commission.

We're we'll definitely support that over the next month and uh look forward to those uh follow-up visits on this topic.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, yep.

Yeah, just one more clarifying point, because the the just to clarify the growth plan is not meant to be linear by grid.

It's focusing on an entire grid and what's there and what can be what investment makes sense with that kind of discretion.

It's very important.

Stealing had smart intentional growth, but that that intention was never completely linear and black and white.

And so I thought that was an important discussion point as well.

But um that's I'll I'll stop talking though.

Any other discussions?

Good good discussion, thank you.

Roll call, please.

Epcorn?

Hi.

Strand.

Yes.

Colpak, aye.

Turnberg.

Hi.

Mahoney.

Aye.

Item 31.

Due diligent report for the top two finalists of the convention center project discussion on the next step, selection and approval, top ranking convention center project.

Ian McLean to explain.

Um so this is a follow-up to the brown bag discussion we had last Thursday.

So I'm gonna start with a timeline of things that have happened the last month.

But I think it's also important to note.

Obviously, we didn't start this on April 27th.

It started in November of 2024 with a vote from the citizens of Fargo to approve a lodging tax of three percent, which would be paid, which will go towards building a convention center.

Then there was a convention center committee, which I believe started meeting in February of 2025.

So that process went about 15 or 16 months, which brought us to the April 27th meeting.

Um and at that meeting, the city commission directed staff to begin the due diligence process of the top two uh scored proposals, which is I'll call them Bruhalla and downtown.

Uh week of April 27th, uh list of financial, legal, and risk uh allocation topics were identified by the city attorney's office.

We provided those to both of the proposal teams.

The next Monday, May 4th, uh Jim Gilmore, Eric Johnson, and I met with both of both of the proposal teams in person, went over those topics.

At that point, it was determined to be best the best path forward to prepare written due diligence questions so we get all the answers in writing so nothing was lost in translation.

Spent the week of May 4th preparing those questions, provided to uh the proposal teams on May 11th.

Uh May 18th, they were able to quickly turn around and provide us with detailed and thorough responses, which between the two of them uh totaled about 80 pages.

Uh we prepared a summary of the 80 pages, which brought it down to six, which obviously didn't fully um encompass all 80 pages.

Brown Bake meeting on uh May 21st, last Thursday, and then on Friday, May 22nd, uh Susan and I had a call with the city's financial advisor Baker Tilley, made them aware that this current city commission would be meeting tonight to determine whether they wanted to choose a proposal or do more due diligence, and also to highlight that this current city commission only has two more meetings, which is June 8th and June 22nd, that we thought the majority of the commission would probably want any due diligence report back prior to the June 22nd meeting.

Um and they did indicate that they would be able to provide, depending on if we wanted even do more due diligence, that report prior to the June 22nd meeting.

So when I think of due diligence, I I put them as this and these are my own words.

I sort of put these into two buckets.

One is transactional due diligence, which is really can the parties fulfill the promises they are making.

So this is due diligence we do on any project.

I would use block nine as an example.

So whether we're dealing with one proposal or two, these are the questions we will ask, whether it's before we make a selection or after we make a selection.

These questions will be asked.

Um it's getting to, you know, for instance, Bruhalla is going to guarantee some of the operating losses.

What are those written guarantees look like and are they sufficient so the city would be satisfied?

So those are things that we would use Baker Tilly or some financial advisor to look at.

So transactional due diligence is going to happen regardless of whether the city commission makes a decision tonight or not.

The second batch is what I would call selection due diligence.

This would uh determine which proposal presents the lower long-term financial risk and greater likelihood of successful um delivery.

So this is by its definition, this would be due diligence you would do prior to making a selection.

Um, for instance, the first question might uh might be the primary one.

Identify which proposal presents the lower long-term financial risk to the city and explain why.

So that's something we could ask our financial advisor Baker Tilley to do.

I would guess they're not going to give you a yes or no.

What they're gonna do is probably score it on a scale of one to 100.

Maybe one project A is 85, project B is 80.

And they'll explain why, and they probably have different um scoring mechanisms to get to that number.

Um, as I indicated previously, Baker Tilly has told us they can get us that prior to the June 22nd meeting, which means prior to June 18th, which is the agenda deadline.

Uh before we get to the potential motions, I also want to talk about what actions actually happen after the after the city commission actually makes its selection because I think there's maybe the misconception that we pick somebody winter and developer agreement and construction starts the next day, and it's not quite that simple.

So, first thing we'd do is we'd enter into a development um agreement with the chosen proposal.

There'd be contingencies within that.

Before we can actually start collecting the tax, we actually have to amend our our ordinance, which would take two city commission meetings to talk about when are we actually going to start collecting when's the 25 years end.

So that'd be the next step.

Um depending on the proposal, Bruhalla, we'd have to create a TIFF district if the city commission so chose.

Um with downtown, we'd have to do it already is a TIFF district called the Riverfront.

We'd have to talk about how we would utilize that.

The hotel and the downtown proposal also would have a renaissance so on's incentive they're looking for.

I don't have it up here.

But as a community, I think we're all really hoping you make a decision swiftly.

Coming up, um, I think it's the way in on the future of this and a lot of these decisions, but before you right now is the work that you've put time into.

And so for the sake of everybody in the room that's you know on pins and needles on this decision, including our community and and people signing leases and decisions and everything else.

Um we we urge you to take this information and act as swiftly as possible.

Thank you for your time.

Appreciate all the work that's gone into this.

All right, Johnson.

Mayor, commissioners, thank you.

I sort of feel like I'm a voice crying in the wilderness here since uh I was the chair of the committee.

My name is Charlie Johnson.

I was the chair of the uh committee, and uh I'm here to echo part of what uh Rocky said, but maybe take issue with a little bit of what he said.

I mean, uh we're we weren't the planning commission, but we certainly did look at all of those things that you talked about, and I think those were all part of the uh all the commissioners know that all of the things that we looked at included everything around it, how it fits into the to the space around it.

But I'm not here to advocate for either one of these proposals personally.

I'm here to say to remind you that we spent nearly 16 months working on this project, and continued delays concern me.

So in that area, I kind of agree with Rocky.

Um you're going to do what you're going to do, and I see Ian has good options up there for you.

Uh I know you still have some time as the city commission of record, but I kind of really wish you'd finish the job.

We all started in good faith after the November 24 election.

The people of Fargo voted for this, and uh you approved the process, and you all participated in the process, and I think the process was pretty thorough in all that we did.

And I and as Rocky uh or as Ian pointed out, uh all of the developers involved in this, beginning with the nine down to the four, and now to the last two have jumped through every hoop.

I think we've asked them to jump through, and I know they will continue to do that until you make up your mind.

But I think the process uh deserves an ending, and I really think that this city commission is the group that should do it.

I I really worry about the possibility of kicking this to a new city commission that could have 60 percent turnover for those of you.

I mean, we love you all.

You know, you've done great job, and we thank you for your service.

You've done a really good job, and all I'm asking is that you don't let this slide to the next commission where you'll give three people who haven't done the work.

Maybe they've paid attention, maybe they haven't, but you're the ones who have paid attention to this, and I really hope you can get this done and make a selection so we can move this project forward.

Thank you.

Charlie?

Yeah.

Ready for discussion with commissioners?

Yeah.

Any questions of the end?

Can I just bring uh one thing that concerned me and the on the responses to due diligence?

Uh number 12 was the the former police headquarters property.

And if you could pull it up, I'd appreciate it.

But basically Brew Hall out was not included in that, but uh with with the with the proposal, what what they want to offer is five hundred thousand dollars for that property.

That's the engagement center now.

And right now the assessed value is two point three million dollars.

And so uh, and if we RFP'd it, uh I would and the reason it caught my eye is because I'm a property owner of a nearby property, and I was like, they want to buy it for $500,000.

That that's uh that's not good.

And so I d I just want to request that if that does happen that that goes to an RFP.

And and what will happen then is it will go from $500,000, the RFP will probably be three million.

So we'll make 2.5 million more.

And so I think that would be a wise move.

That's kind of our responsibility is to maximize assets, and I do think the RFP process uh on a lot of these properties that we're talking about needs to be included.

So I just I it's it's a specific example.

I wish you could pull it up on the screen so you can see it, but uh, I'm sorry, I can't.

I don't have it for me, but I think no no and I'm I'm just saying, but but I hope people can see it.

But that's what they they have proposed, uh $500,000 for an assessed value of $2.3 million.

And so that's I just wanted people to be aware of that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Kolpak.

Yeah, um, first of all, thank you for the comments tonight and for all the community input.

Number one, I absolutely agree that this is this commission's decision to make before the election.

100 percent.

We've been doing this work for 18 months.

We are the ones who've been involved.

I think we own this decision, and so um my recommendation absolutely starts with that.

Uh I would support the third Baker Tilly.

Here's why I've said from the beginning, an apples to apples side by side financial impact for this very, very big decision has to be thoughtful and thorough.

And right now I support, I sincerely do support both for uh for different reasons.

I still haven't seen the side-by-side financial, and part of that is because we didn't begin with the same inputs for both to get to the same outputs for both, and how we look at that.

And so with the date certain of June 22nd, I would make the motion and move the city staff to continue the due diligence with both finalists with Baker Tilly and outside firm for that analysis.

Mr.

Chair, I'll second that.

Discussion.

So Mr.

Chair, just one more thing.

That list that you have of all the things that are going to be reviewed, that's excellent.

So thank you very much.

I think that's that's going to answer a lot of our questions that all of us have.

So thank you very much for doing that.

And in fast fashion, so I'm very impressed.

But I think that will answer a lot of questions for both projects.

So thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you for the speakers.

It's probably one of the more important decisions this commission is going to make.

If we do it the 22nd, it will be one of the last decisions we make.

But the critical part of this project is no different than the Fargo Dome, no different than the Civic Center.

Will it pay for itself or we cover the losses or how we handle the losses?

And as we sit, the Fargo Dome's done well with its escrow count and ability to use that escrow count and has done well most of the time.

But we do know a conventional center will need some support and some help.

Each proposal has great thoughts, great ideas and why theirs is better or worse.

But what the commission really has to do is make a decision what makes best financial study for the city, the sense for the city.

And I think the Baker Tilly is a final chapter we need.

We've asked for that.

I think as we sat on the committee, we asked for that.

So Commissioner Strand, that was one part, one puzzle we didn't quite have is side by side, which one is the one that puts us at least risk as a commit as a city.

And with the three percent cap, it really makes every decision we make more critical.

So I would support this motion, and I I think we need to just push Baker Tilly to make sure, Ian, we have all the questions that the commissioners would have so we don't say let's look at something else.

So just would offer that and any commissioner has any questions they want.

Do the question that Pepcorn asks, is the price going to be 500,000, or is that the developer and the hotel developer has to decide?

You know, how how do we do that?

So city is also going to always look if we sell property best value that we get for it.

So I think that's a question that should be asked as well.

So any other discussion, Mr.

Stratton.

I offer an amendment.

I would uh my amendment would be I move to direct the city staff to continue the due diligence process and to have Baker Tilley perform an independent financial evaluation of the downtown location.

And then continuing and reporting back June 22nd.

So I would narrow it down to the downtown location in my amendment.

Is there a second?

Second.

Further discussion.

Roll call vote on the amendment.

Strand?

Yes.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Cole pack?

No.

Pepcorn?

No.

Mahoney?

No.

Vote on the primary motion.

Roll call vote.

Cole Pack?

Aye.

Pepcorn?

Aye.

Strand?

Yes.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Mahoney?

Aye.

Item 32.

Recommendation to law city staff and city attorney office to engage the conversation with North Dakota State University, Fargo More Hard Baseball, and other related parties, future operations, the Newman Opdour field.

Uh when Rick Berg was president, Mike and I had some conversations about this, and I think it's something we wanted to bring forward to the commission.

Would like your input.

Commissioner Pipburn had worked a long time with the Red Hawks as well, trying to figure something out.

And so we just wanted to move this forward.

The staff at NDSU has some concerns about the site, and we thought we could move it forward.

Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners.

I'll just be very brief in my comments.

And what we're really looking to talk about in the future is all the deferred maintenance and activities that really need to be done at the facility.

It is now 30 years old.

It's hard to believe, but it's already been 30 years.

And so as we look to the future, and just uh also want to lift up and and just note the the real efforts that our facilities management team, the NDSU team, as well as Commissioner Pepcorn, have all had great conversations in the past, but it's really important that we renew those conversations, I think, in 2026 and really be focused on the future, which is about a new operating model, talk about a capital improvement plan, talk about ADA improvements and the other maintenance activities that have really been deferred for too long at the facility, so that we're making sure that we're putting this uh facility in the best position possible for success success in the future and making sure that it's going to meet the needs of the public that uh utilize the facility as well as the city of Fargo and North Dakota State.

So the suggested motion there in the packet is to uh really authorize staff that includes the city attorney's office as well as city staff to explore uh all necessary uh facility related conversations with NDSU, and that likely that will include Fargo Morehead baseball incorporated as well.

Uh, also we'll make sure to include Commissioner Pepcorn as the liaison commissioner to the facilities management department.

And uh this would be a a conversation, likely over the summer, uh, not only with the existing uh leadership team at NDSU, but as well as the new president eventually.

Today was his very first day, and so we'll uh come back, provide those periodic updates to the city commission, but just look forward to uh a conversation with North Dakota State as well as the FM Red Hawks as uh as we move this forward.

So I'll just leave it at that.

Have to answer any questions and uh thank you for the time to receive this.

Any questions, Mike?

Well, motion, I'll make the motion, sir, second.

Oh, second.

Further discussion.

We'll call vote.

Epcorn, call pack, aye strand.

Yes, Turnberg.

Hi, Mahoney.

Aye.

Thank you.

Item 33.

Recommendation to all city staff, city attorney's office to engage a conversation with Fargo Morehead Science Museum on the potential use of MetAmerica Steel site at 92nd and 106 NP Avenue North.

Commissioner Strand to explain.

Well, thank you, Mayor.

And I I'm guessing most of the people know that one of one of the many uh ideas being broached in the community is to create a science museum.

And this has been going on as I understand it for several years.

Um many years ago, I approached some of those folks in their leadership and board members, and I think at least two or three times walked them through the civic center saying, hey, is there any way you can put this here?

You know, and it doesn't quite fit their vision and needs, but it's an ongoing process.

And the long long story short, the after after uh ongoing communications I'm sure with many parties on both sides of the river with many entities with many locations, and this doesn't mean that it's anything's final, but we've been asked formally by the science museum leadership to see if we're open to having a discussion about what could it look like.

What might be the opportunities, what might be the possibilities.

There their hopes are that we will focus in on the Mid-America Steel site, which would be an iconic location.

But this is just simply a door opener to begin that exploration as the entities go forward and see if there's any viability or feasibility or affordability or whatever the terms could conceivably be if they were to continue down this path with us and us with them to to make that a uh uh uh an element of our downtown.

Commissioner Pepcorn.

So, Mr.

Chair, first of all, I totally support having the Science Center downtown, but I will strongly strongly object to the Mid-America Steel site.

And first of all, we have to RFP that as well, John.

Uh, because uh to me, what we were just talking about with those developments is the diversion has to be completed first, then it has to be certified, and then if you don't mind, I'm gonna ask Ryan Ash, I'm I'm gonna put you on the spot.

Will you come up and talk?

What I'd like to do with the Mid-America Steel site is the EDC now has it where you can certify a site, and so some of them are big commercial sites, but what I would love to have them do is have the have it be a certified site of the EDC and find out what it can be.

We don't know what can go.

I believe something uh totally unbelievable can go there.

Uh the science center, I think that can fit lots of places.

So would you talk a little bit about that, Ryan?

The certified sites.

Would that be a potential and would we have to pay you to do that?

Uh so well, right?

I could talk a little bit about the certified sites.

Ryan with the greater Fargo Mar EDC, by the way.

Um so we have uh for a number of years invested in building out a uh a certified site program called Document ready Sites, and so really where it starts is willing landowner that wants to enroll uh a site into this program and really collect data on the site.

So where all the utilities are, um, geotechnical studies, environmental phase one, phase two, wetland delineation, obviously floodplain and flood zones are are really important to it, and for the purpose of attracting investment from either uh national and international projects, usually industrial in nature, but could be commercial or it could be some other projects, and so this is really uh kind of a speed to market tool and and an ability to reach a market that we might not otherwise in terms of of uh site selectors or developers that are looking investing in in a marketplace.

So I mean we really usually start with a couple of things.

One, do we have a willing landowner?

And two, are they willing to put a price on on a site?

Um there's some things that make sites more or less attractive, um, access to infrastructure to interstates to rail other things, and so um I don't want to say we're not choosy because I think we are choosy, but you really that would be where the where the conversation would start is willing landowner enterprise.

But Ryan, you haven't necessarily had anybody that's shopping at that site.

We've had this sitting now for four or five years.

We have some environmental issues.

EPA is gonna kind of help us out with that as well, so it will take some steps before it'd be ready for commercial use.

Yeah, I I mean I I think there's a lot of upfront cost just to even understand the viability of a project.

Now, if someone came along and did all of that pre-work, it makes that site I would say more marketable, and you could go out to and I always think about it.

If we've got if we're competing with 10 other places, and all things being equal, there's a blank spot on one of our sites because we don't understand all of the maybe the potential um you know uh ground uh impacts, the environmental impacts, then we're gonna be taken off that list because there is a question marker or maybe uh uh uncertainty about that that location.

We have one speaker, Rocky Schneider.

Wearing a couple hats tonight, huh, Rocky?

You know, we could have picked a better day to all be here when it's not 90 outside, right?

But this is uh another exciting project, and I want to make a couple points on this.

I had the joy of being involved with the diversion project working on flood protecting this and also acquiring this site.

I also had the joy of working with uh Chris, previous speaker on the housing authority project at the Lashwitz High Rise, getting an EPA brownfield grant.

Um, I I appreciate Commissioner Popcorn's comments because I think they're all right on, except for the fact that this site's different because it's not a desirable site right now.

It won't be until you go through the effort to find federal funding to clean it up.

Um, it's not a feasible site, as the mayor said, it's been years and no one's expressed interest in it.

And in order to get a brownfield grant, as a as I know I've been through this process with the city previously, you need to have an end result in mind, and it helps get through that process and makes you more competitive.

And so I I just encourage the city to go quickly down that brownfield grant route, especially while Senator Hovind is motivated by it.

You saw him ask a question at uh EPA hearing last week or two weeks ago on it, but that that's with an end goal in mind.

And so the city needs to figure out an end goal more than it needs to RFP, and so I if if it's not a science museum, it it does need to have an end goal, and I think right now it hasn't necessarily been a huge priority for the city to find that end goal, and this is one that happened to come to the city.

And so I I think the the motion isn't to give away land or anything like that, it's it's to start working down toward that process so that there's an end goal in mind is what's what you need to get EPA funding.

And without EPA funding, the city does not have the funding to clean up this site to get it back to uh a marketable property, and so I think that's just the consideration.

If you were going to seek federal funding, you need to have that end goal in mind.

Um, I did get up here to say that it is very much congruent with the downtown and focus plan, which you may have heard about, but uh you know, spent years develop, you know, developing that so that we could look at these properties and have end goals in mind.

And I believe the city's also done some public and um input in on this as well.

And I think people want uh a public use of some sort or a community use versus uh an industrial site as as Ryan mentioned is one possibility there.

I think when that was bought out, the whole purpose was to try to figure out how it could be a community-based property.

It is I have the picture up in my office of like 1870 Fargo, and this is where our community started, is right on that property.

It's cool to think of all the ideas that could come in to then science museum fits that and narrative in my opinion.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other public discussion?

We have a motion.

Uh I I will advance the motion and then I'll call on the science folks if they could tell us about their project.

Okay.

Is there a second?

The motion is I move to authorize city staff and the city attorney's off attorney's office to initiate and engage in discussions with the FM Science Museum on the potential sighting of the Science Museum on the Mid-America Steel site at 92 and 106 NP Avenue North.

I second that motion.

Absolutely.

Is everybody's okay with it?

Mayor Commissioners, appreciate your time.

I'm Reed Matson, board chair.

What I want to encourage you to do is just think about this as a discussion.

This is a starting point.

We're not here to ask for anything right now.

And one more thing I will just challenge you on is to when we think about the value of this site.

I want to just expand a little bit about what is value.

You know, value can be the dollar amount that we can get on a sale of it, but it can be so many more things.

It could be about a potential asset to the community that draws people into downtown, that drives them here for tourism that impacts the quality of life for the residents here as well.

So something just to keep in mind as we think about what this could potentially be and where we could potentially go.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Jesse, maybe just to speak a little bit about the museum.

Thank you.

Um I just would like a few minutes just to sort of introduce you to the scale of the project.

Um, it's um we're calling it a science museum, not a science center, and we're anticipating a quarter million people for the first two years and stabilizing in year three at probably 200,000.

Um it's about 60,000 square foot, um, 23,000 square feet of exhibit space.

Um, but I think what I really want to say is that it's a community project.

We have so many voices and so many lenses in this.

We met with scientists and we asked them about what content should be in here.

We asked the STEM companies what technical skills gaps and workforce needs were.

We asked teachers what standards they're struggling to fulfill, and we asked children and teens and adults and everyone what you know what they're proud of in the region and what we should build.

And we've had museum planning professionals help us find the right size.

We're the largest city center in the region.

Um, I feel like I could I know we're kind of tight on time, but I would love an opportunity to show you the scale of the project and what we're building, because we really are imagining a destination science museum on par with any major city, and we deserve this, and we have tremendous support, and we have so much to be proud of.

So much innovation, so many things that put us on the global map, and we need a place to illuminate that.

We need a place for families to go indoors in the winter.

Um, we need the 70% of North Dakota tourists to want to stay overnight, and they're asking for attractions like this.

So I'll I'll stop there, but I just I would love an opportunity to show you what we're building.

Well, make appointments with the commissioner so they can see your presentation.

It's a nice presentation.

Any other discussion?

Mr.

Colpe.

Mr.

Chair, so I certainly support the this entire idea of of a science museum in our metro.

Um, I just this is a confusing motion for me because it's I don't want to limit those conversations to what other possibilities are out there.

If this is just a beginning conversation with the city and it becomes what it becomes with no expectation or limitation, fine, right?

I mean, I totally support that.

I just it just seems Mr.

Stern.

We have an empty slate ahead of us, and Commissioner Pepcorn, your conversation, that's exactly the type of things we need to vet.

Are there other requirements or guidelines or or guardrails that would and they need to be present in this whole conversation going forward uh if there's any partnership that would uh unfold?

Are there RFPs required?

Are there is there values and purchase?

I don't know.

I just think that it's it's it's up to us to decide if we would like to open the door and see where it could conceivably go.

Now, I'll say one last thing, and um I'm not a a dinosaur expert guy, okay?

And maybe Jesse can help me understand.

But if I understand, and if I if I remember correctly, the biggest dinosaur maybe found in North America or something like that is Bob from Western North Dakota.

And and then I believe this artifact was sold to some billionaire in Dubai, and then it has come back out into the public.

Wouldn't it be in my mind?

Wouldn't it be great if Bob was in his home state at some pla at some point in time that the music this dinosaur is am I correct on that, Jesse?

Tell me about Bob just in a quick second.

Oh my goodness.

Okay, you're correct in parts.

Uh one of the most complete uh triceratops found, and it went uh for auction uh to the residents of North Dakota first for 1.2 million, and there was nowhere to put it.

Uh, the heritage center already had triceratops, so it went to market, it sold.

I can't remember in the teens of millions, and it was going to be a waiting room spectacle in a like a dentist's office, I think.

And then something went wrong.

It's in a good place and it's traveling into in children's museums right now.

So at the moment it landed in a good place, but yeah, it'd be good to get home.

Roll call vote, please.

Strand.

Yes.

Turnberg.

Hi.

Colpak.

Hi.

Pepcorn.

Mahoney.

Hi.

Ladies on reports, Mr.

Stran.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I should have written the details down, but in a nutshell, the recovery resource centers grand ribbon cutting is the 28th at 2 p.m., and and this has been a long time coming, the transition of this public health service from downtown in the former police station over to the to the location over on uh across from Bahalla in that vicinity near the police station.

So I believe Jen am I right is at two o'clock on on Thursday, and it's a public event, and give you a chance to tour the facility, see what it looks like, and uh see it at the first day it's open.

Mr.

Kolpak, yeah, I have four slides today, two of them related to solid waste.

Um, so let's start there.

We just finished up with spring cleanup week.

Um, and thank you to everyone who participated and worked and and contributed to uh the crews for another successful cleanup week.

We hauled 1,200 loads of unwanted items from our neighborhoods and 1.572 tons of debris.

I also want to share my appreciation to all residents for helping keep our community clean, and anyone who missed cleanup, we can still dispose of large items year-round at the residential transfer station located at the landfill.

And then as part of that, I did a ride along.

Next slide, please.

Um, had the opportunity to ride along and and actually participate in spring cleanup week.

That's me on the right, and then there I am with Truck Norris.

We saw that great video um at the beginning of the meeting.

So I know the staff is really excited, and that definitely is their favorite name.

Third slide.

The fire department, we had an opportunity to participate in a pinning and in a graduation.

Um so the paintings was last Friday for six newly promoted captains.

It was the first kind of a painting ceremony experience that we tried, and I thought it went very well.

And then following that was the graduation for nine recruits who completed the Metro Fire Academy, which was a reminder, a collaboration of Fargo, West Fargo, and Moorhead.

And even though this year there weren't West Fargo um graduates in this class, they were still here and helping us celebrate and elevate um all of the work of the academy.

Um five of the recruits, as I said, joined the Fargo Fire Department and four are with Moorhead, and we wish everyone the best, including the new promotees.

And the last slide this morning, we had a very touching ceremony, an academy graduation, for seven recruits who completed the Fargo Police Academy Academy, but also very poignantly, as those news new officers were sworn in.

Our new chief of police, Travis Stefanovitz was also sworn in along with the class.

Um and there was a really touching video.

If you have time, go take a look at Stefanowitz, Chief Stefanowitz's career and beginnings and some of the comments he made in his own experience getting through the academy and the training.

Um his family was here.

Um he had a lot of supporters here, and he was just a really touching ceremony.

So congratulations, Chief, and congratulations to all of our new officers.

Those are my updates.

Well, I didn't have any slides.

I was just gonna have the chief stand up and give him a round of applause because he was sworn in today.

What was fun about your videos?

We saw you when he started as a police officer, and it was fun to see you at that time of your life with a little more hair and a little bit uh different uh John uh your face your features.

But it was uh we had a lot of recruits from all over the country, all over people are coming from all over with all sorts of backgrounds, and it was really fun when we swore in the young officers is just what type of candidates we are attracting in this community.

And Chief, you changed it up a little bit today when you gave your statement as you took in the new role you have, and humility came out of that and humility and wanting to serve our community.

And I think you gave a different message to the core uh group of officers of what your expectation is what can we do better for the community, and I think that'll resonate around the community, and I appreciate that.

Mr.

Turnberg, no update, Mr.

Pepcorn.

We have three speakers.

The Dylan Hansen is first.

And the rules, Dylan, are up on the guidelines up there that you can see.

All right, you need me to state my name.

State your name.

Yep.

Uh Dylan Hanson uh put in a request to speak about the um animals disturbing the peace ordinance.

Um the way the ordinance is written and does not allow the police to accept like video footage proving that this is occurring.

Um, and that's a non-emergency call to get the um police out there to look at this.

Um this was just last Thursday, and at the advice of the officer, he told me to bring this to your guys' attention.

It's was 44 minutes from the time I called to the time they arrived on scene, which it's a non-emergency, obviously, it's gonna take longer.

The dog has then since quit being a nuisance, so there's essentially nothing they can do with the way the ordinance is written.

Um I guess I'm asking for you guys to relook at that ordinance and see if you can provide a different route about it.

Um that's all I got for that.

So Ian can look into that.

If you have a contact information, we can get back to that, don't you?

Okay.

Scott Brecke.

Yes, uh Scott Bricky, resident of Fargo.

I just have a couple comments about special assessments.

Uh recently I was going through my own property and I was looking at my specials.

I have eight specials, and I'm paying about a thousand dollars in interest uh annually.

I went ahead and called in and paid off two of those to reduce my my specials, but then a couple days later I was listening to the um meeting with uh about the uh convention center, excuse me.

Uh and I heard the same proposal about the 500,000 for two two two two four street, the old police station valued at uh 500,000.

So I quickly went online and looked to see what it was valued at, which was at 2.3 million.

But the one thing I noticed it had 25,000 in specials.

So I thought that was odd that the owner of the building is the city of Fargo, but it's also has uh specials at an interest rate.

So then I typed in the address of the Civic center.

The Civic Center has 467,000 in specials and pays over 20,000 a year in interest.

Then I typed in this address, which has two parcels that totals about 1.5 million in specials and 80,000 in interest.

So I guess my I know this is not a QA, but I my question, I did not know that the city of Fargo also either pays half of their own infrastructure and then takes a loan out for their other half at an interest rate.

I don't know also on the budget line for the Civic Center, not to just pull at the Civic Center, but Civic Center has a budget of 229,000, but $63,000 a year is getting paid on specials.

Is $63,000 of that budget going on there?

Or where is that $63,000 coming from?

So I guess as far as you know, we use the word a lot about transparency, I'm just going through and looking at how I can see to kind of do the math and see where it all works up.

So sorry for being nervous.

I'm 97 degrees outside and I'm fat.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Meetings adjourned.