Um nothing else is changing, just the owners only.

There are no issues with the background check.

The one owner and managers listed, and they have locally 30 years of experience.

There are no issues with the background check, so I'm looking for a motion to approve this license transfer.

Anyone president wish to speak to this transfer?

Is anyone present wishing to speak?

If not, no public speakers, I close the public hearing.

Do I have a motion?

Make the motion.

Sir, second.

Second.

Roll call vote, please.

Pepcorn?

Turnbird?

Aye.

Call pack.

Aye.

Strand.

Yes.

Mahoney.

Aye.

Public hearing.

Uh hearing a dangerous building located at 111-113 32nd Avenue North.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners.

We're here about an up and down duplex at 111 and 113 32nd Avenue North.

Um this is an eleven hundred and fifty-two square foot by our wood-framed bi-level duplex structure owned by Bobby Stephenson.

It was constructed in 1976, and the taxes are current on this structure.

Um the deficiencies with this one is there's no water service or electrical service at this point.

There's a siding missing from the outside.

Junk is all over the was all over the property.

Um it's currently in foreclosure, and it appears to meet about five of the dangerous building criteria.

Um, here's a list of the timeline for events that have happened on this.

Um, some notable ones in October, on October 15, 2025, the um water was terminated to the structure, and uh on 5-6, 2026, the power was terminated to the structure.

During this time, there was uh water being stolen from uh neighboring properties as well as being stored on site trying to use it.

Um we did post the structure as a dangerous building on 429 26, and we sent the notices.

Um we continued to receive complaints and on 5426.

Uh, we got a the current owner to sign an agreement for nuisance abatement and special assessments so we would abate all the junk on the property and special assess it back to the property.

Um that went very well for us.

Um the interior of the property was inspected on 5626, and uh again we were we secured the property on 5626 to make sure that uh nobody was entering the property.

Um, like we said, this property is in foreclosure and it's been in foreclosure for quite some time.

Um this timeline of events does not capture everything that has happened with this property, and it's been kind of a lengthy process for us because of some extenuating circumstances.

Um here's some pictures of the property as we were doing different inspections, and most of these are pretty recent in 2026.

You can see that there's a number of deficiencies and some problems with the property.

Um, you know, there's been some vagrants that have broken in.

We've secured it.

Um there's junk and junk accumulation all over.

Um there is structural defects and just the general unsafe conditions within this property.

Um, there's water damage and smoke detectors are deficient, um, electrical problems and broken windows, and our recommendation is on the screen, and I'll stand for questions.

Anybody have any questions, Sean?

Do I have a motion?

Mayor, I'd like to ask a question if I could.

Sure.

Sean, if it's in foreclosure, is it a bank that has it in foreclosure?

There's a bank that currently does have it in foreclosure.

And um, I'm sorry I don't have the bank's information on here, but on Cass County records, it is still listed under Bobby Stevenson's name for some reason.

We're not sure why.

It was taken to sheriff's auction early this year, but the bank didn't take any action on it, so it wasn't auctioned off and it was sent back to them, and there's been no action since then.

Is there any potential outreach to the bank and to the owner of the title that they we could let them know you have a window of time to salvage your property that you hold lean title to?

Yes.

So when we send notices out of dangerous buildings or anything like that, we make sure that we notify everybody.

So any banks that are involved, anybody has interest uh owners that are listed on Cass County, anybody we send them all of the information that we have.

And so they are duly notified of everything.

So we make sure that um they have a chance if they want.

And and last, bear with me.

If it is deemed a dangerous building, does that give them a window of time to rectify it?

Yes, they can still pull permits and rectify it if they want to within the 60-day window.

And we'd work with them if if there's extensions or anything that they need because of circumstances outside their control, we would bring it back to the commission and ask for extensions.

Thank you.

So anyone president wishes to speak about this dangerous building.

Anyone president wants to speak to it.

If not, I close the public hearing.

Do I have a motion?

I'll make the motion, Mr.

Chair, and just another couple of comments because there wasn't any police record of the calls.

But this is I live in North Fargo, and that's the people contacted me, and there's multiple uh issues with law enforcement uh with the facility as well.

They were keeping toms and all kinds of stuff going on, and so I know that's separate from what you do, Sean.

But there was a lot more to it, uh, other than just the building.

Thank you, Mr.

Church.

Is there a second?

Mr.

Chair.

I will say I think there were 35 calls from police, so it's definitely been a dangerous building.

You two have your lights on.

Do you want to speak either way?

We'll call vault, please.

All right.

Call pack aye strand.

Yes.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Mahoney?

Item 41, last edition.

Uh, approval recommended by Planning Commission 5526 continued from the 526 regular meeting.

So zoning changing agriculture to single dwelling residential, single dwelling residential and multi-dozzer uh dwelling residential with conditional overlay and public and institutional.

So first reading the rezoning ordinance is applied of the Lost Creek first edition.

Nicole, before you start, uh we have a developer agreement that's redlined.

I don't know that this can go forward if uh the red lines have not been resolved.

It occurs to me that there's many things that the city normally regulates, and the developer does not want to allow the city to do that.

For instance, floodproofing, putting floodproof basements in, for instance, low maring.

For instance, if we put a concrete or asphalt road in, is wouldn't it be just a denial because they haven't worked out the things with developers' agreement?

Uh thanks for that question, Mayor.

Uh, we are prepared to talk about it uh that item with our recommendation today, but that is uh one of the issues we were going to bring forward.

And um, normally our developers have worked well with our planning to case on come up with solutions prior to coming to this board.

So go ahead, go explain what you're gonna explain, but we'll see.

Sure, sure.

Yeah, I will um uh I think Tom was gonna uh present part of this with me.

But uh just to pick up where we left off uh about a month ago.

We uh in front of you uh have a major subdivision and a zone change.

And uh we have an unusual situation where we have a staff recommendation for denial based on a number of reasons that I can explain, and then we have uh planning commission recommendation in support of this, and we recognize it as a uh difficult subject.

It's related to uh a proposed subdivision for housing that we definitely need in our community.

We have our regional housing study that talks about that need and the economic development related to housing is uh obviously very important as part of our growth plan.

And so what makes this application unique is uh the fact that uh this is the first subdivision we have in front of us that is and zoning that is since the two 2024 growth plan has been adopted.

On top of it, uh this is the first development that we have that is uh pushing that edge of development where we don't have the regional infrastructure in place as well.

Uh we again have the uh conflicting recommendations.

Staff doesn't like being in front of you with a recommendation for denial.

I think I've done this maybe two times in front of you, so if I'm a little nervous tonight, that is why.

So, what have we done since you last heard this item over the last month?

We did try to have an informational meeting to talk about some of the policies that are being um discussed and challenged outside of the plat and permit application.

And given the busy time of year and and uh the election and other uh uh factors in our schedule, we weren't able to align that informational meeting.

But here we have policy development discussions on top of a permit request.

So I'm here to represent the differences between the permit application and the policy discussion.

In normal, when we have a conflict between policies and permits, we seek a continuation or we seek a denial.

And um the developer in this case has uh time constraints, also a demand for development, and so they're uh pushing that agenda.

They're exercising their due rights for um entitlement requests.

So this puts you, the commission in a difficult situation as well.

One of the things that dawned on us as we were reviewing this as staff is you might not know about Covey Ranch that will be forthcoming to the city commission in the next month or so.

This is a developer development just east of 45th Street.

And in this two-mile area, north of 52nd, you know, 52nd Avenue to 76th Avenue, I 29 to Veterans, as well as the two miles east of I-29, have been for the last 20 years that I've been here, part of our master planning elements.

And so, as part of the regional pond development, as part of Walmart, the Pines, the Sports Center, the NDSCS.

There's been a lot of work in this area, but this is a recent the most recent aerial that will show you.

Lost Creek is a half mile west of 45th Street.

And in between, we have that land that is being held by the existing landowners, whether it's the Hector Estate or Sanford or Fargo School Districts.

There's lots of other elements that are part of this two square mile development.

Tom will talk a little bit about the regional infrastructure that is being planned to go west of here that this subdivision will set in motion if approved tonight.

Again, on top of the Covey Ranch, you know, those developers that we've been working with has been taken over five to ten years to get to this point.

There's entitlements related to easements, there's drainage, there's floodplain management.

There's a lot of things that go with permitting a housing and/or land development.

There's uh, and that started with the original interchange discussion as part of 64th Avenue.

So it takes time to get to where we're at.

And I would say Covey Ranch also has another hundred and twenty-four residential lots with Covey Ranch.

Um, so again, that will be in front of you in a couple weeks or uh probably two to four weeks, and then as well as there was a deferral agreement for Covey Ranch on your agenda tonight and the consent agenda.

And so there's also uh financial commitments related to that.

So why am I in front of you is the planning department?

Often the planning department represents the permit process, and so normally we would uh receive a complete application.

We would route this for department reviews agencies, over 20 agencies and departments receive the applications.

Normally, we don't receive negative comments.

This is the first time in a long time that we receive comments that are unresolvable, and so that's what recommended for the staff denial.

The planning commission, we brought those concerns to the planning commission, they chose to forward those comments to you and those concerns to you.

But the fact of the matter still rests with we have other departments and agencies that are recommending denial.

Normally we would have a technical review complete before it's in front of you, and to the mayor's point, we normally would have the agreement of a developer's agreement and an amending plan that would come as part of the entire package that would come to you.

And then if the city commission were approved that, then it would go to recordation and then start and start the permit process.

So these are the departments that we received review comments and concerns about the engineering public works, police and fire, and West Fargo School District.

I think all of them other than maybe West Fargo School District is here today if you have any questions specific to that.

On top of that, uh the planning department reviews the as well as all of the other agencies' concurrence review against the comprehensive plan, master plan, and ordinances to date.

And so, what are we trying to do is in confidence ensure that we can issue future permits that aren't putting the public in harm's way.

So, what are the things you don't usually see as part of a permit process is simultaneously to the plat.

And the zoning will be engineering working on infrastructure, flood protection, amenities plans on how the roads are going to be designed, and other improvements in the right-of-ways, as well as the parks and open space and parks developers agreement.

I am remiss to say the application, one of the application elements as a result of that review that has changed.

The plat and zoning that was in front of you a month ago had some mid-blocks right in here, about four four lots that would allow for trail access between here to here that were going to be parks dedicated lots.

The parks has gone on record that they don't want those lots.

And so we've revealed that trail access and brought it back to single family lots.

So that is one technical change that has happened.

Let's see.

So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Tom so he can talk a little bit about some of the regional infrastructure.

Because a yes to this plat means yes to future infrastructure demands, and that what makes this a little different is the financial considerations that we're held under now after the legislative actions related to the 3% cap.

And so, as well as the Moody's downgrade.

So I'm going to pass that off to Tom.

As Nicole mentioned, you know, when we see these types of requests, you know, sometimes we've already made that initial investment to support that infrastructure, and sometimes we need to make additional investment.

In this situation, this location of the proposed Lost Creek development.

We do need to, if the city commission approves that plat, we do need to make a decent amount of infrastructure investment to support it.

So first want to speak about the Sanitary Sewer.

We currently have Sanitary Sewer that exists at 45th Street and 64th Avenue.

We would have to extend that Sanitary Sewer to the west, just over a half a mile.

Approximate cost of that is roughly a million dollars.

And then there would also have to be a sanitary sewer lift station placed in this area.

It would serve a larger area than just Lost Creek.

First phase of their development.

Approximate cost of that 16-inch water main would be about $600,000.

We would also have to make some decisions when it comes to paving of roadways of 64th and Veterans.

And so I'll talk about those separately.

So there's really two options when we talk about 64th.

64th Avenue corridor from Horace City limits, County Road 17, you know, about a mile west of where you're seeing it on this page, all the way to university as a five mile stretch.

The rest of that corridor hasn't has been improved to a uh urbanized concrete section.

And so that would be one of the decisions that we would ultimately be asking city commission to make.

If if this development goes in, it would be engineering's recommendation that the roadways be improved.

But part of that question is what type of roadway?

Is it a rural asphalt?

There's some pros and cons to that.

Uh the life of that is a little bit unknown, really depends on uh traffic volumes and adjacent development.

Um, you know, it could be as little as a few years, and it could be many years, uh, you know, close to 15 years.

Uh, it's really unknown.

Uh, that type of infrastructure has an initial cost, which isn't gonna be recouped, and so it is a little bit a throwaway infrastructure investment.

Um, it would likely be uh simpler for public works to maintain uh until there's more uh development in this area.

Um likewise uh urban concrete could be a choice that the city commission makes.

Uh, it comes with a much larger investment.

Uh however, the benefit of it is that it is that full build-out, it is that full investment that we would anticipate lasting, probably in the range of 30 to 50 years.

Uh, because it's an urbanized section with concrete, um, curb and gutter, things like that, uh, it does become a little bit more difficult for public works to maintain uh during the winter, uh, especially with all the blowing that we're we would likely see uh coming from the north here without adjacent development.

Uh likewise would uh recommend improval of Veterans Boulevard.

If Lost Creek is approved.

Again, you can see the price range for that.

Uh, this is a shared road with the city of Horace.

Um, Horace is responsible for half the cost.

We do have a memorandum of understanding at MOU between Horace and the City of Fargo that has been created.

They have spoke about that at their city council meeting.

We're getting close to the point of bringing that to our city commission for approval.

But again, the anticipation would be that we'd be recommending a rural asphalt roadway there on veterans.

Again, timeline of the life of that road is a little bit unknown, but my best guess is a 10 to 20 year life.

So you kind of put all that together and you take all those varied options.

That's just the investment to support that new growth area.

Depending on funding splits and payment options, you can see the price ranges of what those cost shares would be between Horace and the City of Fargo.

Couple things I want to talk about too is, you know, if City Commission were to uh say yes, approve uh Lost Creek this evening, you know, what does that really mean?

Um, and so again, if a yes uh vote is made tonight, that means that uh there needs to be these infrastructure investments along 64th Avenue and Veterans Boulevard.

Uh so if it's approved tonight, then we uh in engineering start working on project designs.

We add these projects to the future CIPs.

These are all things that city commission um becomes aware of in the future and votes on.

We would be seeking a direction from City Commission as you saw those price ranges for the rural asphalt or an urbanized concrete section, and the pros and cons with them are fairly uh significant, and so we'd be seeking city commission direction on which type of design we would pursue.

Um, what does saying yes to Lost Creek tonight?

What doesn't it mean?

And so again, there's still a there's a been a lot of conversation that's happened here in the last few months about uh the city's debt and continuing special assessments for greenfield developments.

Currently, you know, that that's something that wouldn't be decided necessarily with a vote tonight with city commission, and so how we fund these improvements, uh both the regional improvements on veterans and 64th as well as the local improvements, that would still be a decision for a city commission.

Again, traditionally these improvements have been financed through special assessments according to our infrastructure funding policy to the benefiting area.

That policy states how items are going to be special assessed, if special assessments are used, but it doesn't say whether it doesn't dictate whether special assessments must be used or not.

And so again, that's always going to remain a city commission decision of how we finance uh improvements.

Um, because again, city commission could choose to continue the practice of special assessing these new uh greenfield developments, or they could require the uh developer to pay for all or a portion of those improvements.

I also want to speak a little bit to the developer agreement, like uh Mayor and Nicole alluded to.

Typically, we have um had time to work with the developer at the time of Platte is coming to City Commission to iron out all these details, and there are a fair number of uh I would say fairly significant um items that we have not come to an agreement on.

And so, again, um as we drafted this agreement in engineering, um, we tried to position this document to give our city commission the authority to make these future decisions.

And so, again, um, you know, Veterans Boulevard from 64 to 76.

Uh, it's engineering's opinion that should be improved to a rural asphalt section if Lost Creek is approved.

Uh currently, the the developer has proposed that that remain as gravel based on their red lines.

Again, engineering is recommending that 64th Avenue either be approved, improved to a rural asphalt section or an urbanized concrete section, but that should be at the discretion of the city commission.

Uh the developer's uh position is that an urbanized concrete section is not acceptable.

Uh the developer, again, engineering feels the developer uh agreement should preserve the flexibility of city commission to determine how uh future improvements are funded.

Uh, the way that the developer uh redlined the agreement is that all infrastructure improvements should be special assessed.

Another area uh acknowledging that an MOU with the City of Horace is necessary, and again, uh they have discussed that at their June 15th uh city council meeting.

Uh the uh developer agreement requires that that uh MOU be approved between Fargo and Horace.

Uh that that requirement has been struck from the agreement by the developer.

Uh the developer also did add language to the developer agreement stating that LoMer F and floodproof basements would not be required.

Uh that's contrary to our city uh policy and would require property owners uh within this development to pay uh flood insurance until the time that the FM diversion has been accredited by FEMA.

Uh again, engineering uh does not support that revision at this time.

With that, I will turn it back over to Nicole.

So normally uh you don't see this back and forth discussion as part of a plat application because we try really hard to separate the policy development from the technical review.

Again, in front of you tonight is the application, the application for a plat, the application for zoning, and that has a quasi-judicial process, meaning there's a shot clock, if you will.

The city commission has to act in certain point of time, what's reasonable, otherwise it's approved.

And so normally, like in the case of Covey Ranch and development from my past 20 years here, it's been, you know, there's a back and forth discussion, and the developer hasn't, you know, assertively needed to get on that immediate commission uh agenda.

And I recognize the challenges of the developer, the challenges of lots, the challenges of housing, but we're at a conundrum, if you will, at the staff level on how we challenge how we deal with these challenges for the first time ever, if you will, in my career here.

I will uh say um, you know, I've done development across the country.

We're one of the only cities in the country, states in the country where the design of the engineering isn't done in advance of the application of the permit.

And so that's something Tom and I have been talking about with the land development code process, etc.

You know, how to design the engineering first in advance of the housing.

So that sets the uh predictability, if you will, for landowners.

And so that's one of the challenges we have today.

We have an infrastructure and regional design that hasn't been decided on yet, and yet we're asked to give a permit.

And so that is the challenges we're under today.

So with that, uh, just like last time, I have three recommendations for you, but um we you could either accept the planning commission's decisions with conditions.

We've got that prepared for you.

Uh staff's recommendation for denial, and just to confirm where we're at with that, it's um think about the development we think about as staff the way I train my staff is think of the quadrijudicial due diligence process as a hot potato.

And so we have the hot potato, and then we have to give them the hot potato.

Where the hot potato is is the duty.

And so we have the hot potato now.

If you vote and approve and accept that, we continue to have that hot potato with the developer.

That means you're spending staff time, staff resources on focusing on this part of the city on top of everything else.

And so that prioritizes our time on top of it.

So I just want to make that point.

So with that, we have the staff's recommendation for denial.

Uh, we are as staff okay with approval with conditions.

We have really set requirements for those conditions that are subject to the following to be met prior to the plat recordation.

And again, I'm gonna emphasize the plat recordation because it's that recordation that gives that entitlement.

And so that's the technical review of the plat to be signed by the city engineer.

So still maintaining that authority with the city engineer, a developer agreement that would have that city commission and preserve the city commission's authority to determine the timing of when the standards and infrastructure should be done, preserve the city commission's authority to determine the funding mechanism for the future infrastructure, and to affirm the compliance with the uh applicable flood protection, as well as the amenities plan like normal, and uh all other items needed by the city commission, and um probably more importantly the MOU with the City of Horace, because otherwise we don't have an arterial road on veterans, and then um also commitment with the uh 2027 budgets related to public works and police services in order to provide services to that.

So, again, it's a long story on how we got here.

Glad to answer any questions, and the other departments are here as well.

Oh, just to be clear, Nicole, if it's denied, does it just go away?

Do they come back and work with you or what happened?

Yeah, so a denial the in all fairness, the two recommendations are pretty much the same.

It's just where you're putting that hot potato.

Um so they would have to reapply.

You're basically setting that affirmation that uh as they policies get confirmed, we could have that informational meeting.

We can figure out as developers, as part of the LDC process and the incentive process, and then um, but they could apply as soon as three months from now.

So it's basically uh an application process that starts over and gives a clear, honestly a clearer direction to the planning commission.

Any questions?

Mr.

Kopak.

Yeah, so that was my question, Nicole.

Is the difference between these two motions specifically?

What what would be the differentiating between the two decisions for staff and developer?

Does that make sense?

Yes, I I'm sure the staff and the developer have two different perspectives on this.

From the staff perspective, it gives a clear direction to the planning commission and to honestly uh uh uphold the city's positions on um all the things related to these things and it and it pushes those authorities.

From a developer perspective, uh a denial would basically uh under law under the land development code, they could reapply in three months.

I believe it's three months.

I would have to double check that ordinance, but it's set by ordinance.

So uh Mr.

Chair, could we pull up the picture of the satellite photo again?

And Ben, would you mind coming up and and uh letting me ask you a couple of questions?

So the the big thing if you if you notice that in a satellite picture, there isn't a tree within 300 yards.

And so Ben can talk a little bit about 19th Avenue where we've had challenges in the past.

When we have a heavy snow year where we get multiple storms, what happens is the it starts filling in even when we don't have a storm.

If the wind blows, and so what happens then is if Ben has to commit to moving snow there, we don't have police and fire.

And so obviously that the the money is is a lot, but but public safety that's number one.

So can you talk a little bit about that, Ben?

Sure, Commissioner.

You did a great job of kind of filling in the gaps for me, but I'll add on top of it.

So this is something that will get planted right out in the middle of an open field, and so with our regional pond to the north, you're gonna see that you're gonna have a mile to the north that's gonna be wide open and everything's gonna blow from the north, but to the south as well.

So every day it blows in North Dakota almost.

So when we have snow on the ground in the middle of winter, you're gonna see um if we have a 20 mile an hour wind, this development is gonna be full of snow.

The real concern, like Commissioner Pepcorn said, is when we do face that blizzard and that half mile out to that route out to that development, it'll be something that will be extremely difficult to control.

And now you're gonna put 200 homeowners out there at risk.

And so it's something, and we can close 19th Avenue North.

But this is something we won't be able to close because there is not an alternative route, and it's gonna put a lot of the residents out there at risk because we'll have to pull a lot of equipment from the inner city to pull it out there to service this area to keep it open so that if there is a fire, if there is a medical condition, or if there's a need for police out there, we can service them and be do our due diligence and make sure we can.

Because right now how it sits and the staffing we have and the inability we have to add staff because of budget constraints.

I don't know that we can do it.

We will do it, but it's gonna be take resources from other areas of town and other areas of town are gonna have to sit and wait.

Can I add one more thing, Mr.

Chair?

So the one lesson we learned when we when Davies was built on 25th, if you remember that, we debated whether to put asphalt and put a temporary rural road.

I don't know if Tom, I'm sure you were uh maybe that was before your time even.

That's how freaking old we are.

But uh but we but we debated that whether to put in permanent cement uh and and as we know that that is filled in unbelievably fast, and I predict that the same thing will happen here.

So the right thing to do is put in the best infrastructure right now, and that's a it's a lot of money.

And so that that's the other thing I would encourage you to do to do it right uh instead of laying down asphalt and then tearing it up, which is essentially what we would have done.

So all right, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Anybody else?

Mr.

Stan.

Thank you.

Uh who would be able to answer financial questions?

Susan?

Perhaps if he could ask the question and we can it might be the city administrator.

And laying the groundwork, uh Nicole, is it my understanding the land development code is currently under under uh reviewing financial formal formulas for edge development?

Yeah, I mean I think uh what you've heard in some uh edict economic development incentive committee meetings and finance committee meetings is part of the growth plan and honestly Go 2030 uh talks about the resources needed on the edge of development and you might remember Commissioner Preston and some of the other commissioners, we've uh been challenged on how to define ROI, a return on investment.

And um what uh our consultants are doing as part of the land development code is trying to build a model related to ROI return on investment, and what we're finding is the data isn't um solid enough to get that return on investment, and um and so we'll have some updates for you in July on that and August on that.

But uh right now we're honestly just thinking about the initial cash up front, and uh that's where I would defer to the finance team.

Okay.

Is that answer your question, John?

No, it doesn't at all.

It well, it it it begins to.

Okay.

Um, you know, Susan, if this if this project were to go forward, and we're already hearing numbers of a minimum of maybe 20 million dollars of investment, and as I understand it, that would be assessed, special assessed 20 million dollars.

And then that's just infrastructure, then who knows what's on top of that.

I'm gonna say 20 to 40 million dollars, but I don't know.

We don't know, but help me understand that that gets bonded by the city, correct?

That is correct.

The city bonds go up and borrows the money to allow this and facilitate this development.

And and we all know the discussion that's unfolded, and it's ripe and it's pertinent about our debt being 1.37 to 1.5 billion dollars, and a lot of that is developable development supported bonding over the past, and then but our overall debt.

So my this will add to that debt.

Yes, it will be part of an annual um assessment.

So every you know, every year we uh do a refunding improvement bond, which includes all the construction, um it's typically the routine projects, but more and more it's become these developer-requested projects, which are things just like this.

Um, but as Nicole's presentation mentioned, you know, we can look at how much we special assess, um, whether or not the city does just the peripheral, as Tom was explaining, and those were his numbers, like the major thoroughfares, and whether um, you know, one of the responses could be that the developer becomes responsible for the the roads, the interior roads.

I don't know the actual words, but the the um roads within the development.

So I mean that that's a compromise that we could look at.

Um, but but yes, any time that we move to a new location and and do some major infrastructure, that is something that gets assessed and and part of our debt.

When we were talking with Moody's, you know, they do acknowledge that debt is part of a growing community, so we're not gonna get away from it, it's just how much and for what purposes, and those are the considerations you need to think about.

I would just add uh mayor and commissioners uh and commissioner Strand.

Thank you for the question.

I think it's a really good question.

I kind of separate the question into two parts.

There's both the cash flow needs of today, funding that new equipment operator to go out and move snow that's gonna take quite an intense effort to go do that, but then there's also that long-term structural financing question and that long-term debt and and and uh suitability of that debt for our city books, and I think Susan's articulated that well.

I would just also add that I think what Nicole is has outlined for you, and planning is outlined for you are two options that really send us back to this to the drawing board in different ways, different directions, but we we really start anew to really try to process a new application and try better understand these cost implications of today as well as tomorrow in support of long-range housing growth in the community.

We we do need to be smart about it.

And as articulated here, I couldn't say it any better than Ben did.

Uh, we are some distance away from existing uh development, and we will have some challenges in this area, no question about it.

And we would want to spend that time thoughtfully and methodically to understand that and what that will mean to our bottom line, as well as our ability to serve the area.

Might I continue, Mayor.

My last question, I I think for the moment.

We had this discussion maybe 10 years ago when Kent Coston was here, and and the whole topic of specials and and assessing properties and edge development versus infill and so on.

You know, um when when we when we're going down that path of of financing, how do we know that it's going to pay for itself?

How do we know the return on investment?

How do we know it's cost justifiable?

Because in internal is way different than external exit edge development.

Is there a what are I guess I'll answer my what I recall back then was we were told then the developers were to provide letters of credit.

I remember thinking, well, I'm not sure that's worth the paper it's written on if the economy crashes.

Are we secure?

Is the city secure if they bond this and the developers are backing those bonds?

Is that safe and secure for the public?

Yeah, so I'll thank you for that question, Commissioner.

So at that time, you are correct.

The conversation really centered around uh collateralization of city debt, and that was really more about securing an instrument like a letter of credit, or if there was a different alternative at that time, which was really deemed that there wasn't, that there was really a letter of credit, was kind of the gold standard to make sure that the developer could uh take care of the laterals and take care of the other infrastructure within a subdivision and be able to see that growth and to see the the finish line for that goal that was established.

But um your question is is a very solid one.

There is not a very uh neat and clean black and white answer to what is uh the right development at the right time, simply because you have to really be smart in looking at the infrastructure that's in the ground today, and then where we're most economical in terms of bringing lateral infrastructure off of trunk infrastructure that we're installing.

So I think the question long range that to the commission of tomorrow and the commission after that is going to be what is that cost participation?

It's really about the assignment of cost and risk and kind of where are those uh costs and where are those risks assigned.

There are means to try to mitigate those risks, letters of credit are one such way to do that.

Um so we did at that time, uh now it's hard to believe, but you're correct almost eight, nine, ten years ago, talk about it more from that collateralization question.

But I think there's a new question now, which is simply the cost of infrastructure has increased immeasurably in the last several years.

You don't have to go back too many years to see that we're paying one third and one quarter of the cost of what it takes to do a mile of infrastructure now.

It's just gotten that much more expensive in this environment.

And so all that to suggest that we really do need to be thoughtful and we need to be methodical long range.

That will definitely be a conversation with the next commission and uh one that Susan and I will look forward to having as we talk about edge development, but as well as infill.

Uh we do need to be uh really, really uh intelligent with how we're kind of thinking about the future here.

Very done.

Go ahead.

Commissioner Turnberg.

With an approval with conditions, does that mean we have to decide how this will be paid for today, or is that something that will be worked out?

My fear is we have to listen to residents as residents are so tired of specials, whether it be improvements or new infrastructure.

And just because we've done it one way all these years doesn't mean we have to do it that way going forward.

So if it is approved, can we work out how it will be paid for after tonight's meeting?

Uh yes, that would be, you know, kind of lined up with uh question number, you know, basically two to B on the approval with conditions.

So that'd be basically condition number two B if I'm reading that correctly.

So we're out of the dilemma, we need housing.

We only have 50 lots left.

You need 140 homes that might go in this set.

We have done this type of financing for a long time.

What's getting everybody to golf, it's 20 million dollars, but we do bonding for that, we do the specials for that.

You look at Osgood, very successful neighborhood that came to us, and that was in our sense on the fringe.

We look at Davies High School and what filled in, and which the governor thought it'd never fill in for 20 years and filled in in 10.

Was it an ROI on it?

There was an ROI on this.

Difficulty with this proposal is that we have not worked developments agreement with the developer, which developers uh squawking a little bit.

And Commissioner Turnberg, the arterials will be special.

It's just a question of in the development how we pay for that.

When we did talk to the developer about that, I said how about you pay 25%?

Maybe you pay 50 percent.

Developer didn't know how to do that, wanted to do it the traditional way in which we do specials.

Commissioner Pipburns talked about this, we got a decrease specials and the land development code, that's part of the option they would have.

Is does your developer take more part of the piece of the infrastructure that goes in the neighborhood?

And so that is something I think the next commission can tackle.

I think the new mayor wants to talk about affordable housing.

I think that's part of the formula as well.

So you have to get that all in.

The difficulty I have with this one, this uh particular development is normally we have a developer's agreement, which we have no red lines in which we all agree on things.

We have 15 red lines on this one, and it's things that are not reasonable.

The city is the one that decides do you do concrete or you do asphalt.

The reason we do that is then we don't come back in five years, tear all the asphalt out and put in concrete for twice the cost.

People are used to specials on their trials.

That's when you go on development when you go into a neighborhood.

When I went into my area, there's special on our trials that you get hit with, and that's what Horace is struggling with is they had to put more infrastructure in.

This is a great place to have a discussion with the new commission, the new mayor, go through this and decide what we want, what we don't want, what kind of development we want.

One would be to deny this to come back in three months with the new rules.

The other one would be to recommendation and motion with conditions.

So again, I'd ask, do I have a motion from the commission?

I move for approval with conditions.

Sir, second.

I'll second.

Mr.

Stran, you had your hand up.

Do you want to make another comment?

No.

Wolpeck, anything else?

No, that might through the discussion.

My questions have been answered.

Any further discussion?

Roll call vote, please.

Turnberg.

Aye.

Kolpack?

Aye.

Pepcorn?

No.

Strand?

Yes.

Mahoney?

Aye.

Item 42.

We do have one speaker, so after Ian does his uh discussion on this, we will have the one speaker who will be allowed to speak, and then we'll open up for commission discussion.

Ian.

So first ranked proposal for the convention center.

We're back here on the convention center.

I'm gonna go through a timeline just real quick.

On November 5th, 2024, that's when the voters approved the 3% lodging tax for the convention center for about uh 14 months or so the convention center committee met.

They created and managed the RFP process.

Um on April 27th, uh Mr.

Johnson presented the recommendations to the city commission.

City commission directed staff to begin the due diligence process on the top two score proposals, which are downtown in the Bruhalla proposal.

Uh May 21st, we got the answers from both Brujala and Downtown.

We presented those at a brown peg meeting of the city commission.

Uh May 26th, we had another city commission meeting, and directed staff to engage Baker Tilley to perform additional due diligence.

Thereafter, we engaged with Baker Tilly, provided all of the documents that we had.

In addition, the Bruhalla team had a few more documents that they wished that we share with uh Baker Tilly, which we did.

We also sent to the downtown team for a transparency and fairness.

Downtown team wanted to have a phone call with Baker Tilly in response.

We asked Baker Tilly to have phone calls with both teams.

So it was fair and it was transparent.

I believe both teams did have phone calls.

And on June 18th, we received the Baker-Tilly report.

So these are the same two motions you would have seen at the start of the last meeting.

The first one is either pick the MBA Brujalla or the EAPC Kilborn Group slash Downtown Civic as the first rank proposal convention center project and then move forward with them to begin discussing a development agreement.

And if there is a successful motion one, we would then go to motion two, which is to approve city staff to begin looking at TIFF financing.

Um obviously, Bruhalla, we would be creating a TIFF and working with the county and school board.

Uh downtown does have a TIFF, but regardless of of uh which project, we would then work to allocate the costs uh so that they are TIFF specific and eligible costs.

So those are the two, those are the two motions.

We do have Baker Tilly.

We do have Steve Schwarf on the on the phone, and he's happy to answer any questions about the report as well.

Any questions for Baker Tilly?

Mr.

Stran?

Several.

I want to know uh first of all, have them compare the two financially.

Are they both green lighted by Baker Tilly to be feasible and doable or are is either or uh or is it just one?

Are they giving both of them a green light?

We'll see if Baker Tilly will answer.

I think the answer to that your question is yes.

Yeah, they both said that they that they met the uh guidelines.

Could they talk about that, please?

Yeah, good evening, Mayor and Commissioners.

Hopefully you can hear me all right.

Uh this is Steve Sharp of Baker Tilly.

Um we did review the um the each of the proposals.

Uh, we did apply our own independent assumptions where warranted.

Uh I think in the report it identifies some salient positions or features of each proposal.

Um, you know, I think if you wanted to wrap a bow on it, uh there is a there's a proposal that is uh higher suggested bonding amount than than we reviewed as something that's currently uh within reason for the interest rate environment that we're in.

Um so I think there's some identified variances and risks for each of them.

Uh, one such proposal being that there is an identified gap in available funding based on what's being proposed.

Can he tell us what proposal he's referring to?

Oh, I I think I know, but I want to hear it.

I'll be more specific, yeah.

Um Brujala's proposal uh based on the bonding capacity they presented uh is not consistent with what we provide as an outcome.

Uh so it does create an inherent gap uh in the funding that would need to be um reviewed and and um resolved uh in terms of construction.

Steve, can you just put it uh in your report is Brujalla thinks they can have 58.5 million, and I think your team said 47.8.

I think that's what John's referring to.

That's right.

Just the public doesn't have your papers in front of them, so just bear in mind we have a room full of people, so it would be nice if you give a little detail when we get into this.

John, any other questions?

Continue for the moment.

Oh, Mr.

Kolpak.

Yeah, I don't think I've ever spent more time on a decision in my four years on this commission.

And I will tell you this was a really difficult one.

Um, so to that end, I have a PowerPoint, and you're gonna have to bear with me.

It's a little long, but I'm gonna I'm gonna make a few comments.

If you'd pull that up, please.

Would I first have the speaker speak before we get a deliberations if you don't mind?

I just would have one speaker on this.

Thank you.

Romani Kyoldi.

Romani Kildi.

Over to this one.

Good evening, Mayor Mahoney and Commissioners.

My name is Romain Kildy.

I have been a resident of downtown Fargo for the past 10 years.

I serve as a board member for the downtown neighborhood association, and I'm an advocate for historic preservation and adaptive reuse.

Tonight I urge you to choose the path of true taxpayer stewardship and fiscal responsibility by voting to revitalize the city-owned civic center site, a position formally endorsed by the downtown neighborhood association.

As you review the Baker Tilly's reports, a critical fiscal distinction needs to be made between these two sites.

The unique financial leverage of utilizing our existing public assets.

Choosing the Civic center site represents common sense financial discipline.

The contemporary adaptive reuse model built on this public anchor, completely eliminates an estimated $250,000 in annual operating costs by decommissioning the auditorium.

Furthermore, it completely avoids a $2 million demolition expense.

A downtown convention center capitalizes on millions of dollars in existing public infrastructure, including our parking garages and skyways, which begs a critical question our community needs answered.

What exactly will the city of Fargo do with the Civic Center site if you choose not to repurpose it tonight?

Leaving this public asset to sit as a costly, unresolved liability is neither fiscally responsible nor strategic.

Maximizing the return on our past investment is what true stewardship is about.

Placing the convention center downtown plugs it directly into a unified civic campus alongside City Hall and the public library.

This project will transform that campus into a vibrant pedestrian forward destination, creating an iconic gathering space that elevates our quality of life and civic pride.

I ask that you vote for the downtown civic site for the convention center, ensuring Fargo remains anchored where its history, civic life, and fiscal future thrive.

Thank you.

Oh, we can go to your slide, Joe.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll tell you when to advance the slides, but I'm going to start on this slide.

As I said, I truly believe that this is a once in a generation opportunity.

And we should not consume tomorrow's opportunities simply to solve today's challenges.

Today we're discussing the location of a convention center, and I truly believe really discussing something much larger.

We're discussing the future shape of downtown Fargo.

We're discussing how we steward public assets to the speaker's point.

We are discussing what opportunities we leave for future generations.

Second slide.

So respecting the process, the process included, community engagement, stakeholder input, site analyses, I went on every one.

Fargo Convention Center Committee formation and in-depth exhaustive reviews over 18 months, consultant evaluation, including the most recent report, and financial comparisons.

And while my personal preference for a location, frankly, was not among the final two, I respect the process that brought us here today.

A great deal of work has gone into getting us to this moment.

So the next slide, why I asked for more information before making a recommendation.

Earlier this year, I was unwilling to support either location without a side-by-side financial comparison.

I wanted to understand public investment, infrastructure costs, site implications, long-term impacts.

The information has been provided, although I didn't glean as much from that analysis as I wish I would have hoped to, but I appreciate the work that went into it in the short time frame.

So when we think about that financial analysis next slide, it did not identify a clear front runner in some of the wording.

And had one option clearly emerged as the superior financial choice, this decision would have been relatively simple.

And as I said, we did not glean, I didn't, everything that I wanted to from that report, and I've always said that financial sustainability would be my most important criterion in this decision.

And in this case, financial stewardship means looking holistically at what's best for the city and our taxpayers.

I believe the Brujala site provides the land at no cost to the taxpayer that it does.

That was an offer.

And Brujala proposal assumes the operating risk, and the proposed TIFF for Buhalla is intended to provide future businesses in the area with financial resources to help further develop the area.

This is a targeted and appropriate usage of a TIFF, and frankly, I find it more beneficial and defendable than the TIFF being proposed for redeveloping the current Civic Center site.

And so while the financial consultant did not clearly identify a clear winner, our obligation is to choose the option that preserves the greatest opportunity for future generations.

And I truly believe this, next slide.

Downtown needs and deserves a win.

But we should pursue the biggest win possible.

And I understand why so many downtown businesses support the Civic Center location.

They've invested your livelihoods in downtown Fargo.

The city has supported that.

You want activity and momentum and certainty.

And after years of discussion, understandably want action.

Believe me, I've heard from you, and I've talked to many of you, and I respect that.

And I share the belief that downtown deserves continued investment.

In fact, I've often supported the incentives.

Where I differ is not in that goal.

In this case, it's the timeline and the strategy.

I agree with those who say downtown deserves a win, and I simply believe Fargo has an opportunity to create a bigger win.

So on the next slide, what if we didn't have to choose?

What if we could have a convention center at Bruhalla and a future performing arts center at the Civic Center?

Throughout this process, it has often felt as though we were being asked to choose between competing priorities.

But what if we didn't have to choose?

What if the best solution is the one that allows Fargo to achieve both?

A convention center at Bruhalla and a future performing arts center at the Kurt Civic Center.

I know this is late, but this process has been belabored, and it's never too late to make the right decision.

So we have two very different futures.

Next slide.

Future one is a convention center at the Civic Center site.

Civic Center site consumed, future options limited.

Future two, convention center at Buhalla, future for performing art center, expanded downtown corridor, two downtown anchors.

The question before us is not where to place a building.

The question is which future can we create?

So I'm going to show the Sioux Falls example next slide.

The Washington Pavilion in the Denny Sanford Premier Center.

We're often compared to Sioux Falls.

Their downtown is anchored by a performing arts center and cultural destination.

Their convention center facilities are located elsewhere.

They did not force both functions into the same location.

They created complementary destinations.

And Fargo has the same opportunity to do it even better.

And let's think about the Civic Center next slide.

Honoring the original purpose of the Civic Center site.

When community leaders invested in the Civic Center decades ago, they understood something important.

Downtown needs gathering places, it needs culture, it needs entertainment.

The Civic Center was not originally conceived as a convention center.

It was conceived as a place where the community comes together, a place for performances and events, a place to create memories.

And as you may recall, I was a member of the Fargo Arts and Culture Commission before winning election on the City Commission.

One of the earliest ideas I brought forward after joining the City Commission was a discussion about a future performing arts center.

We engaged experts, we explored feasibility, and like many projects during and immediately following the pandemic, the timing was uncertain, and the conversation was ultimately paused.

But the need never disappeared.

The opportunity never disappeared.

We hadn't simply wait for the right moment.

Perhaps the best way to honor that original vision of this site is not to replace it with something entirely different, but to build upon it.

Next slide, I'm almost done.

Visitors come once, patrons come back.

Convention centers attract visitors.

Performing art centers create patrons.

Visitors attend an event, patrons build habits.

Patrons create traditions, patrons support restaurants, retailers, and downtown businesses year after year, and I think downtown Fargo deserves both.

The next slide, the hidden cost isn't dollars, it's opportunity.

This discussion extends beyond a single parcel, and it involves an entire district.

Public land is one of the most valuable assets taxpayers own.

Before permanently committing those assets, we should be confident we are achieving the longest high-term public value.

And Fargo has seen this before.

Next slide.

Northern School Supply Building spurs downtown Renaissance.

There was a time when people questioned investing in investing in downtown Fargo.

They said, why there?

Is it worth it?

The core is dying.

Yet visionary leaders saw a possibility.

Today we celebrate those investments because they help create the Fargo we know and love.

It sounds a lot like the discussion around West Acres and 13th Avenue in the 1960s, and look now.

That is an area that's the center of our community, not on the outskirts.

Successful communities all have one thing in common vision.

And vision often looks obvious in hindsight.

We need to get this one right, or we will see another community do it.

Expanding and diversifying downtown Fargo a bit further west and establishing a new anchor point is exactly what is needed now more than ever.

Next slide.

I promise I'm I'm getting close.

Vision often requires looking beyond the obvious.

And then one of the most recent examples is the Theater of Roosevelt Presidential Library that's taking shape right now and opening on July 4th.

What many people forgot is that the project did not begin as a world class destination we see today.

Originally it was discussions around a much smaller facility connected to Dickinson State University at a $15 million project.

And because they were willing to think beyond the immediate solution, North Dakota is about to open a $450 million destination that will attract visitors from around the world and create lasting economic benefits for generations.

I'm not suggesting a convention center and a presidential library are the same project.

I am suggesting that transformational projects often begin when communities choose vision over convenience.

So leadership requires looking beyond the immediate need.

Next slide.

Easiest decision is not always the best decision, and the quickest solution is not always the most strategic solution.

So stewardship, next slide.

Every generation inherits opportunities.

Our responsibility is to leave more than we inherited.

Public assets belong to the people of Fargo.

Our responsibility is not simply to use them, but to steward them wisely.

And that means preserving opportunities whenever possible and maximizing long-term public value.

And I really believe Fargo can have both.

Most communities spend decades.

Next slide, choosing between competing priorities and Fargo has an opportunity to achieve both.

So my commitment, I'm almost, I promise, two slides.

My commitment to Fargo and Four Fargo is if this city commission, next slide, were to choose the Brujala location, I would support beginning the community visioning effort regarding the future of the civic site area, and it would not be a new conversation, but one that began several years ago.

A conversation focused on performing arts, culture, entertainment, community gathering, and public-private partnerships because preserving an opportunity only matters if we're willing to pursue it.

So in summary, final slide.

Throughout this process, I have kept an open mind.

I've been very honest with those tough conversations I've had and told you, but always would come down to financial analysis.

And in the end, to me, the financial analysis still does put Bruhalla at the top.

But our obligation is to choose the option that preserves the greatest opportunity for future generations with the least risk possible, and I fully agree with those who say downtown and Fargo needs a win.

It deserves a win.

I simply believe Fargo has an opportunity to create a bigger one.

Because in my view, supporting Brujala is supporting downtown and in doing so in a way that preserves additional opportunities for future generations.

As we should leave future generations with more possibilities than we inherited, I support the work of the Fargo Convention Center Committee, its intentional work and its ranking of the final locations.

And for those reasons, I support the Brujalo location for Fargo's Convention Center.

And it was a tough decision.

Can you put the motion up, please on the screen?

Commissioner Turnberg.

Well, nice slideshow, Commissioner Colpak, but this needs to be driven with fact rather than emotion.

There is no TIFF being proposed for downtown.

There's no new TIFF.

There is a 100 million dollar TIFF being proposed for the Bruhalis site, and the county and schools have not been included in that conversation.

And those that I have reached out to have said absolutely not.

And who is paying for this performing arts center?

Those are my questions.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Chair.

The downtown proposed site includes utilization of an existing TIFF that would tie up those funds for downtown.

Mr.

Pipcorn.

So just to review, I know they can't put the Baker-Tilley report up for everybody to see, but I would encourage everybody to take a look at it.

But the word that you see throughout the whole report is risk.

There's risk for both projects, and not just a little risk, like across the whole thing.

There's risk.

Risk, risk, risk.

That's not what we want to see with a public property that the taxpayers, if it doesn't succeed, money from the General Fund will come to pay for it.

So what we're proposing is something that is very risky.

And that's not what we should do.

I would say from my perspective, the least risky is to use an existing facility that the city has.

That reduces the risk at least some, and that's either the Fargo Dorm or the Civic Center.

That helps reduce the risk.

But I believe both of them have risk.

And that's we should not be proceeding with something that says you're taking a lot of risk.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

But the other thing is, do we get equal time, all of us?

Do we all get 20 minutes?

No.

We've all had time.

If we want, like, take more time.

Commissioner Kolpak.

I just wanted to clarify that the difference between Brujalo and the Civic Center was Bruhalla also agreed to accept operational loss as risk.

Do I have a motion?

Mr.

Strahd.

I guess I would like to join the conversation before we know who is advancing a motion.

Everybody needs to be thanked for their visions for Fargo.

And everybody needs to be acknowledged for their willingness to participate in giving us a future that's that's better.

My my biggest personal issue over all of these topics and issues is like right now we're talking minimum 40 million dollars bonding.

Yes, the people voted on it.

And the people decided that we're to do this, but it also requires us bonding.

So that's just a practical reality.

We're going to grow our debt to do either project, you know.

How many times have we seen in our lives where the government does something and then it ends up becoming what we could later on call a boondoggle?

And I'm not saying these will be, but if something doesn't pencil out financially, if, like as in Commissioner Pepcorn reminds us, this is going to come on the taxpayer's nickel.

Actually, John, the bonding is on a sales tax.

No, no, no.

If there's a need to go into the general fund because it's not cash flowing when you are talking about bonding, it is on the lodging tax.

It is not about the cash flow of the entity.

And if it doesn't show profit, it's on the public to pay for that deficit, separate from the bonding issue.

The bonding issue will be paid back with the 3 percent revenue from the lodging tax.

But if if if the economy goes south, and I'm always wanting to be prepared for the worst, but if the economy doesn't pan out the way we hope it would, it's on us.

It's on the city, either project.

To pay over the future, past the first two years.

That's that's my concern.

So what I really wanted to hear from Baker Tilly was which has the least risk to the public.

They hinted at it, but they weren't real clear with us that that one of them is more feasible than the other.

But that's where my head's at.

I don't want to be putting on the public and uh a decision that down the road they go, look what they did to us back in 2026.

And yes, the people voted on it.

But my I just want assurance that we're not going to the public more to sustain this into the future.

Unfortunately, John, you've got to make a decision tonight because we are supposed to make the decision.

So again, do I have a motion from anybody?

Mayor, I'll advance the motion to get the discussion going that we uh we look at the downtown site and make that our first choice.

Is there a second?

Second.

Further discussion.

Can we repeat the motion?

It's what's on top of it.

Because it has he moved the proposal of the downtown group.

Discussion.

This has been a long sought-out decision that we've gone through for a long time.

I appreciate the slideshow we had, but there's some things you got to think about whenever you do something in this business.

I appreciate all the hard work the developers have done, all the presentations we've had, everything that has been brought forth to us.

The public needs to know that the Baker Tilly didn't necessarily say one or the other, but it said each one had operational risks, each one had different things that they had.

I have to put the hat on of I'm the mayor of the city, and what is the best interest of this community?

And I have been looking at the Civic Center for 20 years now, trying to figure out what to do with it.

I would love it if you get a performing arts.

I'm going to flip it on you.

Let's put the performing arts at the Burhalla.

That would be a great place to have it.

But PIPCON can tell you when we did the performing arts, we had to raise 70 million dollars, and that wasn't easy.

I've been subject to two votes on the Fargo Dome that failed.

People didn't want to do it.

They just weren't actively excited about that.

I am excited if you get a performing arts in the community.

I am excited if you find that funding.

But the Museum of Science right now is trying to find 50 to 60 million and they're struggling.

It's not always as easy as you think to try to raise money in this community.

The difference in the two projects is what happens with each choice.

When we had the downtown proposal before us, it was interesting, they lined 30 businesses behind them.

They lined 30 business owners in this community behind them.

In the downtown area, we have invested, Jim Gilmore and I have worked a lot of time in the downtown, but we've moved the value of property from 250 million to a billion.

There's a lot of money that's been invested downtown.

If you don't do the civic center, you have to pay two million to take it down, and I don't know what you're going to put in its place.

We have two buildings next to it that have no value.

If you do the downtown proposal, you have two buildings in which will be part of the project in which the city can make some money off of it.

If the project downtown has problems, I have a TIFF in place that has up to one million dollars worth of revenue that could help pay off the losses, but actually Susan developed it initially on losses for the first five years were covered 500, 500, 350, 350, 350.

Again, remember the convention center is not the size of the Fargo Dome, and the losses should not be as great if we have losses, but it has to be done.

And again, I want to thank Mark and Kevin for excellent presentations.

I have all full confidence that place will continue to thrive.

But I think right now the downtown needs to help with its resident time.

So I will be going along with the motion.

Any other discussion?

Roll call vote, please.

Strand.

Yes.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Cole pack?

No.

Pepcorn?

Aye.

Mahoney?

I.

We'll take a five-minute break.

Mayor?

Sorry, I've got to have the second motion.

Do I have a move for approval of the second motion?

So move.

Sir, second.

I'll second it, but can I ask a question?

So there's an existing one in effect with the Civic Center.

And so can you talk what what will this entail if that happens?

We'll be utilizing the riverfront TIFF if we're able to enter into a development agreement with the uh downtown proposal team.

And then it's just figuring out how can we use that TIFF to pay for the demolition for it, for example, would be would be a TIFF eligible expense.

So it's working with uh city staff to figure out how can we best use that the TIFF funds to protect the city's downside on the general fund.

Any other discussion?

Roll call vote, please?

Strand?

Yes.

Epcorn?

Hi.

Hi.

Five minute recess.

We'll call our meeting back to order.

Item forty three, Eric Johnson, uh request spirit of Fargo funds to use through the Resource and Recovery center.

Garrett, you're talking, huh?

Yeah, I wasn't, I wasn't exactly sure how this is going to play out, but I'm sure Eric, how many years did you work for the city of Fargo as an attorney?

Since November of 1985.

Eighty-five.

The path is.

So yeah, Eric Johnson, Assistant City Attorney.

The mayor had asked me to uh help uh look into uh some funds that were uh made available as a result of the 2009 flood fight.

It was during that flood fight that uh the idea came to mind to create a fund and take donations, and uh and the mayor worked with the uh impact foundation and Dakota Medical Foundation to be, I think they're called the fiscal agent under a sponsorship arrangement, and uh donations were made.

And uh my understanding is about 280,000 is donated, some of which was uh a match from the Dakota Medical Foundation, 50,000 or more.

Um, uh, but uh and the money had been used over the span of time, mostly for scholarships for students.

And my understanding it was uh students that have been done sand uh you know sandbagging efforts uh not so much in 2009 probably, but in the future flood fights we had in the subsequent years when we had threats of significant uh uh floods.

Um there haven't been any funds expended since 2017, and currently uh there's about 144,000 dollars in that fund.

Uh, when funds are created, uh a purpose is established.

Uh and so the purpose was initially for just flood fighting purposes, and it was modified by the impact foundation to also include other natural disasters.

Uh so projects that would be supportive uh to reduce the impact of both floods and other natural disasters.

Um in speaking with them uh uh and with the idea the mayor had in mind as to whether this might be available for uh the uh the new uh engagement center, resource and recovery center on First Avenue uh North.

Uh the uh question is whether uh it would fit at all.

Um and certainly in a natural disaster, people can be uh need shelter for a temporary period of time, might be a few nights, it might be for a week or two, but in any event um that uh I need was identified.

Uh the Impact Foundation said, you know, if the city commission wants to propose that, that would seem to make some sense.

It's it's really the board at the Impact Foundation that wants to make certain that donative intent has been met, and uh by that meaning what was the purpose for the funds to be donated initially.

So if you were to approve this resolution that uh I drafted at the mayor's request uh that basically lays that foundation that uh it would be used, and the request is being made that the impact foundation release the money to the city to be used for that purpose because it will support uh people in the event of natural disasters providing shelter.

Um if you were to approve that resolution uh in tonight's meeting, we would take that to the impact foundation board and they would determine whether they agree with it and then release the funds thereafter for that purpose.

But this is fun, these are donated funds.

These are donated funds.

It's not didn't come from city uh coffers at all.

It was all donated funds.

And the reason this came about normally initially the spirit of Fargo funds were for people also if they got out bought out by FEMA or if they got different arrangements at the time of the flood fighting 209.

We felt we needed a gap to fill in if people had to go to hotels, if they were displaced, if they had to be housed somewhere.

When I started to look at it, it's just like the flood project's about done, so we're not hopefully having any more disasters happen.

But it was uh something that could be eligible to put to the resource center for shelter and for people who need that help.

I think it's appropriate for that use.

But uh I open it.

Uh I do have one speaker, Olivia Fisher, and then we'll have a discussion.

Olivia, good afternoon, Olivia, Fargo resident.

I wanted to give my two cents on this conversation as well as express gratitude for this proactive effort for the warming center.

These services are vital to keep community members safe for the seven to eight months of winter we see here in Fargo, and the amount of community members who have utilized it in the last couple of years is not small.

There were over 80 people there per night just months ago.

As a proven need and life-saving space, I encourage you all to support these funds going towards keeping the winter warming program going.

Considering the various permanent flood prevention efforts that have been made since the Spirit of Fargo fund was created in 2009.

This is a thoughtful and productive way to use up the rest of it.

It will still fall in the vein of protecting people from harm caused by natural elements.

This is the lowest barrier shelter that we make available to folks during the most brutal time of year, and without it, lives would be lost.

If for some reason this resolution gets turned down tonight, I would implore you all to set a date, ideally before October, to make sure the city has secured funding for the winter warming shelter.

Enough funding for it to run through the end of April and to open seven nights a week.

From the sounds of it, hiring an extra seasonal staff member for the winter warming would help immensely.

We have time now to gather enough funding to make that happen.

And as Ms.

Honey said earlier, it's not always easy, as easy as we expect to raise money in the city.

So we need to start now if this doesn't pass tonight.

Um while some may disagree, it should absolutely be the city's responsibility to fund a low barrier shelter when the city is the reason individuals aren't allowed to use tents or tarps to shelter themselves.

Which may I add is still affecting people in the summertime.

It still gets cold out at night, especially with the wind and rainy days we've been seeing.

Just this Saturday, a blanket drive was held because we have elders sleeping on the ground with nothing but the clothes on their backs, which is why I encourage you to secure funding before October when temps start to drop fast.

The warming center needs to be ready to function before snow hits the ground.

People keep saying that we need to let nonprofits provide support for unhoused individuals rather than make it a city issue.

But if the city doesn't support the building that the nonprofits have been moved into, they cannot function.

While not everyone we have supported this particular building for the DEX relocation, city officials were ultimately the ones who rushed that decision.

So we must now do what we can for the space while we have it.

Whether that be tonight through this resolution or through scheduled discussions to secure funding elsewhere, I encourage you all to put personal feelings aside to ensure warmth for all Fargo residents.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Kopak.

Mr.

Chair, I just have a question for Eric.

Excuse me.

Um it'll be short.

So this is a just for disaster-related projects.

Correct.

Yep.

And this meets the criteria.

Yes.

Uh sorry.

So I'll wrong.

It'll be the impact foundation, you know, board of trustees.

It'll ultimately sort of make that determination, I think.

Uh so that they have they haven't met yet to discuss this.

They wanted to receive our request first.

So Mr.

Chair, last question.

So if this goes and it'll go to them, and if they do not approve it, it'll come back to the commission.

Yes, I mean, we'll have to find another another purpose for that funds that meets the meets the uh parameters of the sponsor agreement.

Yeah, we actually would talk to them, so we have anticipation that if this goes through the commission, really is one of the deciding boards.

So yeah, we think we think that the board will approve it.

Mr.

Timber.

My first concern was is this legal to have funds donated for one purpose when we had the flood of 2009, which was horrific to live through.

And then in 22, then it sounds to me the Dakota Medical Foundation changed where it could be allocated for natural disasters.

So if we were to have a tornado like Enderlin did last summer or Northwood, this money would be used to help residents displaced by that, correct?

Correct, yeah.

So it's already in place.

My concern with this is we keep pumping money into a rental, and we don't own the building, and that this was supposed to be uh funded by donors, and that doesn't.

Are they not coming through?

Is that what the problem is?

The owners are coming through, but we are not quite to the level we want.

And with the convention center discussion, we all uh also have the option to buy.

So that goes away now with the convention center, not being at the raw if the space could be permanent.

And can't we perhaps have the state to purchase it?

I would I would perhaps um make the motion that we table this for the new commission as the Dakota Medical Foundation will not be meeting until August.

Is my understanding to vote on this, and we could have another perspective of commissioners.

Look at that.

Is there a second to the table?

I'll second it.

Any further discussion?

Mr.

Kopek.

Well, I mean, the fact that it hasn't yet gone to the impact foundation for consideration makes some sense to table this for that reason.

So I would wait until that decision comes back.

Yep.

You can't make the decision until we make motion.

Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood that.

Excuse me, Mr.

Chair.

I'm sorry.

They are asking for the request to come from the city first before they act so they can act on the city's request.

But if you need more time to decide, that's certainly your call.

Frustration with that says you have money that's sitting in the count that is nonprofit that you really don't have all areas, you can move it to.

If you don't have enough funding come in, the city of Fargo will have to make up the deficits.

They're actually putting more burden on the general fund.

It was just a suggestion because the money is sitting there and not do anything at this time.

Reality is if the Commission passes it, it would be unusual that the Dakota Medical Foundation would turn it down since we consulted them before we put this forth.

So I would speak against the table.

I think the Commission has to make its own decision.

This is something that we worked hard on.

If you haven't seen the results of the resource recovery center, you're blind.

Everything downtown is much different.

People have gone comments, the chiefs getting comments.

We have policemen all over, we have up to 16 policemen around on the weekends.

We have much better control of what's going on.

It's made a huge impact.

If you look in the resource center, how many people or clients are in that site?

There's 50 to 100 people, and they're off the street, they're not bothering people.

Or getting their needs taken care of.

We have 35 nonprofits working with us.

It's basically giving money to an organization that helps decrease the cost for the city.

To me, it's fiscally smart.

And uh I don't quite understand.

When we originally set up the period of Fargo funds, it was to exactly this need disasters to help people out.

That's what it's going for.

So to me, it's it's a no-brainer in some sense, and it would sense that you would uh would support this, but uh we'll see what the table comes up.

Any other discussion?

Roll call vote, please.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Pepcorn?

Aye.

Colpack?

No.

Strand?

Mahoney?

No.

Do I have a motion?

I advance the motion that's recommended.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Further discussion.

Roll call vote, please.

Strand?

Yes.

Pepcorn?

No.

Turnberg?

No.

Mahoney?

Aye.

Thank you.

Recommendation to conclude the Human Rights Commission.

Eric Johnson to explain this.

No, I don't think it would be you, it would be Ian, perhaps.

Who would explain or John Strand bringing this forth?

I'll start, Mayor.

Okay.

You know, um.

Back in January, this commission advanced a decision to revisit the status of several commissions, boards and commissions that we have the Human Rights Commission, Native American Commission, the Arts and Culture Commission, and maybe more, but we we ask them all to help shape their future.

And I'll start with the basics.

We don't have the capacity to do a good job.

And I'm I'm a I'm what some people call uh a left leaning liberal activist.

Flaming some would say liberal activist.

But I also as an activist don't like to run into walls and deal with uh unobtainable object object or pot of goals.

You know, when when you're an when you're an activist and you're fighting for human rights and you're speaking for human rights, you need to go into a space where it's received well and it's embraced and it's acknowledged and it's you breathe life into the the wishes of the people.

The the native the the none of these boards and commissions have functioned well lately.

You know, we we had multiple instances with the Human Rights Commission, the the Gaza situation with Israel, the Shane Netterville incident where he would we had a resident that was shot to death inadvertently, or however you say it, by a law enforcement officer.

You know, we just had countless the George Floyd moment in time.

And it just doesn't get anywhere.

It doesn't work.

And I've learned over time that if you put some things inside government, it's not likely to work.

What I'd rather see is a room full of activists filling this station with their desires, like demanding action like Olivia does on a regular basis, like West does on a regular basis.

Rather than beating our heads against the wall and then walking away exasperated and frustrated and mad that it just doesn't work and it doesn't get anywhere, and it almost seems token.

So yeah, we care about human rights.

We can have a human rights commission.

Say, yeah, we we had we elevate up the human rights issue in our community.

We could say that.

But it's pretty much not much more than what they'd say lipstick on a pig.

Sorry.

But um, you know, so I'm I'm I'm for breathing and empowering the people to have a voice, and and not setting them in a space where their voice is squashed and stifled and diminished from the beginning.

Just by the nature of the group you're in and how you're trying to approach it.

You know, so one of the concerns that's come back about this, and and we've visited about this, and I think this is a housekeeping item.

Let's wrap up some of the business we needed to wrap up before the new board and new mayor and new commissioners take their seats.

But it's a process decision also.

Our group has decided to to let this decision lie until the new board, new mayor and commissioners are there.

So if you ch if you all decide tonight, hey, let's let's wait a few weeks and let them vet this fine.

I'm okay with it.

But I've come to the conclusion it's just not, it's not if it if it's if it's not working, don't pretend it's working.

And and uh for in that light, uh, and knowing that the process has been turned upside down, and we said we would last wait longer, understanding that completely.

Uh and and I'm okay with it if this commission decides to wait till the new mayor and others are at the table.

But in light of that, I advance the motion that we continue our path and we wrap up the task we had started with regards to this final commission, and and conclude its affairs officially.

Is there a second?

Second.

Further discussion.

Mr.

Kolpak.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um there was a very specific request by the Human Rights Commission to make this decision after the new mayor was seated.

And it was from that commission in the work, after a number of months where they were also given an extension that they came to us with that request and we supported it.

And so I will not be supporting this motion.

Part of the difficulty is one of the uh the human rights commissioner who was the chair was running for mayor.

So it made it somewhat political.

John, I'm on the understanding that they can work with the State Association and form a local chapter in Fargo and activists could have a standing committee in the city of Fargo and could get many things done they would like to get done.

I think you're right.

Oftentimes they're inhibited by open meeting laws, by different confluent things that were hard for them to meet.

They oftentimes wanted to meet have discussions, but they are subject to all the open meeting laws, and I think it inhibited good conversation about activists and what they need to do.

So I will be uh supporting this motion as well.

Roll call vote, strand?

Yes.

Turnberg?

Yes.

No.

Pepcorn?

No.

Mahoney?

Aye.

You have my recommendation for appointments to the following boards and commissions, special assessment commission, library board, liquor control board, and planning commission.

Do I have a motion?

I said move.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion?

Roll call vote, please.

Pepcorn.

Turnberg?

Aye.

Pole pack?

Aye.

Strand?

Yes.

Mahoney?

I.

I do want to thank all the people of the Super Ender Boards and Commissions.

They do a tremendous job and take it very seriously.

You do have uh Pipcorn, this is for you, because you always had this pulled out, so I might as well let you get to do the first one.

Do I have a motion for applications for property tax improvements made to buildings?

I said move.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Pipcorn, just always loved to have this out there, so we're giving exemptions to people for remodel, but if you really look at it, it's a great thing to help all people in their houses.

So roll call vote.

Pepcorn.

Turnberg?

Hi.

Mahoney.

Okay, we'll start this.

This is kind of interesting because we'll see where he has anything to say.

Commissioner Pepcorn, do you have any liaison assignment discussion?

No updates, but I will say uh it's been an honor to serve.

I've learned a lot, and uh it's been a great experience.

That's it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Commissioner Turner.

There's been so much going on in the last few months that I think my head is still spinning.

But I just want to thank the four of you.

Um from the bottom of my heart for guiding me through the past four years and uh your service, the many years that you've served, mayor and commissioners, and my BFF, Commissioner Strand over there.

You get to stay with me for another two.

So looking forward to it, and thank you all for your service.

Commissioner Colpak.

Yeah, a couple things.

First is um attended the North Dakota Safety Council where I serve as board chair last week in Bismarck.

We had a really good meeting and good conversation.

The city of Fargo is a member of that group, and so um it's been an honor to serve them as well.

Um, and it's been an honor to serve all of you.

And um I've I knew I was gonna be emotional about my liaison assignment because of the relationships that I've had with my portfolio departments and all of you sitting there.

I knew that was gonna get me.

I'm I'm really okay.

I'm really okay.

I promise you, but it's just thank you for I mean this.

You know this, Team Fargo.

Thank you for what you do.

You sincerely serve, you do it for the right reasons, and I know that firsthand, and so I want the citizens to know how much you do for them and how much you've taught me.

So thank you.

And I want to thank all the fellow commissioners as well.

It wasn't, I did not want to get emotional.

It thank you to all of you.

Uh Commissioner Strand, I'll just remind you we have two awards to give out here to two of my commissioners, so don't get too carried away before we're able to give an award.

I I thought you were gonna remind me, keep it to two hours.

Yes.

First, initially, you know, I'm the birthday guy, and I'm I've I've I've reined in my birthdays rather than embarrassing everybody all the time with the birthdays on my list, but it's really important.

Like Commissioner Kolpak's birthday was yesterday.

Happy birthday to you, Commissioner Kolpak.

And Mayor Mahoney's birthday is coming up the 28th.

So you won't be we won't be in a meeting to wish you a happy birthday, but these are I think really important little things in life to pay attention to each other and note what's going on with each other without belaboring it too much.

Um, one note, we have three folks here.

I knew this would be emotional, but we have 40 years of service ending tonight.

Commissioner Pepcorn, 16 years, that's just unparalleled.

Commissioner uh Mayor Mahoney and Commissioner Mahoney, 20 years.

You know, that there's just there aren't examples like this much in cities like Fargo, people getting elected multiple times.

Commissioner Commissioner Kolpak, four years.

That's 40 years of service that we can thank them for, and and appreciate what their contributions to all of us are have been and will be on into the future.

The legacies of what they've contributed is just beyond measure, and it's not fun and easy being up here and be uh being at the dais and being a public elected official, it's just not easy.

But that I'm not gonna belabor that.

I I do have something I would like to say though before we conclude our our meeting, and and that is that we have uh we have a uh a special video on our eye, and I know there's a war things coming down front afterwards, but we have an uh uh a video commemorating Mayor Mahoney's 20 years of service as Commissioner and Mayor.

So if we could call forth this video to show our gratitude and kind of remind us of your service.

And our goals to achieve metro-wide permanent flood protection.

One of the first times that Mayor Mahoney and I connected after I became mayor is he invited me out for supper so that we could start to get to know each other.

And we went to Beer and Fish and Fargo.

He is the one who introduced me to oysters and so anytime I go anywhere that has oysters on the menu I feel like I I need to order some just in his honor and his tribute.

You know from there we just started to develop a really good working relationship together.

He has been very respectful and helpful you know we haven't always had the same opinions on things but we've always been a team that have worked together for our shared communities.

I think back 21 years ago when he was running for his first political office I had the pleasure of hosting I think what was his first debate as a candidate and I remember the good doctor at the time no other titles is Dr.

Mahoney came into the candidate form a big binder full of papers and notes and he sat down was ready for anything that came at him.

You could tell he was prepared ready for any sort of questions he had our questionnaire filled out and I think everybody left that room maybe even they didn't even know who he was before they knew he's a guy who prepares for everything that you know every eventuality and he had an answer for everything and had done his research but beyond that it was like his willingness to learn on things he wasn't an expert in he's obviously very smart he's a doctor but to get into housing and economic development all these other issues you could tell he was willing to dive in and do the homework and do the work needed and to me that just left the impression and what's stands today is that not much has changed.

He's always the most prepared guy at every meeting you know he's done his research he's talked to people ahead of time he doesn't ask questions you know that he didn't already ask somebody else and knows the answer to so he comes into meetings and I think it just sets a great example set an example for me then and I think for the last 20 years he's shown up at the city commission ready to work and prepared.

Well I've got to think back almost to what I call the beginning um we had the very unfortunate passing of former mayor Dennis Wallacher and at the time that that occurred uh mayor mahoney was deputy mayor at that time so he became interim mayor had to wait for a special election to run for the mayor's office and about that same time the only city administrator the city had ever known Pat Zavrol announced he was retiring at the time I was assistant city administrator so got named interim city administrator and so mayor Mahoney had to run for election in a special election get elected mayor I had to fill out an application and apply and interview for the city administrator's job so we kind of started new at the same time and what I kind of loved about that we both had to learn a little bit along the way and we collaborated a lot and I really appreciated that in Mayor Mahoney on decisions that had to be made we kind of walked in tandem with each other and I think it worked very well.

I just really appreciated working with and alongside Mayor Mahoney.

I consider him a mentor in my career in a big way and so the way that he was open to collaborating with me we got a lot of great things accomplished that I think the mayor really should be proud of if you've ever witnessed the three of us together Mayor Carlson Mayor Mahoney and I it sometimes seems like mayor Carlson gets put in the middle and we banter back and forth Tim and I do we're both very competitive about our cities but we do have a friendship.

Our politics are different and that's probably what makes us most effective there's there's been so many incidents where he's given me a bad time or I'm giving him a bad time and it's really out of mutual respect that uh we know that we can work together despite we're different individuals and we're you know elected leaders of different cities.

Well one of the things that Mayor Mahoney continues to give me a bad time about he knows I'm a cigar smoker and I bought him a lot more expensive cigars and he's never bought me one so Tim this is waiting for you upon your retirement or your new role that you have in the government this is a very good sticker cigar, and we'll share that someday on a patio somewhere.

Mayor Mahoney, I just want to thank you for the decades of service to the Fargo Moorhead community, and I wish you the absolute best in your next chapter of fun, whatever that is going to be.

Tim, I just want to say thank you on behalf of me and my family and our future generations for everything you've done for this region, both for the immediate future and for generations to come.

Beginning to watch you lead and become a commissioner and now mayor, and then lead into your retirement, having left Fargo in a better place and the region in a better place has really been fun to watch, and it's fun to get to play a small piece of all those projects that you you've been able to push forward.

Yeah, and I would just like to offer a personal thank you to Mayor Maloney.

Very important part of my career, and he has done service for not just the city of Fargo for this region.

I met it a couple of regional projects in flood protection and drought protection.

And so he's leaving not just Fargo, but this region in a better place than when he found it.

Mayor Mahoney, thank you for your dedicated service to our region.

We're grateful.

And by the way, Tim, when you're buying cigars, real men only smoke sixty ring cigars.

U.S.

Senator John Hoven here, and I just wanted to take a moment to express my deep appreciation to Mayor Mahoney for his longtime service, not only to the city of Fargo, but truly the entire Metro region.

Looking back on all of the different efforts we've worked on together, one memory that really stands out is when we both got to push the button for the implosion of the Lashkowitz Tower.

The redevelopment of that site has been a great benefit to downtown Fargo.

This project not only created affordable housing, but it resulted in a higher standard of living for residents and added to the beauty of Fargo's riverfront.

It was an incredible, unique experience to be part of the demolition and to join with a huge crowd of local residents as we mark this milestone in Fargo's growth and development.

Tim, you've been a tremendous partner over the years, particularly as we work to provide permanent flood protection for the region.

We are nearly to the finish line, and what a capstone to your career as mayor.

This project will provide security to this area's residents for generations to come.

That's a real legacy that you can be proud of.

You will be missed, but I join with the entire Fargo community in wishing you the very best in whatever life may bring next.

God bless.

Mayor, we need you out front and everybody else to present you a plaque.

Yes.

Speaker hasn't focused for a while.

West Philomay is going to go up first.

Back from his travels.

West Philomay, he him, his pronouns.

I'd like to start by saying long live George Floyd and Anyway Machik.

It's been quite some time since I've spoken at City Hall, but as uh the closing of a chapter is upon us, tonight seems fitting.

Mayor, our relationship has been the furthest thing from perfect.

We've butted heads publicly, privately, and even right here within these walls.

Despite those battles, we were able to come together on multiple occasions to make this community a better place for all.

Thank you for striving each day to be better as a leader, and I am certain your impact will continue to be felt within our city for generations to come.

To our deputy mayor, Denise Kolpak, we too have not always seen eye to eye, but our stories have been intertwined in ways that only God could.

From the time Dave first interviewed me to the time our worlds would collide on the steps of City Hall to our recent sit down during the mayoral election.

I just want you to know that I have a newfound respect for you, and I truly hope that you continue to be a leading voice that helps our city shape moving forward.

When God closes the path, it is most likely because he's created a better one for you.

I wish you nothing but the best.

The truth is I always feared this day, feared the change in the unknown of a city commission that would be foreign to me, a leadership group that would undo the progress that so many have worked tirelessly to create over the last six years.

Although nothing is certain, I am cautiously optimistic for the future of our city with Mayor-elect Josh Boucher leading the way.

We've arrived at a time where inclusion is frowned upon and exclusion is encouraged.

We are at a crossroads in this experiment, that is the United States of America.

Now more than ever do we need leaders who are not only willing but capable of making a difference.

May the future of our city continue to be one that strives every day to make sure our residents feel welcome.

I look forward to being a part of those efforts.

Thank you.

Austin Sletmall.

Because of the systematic failure, I've officially escalated this matter to the federal level.

I have successfully submitted a civil rights lawsuit underneath 42 USC, Section 1983, to the U.S.

District Court for the District of North Dakota.

This federal lawsuit names this city Fargo or the City of Fargo through the mayor and four individual police officers in both their official and personal capacities.

A federal judge is currently processing the summonses.

Furthermore, since initiating $300,000 in damages against each defendant totalated to life threatening in 1.5 million dollars.

For a life-threatening level.

A complete stranger intercepted me and forced me to pull over explicitly, warned me uh to drop this lawsuit.

This individual stated that underground networks are involved and threatened that they will make me go missing.

I am standing here tonight to notify this commission and the public that the insurance lawyers have the case.