Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to the Monday, October 6th West Fargo City Commission meeting.

You call the meeting to order.

I'd ask that you please join the commission in a pledge of allegiance.

I want to reason.

Before we start the meeting, I'd respectfully ask that everybody check your cell phones that they're on a silence mode with the exception of mercy of emergency personnel.

Thank you.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Commissioner Anderson.

Here.

Commissioner Olson.

Here.

Commissioner Dartis.

Here.

Commissioner Zondell.

Here.

Commissioner Jorgensen.

Present.

At the record show, all commissioners are present.

Item D is to approve the order of the agenda.

It has been distributed in your packets, Commissioners.

Move approved.

Commissioner Anderson moves to approve zero second.

Mr.

Jorgensen seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve the order of the agenda as presented.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Next order of business is to approve the minutes of September 22nd, 2025.

They have been distributed and in your packet.

Move to approve.

Commissioner Olson moves to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Zundell, seconds.

I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of September 22nd.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Item F is the building permits.

Commissioner Jorgensen.

I need to recuse myself from this, please.

Mr.

Jorgensen is recused from the building permits.

They again they have been distributed and in your packets, Commissioners.

Move the approved.

Commissioner Zundal moves to approve the building permits as presented.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Anderson seconds.

We have a motion and a second to accept the building permits as presented.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carried.

Thank you.

We are now on the consent agenda.

We have two items on our consent agenda this evening.

Item A is the bills.

Item B is a games of chance for United Way of Cast Clay.

Motion to approve.

Commissioner Jorgensen moves to approve the consent agenda.

Items A and B.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Olson seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you.

We now move to the regular agenda.

The first order of business on the regular agenda is public comment.

The secretary has recorded that we have four individuals that are going to speak at public comment this night this evening.

I'm going to uh call upon those folks as uh it was uh distributed to me.

The first individual is Joby Lichblau.

I apologize if I didn't do your justice on your last name, sir.

Good evening and welcome.

Good evening, thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners and Mayor.

My name is Joby Lickwau, uh 134 17th Avenue East West Fargo.

I've been a member of Hope Lutheran for 29 years and have worked on this Hope West Building project for close to seven years.

And currently serve as the church council president.

First, thank you for your time, effort, and thought you dedicate to serving our community.

I know the decisions you make aren't always easy, and I deeply appreciate your willingness to listen to all people in all sides of the issues.

I want to start by acknowledging that I understand some of the concerns some neighbors have expressed about hope's plans to build in this area.

I know change can be difficult, and it's natural for people to feel protective of neighborhoods they love.

We take pride in where we live, and hopefully everyone wants what's best for our community.

We have 13 statements that help define the culture of hope.

Five of those statements directly align with what all residents can expect or appreciate from us as neighbors.

Humility, love people, high hospitality, outreach and ownership, and sacrificial generosity.

We want to be a positive presence that strengthens relationships.

Hope has followed every step of the city's established processes for this project.

We work hand in hand with our architect and city staff to ensure that our plans meet all zoning, safety, and design requirements.

We've approached this project with care, transparency, and respect for the city's guidelines.

We appreciated the traffic study and we're pleased with the results.

Two results I would like to highlight directly from that report include the existing roadway system, is expected to accommodate the church, and for most days of the week, the church is expected to generate less daily traffic than if the same area was developed as single family residential.

In closing, churches bring people together and care for those in need, offering a sense of belonging that goes far beyond Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings.

Hope is more than just a building, it's a partner in the community that provides service, compassion, and connection.

When a church is built, it doesn't just serve its members, it strengthens the community and the neighborhood around it.

Thank you again for your time and your consideration.

I would respectfully ask that you vote yes to allow Hope to continue to strengthen West Fargo by allowing us to move forward with all aspects outlined in the proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

The next individual I would call to the podium is Brian Berg.

Good evening and welcome.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners.

My name is Brian Berg.

I live at 135 Northwood Crest Drive in North Fargo.

I'm the project architect representing the design team at Zurberg for the Hope Lutheran West Campus Project in West Fargo.

We'd like to clarify a few of the items that were raised in the correspondence with commissioners and city staff provided in the packet for tonight.

Historic information regarding weddings and funerals was provided to the city by Hope for inclusion in the traffic study conducted by Bolton and Mank.

The authors of the study determined that these events were so infrequent and have such a minimal impact that inclusion in the study was not warranted.

Over the past five years, Hope Lutheran Church has averaged approximately 64 funerals per year, with two-thirds or roughly 40 of those distributed across three campuses, one third of those occurring off-site at funeral homes.

The current West Campus has had one wedding and one funeral to date in 2025.

Even if the funerals were distributed evenly among the three campuses, the result at the West campus would be around one funeral every four weeks.

Average funeral attendance is around 200 people.

This traffic would have little to no impact on the neighborhood.

While there are occasional funerals that have larger attendance, they are rare, and Hope would love to be a resource for the City of West Fargo community when they do occur.

Weddings are even more infrequent with an average of less than 40 per year across Hope, three campuses, with approximately two-thirds of those distributed across the three campuses and one-third at wedding venues.

The abundance of wedding venues that have been built in the region here in the last 10 years has had a significant impact on the number of church weddings that are happening.

Again, if evenly distributed through the three campuses, this wedding frequency would equate to one to every five to six weeks, with the average wedding attendance being around 100.

A very large wedding would include around 300 guests.

Again, this traffic would have very limited impact on the neighborhood.

The Bolton Make study clearly shows that a residential development on this property would generate more traffic throughout every portion of the week except for four hours Wednesday evening and four hours Sunday morning.

Per the study, Wednesday evening traffic would increase by only 11% over a single family residential development, and peak time Sunday morning would occur during low traffic conditions.

As shown in the study, a single family home neighborhood development would generate more traffic every day of the week, except Wednesday evening and Sunday morning.

We really appreciate the uh effort that the city leadership and engineering have gone through to help move this forward.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Mr.

Burton.

The next individual I call on Joshua Crank.

Good evening and welcome.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Joshua Cronk.

I live at 926 Ashley Drive.

I'm here tonight regarding the proposed Hope Lutheran Church Edition as well.

Specifically, uh my own comments on the traffic study conducted in September and a few outstanding concerns.

Starting with the study, I also want to thank the commission for facilitating that analysis.

It is sincerely appreciated.

The study conducted in September reached the general conclusion that the proposed church may not drastically increase overall traffic across the broader area when compared to a single-family housing development.

However, if you look closer, particularly at page nine, it does become clear that 6th Street, which has been the main local street of concern, would still experience a notable increase in traffic compared to a residential development.

On this street, the quiet days for hope is comparable to the uh the high-end numbers of a fully developed residential neighborhood setting.

However, that means any increased period at all for hope, whether it be Wednesdays, Sundays, or a wedding or a funeral here and there, would burden 6th Street far beyond what residential use would ever create.

So while the overall average impact may seem moderate on paper, the real world effect for residents on this street is statistically significant.

It's also worth renoting the scale of this project.

The proposed parking lot alone would hold over 400 vehicles.

To put that into perspective, the public parking ramp at the lights, which serves hundreds of apartments, residents, and businesses, has exactly 400 spaces.

So essentially we're talking about putting a commercial-sized parking lot comparable to a target right in the middle of a neighborhood and then connecting it directly to a local residential street.

One of the core excuses Hope representatives gave for choosing this site was that city utilities weren't otherwise available on their originally intended location across the field.

I believe this commission approved the special assessments for those utilities at your September 15th meeting.

And that installation uh on those would be getting underway soon.

With that core obstacle gone for hope, it would be fair to ask that the original site, which arguably fits better for the scale of their project, be reconsidered.

At a minimum, there should be a restriction to 6th Street.

Uh that would go a long way towards reducing strain and impact on the nearby street.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

The next individual we call is Mike Meshewski.

Good evening and welcome.

Hey, thank you.

Uh good evening, Commissioner and Mayor.

Uh forgive me, I'm a little nervous, I'm not used to this, but uh my name is Mike Myshewski.

I live on Sixth Street West, and I'm here to strongly oppose the proposed full access driveway from Hope Lutheran development onto Sixth Street.

The traffic memorandum, dated 92625 from Bolton and Mink shows that 6th Street currently carries 150 vehicles a day with an average speed of 16 miles an hour.

It's a quiet residential street.

Adding a church exit would fundamentally change that.

The report assumes that only 16% of the traffic will use 6th Street, but this number is based on a model, not reality, and the reality has a way of ignoring models, especially when given navigation apps.

The estimate is wrong, and I believe it's gonna be double or triple that.

Please note that also that uh churches are operate as multi-use facilities, uh, daycares, events, shelters, uh, creating traffic and safety issues for uh residential zones.

Uh the big miss in the study was the uh pedestrian safety.

Uh this is where the report really falls short.

It recommends a pedestrian crossing on 9th Street, but nothing for 6th Street, even though it has proximity to Legacy Elementary School.

Kids walk and bike here every day.

We're talking about children crossing the street and could see traffic double or triple.

No sidewalks, no flashing beacons, no speed bumps, nothing.

This is not just an oversight, this is a recipe for risk.

Uh remember Wednesday evening church services start at 6 p.m.

Prime time for kids to play outside, families to walk dogs, and neighborhood activity.

Add winter darkness and icy roads, and you've got a dangerous mix.

You can see from the church's calendar that there's also several other events scheduled during peak traffic times.

Uh as I mentioned, the it ignores special events, funerals, weddings, and holiday services that will create traffic surges.

Uh these weren't modeled, and we know they will happen.

Uh the traffic memorandum uh gives us peak summer or peak hour numbers, but if we take a closer look, evenings being the busiest time, the report estimates 207 vehicles on 40th Avenue, 69 on 47th, and 147 on 50th.

Of course, 47th will dump into 6th Street.

The surge uh compared to normal this is a surge compared to normal vault volumes, yet the analysis admits that it didn't perform a detailed intersection operation study, just a high-level review.

That's like saying we glanced at it and it looks fine.

Sorry, I'm running short.

In short, uh the traffic estimates for 6th Street are way too low.

There's no traffic safety improvements planned, and the pedestrian risk, especially for school children, were ignored.

I respectfully ask the commission to remove the sixth street access point from the plan and restrict to access to 9th Street, which is designed for higher traffic volumes and already uh includes pedestrian infrastructure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Close the doors.

We've got some library traffic that we're hearing, so we're going to close the doors.

That concludes those folks that had signed up for public comment this evening.

So uh public comment is closed.

We move on to item number two.

Item number two is a public hearing.

Uh public hearing and first reading of A25-21, a zoning ordinance amendment to Title IV regarding landscaping.

We call him Mr.

Aaron Nelson, Director of Planning for the City of West Fargo.

Good evening and welcome.

Thank you, President Artis, and good evening, Commissioners.

So item two is a request for zoning ordinance amendments to Title IV regarding landscaping standards.

This uh specific requested action today is to hold the public hearing and to approve the first reading of this ordinance.

Uh this request comes to you with a recommendation for approval from the planning and zoning commission.

So these proposed modifications are primarily intended to address concerns regarding the required amount of landscaping for industrial properties located along the interstate.

Under current ordinances, all properties along the interstate are required to plant the uh greatest amount of vegetation on their property at the time of development compared to other areas of towns, regardless of whether the property is industrial, commercial, business, or multifamily.

In recent meetings with the owner of two lots within the uh newer portion of the sandhills development, uh the owner expressed some uh very strong concerns regarding the these industrial properties and the required level of landscaping required, um specifically in comparison to uh you know commercial development or an office park development, um, something that you typically see along our interstate corridor.

Um staff can uh agrees with the concerns raised, uh which is what prompted this uh requested amendment.

Um additional modifications are proposed to further improve clarity and relax some of the more rigid aspects of the landscaping standards.

Uh those uh copy of the ordinance is included in your meeting packet, but just to summarize at a relatively high level here some of the changes that we're looking to make.

Uh, one is to reduce the required landscaping for industrial properties along the interstate.

Uh essentially, we'd be adding a little bit more uh radiation in terms of the different classifications of zoning districts in proximity to these overlay zoning districts.

Um another one is to provide some increased flexibility for the type of landscaping used in parking lots.

Um also looking to clarify buffer yards and in terms of where they're required and what situations, uh, with the overarching focus being on protecting residential homes from more intensive land uses.

Um additionally, we added multiple graphics to help the reader visualize and understand how these landscaping um requirements apply to a specific physical site.

So happy to dive into any of the specifics.

The um kind of red line version of the ordinance is uh included in your packet here.

Happy to dive in deeper.

Otherwise, again, the requested action tonight is to hold the public hearing and to approve the first reading of the ordinance.

So with that, happy to answer any questions you may have for staff.

Thank you, Mr.

Nelson.

Commissioners, any questions for Mr.

Nelson?

Mr.

Jorgensen.

So I know when we do residential property, we withhold money from the developer for trees and such.

Do we do the same thing for commercial property?

That would assist in this.

Not for commercial property.

Commercial property, the expectation is that the street trees are installed at the same time as the remainder of their trees on their site.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Thank you.

Yep.

At this time, we're going to re go out of the regular agenda, and we are now going into uh the public hearing.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this ordinance change?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this ordinance change?

One last call.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this ordinance change?

Is there anyone that would like to speak against the ordinance change for A25-21?

Zoning ordinance amendment to Title IV regarding landscaping.

Is there anyone that would like to speak against?

Is there anyone that would like to speak against?

Thank you.

The public hearing is closed.

Commissioners.

Moving approved.

Commissioner Zundau moves to approve the first reading of A25 21 zoning ordinance amendment to Title IV regarding the landscaping ordinance.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Anderson seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve the first reading of A25 21 zoning ordinance amendment to Title IV regarding landscaping.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you, Mr.

Nelson.

Item number three is A25 A24-32, Hope Lutheran Edition.

A request for subdivision and rezoning from A to Residential 1A.

This item was tabled until the October 6th meeting at the October or August 4th meeting.

I'll be all right.

We're going to call on Aaron Nelson again, the director of planning.

Thank you.

So item three is a request for approval of the Hope Lutheran Edition Subdivision and zone change from A agricultural to R1A single dwelling residential.

This specific requested action today is to approve the second reading of the rezoning ordinance and the approve the final plat, including the associated subdivision and public dedication agreements that are associated with that plat.

This request comes to you with recommendation for approval from the planning and zoning commission.

A public hearing for this item was held at the July 21st City Commission meeting, at which the commission approved the first reading of the rezoning ordinance.

And then most recently, this item was heard at the August 4th City Commission meeting, at which time the city commission tabled this item until today's October 6th meeting and directed staff to commence uh or to construct or to commission rather a traffic study.

Since that October, excuse me, August 4th meeting, a traffic study has been completed by the engineering firm Bolton and Mink.

Because this is a tabled item which has been discussed at a couple of meetings.

Uh regarding the traffic study.

But certainly happy to answer any questions or to dive in into any detail regarding this material as well.

So with that.

Just to summarize, uh, the commission is being asked to approve two separate but related development entitlements.

The first is the requested rezoning of the subject property from the current zoning designation of A agricultural to the proposed zoning district of R1A single dwelling residential.

So the zoning map is up on the screen in front of you here.

The area in gray is the agricultural zoning district.

The area in yellow to the north and west is also the R1A district.

The uh second request is the uh for the final plat approval of the proposed Hope Lutheran edition.

A copy of the subdivision plat is also included in your packet here and up on your screen.

Uh this is a single lot subdivision, um, which is basically just plat a single 12-acre lot.

Uh there have been no changes to the proposed rezoning or subdivision requests since this item was last presented to the city commission on on a excuse me on August 4th.

Uh since the last meeting, uh city has received a few additional written comments, uh, copies of those comments that were received prior to today are included in your packet.

I believe we did receive one additional comment within the within the last hour.

I don't know if we sound like we got a copy hard copy of you guys.

It has been distributed of that to you as well.

Good deal.

Um included in your meeting packet is a copy of the completed traffic study by Bolton and Mink.

Um, in summary, the traffic study concludes that the existing roadway system is expected to accommodate traffic from the proposed church with minimal impacts and no major safety concerns noted.

The study does recommend two mitigation measures, including uh the addition of a turn lane on 9th Street into the property at the intersection of Mulberry Lane.

Uh, that uh trend lane is actually already included in the subdivision agreement as a prerequisite for development on this property.

And the second mitigation measure that was recommended in the traffic study is the addition of uh pedestrian crossing signage at two of the existing crosswalks at Mulberry Lane and um I think it's 51st Avenue.

Uh the two access points on 9th Street there.

Uh additionally, the traffic study notes that compared to single family development, the church is anticipated to generate generate less uh daily overall traffic most days of the weeks, most days of the week, other than Sundays and Wednesdays.

Uh Sunday and Wednesday church traffic generation is anticipated to be comparable to the current uh traffic generated by Legacy Elementary during school days.

Um again, Wednesdays and Sundays, there is anticipated to be more traffic than if this is property or this area were to develop as single family.

Also important to note that Wednesday evening peak hour traffic generated by the church may overlap with traffic peaks from adjacent residential areas.

So this would be the PM peak period when folks are coming home from work.

Typically there's activity going on at Hope Church or around the 6 o'clock hour.

And so as people are coming home, there's also traffic going to the church.

And so that's the kind of the area of most overlap with the existing traffic.

However, again, no significant um increases in traffic delays are expected with this overlap.

So again, a full copy of the traffic study is included in the meeting packet.

Additionally, uh Mike Bittner from Bolton and Mink is present should you have any detailed questions about the traffic study.

And then uh lastly, just as a reminder, it is important to highlight that religious institutions are afforded special protections under federal law.

And as such, staff advises that any motions for uh conditions, restrictions, or denial of the requested entitlements uh be carefully considered in consultation with city staff and the city attorney.

So in closing, staff finds the request to be consistent with city plans and ordinances as outlined within the staff report and the requested action tonight is to approve the second reading of the rezoning ordinance and the final plat, um, including the associated subdivision public dedication agreements.

Uh additionally, representatives of the applicant or of the application are present.

Should you have any questions for the applicant?

Otherwise, again, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have for staff.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Nelson.

Commissioner Olson.

Yes, uh, thanks, Aaron.

Uh, just one quick point of clarification.

On your map that you've got right there.

Um there's an area there between uh 6th Street and the next home there, right there.

Yep.

So now you go to the next uh screen above and you see that's all part of that replat.

What happens to that that area that gets lopped off on the platform?

So yeah, thank you.

Thanks for pointing that out.

So just a point of clarification here.

The uh aerial map here and the zoning map.

Um this uh kind of teal boundary represents the original outline of the subdivision that that was the original subdivision that was originally submitted way months back.

Since that time, the applicant has modified their application and and trimmed off that northeast corner.

And so in reality, that is no longer part of the application.

There's actually going to be a little area right here that's going to remain unplatted.

So that will still be part of this larger unplatted tract of land to the east.

Um, and the idea there is we've got uh kind of a general area plan.

This is just a conceptual example of how the how the uh proposed subdivision could potentially fit in with the existing development and future potential future development to the east.

So the idea there is there's enough room available where if this area to the east does develop, we can still fit a road in there to connect with the local street network in here.

So again, the the desire there is for additional connectivity to allow you know multiple points of uh multiple options for residents and church goers and just anybody in this neighborhood to uh get to and from where they're going.

So the zoning will remain if we approve second reading, zoning would still stay as agriculture or will go to residential.

For that little finger right there, that would remain as agricultural.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

Commissioner Anderson.

All right.

Um brought up uh concerns with safety, especially around that sixth street.

I've got those same concerns uh, even if it were you know community center or something else uh going in there and looking to access sixth.

Um having that little plat that we were just discussing there, that little spot there brings up an interesting point.

If this were approved and it gets built out and everything, are they is a plan to build out to that street as a connection right away, or is it or would they wait until the rest of the area to the east is developed?

According to the applicant, they would want to build that connection point right away, um, right away in conjunction with the construction of the church.

Uh essentially they would be uh, I believe they would be getting an easement from the adjacent property owner in order to basically have an extra long driveway across the uh across that tract of land to access 6th Street.

Okay, so if it's an extra long drive, it would be at their expense and not at the expense of any neighboring residents in the form of specials or anything like that.

Correct, it would all be private.

Yep.

Thank you.

Any other additional questions?

Commissioner Commissioner Dundell, excuse me.

Can you just go over like for example, they talk about streetlight data in the study?

So can you just kind of talk about that section of the traffic study and then also how they arrived at the 16% traffic increase on those various streets?

Yeah.

I can add a high level, but I'd probably defer to the traffic engineer or also our engineering staff to answer some of the more technical aspects.

But do your first question about streetlight data, my understanding is that's data that's available on the commercial market for various vendors and folks to use is essentially cell phone data, uh, companies that track GPS.

I think it's anonymous data that gets you know combined into a big data set somewhere, um, then that's kind of used as a stand-in for vehicles.

So assuming that a cell phone traveling at X number of miles per hour is most likely traveling in a vehicle and taking average of how many, you know, what the average is for a how many vehicles have cell phones in them.

Again, I'm not an expert in that field, so all that's my rough understanding.

Um it's commercially available data that traffic engineers are able to utilize to to analyze traffic patterns.

Um in terms of your second question, you might need to remind me um of that.

Uh they had talked about increasing the traffic on sixth street specifically, and I believe the figure was 16%.

I was curious how they got that data.

Yeah, and that one I'm not sure on.

I'll have to defer to engineering on that one.

Good evening and welcome.

Mayor members of the commission, my name is Mike Bittner, work for Bolton Amankha help with the traffic study.

Um to start with the streetlight data.

Um, it is big data, anonymized information.

It's pretty useful, particularly on a study like this because we were able to compare the other similar sites to understand traffic patterns and how much we typically see over several month period as opposed to estimating that.

We also complement that with national studies on similar size church based on patronage and size and scale of the overall church.

So it's kind of a double approach to looking at overall traffic data from a site generated like that.

Uh the 16%, um, we've got a ton of data to estimate how much traffic a site like this will generate.

As you start to dial into distributions of what route they'll take, it becomes a bit more nuanced and a bit more engineering judgment goes into that.

And so the way we look at that is certainly trying to find the desire lines for traffic to find their most efficient route to hire functionally classified roadways, such as 40th Avenue, Cheyenne Street, and 52nd.

Ninth is pretty efficient in terms of lacking access.

Um certainly 47th and 6 has lots of driveways.

It is a quiet local street.

Um also Cheyenne Street doesn't have traffic control at that location the same way that 52nd would.

So there's a bit of engineering judgment.

Um that is by all means one of the more challenging elements to estimate.

And so, you know, if you were to redistribute that and say it's one third, one third, one third, you could say that maybe an extra 200 cars might take that route if that were to change.

I'd say the challenging part is it's probably the best route in.

Now, if things are congested, you might see people start, you know, traffic's gonna find a way no matter the way you you go through there.

So um, but we definitely like to start with a good estimate uh based on the actual data that we have, travel times and the way that we think that it could move through there.

So Commissioner, go ahead.

I think if I'm hearing you correctly, it sounds like it was a very highly subjective kind of guesstimate for lack of a better word.

I mean, do you have any truly objective data that would say, yep, I came to 16% because I used a calculation or because when we look at XYZ, or was it is 16 in a range of what's expected?

And then I guess my follow-up question would be if it was one third, one third, one third, would that have changed anything in this traffic report?

So it is mathematically based, so there are existing ADTs, and so that kind of gives us an indication of the.

Sorry, apologies.

Uh sometimes not an engineer.

I speak that's the way I speak in my head, so it comes out like that.

So annual daily traffic, so how much traffic is for a day.

Um and so as we look at the existing traffic volumes on those three links, we can already see quite a few more people are choosing 9th Street over taking that 47th out.

And so we start that as kind of your first distribution, and then we start to massage it based on the actual routes.

You know, what a you know, if you were to take Google, how fast would it say to be faster?

So we do use math as our basis to start all of that analysis.

And then we try to massage in the nuances of the corridor, the curvature and the access points, and just the desirability of a local road versus a collector.

So that's that's the process in which we take to get there.

Okay.

And if it was one third, one third, one third, would that have changed any of what you had to say in this report?

Let's say the 16% is really 33% after all, does that change anything?

From from a purely technical standpoint, it probably wouldn't.

I mean, overall, you know, the corridors are capable of carrying that much traffic.

They're both have two lines of traffic.

That's not to say that you know that's more desirable to have on a local street versus a different road.

Um, but overall, the roadway does have the structural capacity and the overall capacity to accommodate that.

So if you were to increase that, um, the overall changes would look similar.

That's not to say that it's you know not less desirable to move traffic through a local roadway.

I think the concern is maybe not necessarily the degradation of the roadway, but it's more about pedestrian safety and how people feel in their homes with their driveways and things like that.

So I guess from a safety perspective, do you think that would have changed anything?

Like I'm hearing Mr.

Nelson say there's no safety concerns, we have no safety concerns with this.

And I mean, I understand the road roadways are meant to have traffic on them, they're meant to have cars, we're not increasing commercial traffic, but um I think the concern with the 16 percent is let's say it is 33 percent.

How does that change things for the people who currently reside on 6th street?

Because I think from my understanding, this this exit is not needed from a planning and zoning perspective.

This is a totally optional access point that's added.

So I guess I'm trying to understand if if the 16 percent isn't 16 percent and it's really 33 percent, like one third, one third, one third, what does that change from a safety perspective?

Certainly you'd have more conflicts between traffic and pedestrians, and so I mean, certainly there's tools that you could look at if you wanted to deter traffic from taking that local road.

Um you could have you know your maintenance of traffic plans to prevent traffic exiting an event to use that and only use it during normal operations.

You could look at better crossings at different locations if you start to see increase in traffic.

So there's opportunities to look at some of that if you didn't want traffic using that route.

And then let's say we took that sixth street exit totally out of it.

Would that have changed anything on 9th street from a safety perspective or from a traveling perspective, or really from a traffic flow perspective or anything like that?

No, I'm not on that the corridor is pretty efficient in terms of its lack of access and the ability for those two routes to take people in two different directions to 40th and 52nd.

Um so that'd be pretty similar and in terms of overall operations by moving just a couple hundred cars, it would operate pretty similarly.

Okay, and so just so I'm not mistaking you at all, and I'm very clear.

If we're wrong on the sixth street number, there are potential safety concerns.

If we're wrong on the ninth street number, there's no safety concerns.

I think the safety concerns are are pretty similar both ways.

I I would say uh certainly you're just wherever has more traffic as more potential for conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, and so depending on your acceptability of what road that goes on, kind of changes your perception of that.

Okay.

And then Mr.

Nelson, can you remind me?

Are there any current pedestrian access points on six at all?

Or are those only on 9th Street right now?

Well, we have um you know standard crosswalks at intersections.

Um is that what you're asking?

Basically, what do we have for like pedestrian?

So once once that road goes there, what would you do for pedestrians at basically the nearest intersections, or is there already something there?

Um yeah, 48th and 6th street.

This intersection here?

Yep.

I guess I'm not sure what's there in terms of existing crosswalks.

But typically in uh residential neighborhood along residential streets, we don't have sometimes we do if it's near a school or something, we would have marked crosswalks.

But a lot of times it's just uh I don't know what the terminology would be, but every sidewalk return into the street to accommodate a crossing.

Okay.

And then if you looked at the same exits on that would be near 9th street, are there any pedestrian crosswalks or anything already labeled on 9th Street?

There are, yeah.

So both the both the access points on a 9th street have marked crosswalks.

You can kind of see it in the image here.

Uh there are across those white bars across 9th Street.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Yep.

Any more questions for the gentleman from Bolton Make?

Not really a question or comment.

Please.

The 16% that you brought up would be in comparison to if there were 60 single family homes put in there, the church would only increase the traffic on 16th Street by 16 percent.

Okay.

So and even then, Dad.

I know, I know.

But then even though there will be 60 homes in there, you would still have to raise your same concerns about safety.

Because you're gonna have more traffic there than there is there today.

So I just want to bring that up that there will be safety concerns no matter what would go in there.

Right.

I think my concern is more that there's not 200 people likely leaving their homes at the same time.

So there's obviously an uneven distribution of when traffic is going to be flowing.

So I understand that residential homes by nature are going to increase traffic flow and traffic patterns just like they would be built for flow in any residential neighborhood.

We're not typically having waves of people of 200 people at a time trying to exit someplace on a weekend when there are people out.

I I don't think that that is an Apple State, you know, or just comparison.

So that's why I was asking.

Okay.

Commissioners, anything else from Mr.

Nelson or the gentleman from Bolton and Meg.

Thank you both.

I have a uh I want to do a summary so everybody in the room understands uh what the the process is.

As a reminder, a public hearing for this item was held on July 21st, 2025, during which the city commission approved the first reading of the rezoning ordinance.

The second reading and final approval of the rezoning ordinance, along with the final approval of the subdivision plot, were originally scheduled for the August 4th City Commission meeting.

At that time, however, the Commission voted to table this item until tonight's October 6th meeting and directed staff to commission a traffic study prior to the October 6th meeting.

I've received some emails today that that traffic study was not available.

That's not true.

The traffic study has been on our city website for over a week.

The traffic study has now been completed and is included in tonight's meeting packet for review.

So you could have also viewed it on the agenda packet for this evening.

So tonight we return to this item for consideration of the second reading and final approval of the rezoning ordinance, as well as final approval of the subdivision plot.

Please note that the public hearing for this item was already held on July 21st meeting, and therefore there will be no more public comment on this item tonight.

Please also note that all written comments that have been submitted to the city prior to today, up to one hour before this meeting, have been included in the meeting packet and distributed to all commissioners.

With that introduction, I now call on staff to further present this item if they have anything else, or for the city commission to take action.

You have anything else for us, Mr.

Nelson?

Unless there's any other questions.

Do any commissioners have another question of Mr.

Nelson?

Please, not a Mr.

Nelson, but more of legal.

Since we tabled this back on August 4th, what do we need to do to take it off the table?

You can make a motion to break take it off the table and then to have it before you for consideration tonight.

Okay.

So that will stand alone as a separate motion to bring it back to the table to the uh tonight's agenda.

I'll make that motion.

Commissioner Olson moves to remove to uh remove A twenty four-32 Hope Lutheran edition off the table and bringing it back to this meeting.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Anderson seconds.

We have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion on the uh bringing this back to the agenda?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Commissioners, your deliberations on this issue.

Move we approve second reading.

And final plot or two final.

And final plot.

Yep.

Commissioner Olson moves to approve second reading of A24-32 Hope Lutheran edition and the final plot as presented this evening by Mr.

Nelson, Director of Planning.

Is there a second?

Is there a second?

Motion fails for a lack of a second.

I want to remind everyone in the room that I have recused myself from this.

My property is my back fence touches this property, and I have uh family members that it belong to Hope Lutheran, so I am recusing myself.

So we had a motion and it failed due to a lack of second.

Is there any other action that you'd like to take this evening on this item?

Ms.

Schmidt, did you give us any advice here?

So we've lied we brought it back from the being a table.

The motion to approve has failed due to a lack of a second.

So is this item officially dead?

Yeah, I guess it would be because there wouldn't be anything to approve it.

Okay.

Could we approve a modified motion?

Certainly.

It could be a modified it would be a brand new one.

Well, I guess that there was no second.

So yeah, you could bring it another motion.

What I think we're all very clearly struggling with up here is the sixth street access, which is not a necessary or required access for this thing.

While I understand this is a zoning change from agricultural to residential the can of worms has been open for what this looks like, and I think there is an overwhelming I mean I had I've been contacted about this by residents in this neighborhood probably three times more than any issue, you know, any issue, and and I get it.

I I understand.

I I find it incredibly frustrating for them.

I would not want that on my street if I was on Sixth Street.

Um I I guess I I guess I go back and forth on what our options really are.

I feel like we've kind of expressed and everybody's expressed their frustration with the sixth street access.

So I guess where are we within our legal means, considering this is only a rezon for this to eliminate the sixth street access?

If we if we have legal means to do that.

I don't know if we do or not.

I feel like it's kind of gray, but as a resident parliamentarian, I would assume we could have a two-part motion.

The first motion being to approve the second reading, and then the final plot with what you're suggesting.

I'm assuming you're suggesting of excluding the sixth street access.

Am I not correct?

Yes, you could approach it that way.

What if any legal ramification?

I mean, again, I I think we're caught in this whole, we're not really approving the plot.

Once we redo the rezone, a church is able to be in the neighborhood, and that that plat wouldn't even come before us and would just be approved, and because it's not a required entrance, there's nothing to limit that.

So what recourse do we have if that's right.

So technically the site plan is not before you, right?

So the access is the access is obviously a concern for you.

But when you consider these, right under federal law, it has to be the least restrictive means to accomplish a compelling governmental interest.

If you're saying that the access, the safety, the traffic is your compelling governmental interest, you can impose some sort of least restrictive alternative, which we could include in the development agreement for access, right?

Developments agreements or infrastructure, those sorts of things, improvements that go in.

So we could certainly include something in there that you would consider to be the least restrictive means to accomplish your safety traffic concerns.

I think what I hear from the church is also that they somewhat acknowledge that.

The gentleman that was here in public comment the last time quite literally said we would have it for emergency access only.

We're gonna instruct our patrons not to use it, but we want it in case there's development to the east, and that's why it's remaining.

So I think my question would also be with that once the development to the east occurs, if and when that happens, if we put a restriction on it now, is it going to be restrictive of that entrance at that time?

It would be tough to do it that way, just not knowing what would come there to the east.

Are they able to bring that back for an access point once we replot it if there is development to the east?

Can we replot it so that there is an exit at that point, or what are the church's options for that?

We I mean the city controls access, so that's something that they can certainly come back with.

Yeah, Mr.

Nelson.

Thank you.

I would just add, I think with the development agreement, we can craft it in such a way that there are you know certain trigger points that you know if the area to the east does get platted someday and there is right of way someday, you know, that's a trigger point where they can come back and request that access point.

I don't know if that's along the lines of what you're um proposing here, but yes, it would be if there was a means that we could set it up, because then we would know at that point what sort of an um development was happening over there, and then the city could reassess what we could actually do at that point in terms of access.

Is there anything, Mr.

Nelson, that we're missing here from the perspective of this sixth street access point?

It's my understanding again that it is not required per planning and zoning to have it.

Obviously, everybody's frustrations I know have been communicated with the church.

What compelling reason is there to keep the access point, if anything, from an emergency access perspective, from anything else, what are we missing anything that we have not heard about that access point?

Um, maybe just at a high level, just to summarize some of you know staff's thought in this overall.

Um, you know, generally speaking, the comprehensive plan talks about connectivity.

We want connectivity on local streets to provide people with lots of different options for getting places.

When you have connectivity within a neighborhood, it allows folks to disperse, traffic to disperse instead of getting bottlenecked at a single you know, access point trying to get into a single stoplight, for example, onto an arterial.

So that's kind of the overarching reason for uh a desire for connectivity within the comprehensive plan.

When it comes to um maybe some potential reasons to not allow it, I think that goes back to the uh you know federal um requirements when it comes to religious institutions.

And so again, needing to identify a compelling government interest, and then whatever the remedy for that interest is needs to be really the least restrictive means of accomplish accomplishing you know that that end.

Um when it comes to required access, that kind of falls onto the fire code.

Um generally speaking, according to the the West Fargo Fire Department, you know, they're pleased that there are at least two access points.

They're not requiring three access points in terms of the fire code requirements based on the uh anticipated development of this property.

Um generally speaking, if there was an emergency here, they'd probably be using 9th Street, was uh was the response.

So that's not to say that more access points don't doesn't provide more options for emergency services into the property.

Um so those are some of the maybe um arguments for it.

But like it's been stated here, there will certainly be um increased traffic, regardless if this is a church or any other development.

Um the nice thing about a church is in a neighborhood is that it is what we refer to as complementary in terms of the traffic patterns.

Typically the busy periods of church are offset from the busy periods of a neighborhood.

If it's a uniform land use, typically those peak periods are all the same, and so you have everybody trying to get out in the morning, everybody trying to get back in in the evening.

So those are some things that come to mind in relation to some of the pros and cons here.

I don't know if that's helpful or not.

Can you expand on the least restrictive kind of comment?

I hear you say that, but that sounds very legal easy to me.

Can you break that down?

Anyone I can try and maybe I'll defer to Ms.

Schmidt here, but um my understanding is that it's it's really um it's not overly burdensome when it comes to um the uh the outcome that you're looking for.

And so safety is a concern.

What is the least amount of burden you we can place on the church in order to accomplish the safety goals?

Um is how I would start to summarize that.

And I'll I'll flip it to Katie here.

Yeah, no, that's great.

So it's it's considering kind of the continuum of things that you could put in place.

So you're thinking safety, traffic, it goes from not having access at all to you know having a pedestrian ramp to having a stop sign to having full access, right?

So it's anywhere in there, and you have to figure out what the least restrictive of those is to satisfy your goal of safety and traffic.

Does that make sense?

Correct.

So maybe the traffic engineering question, what what to accomplish concerns of safety, is there any other alternatives to not having access at all that makes sense at that location that would accomplish the question?

Well, I think you know, one more thing I forgot to add maybe to your previous question is that um the city a few years back did adopt a um traffic calming policy or a study.

Uh so we do have a mechanism in place for any residential you know street, if if there are safety concerns, there is a means by which a neighborhood can request that um safety uh measures be put in place, whether it's a speed table or signage or or whatnot, there's a menu of different options included in that um traffic calming study that MetroCog put together on behalf of the city.

Um and so that's another I think important thing just to keep in mind is that you know this is a relatively quiet residential street.

However, there are plenty of streets within the city that do have significantly more traffic volumes, even though they are local streets.

Um so regardless of which street it is it is in a city, we do have uh a policy in place for how to handle um safety concerns in relation to specifically you know traffic speeding and and stuff.

Mr.

Jorgensen.

So I've been remaining pretty quiet here over this whole thing, trying to take it all in.

I struggle with the traffic study saying that if we put 60 houses in there, it would create the same amount of volume of traffic, even at three cars per house.

That's 180, and we have a 420 plus parking unit.

That I get it at there's high times and low times and no times.

Uh the other thing I struggle is with sixth street access, if they're already willing to pay for the street and put it in, there must be talks between the church and said landowner to already have an easement.

They've already discussed that in my opinion.

That that's correct, yeah.

So they're looking forward to that.

And I I completely agree with everybody that lives in the neighborhood and all the people that have contacted us, and you know, we're here to represent the people.

And the one sentence that stroke hit to me, I guess, was they're gonna put this church in, and then in X amount of years, they're gonna add 25% more growth.

Compact what the neighborhood's already looking at as issue of the problems.

I just I would be in the same boat as the people that live there that you know we're under the presumption that this was gonna be a residential neighborhood.

You know, and if we're talking about the emergency access, is there anything for hydrants on the east side of that property where the fire department?

I mean, that's a long way in from 9th to if you're gonna lay in, I mean, over 300 feet along.

That's over 300 feet to get to the back of that building.

Yeah, and I can defer to the the project architect on that one, but typically, yeah, if there's no public fire hydrants, they're typically installing private ones on site.

That would be reviewed as part of the billing permit.

No, I just I struggle with the whole proposal.

Thank you.

Schmidt, could you perhaps help me make a motion that would accomplish the approval with some protections for sixth street under safety and traffic, please?

Sure.

What sort of options are you thinking?

You said you know the church considered the emergency only exit signs, um having something there.

What what sort of options are you are you considering?

Well, we have to rezone it first before we put anything else in play.

Yeah.

Which comes first?

The rezoning or the replatting?

I think they're one in the same one fail swoops.

Yeah, right now it's agriculture, is that chunk we're talking about?

So I think the purpose of the rezone is to plot it.

If I'm not sure, but they're not asking for us to replot that they're not asking us to replot, they are asking us to accept the plot that that's been presented.

Okay.

Uh I just I don't know that a speed table or any, you know, maybe the option is again.

Do we go back?

Or I guess is it more helpful if we go back to look at other options for safety for that access point, or do you feel that the traffic study that we have now covers all the basis of what we would be looking for?

I.e.

is there any difference of I don't know what you would put in for traffic calming in that location, obviously that was not covered, but is there any additional information from a safety perspective that we could gather or could look at or could do that would address any of this, or is the best way to address Dan looks like he's coming up.

Lots of engineering questions today.

I I want to make one point perfectly clear.

Normal protocol on city government is when an item comes here, and if it we brought it back from the table, if this fails this evening, the protocol has been that this can't be reinduced, reintroduced for one year.

Can we motion to table it again?

You can.

For what purpose whether you learn I'm just I'm bringing that up.

I guess that's what I'm asking.

Again, the uh the uh city policy with regard to protocol.

Please, Mr.

Hanson, welcome.

Thank you, Commissioner President Artist and Commissioners.

Um, with respect to um safety improvements on Sixth Street West, as uh Mr.

Nelson did point out we do have the traffic calming uh uh process that we can go through for that.

Um the standard that we would do would be to put speed tables in there to slow traffic down.

Uh obviously that might not exactly reduce the amount of traffic, but it would slow the traffic down through that corridor.

Um the other thing is is the gentleman from Boat and Mink uh stated earlier, the number of driveways, the amount of turns, the bends in the road, the things that slow people down when they leave, generally speaking, uh makes people want to go out a different way.

So uh slowing traffic down on Sixth Street through most likely uh speed tables.

Uh there are other things that you can do.

You can put some bump outs on the side to make it feel narrower, and you can stripe it.

Those things are considered traffic calming, but the the thing that we usually land on that does is the most effective is the speed tables uh just to slow traffic down, and that would potentially encourage people to go in a different direction.

Uh but I would say that that would probably be the implementation the implemented traffic calming that would happen in that corridor.

So Mr.

Hanson, when a neighborhood requests traffic calming within their neighborhood at the re they petition the city for what is the protocol who pays for those improvements?

So with the current policy that we have in place, um the there's a submission saying, hey, traffic's going too fast, uh, that initiates a traffic study of that uh roadway, and uh it takes a look at a number of different criteria, meaning how many crashes have been involved in it, uh, what is the average speed in involved in it, and things like that.

Um that would if if it satisfies any one of those conditions, it triggers a neighborhood meeting.

At that neighborhood meeting, we lay out here the options that we would have available to calm the traffic on the roadway.

And uh generally speaking, there's typically uh a champion from the neighborhood that uh takes a petition to the neighbors that would be within an improvement district uh for those traffic calming measures.

And uh the petition would be 80 percent of the people or property owners within that uh within that improvement district uh that would need to come back and that would trigger the city moving forward with the project.

There also is a predic uh a condition in that uh traffic calming study that says it can also be approved by the city engineer.

Uh so there is uh the city engineer can take a look at it and say, I don't care what the petitions say, I believe that this is necessary and uh recommend moving forward with it, and it would be up to the commission uh whether we would have an improvement district with that or if we would just want to proceed with the project and pay for it.

All right.

Say that the last sentence again.

Uh so if the city engineer says we're going to take this on as a city project, we feel that this is necessary, and we're going to install uh say two traffic uh bumps in the roadway uh for the public, uh then the city would have the option of either just paying for it or creating an improvement district, which we would move through a normal assessment process uh which could be petitioned out by the people property owners within that improvement district, and the city always has the right to install these improvements on their streets by paying for it as well.

Thank you.

I wanted that clarified.

There could be special assessments for some of these traffic things dependent upon the findings is how we move forward.

Thank you.

Yep.

I think overall I just would like some more information.

I don't want to close access without.

I mean, I think Commissioner Jorgensen, I didn't hadn't even thought of that, but I I would like another two weeks to gather some more information.

So I would make a motion that we table this until our next commission meeting.

We have a motion to table item number three A24 24-32 Hope-Luthan addition.

Is there a second motion fails due to a lack of a second?

Commissioner Anderson.

All right.

So it would seem to me that the least burden, some however we want to, however, it needs to be phrased, uh, way we could go about this would be if we withhold access from 6th Street while maintaining the option in the developers agreement that Mr.

Nelson brought up.

If anything gets brought up to the east, we can address the potential connection there.

That's part of my concerns with this additional traffic.

Um I don't know that a speed table is going to address the concerns which is traffic.

Um I'm more than certain that the residents in that neighborhood would be unwilling to be assessed for that.

So it would come down to a city funding that project, which I'm not necessarily okay with.

So I'll make the motion to approve second reading and approve the plat.

And Ms.

Schmidt help me with this if I need to clarify with the condition that we withhold access to 6th Street, and we put it in the developers agreement that access can be requested later if something to the east is developed.

So you're saying developed in terms of like it's platted.

Yeah.

Platter gets to a point where there would be a need for infrastructure to the east of that property for you know, like the one of the images that was in uh in there.

Page nine.

Can you show page nine error?

Something like that.

Yep.

Right, to where we don't have because to me it would be a burden for the church to pay for this little piece of driveway for the news.

So then I view that as less burdensome to limit the access to just 9th street until something else is developed to the east, and they can request access.

Actually, Aaron, if you're on 13, if you go back up to 9.

Shows a little better.

No, no, you he was right on 13.

No, but I mean it's a better clearer picture on nine than it is.

What could come years down?

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, that's exactly right.

Yeah.

I just can't say the conversation stays on the motion.

Please, so a motion to approve both with the condition in the development agreement that the developer can come back and request access on 6th Street West slash 48th Avenue West once the area to the east is platted, or there is development in that area.

Yep.

Is that the intent of your motion?

Yes.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Zundell seconds.

We have a motion and a second on A24-32 for Hope Lutheran addition, which would approve the rezoning of agriculture to R-1A with conditions with regard to future development on 6th Street.

Is there any additional discussion?

Any more discussion?

Again, I remind that I will be recusing myself.

I'd like to call for a roll call vote, please.

Madam Secretary.

Commissioner Anderson.

Yes.

Commissioner Olson.

I.

Commissioner Zondell.

Yes.

Commissioner Jorgensen.

No.

Motion passes.

Moving on.

We are now on item number four.

Before we go on.

I would like to thank everybody on both sides of this issue for your engagement.

Uh Commissioner Zondal is correct.

Commissioner Olson and I, we've been doing this for just under eight years.

And this is without a doubt the most public engagement that we've had on the topic, and we thank you for that.

That that's that helps guide us as uh elected officials on how we uh develop our city.

So whether you're on one side or the other, thank you for your engagement.

Thank you.

Moving on.

We are now on item number four, lexipoll policy presentation.

We call on Sarah Goshevik.

Uh Director of Human Resources.

Good evening, Commission President and Commissioners.

I know policies aren't exciting, but I didn't expect a massive.

Uh so uh this evening I bring forward to you uh the first grouping, if you will, of five policies uh that we are looking for commission approval for uh in our new lexical policy layout.

This is uh will be a regular reoccurring agenda item on the second no the first agenda um of each month, and so we'll bring different policies.

The number of those may vary depending on how many we have ready and and need commission approval, but we are seeking your approval for the five that are listed up there tonight.

So there recently was in the media where an individual from a particular city government on his personal got some very strong opinions.

Okay, this policy does not prevent anything like that, nor do I think it should, but I just want to clarify that this is the official use of city computers and the like.

Correct?

So I presume you are addressing policy 105, the local government use of social media.

Item three and item three.

There we go.

Uh so it if you read through the policy, you'll see that it doesn't actually talk about where the media posting is being made from, but rather how they are presenting it.

So we are not restricting people's rights to voice their opinions.

We are, however, restricting their right to voice their opinions speaking on behalf of the city.

So if they want to say the carpet is not their favorite, they are more than allowed to do that.

But if they want to say as a city employee, I think the carpet is not my favorite, they are not allowed to do that without permission.

Thank you for clarification.

Commissioner Olson?

Can they use city-owned media sources like a laptop or a cell phone to make that personal comment?

The short answer is no, but that is not covered in this policy, it actually covered in the technology use policy for the city.

Thank you for that clarification as well.

Commissioner Zondell.

I think one of the things that becomes apparent any time you start making policies.

I know, especially as an elected official, I read that and I see to some degree what other jurisdictions are going through with some of this stuff.

Is there any plans to do any type of governance manual work?

I know this is becoming an ever-increasing in popularity way to address the difficult nature of having elected officials and having employees and appointed officials.

Is there anything like that been discussed or in the works?

The best answer I can give you there is we've not been given the directive to develop such.

Commissioner Zundale.

Uh, my only other uh thing that I noticed was in the policy 101.

I do think there should be a different bullet to address people that are appointed that are not employees because they're not paid.

I think we have appointed members on various boards that are not publicly elected.

Um, but they it's on page 3028.

Forgive me, Commissioner Zendel.

Are you referring to policy 100 or 102?

There, right there.

So policy 100, okay.

Yep.

And you would like to see us add a line that just I just think a gray area of this is for example the library board.

They are appointed, but they're not publicly elected, but they're also not an employee.

So under employee, you have a bullet for appointed personnel, and you're saying this does not include persons appointed to fill an elected official vacancy, but we have appointed members on the economic development committee who are appointed by elected officials but are not publicly elected and they are not paid.

So that would be a gray area as well.

Sorry.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners.

Uh thank you for the question, Commissioner Zundell.

So underneath elected official, there is a distinction made as let's call it line two under elected official, as well as any individual who is appointed or otherwise selected to fill such a position that has been vacated prior to so on so on and so forth.

So it does talk about appointed committee members being in the same regard as an elected official, and there is also similar language that is in Century Code that makes a very uh strong distinction between an employee versus an elected official and any committee that is operating at the direction of the city commission.

They are held to the same uh standards as that elected office.

So we could certainly address I just want to make sure it's covered because it reads very correct me if I'm wrong, but century code does discuss um elected positions or or uh uh should I say appointed positions to serve on committees or commissions or boards are held to the same standards as elected officials?

Yeah, they fall in the same purview.

Excellent.

And that's not to be confused with our appointment officers, where the city commission does appoint certain officers to serve in certain capacities, for example, the city engineer, the police chief, fire chief, so on so forth.

Commissioner Olson.

On that topic of the elected official, and on that second line there, it says, as well as individual, any individual who is appointed to fill such position has been vacated to at the conclusion that elected individual's term.

So I take that as let's say I get hit by a MAC truck on my way home today.

You appoint somebody to fill my spot.

You're you're appointing somebody to an elected position to fill out the term.

That doesn't cover the EDAX or the library boards or the planning commissions and all that.

That's where you that's my concern.

That's your concern.

No.

And that's where that bullet point for appointed personnel.

I would, and again, we can add some clarification language, but I would I would refer to century code as to what an appointed position is and what capacity do they serve.

Okay.

We can always amend these, right?

They're not set in stone, so we could approve these tonight and then make whatever necessary changes there are rather than keeping it back for another whole month.

100%.

And if you want to approve this contingent upon adding additional language, that is certainly an option.

If I'm interested in making a governance motion in addition to a motion to approve this, do they have to be separate and does the governance manual one need to be a non-agenda, or can it be in this?

I think it should be on an agenda item so we know what you're actually talking about as a governance policy.

So we have some time to review it.

Yeah, I would I would separate it as opposed to just bringing it up to the okay, since it wasn't added, I would say.

I just have a questions on the performance evaluations if you go to all two.

I'm gonna turn it back to Sarah.

Thank you.

Uh B 27.

So it says to request an appeal, the employees shall forward a written memorandum within three days of the evaluation.

Are they no notified of the results the day of the evaluation?

So it actually says within three days of the evaluation discussion.

So that would be the discussion that the employee has with their supervisor to review the evaluation.

It's three days from that date.

Supervisors do finish the evaluation as far as the ratings ahead of time.

And we actually added in the word discussion to make that uh more clear because they could finish the evaluations for you know on Friday, and due to timing, scheduling, things of that sort, not be able to have that discussion until the next Friday.

It's that next Friday that we're counting from, not the first one.

But they know the results were on the but they will know the results as of that discussion, yes.

So then it goes to the chain of review.

So would be you.

So do they have the opportunity to have let's just say not their immediate supervisor, the supervisor above them, redo their evaluation or look at it?

So those would go along the same lines as is like an investigation.

Um if that appeal was brought to me, I would then look at what is the appeal based on, and whether or not that next level manager would be a part of that would be based off of what is found there.

Sure.

I'm just you know, there's sometimes there's tension, yep, but then there's not tension, so fairness as value.

But then there's not tension, so fair and assessed value.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

I move over.

We have a motion to approve the policy.

Uh presentation this evening.

Alexa poll.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Olson seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve the policies as presented this evening by Sarah Guswick.

Any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please certainly find by saying aye.

No.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you.

Item number five is Pargo Business Incentive.

Call on Casey Sanders.

Director of Economic Development for the City of West Fargo.

Good evening, Casey and Walker.

Good evening, President Commission, Commissioners.

Um tonight I have the pleasure of bringing forward an application for Pargo LLC.

So Pargo aims to create a family fund entertainment space that includes two nine-hole-themed indoor golf spaces.

The space will include a full bar, a restaurant, as well as a small event space.

In the staff report, let's see, I'm gonna just scroll here.

Can't multitask.

In the staff report, you'll see a handful of photos as I'm kind of scrolling that will kind of share uh uh the idea of what they're um building out as well as the next one here will show kind of the space layout and game layout uh for this proposed space.

So the owners intend on leasing the space that's located in the Northern Lights building, so just north of the lights on 32nd.

Um the lease would be for five years.

It's a 9700 square feet um space that faces Cheyenne Street, so highly visible area.

Along with this location being highly visible, it's located in the entertainment district, which is complementary to the um community events that are held there and the restaurants located.

Umers really appreciate the access to the public parking ramp, which is one of the reasons they were attracted to this area.

Um this space, which I'm gonna scroll back up so I can point this out on the map.

This space, which if this is the lights, as I'm kind of using my cursor, this space has an entrance for residents here that access the apartments, and then this is the space that's 95 9700 square feet, is attached to the public parking through a skyway.

Um there's also approximately 50 parking spaces here on the east of the um east of the facility that the space will have access to.

So uh if you've been to this area, this uh this building was since this building was built, it's been vacant, so this would be a first-generation tenant for this developer.

Um they intend, by they I mean the developer intends to support this fit up at 488,000.

Pargo targets an opening of the spring of 2026 and is looking forward to create approximately four to five full-time jobs, 10 anywhere from 10 to 12 part-time jobs in this space.

Public funding support is requested at 75,000, which is a total of 6.25% of the overall fit up needed for this project that was bid at 1.2 million.

The owners did work with the small business development center, which they, if you're not familiar with their work, they help um small businesses create projections for their um business models.

And their projections estimated three different performas.

Looking at their worst case perform performa, it indicates 75 daily consumers or 75 customers a day.

On average, that sales tax would be an estimated 100 a little over 100,000 a year, of which 31,445 would be the city's portion of that sales tax.

With this amount in mind, you can see on this public participation kind of breakdown visual.

Um, it would be about year 2.5 to 3, in which the city would see a seven over a little over a 75,000 dollar return.

Uh Dylan, who um is one of the owners was here tonight.

Unfortunately, he did have to leave for another obligation.

If there was any um specific questions that I can answer, I would be happy to um do so.

Commissioner Jorgensen.

So when a company comes in and requests this money and they've identified identified it as fit up, do they just say fit up or do they identify what the actual fit up is?

Thank you for that question.

In this case, I would um I would use this fit up money and operate the same way we would um maintain our enterprise grants.

And so through that uh process, they would have to send me specific items, and they would have to be assets not to the business but assets to the uh space.

So I'll use an example.

Um it would have to be fit up of like HVAC, maybe painting, um things for windows.

It couldn't be something like the games or the entertainment um individual, like people for the building.

Correct, thank you.

Um something that if for example they left in five years or less, this space could be reused as another space and could benefit a new business in West Far.

Correct.

It's not something they can take with them or sell.

Thank you for the clarification.

Yep.

Commissioner Anderson.

Um what would be the target of uh target audience?

Are they looking for more for like kids and families or are they looking for like adults for this or is that even brought up?

Yeah, we in in their performa, um, they specifically are targeting uh families.

However, they also believe with the event space they're gonna have corporate events during the day.

They'd like to welcome some of those.

They'd also like to welcome um birthday parties.

Uh it was also spoke spoken to that they would like to um potentially create a relationship with um if you're familiar with top shelf um their uh bar on the other side of this facility, they're going to also do some food and beverage, not beverage, just food um relationship with them as well.

Okay, thank you.

Just to answer further your your answer there, during the EDAC session, they said their target audience is from five to eighty-five.

They did.

Everybody.

If you can hold a putter.

Yeah.

That's the cutoff.

Yep.

Yeah.

But more specifically, I think what drew them to this area is already the activity that's happening at the lights as well as um the hockey arena.

Anything else?

Additional questions?

I'd motion to approve.

We have a motion to approve the pargo business incentive of 75,000 as presented by Casey Sanders Berglin.

Second.

Commissioner Zundell seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve the pargo business incentive of $75,000.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number six is an improvement district number 30 oh nine, First Avenue East Reconstruction, Cheyenne Street to Fourth Street East.

We call on Mr.

Jerry Wallace, our city engineer for the city of West Fargo.

The purpose of this discussion is to authorize a resolution of necessity and approve a task order 97.1.

Good evening and welcome.

Thank you, Mr.

Commission President and Commissioners.

Uh I know you had some challenging disc uh decisions to make up here tonight, so I'll try to be brief, uh, be descriptive and be out of your hair as quick as I can.

Uh essentially, just to recap here, uh the commission at the previous meeting here uh directed the engineer to prepare plans and specifications for this project.

Once we are confident of the scope, uh in conjunction with this effort now, uh we need to uh essentially move forward and authorize a resolution of necessity and essentially approve the task order for the engine uh the design and and construction efforts that'll be uh uh focused on this uh project.

Um in your packet here, uh we basically just outline the the area if anybody has forgotten uh first uh from Cheyenne Street over to Forth.

Uh and then just scrolling down here, the associated resolution um and the task order to follow that.

Um essentially just uh a little bit of a recap again.

Uh this was a uh interspersed water sewer uh street project, but not each one of those components uh went through the entire uh footprint of the project.

There's uh you know areas that are certainly heavier on water main areas that are heavy on heavier on sewer.

Um but that essentially is the project and the breakdown.

Um again here tonight uh requesting that we authorize the resolution of necessity and approve uh task order 97-1.

Uh with that, I'm available for any questions you may have.

Questions from Mr.

Wallace?

Movely approved, Mr.

Jorgensen.

Mr.

Jorgens.

So two-part question.

Um the outlined area, they're gonna be special assessed for their share.

Correct.

So what if one of the properties is a 501c3 nonprofit?

Are they is there an avenue they could take to assist in our special assessments?

I I guess I'm not entirely sure.

I know I know traditionally I believe we've uh the we've assessed uh you know properties that are you know called uh tax tax exempt, excuse me.

Um I'd probably have to defer to Ms.

Schmidt as to uh the legalities or options available to entities like that.

Yeah, no, they would be specially assessed.

They're not there it is what it is.

Yep, it is served.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you for the clarification.

That's all I had.

Okay.

Anything else from Mr.

Wallace?

Commissioner Olson.

Will we approve?

Commissioner Olson moves to approve in District Number 309, First Avenue East Reconstruction to authorize a resolution of necessity and approved task order number 97.1.

Is there a second?

Second.

Excuse me, Commissioner Anderson seconds.

We have a motion and second.

Is there any discussion?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you.

Next order business is item number seven to improvement district twenty-two sixty-five, ninth street and seventh Avenue Northeast reconstruction.

We call on Mr.

Dan Hanson, the director of community and development services.

The purpose of this discussion is to approve a task order number three-10.

Mr.

Hanson.

Thank you, Commissioner President Artis and Commissioners.

Uh this is the reconstruction of 9th Street Northeast from Main to 12th Avenue, and also uh of 7th Avenue uh northeast from 9th Street East into Fargo.

Uh the project is uh a DOT project that will be the bids will be opened by the DOT uh in the very near future.

And uh with that, we are currently under contract with our consultant, Houston Engineering, to do the design through cons uh do the engineering through design.

Uh what this is is it's a task order that is to get Houston Engineering under contract uh for the construction administration services.

Um the task order does fit within the estimated costs that we presented in the past for engineering fees, and uh with that I would entertain any questions.

Questions for Mr.

Hanson.

Move we approve.

Commissioner Olson moves to approve the task order number three-10 for the improvement district number 2265, which is 9th Street and 7th Avenue Northeast.

I'll second.

And I have commit second Commissioner Jorgensen.

We have a motion and a second.

Is there any much discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed motion carried.

Thank you, Mr.

Hampson.

Uh we move on to the city administrators report.

Call on Mr.

Scott, City Administrator, City of West Fargo.

Good evening.

Thank you again, Commissioner President Dartis and Commissioners.

A couple brief updates for you.

Number one, uh budget.

Our finance team has everything uh in order with the county, everything's been submitted.

And in fact, our our team is already looking at uh the 2027 and and into the future uh budget uh analyzing our uh sustainability, if you will.

So uh very proud of of their work and just wanted to let you all know that everything is in order with the county.

Uh additionally, finance department uh has a first draft ready of an RFP for our new finance software.

Um I'm currently going through that myself, so uh, but I'm excited to see that uh they they are making progress with that.

It is a very important project that we'll be taking on here in the near future.

We hope to have that draft ready uh for for your viewing pleasure in the next week or so.

And then last uh I am excited to announce that we have a an organizational change.

Uh we have reorganized our communications department uh where we've now named uh Ms.

Rachel over here, our our communications director.

And we have moved Addy, who is our public information manager over uh to be a full-time civilian staff underneath the police department where she will continue to focus on uh all the public safety aspects of of communication.

So we really think this is gonna strengthen our our communication services into the future, and um I am incredibly proud of how they've uh led our communication department over these last couple years, and so um again excited for for this change.

And with that, I will stand for any questions that you have.

Questions for Mr.

Scott this evening.

Anyone good, thank you.

Thank you much.

Does any commissioner have any non-agenda item that you'd like to bring up at this time?

Commissioner Zundell.

Uh I just wanted to uh extend a thank you to Chief Nelson and then uh Chief Fuller is also not here this evening.

But uh we had the state parks and recreation conference this last week, and the West Fargo Park District in conjunction with Vision Zero were awarded something called the Partnership Award.

Uh the partnership award is basically given to uh a group that that does cool partnership things together, and the two uh programs that we highlighted in that were the Hometown Heroes Academy and also something called safety stories.

So the Hometown Heroes Academy is a multi-day program where kids get together specifically with first responders under PD and fire, and they go over things like fire safety, um, child and uh bikes child passenger and bike safety, um bullying strategies, things like that.

The SROs come together, uh the firefighters come together uh to work with kids over multiple days, and then the other is called safety stories, where um everybody from first responders to I think we've even had a public works person come present recently, reads a story to children about the work that they're doing to again kind of educate them about safety.

So, over the course of the program that we've had, I mean we have had hundreds of kids, not only specific to West Fargo, but in our in our area come through those things.

So we won an award.

It was uh Vision Zero was the person who showed up to accept it, but they do that work in conjunction specifically with the West Fargo Police Department and the West Fargo Fire Department.

So thank you very much, and uh please thank your staff.

Any other commissioner have anything that you'd like?

Commissioner Anderson.

Um I received uh an email from a uh neighbor and a friend uh this past week.

She's a part of the Master Gardeners group and wanted me to share some information.

Um every Monday uh evening they collect extra uh vegetables from gardens and so then they distribute that to uh the emergency food pantry.

And she just wanted to note that they uh as of last Tuesday morning, they'd collected over 8,200 pounds of uh veggies across the community.

So uh a lot of vegetables for the emergency food pantry.

So wanted to share that.

And thank you.

They do a lot of good work.

That's good work, that's good work.

Both both of the commissioners' comments that they've well deserved.

Anyone else, any other commissioner have any non-agenda item?

Does any department head have anything at non-agenda item you'd like to bring forward?

Mr.

Nelson just really quick one for you guys.

Um, just to note that the short-term rental committee that the commission established a few months back now has uh wrapped up its work and will uh be looking to bring back a recommendation here at your next meeting on October 20th.

So just an advanced uh heads up for that.

Thank you for that update.

Any other department head?

Okay.

That concludes tonight's business.

Commissioner Jorgensen.

Motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Anderson.

Second.

We stand adjourned.

Thank you.