Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Monday, October 20th West Fargo City Commission meeting.

Before we call the meeting in order, I'd ask that everybody in the room please silence your cell phones with the exception of uh emergency personnel.

Please join the commission in a pledge of allegiance.

Thank you.

Madam Secretary, did you please call the role?

Commissioner Anderson.

Here.

Commissioner Olson.

Here.

Commissioner Dardas.

Here.

Commissioner Zondell.

Here.

Commissioner Jorgensen.

Here.

Let the record show all commissioners are present.

First order of business is to approve the order of the agenda.

Move to approve.

Commissioner Anderson moves to approve.

Is there a second, please?

Second.

Commissioner Jorgensen seconds.

I have a motion and the second to approve the order of the agenda as presented for Monday, October 20th.

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 October 6, 2025.

They have been distributed and in the packet, Commissioner.

Move to approve.

Commissioner Olson moves to approve the minutes of October 6th as presented.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Zondell seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as presented on our for October 6th.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

We move on to item F, building permits.

Commissioner Jorgensen.

I would like to recuse myself from this vote, please.

Commissioner Jorgensen is recusing himself from the building permits.

Please.

I move the approval.

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 approve the building permits as distributed.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

We are now in the consent agenda.

We have items A through E.

Move to approve.

Commissioner Georgison moves to approve the consent agenda.

Items A through E.

Is there any second?

Second.

Commissioner Olson seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda items A through E as presented.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carried.

We are now on the regular agenda.

We move on to item number one, which is public comment.

Madam Secretary, is there anyone signed up for public comment this evening?

I do not have anyone today.

Okay.

Public comment period is closed.

We move into item number two.

Is a public hearing.

Each item will adjourn out of a regular meeting and do a public hearing.

Public hearing and first reading of A24-28, an ordinance amendment to Title IV and Title 10 regarding the establishment of regulations and licensing standards for short-term rental.

We call on Mr.

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

Good evening, Mr.

Nelson, and welcome.

Thank you and good evening.

So item two is an ordinance amendment regarding the regulation and licensing of short-term rentals of residential dwellings.

This item was most recently presented at the June 16th City Commission meeting, at which the Commission tabled this item and established a short-term rental committee to further explore this topic and to provide a recommendation.

Since then, the short-term rental committee has met four times and has ultimately recommended a revised version of the ordinance for consideration by the city commission.

In summary, there are three primary modifications to the previous version of the ordinance that the committee is recommending.

So with that overview, um, I just want to bring the uh commission's attention to a few things in the um commission packet here tonight.

A lot of this material is material you've seen several times before, so um I am gonna gloss over a lot of it, uh, but certainly let me know if you want me to stop and dive into to anything specifically.

Um but uh at the very end of the meeting for the uh packet materials, there is a mod of um a redlined version of the uh short-term rental ordinance.

And maybe just to take a quick step back and just a you know broad overview for the general public as well.

This purpose of this ordinance overall is to establish a short-term rental licensing requirements as well as short-term rental license licensing apparatus for regulation of short-term rentals of residential dwellings.

So that the overarching intent has not changed.

That's still the intent here is to create that licensing structure.

Really the thing that I want to focus on today is the modifications that the committee is recommending.

So again, that main change is the removal of the primary residency requirement.

You may recall that the previous version of the short-term rental ordinance had included a requirement for short-term rentals to be for somebody to live there most of the year.

Somebody lives in that unit as a primary residence for at least half the days in a year.

So I won't go through each of these red lines here, but a lot of the strikeouts that you see are just striking out references to that primary residency requirement.

So with that removal of the primary residency requirement, dwelling units would be allowed to be rented out kind of year-round as short-term rentals.

Short-term rentals again would be defined as a rental of 29 days or fewer in a calendar year.

So that's really the biggest change that's being modified here.

A second change that I want to point out is the change to occupancy.

The previous version of the ordinance basically just mimicked the same occupancy requirement as a dwelling unit within our zoning ordinances, which is based on a single family, or else I believe it's uh four or uh four or fewer unrelated persons within any dwelling unit.

The proposed change here would be to instead of relying on the zoning definition of a maximum occupancy for a dwelling unit, would be to instead rely on the building codes, um essentially the international property maintenance code and base um occupancy on the square footage of the bedroom spaces within a unit and the overall uh living space within a dwelling unit.

So it does get a little bit more involved, I guess, in terms of um you know every permit application or license application would need to be reviewed for uh the square footage of the the unit, square footage of bedrooms, number of bedrooms, in order to actually calculate the maximum occupancy for each individual unit.

So the more bedrooms, the larger bedrooms, the more occupants um the dwelling unit can have is is essentially how that would work.

Um the third item I want to note is um there was a slight modification to the timeline.

So short-term rental licenses are intended to be um uh issued for a period of one year.

The previous version of the ordinance had the licensing period running um January 1 through December 31 of each year, so basically following the calendar year.

Um that has been amended to basically offset six months.

So the uh calendar or the licensing term would start um July 1 of each year and then conclude June 30th of the following year.

So it'd be a little bit more convenient for folks to renew those uh licenses in the late spring, early summer than around the holidays.

Uh there are a few other tweaks here and there um that you can see within the specific red lines.

Um, for example, there's a requirement here that uh in addition to licensees posting the actual license you know within the entryway of the dwelling unit, also requiring that um the city establish some good neighbor um good neighbor regulations or some good neighbor recommendations.

Playing another terminology here.

Good neighbor guidelines.

Thank you, Commissioner Anderson.

Um that those be posted in an effort to uh just make foot make sure folks are aware of when they are renting a property in the city of West Water, there are certain expectations for how they conduct themselves within within our community.

So again, that's uh kind of a broad overview of the recommended changes.

Um couple of other things I just wanted to quickly note.

You know, throughout this process, like I said, the committee met um four different times, um kind of identified some some areas of focus early on during the process.

So that's what this uh attachment here just outlines the overall approach that the committee took to these revisions, um, identifying some policy areas that we wanted to dig into further.

One of the initial steps that the committee did was to um dive in deeper to a number of example ordinances from the region, so primarily the the tri-state area, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota for the most part, uh just getting a sense of how those communities operate short-term rentals.

There is a broad spectrum across the board in terms of how community communities choose to approach the topic of short-term rentals.

Um I think the uh the sentiment of the committee was you know, we want uh to be somewhere in the in the happy medium, if you will, um, making sure that we're regulating what we uh you know, what the concerns are, but not over-regulating.

Um maybe just uh to broadly summarize.

Uh additionally, the committee did put out a public survey um that was available on the CDO um the city's website for a number of weeks.

Uh, the uh summary of the survey results is also included in your packet for anybody interested in diving in a little deeper to some of the survey responses that uh the committee uh received.

So um with that overview, again happy to dive in deeper or to answer any specific questions the uh commission might have.

Um otherwise, like I said, this uh the committee is recommending a revised version of the ordinance, and so we do have it on uh for first reading consideration of first reading tonight, as well as an additional public hearing since there were significant enough uh modifications uh to warrant uh an additional public hearing.

So I'll leave it at that unless you have any questions for me.

Questions for Mr.

Nelson, commissioners comments?

Please, Commissioner.

I'd like to commend uh Mr.

Nelson and his team for what they did.

Uh Chief Nielsen for support from his staff and also from the fire department staff to come up with this final agreement.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

With that, we're gonna close the regular agenda.

We now move into a public hearing on A24-25 ordinance amendment to Title IV and Title 10.

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

Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of A24-28, the ordinance amendment to Title IV and Title 10 regarding the establishment of record regulations and licensing standards for short-term rental?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor?

Is there anyone that would like to speak against A24-28 ordinance amendment title four and title 10 regarding the establishment of regulations and licensing standards?

Is there anyone that would like to speak against?

Is there anyone that would like to speak against that?

The public hearing is closed.

We are now back in the regular agenda.

Commissioners, this is an actionable item.

I motion to approve the first reading of A24-28 ordinance amendment to Title 4 and Title 10 regarding the establishment of regulations and licensing standards for short-term rentals.

Thank you, Commissioner Jorgensen.

I have a motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Anderson.

We have a motion and a second to approve the first reading of A24-28 ordinance amendment regarding regulations and licensing standards for short-term rental.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed?

Aye.

Motion carried.

It's a four to one vote.

We move on to item number three.

Item number three is a second reading of May 25-21, a zoning ordinance amendment to Title IV regarding the landscaping uh uh regulations.

We call again on Mr.

Aaron Nelson, Director of Planning and Zoning.

Good evening.

Welcome back.

Thank you.

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

Uh the specific requested action today is to approve the second reading of this ordinance.

Uh so this item was uh presented in a little more detail here last meeting, so I'll I'll spare you the details as well.

Uh high-level summary here though is uh we're looking to relax some of the required landscaping requirements for industrial properties, uh specifically within overdoor overlay zoning districts, such as the interstate overlay.

Um, in addition, we have a few other modifications to the landscaping ordinance to help clarify and and simplify some of the requirements to make it a little more user-friendly, um, including the addition of things like you know, graphics to help uh help folks understand some of the requirements here.

So happy to answer any specific questions.

Otherwise, recommended action tonight is to approve the second reading.

Commissioners, any questions from Mr.

Nelson?

Move the approve second reading.

Commissioner Olson moves to approve the second reading of A25-21.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Zundell, second.

We have a motion and a second to approve the second reading of A25 21.

Amendment to Title 4 regarding landscaping.

Is there any further discussion?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

We are now on the item number four, 2026 to 2020.

Transit development plan presentation.

Mr.

Adam Altenberg.

And Alden Jung of MetroCog.

Good evening.

Welcome.

Good evening, Commission President and Commissioners.

Thank you for your time here tonight.

Again, my name is Adam Oltenberg, and with me is Aidan Young, and we're here on behalf of MetroCog to present the 2026-2030 Transit Development Plan.

This is a plan that we update every five years with the focus of how we are able to improve public transit services in the Fargo Moorhead metropolitan area.

So jumping right into things, this plan was broken into five uh components.

The first is existing conditions.

It's looking at all the data that was available, including route analyses, system barriers, and rider perspectives.

Second, future system needs identification, uh looking down the road and identifying uh potential service solutions for MATBUS.

Service recommendations.

Initially, we looked at uh several different service scenarios and looking at ways that we can improve our fixed route services in the area.

Uh community feedback, uh, what we heard through the entire process, uh and this included uh online story map tools, surveys, and several open houses that we had throughout the planning process, uh including one survey that was uh specifically tailored to West Fargo residents.

And then finally the coordinated transportation plan to enhance and the effectiveness of our regional transportation service providers in addition to MATBUS.

So the TDB purpose is it basically it's building up the goals, objectives, and system recommendations that were established in the past uh transit development plan uh developed um in 2021.

Um also to identify transit service needs, prioritize improvements, and determine resources required for implementing implementing service adjustments, and then also again uh updating that coordinated human services transportation plan.

Uh planning process.

Uh so this was broken into a couple different sections.

We kicked off this project in the summer of 2024.

Um for the first couple of months, we looked at those existing conditions, so looking at data collection, stakeholder engagement, route performance, and also looking at other identifying issues and opportunities.

Um from there, uh beginning around December 2024 and going into 2025, looking at those future system needs.

Again, we looked at a couple of different service scenarios and we did bring those out to the public to get feedback on those.

Um also looked at future improvement priorities, and then again that community uh and stakeholder engagement component.

And then finally, uh final plan development.

Um, this was this happened roughly between the spring and the summer of this year.

So, again, looking at some of those future recommendations, the coordinated transportation plan, and then we're looking at plan approvals here.

Um, again, uh, we're going to the jurisdictions here this month and next month, and then we'll looking for a final approval from Metro COG in December.

Engagement, uh, this can be broken into three different sections here.

So we had a starting review committee.

Um, that they were kind of the overarching um um review uh component for this plan.

We had four four meetings throughout this process, and with those four meetings, they usually tied into public opportunity input opportunities.

Um the first of those was issues and opportunities back in October 2024, service alternatives in March 2025, again, looking at those two different service scenarios, and then a draft plan review.

Uh, this was uh a virtual um meeting that we had in late August 2025.

Uh, in addition, we had we did have hold focus groups in late January, um, and this included um specifically tailored um meetings with local jurisdictions, human services, uh, community-based organizations, businesses, um, emergency response, and educational institutions.

So, what we heard um just a couple um kind of high high-level um um notes to to bring to your attention here.

Um, one thing that I think is great to note here is that um in you notice how well does map existing map uh service work for you.

Uh two-thirds of respondents said that the service works well, and that really shaped the direction um of the plan here itself.

Um, but we also asked a question how do you transfer uh to complete your trip?

Um and this was a question that was really important because we found that of the respondents uh nearly three quarters of respondents say that they usually take one or two or more trips, two or more buses to get to their destination.

So that did uh drive some of the recommendations that we'll touch on later on.

Um preferred service plan here.

Um this was developed and it kind of took um everything that we learned throughout the planning process, and it was kind of broken into I guess six buckets or guiding principles you can call them.

So, first is just simple and direct, bi-directional, fewer transfers, uh maintaining access, scalable, and that's important, uh, whether in that, and we'll talk talk about that a little later too.

Um, if there's funding issues that come about in the future, making sure that Matbus is nimble enough that they can spale scale back if if the funding situation changes, but then scale forward if if um if there are additional funds available in for future needs, and then finally reliable.

So the preferred service plan here.

Um just I'll just I'll kind of just briefly highlight some of the changes here that we noted.

So for their on the Minnesota side, there's four routes that we looked at Route 3, 4, 6, and 9, uh, just some minor changes to routes in Moorhead and Dilworth.

Uh we also looked at Route 13, which service um services North Fargo in the NDSU campus area.

Um but we also looked at um routes 20, 18, 20, and 24 that service Fargo and West Fargo, and also a new route, uh Route 21.

Again, I'll touch on these in more detail a little bit later, which is some of the some of the changes to note here.

So, with regard to those impacts, um the top number that's in kind of that's important to highlight is that we're not really looking to remove service from anyone who's using uh MAT bus services.

Uh, you can see only 0.4% of um users would be disrupted by some of these um uh proposed changes.

But with that, um we're looking at a 2% increase in the number of residents that are served with some of these route adjustments, as well as 5% increase in the number of job centers uh that are served.

So just a couple of highlights to note there of the regional impacts.

Also, again, looking at um interlining, um, key change in this plan is looking at ways so that people are being able to stay on a route consistently so they don't have to transfer one or two different times to get to specific locations and destinations.

That was important as part of this plan.

And then finally, um looking at more bidirectional routes, make sure that we're just not doing loops, uh, but that we're actually um servicing specific areas by getting people to where they need to go.

So um, with regard to uh cities of Fargo and West Fargo, a couple um highlights to note here as part of the transit development plan.

Again, Route 18.

Um, this was modified to run bidirectionally from the ground transportation center to West Acres, and that is being interlined with Route 20.

So again, um you don't have to a person would not have to get off a bus and then get onto another bus.

Um that would be sweep one circuit that would that would go uh served serve both routes there.

Route 20, that's the eastern segment that will be covered by a new Route 18.

Route 24, this is being revised to run bidirectionally from West Acres to South Walmart, and this was also replacing portions, portions of existing Route 18.

And then finally, Route 21.

This is a new bi-directional route that would cover uh portions of Route 24, but would actually service the West Fargo City Hall and then go out to um the lights district on 32nd Avenue.

So final plan feedback.

Um throughout August and September, we did solicit feedback on the final plan, but I'll note uh that we are still receiving comments.

Um in fact, we did receive a number of comments from the MAPUS coordination committee last week.

So I would um um encourage you if you have any comments or if you hear from any in the anybody in the community that has additional feedback, uh, we're still open to receiving those comments and making sure that they're integrated before the plan approval here in December.

And one of the things that is important to note uh as part of the TDP um is uh where MATBUS is with regard to funding in the community.

These issues really came up uh, I guess towards the middle of our planning process.

Uh but also allowing this plan and making sure this plan is still flexible without affecting some of those guiding principles that we talked about earlier.

Uh and lastly, I'll touch upon is the coordinated plan.

Uh this is an extremely important tool that includes uh inventory of available transportation services, not just MAPS, uh, and also how those entities work together.

And with that, there's a couple of goals that we developed as part of the the coordinated plan uh recommendations, how that can be implemented locally.

Uh lastly, approval timeline here.

So this did go uh forth to our MAP bus coordination committee last week, and it was recommended to go to the jurisdictions that MAP bus serves, Fargo Moorhead, West Fargo, and Dilworth.

Uh so again, we're looking to have those meetings here um this month and next month, and then final approval from MetroCog in December.

So that concludes uh my presentation.

Be happy to take any questions at this time.

Commissioner Commissioner Jorgensen.

Thank you for your time, Mr.

Altonberg.

But I have several questions.

Um I believe it was asked the last time you guys were in front of us to identify the stops on our the routes.

Where is where is the bus gonna stop?

It's not marked on the route.

So how many stops do we get on like Route 20 or Route 21?

That is a good question here.

Um I know off the top of my head we did note the number of stops.

I think it's something like 675 total throughout the system.

Um I'm just concerned about the ones in West Fargo.

Sure, sure.

My next question is I'll follow up with you on that, Chair.

Okay, no, I appreciate it.

My next question is dropping down to or dropping north to 2nd Avenue.

Is it just to pick up that 55 and older development that's on First Avenue?

Because second avenue is a very narrow road, gets narrower during the winter, and to get a bus down there is gonna be extremely difficult.

That's a good that's a good comment.

Um again, I'll touch I'll touch space with our consultant team on that and get back to you.

Now the biggest one I'm one of the biggest ones I have concerns with.

Why are we not stopping at any of our grocery stores in our town?

You're definitely going way out of your way to go to Walmart on 52nd, but you're driving by three grocery stores in West Fargo.

I believe the new route will stop at um forgive me at the grocery store on 32nd Avenue.

Is that uh cash-wise?

But they got a service buses to get there.

It would it would be it would be um interlined.

Okay.

So but you're you're correct.

I know like the Hornbachers on Hornbackers is all forward having to stop at their place.

Yeah.

I mean, same with Cashwise.

I mean, they're the same company.

Family Fair.

I mean, you're taking our business right to Fargo.

So if that you're talking on 13th Avenue there.

Yeah, 13th and Hornbackers is located right by the interstate.

Yeah.

I mean, that is an important question.

Um, important comment.

Yeah.

So the next is this the 26 to 30 plan.

In those four to five years, where are we getting our covered bus stops?

That would probably be a question better tailored for Matt Bus.

Um that's something I don't have an answer for you, unfortunately.

But I know that has been a discussion topic with the commission in the past.

Just seems there's no progress on it.

And I I wish I had a better answer for you.

Oh, I understand this is you came out.

Presentation and we get to critique it otherwise.

So appreciate your time.

And how much do we subsidize the bus routes as far as out of our city budget?

Yeah, correct.

Um I don't know the exact number, but 500,000.

Sure.

Well, thank you for your time.

I look forward to your answers.

Okay.

Commissioner Anderson.

Uh yeah, so Commissioner Jorgensen actually raised up my question.

My the question I had was on second avenue uh between third street and Cheyenne gets very narrow, especially with the bold outs and with the snow.

So well, it might be the most efficient route.

I don't know that it would be the best route.

So that's something you guys might want to might want to take a peek at.

Yeah.

That's all I got.

Thanks.

If I could add to that, you know, Fourth and Cheyenne would be a great stop.

The lights, the VF, the funeral home there.

Sure.

Commissioner Sundale.

Uh can you go to the slide where it talks about like the approval or people think it's working well or not well.

There it was.

So I guess my question is you say that you think two-thirds of the people think it's working well, but I feel like if the second question is the existing service sometimes works well, that tells me that I don't know that that would be categorized as working well.

So is there like any type of explanation that people got when they filled this out?

Because I would say the existing service sometimes works well, would be a category that I would choose if I was like, I don't really think this overall works very well.

So I just was curious if they had like instructions on what those things meant when they took the survey.

To my knowledge, no, that it didn't go into any additional specifics on that question particular.

And then do you know how many people took this survey?

I sh um I don't have the number off the top of my head.

It is it is um it is referenced as part of one of the appendices.

Do you know if this included people that maybe don't regularly ride the MAPUS because the service zone just doesn't include them at all?

We did try to get a broad sample.

I know this the survey was um they had paper copies at MAT bus, but I believe the jurisdictions um also shared it on Facebook, so to catch both people that ride and didn't ride the um I think the concern that I have is catching the people that again don't have access to some of the services, may potentially rely on public transportation who are not I mean I know we have people who use our library because they don't have internet service and things like that.

So I'm worried about the people that don't have access to this right now, and I'm again concerned that some of these areas and some of these changes that we're making make it even worse for the people who might want to have access for some of this.

Um then my other question would be do you have any distinguishing statistics as far as West Fargo ridership, how they feel like the service is working.

Like if you were to compare the the different service zones or service areas, do any of these statistics include specifically West Fargo ridership in the metadata it would have it would have asked where the respondents lived.

Um I don't know if that is included.

Um for example, broken out by jurisdiction who's who was saying service works well or is is sometimes works well.

I don't know if we had that specificity in the appendix, but we do have that the raw data for that.

Yeah, because my again, my main concern would be that people in West Fargo might probably more heavy-handed on the I'm not sure it fully works well.

But um I too share the concerns that it feels like we have some strong grocery stores here.

Uh you know, again on the kind of the North South route, having to kind of change over.

I agree with Commissioner Jorgensen's statement about driving people basically out of West Fargo for things.

Um then my other concern, and I had raised this last time too, is just people's ability to access the VA and the different hospitals.

Like I feel like when you map out how long it would take someone in West Fargo to get to a primary care provider, it's very long.

Sure.

And may not even be workable to do it, go be seen by your physician and make it back to your residence and one day.

I have a couple points I'd like to make.

Um if you take a look at the the slides, it's up there right now.

If you look at the bottom two uh questions that were asked, that's 33 percent.

That supersedes the that it's working well.

So if you take a look at 33 percent and 39 percent, sometimes it works well or just not working well at all.

Uh you're not getting a very good report card.

To Commissioner Jorgensen's point, I have advocated for shelters for four years, and I realize that we're dealing with two entities here.

I will openly advocate that we do not contribute next year, unless the the answers that Mr.

Jorgensen brought up with regard to our grocery stores.

And providing uh health care, uh easier trips and shelters.

I will advocate that we do not participate.

You have my word on that.

Commissioner.

I was just gonna make a comment.

If Adam, if you could put up a map with the entire metro area on there.

There you go.

That that one's good enough.

You can see, however, on the Moorhead side of the river, uh, the state has funded them far greater than North Dakota has funded.

That's why Moorhead gets a lot better service than what we do to help out on our side of the river.

We would need Bismarck to any up some funds to help out get better service on on our side of the on the river.

That's why you see such a big difference there.

Whereas the state is helping out the Moorhead residents in a far greater detail than North Dakota.

Up near NDSU, yes, there's a lot more routes up there, but you get to the south and west of uh Main Avenue.

There's hardly any bus service that goes as close in density wise as over on the Moorhead side.

So that was my only comment.

The North Dakota legislature did contribute more this year than they had in the past.

Well, they need to do more.

Okay, yes.

Fargo was still Fargo was still underwriting about three and a half to four and a half million dollars, I believe, of what this what the cost of this is versus uh you know what their ridership pays for and the like.

So I understand that this has put a lot of pressure on the the city of Fargo with regard to the finances, and again, I am aware that they are subsidizing at least three and a half million dollars worth of it.

Uh this gentleman is looking for a resolution of support.

Commissioners, that's the ask this evening.

I'll make the motion to approve.

Commissioner Olson moves to issue a uh support for the uh 2026 through 2030 plan presented by uh Metro Transit.

Is there a second?

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Anderson seconds.

We have a motion and a second to assume to approve the 2026-2030 transit development plan presentation for MetroCrog as a uh memorandum of support.

Is there any further discussion?

Commissioner Zundell.

What happens if we don't pass this?

What are the ramifications?

Mr.

Altenberg.

So resolutions of support.

Um they are part of our public participation plan for MetroCOG.

Uh so it is something that we do need prior to MetroCog adopting this plan again in December.

Um if if you're not comfortable, we can come back and prevent present additional information or additional changes uh between now and in December meeting.

Well, it certainly would be a good idea to come back and answer some of the questions that the commissioners have had.

Commissioner Olson.

I would think it would be better suited to have uh Fargo Transit come here and do the presentation rather than have Adam who represents MetroCog, who's just doing the the plan.

He's Adam doesn't have any control over the stops and all that kind of stuff.

He he needed uh he needed uh Chief Nielsen's bull approved vest there tonight uh with our tough questions, but uh if if you don't want to go ahead and approve the plan, it is just a plan.

Um we can still have time to work with the route changes and all that after sitting on the um uh the transit coordinating committee for until it dissolved here for about seven plus years.

Uh you make one change, it upsets the whole fruit basket of everything being coordinated.

So it isn't as simple as one thinks, oh, we're just gonna move this here, and then it disrupts everything because it's everything's on a time thing, it's just like um airlines.

You get one little bump, you get a thunderstorm in Chicago, and it throws up everything.

So it isn't uh something that can just be done overnight, uh, a quick change.

Um I think Adam has heard, I don't know what Adam can do to take back to the transit.

I know Dustin sits on on the board now, so he could relay all of our concerns.

I think even if the simple changes that it's not on second avenue west, because I think that feels probably or is it second east?

East Avenue West on the thing.

Oh that's West for like a block but east for whatever street it is.

Um even if that's the one change.

I guess my concern is like I I don't feel like I I think we asked a bunch of questions the last time I was here.

I think we gave a bunch of feedback.

I don't really feel like any of the feedback anybody did anything with.

Um it feels like I I think there are some core concerns which have been expressed over time that I don't feel like there's been any type of resolution for.

So that's my only hang up is I feel like once we sign this and say, yep, we support this.

Um there's definitely probably not gonna be any changes or the leverage for any change at this point.

Um seems to be pretty much not present once we sign this again.

We have a motion on the floor to uh support the development plan.

Commissioner Jorgensen.

I agree, Adam.

We probably three to the fire tonight.

Partially apologize for that.

I mean, it's just but herefore, I mean, if you're gonna represent somebody, they should be with you to have the answers that we need.

I guess I'll give my support, but I would like to see somebody here before the end of the year that can stand for your standing in again.

The motion is for resolution of support for the 2026 2030 transit plan.

Is there any more discussion?

Okay, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Opposed, aye.

Motion passes on a three to two vote.

We move on to item number five is a lexip poll policy presentation, Sarah Goshevik, Director of Human Resources.

Good evening, Commissioner President and Commissioners.

Uh today, much like our our last meeting on October 6th, I bring forth a never another set of um policies for you to review and approve.

Uh tonight's grouping includes eight different policies.

One of those is a repeat policy from October 6th.

We made a little bit of uh adjustments to some of the definitions in policy 100 um per Commissioner Zendell's request, and so that one's just being brought forth with those edits, very small edits as they are.

Um the other policies being brought forth.

If we can pull them up here.

I put them on your agenda packet.

So uh we have policy 200, which is our emergency management plan developed in uh collaboration with our emergency uh manager over at our fire department.

We have our policy 301, our encumbered funds carry over.

Uh 404, which is our business gift and gratuities, 405 subpoenas and court appearances, 406, which is speech and expressions and social networking, which kind of goes towards that policy from our last meeting where you were asking about how the social media and those this would be that that companion policy for that.

Uh we have 418, which is the family medical leave act, and then policy 422, which is the military leave.

Um you've we're sent these late or early last week.

So I stand for any questions you have on these policies.

Otherwise, we are seeking just to have them approved so that we can enter them officially into Lexapol.

Thank you, Commissioner Olson.

Uh if you can go to 405 and uh three uh point 405.3 point two.

Right?

Nope, go right there after the blue wording, you have a red line through the and then just a black city.

So when we print if it's redlined.

Yes, that is supposed to be red line.

When we when I print the PDF out of our lexapol program, uh terms like city, city administrator, things like that are pre-populated through uh an algorithm behind there, and it never crosses them out.

Okay.

So if they're if they're in the sentence with the red line, likely we tried to get rid of that too.

It jumped out, and it's like okay.

We won't leave the word city just sitting on it.

Yeah, okay.

All right, that was my one question.

Anyone else?

Questions on these?

Move the approved.

Commissioner Zundau moves to approve these items.

Uh is there eight?

Correct.

Eight.

Eight items this evening on the uh on policy.

Second.

Second.

Commissioner Olson seconds.

I have a motion and a second to approve the lexipole policy presentation for these eight uh items.

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 the transfer station scale replacement.

This discussion is brought forward by Mr.

Matt Anvict, Senior Director of Public Works.

Good evening, Mr.

Anvick, and welcome.

Good evening, Commissioner President and Commissioners.

For tonight, and I'd like to bring the transfer scale or transfer station scale replacement forward.

Our transfer are the scale out there is about 27 years old.

We've been kind of limping that along for the last few years, trying to just get the maximum life out of it.

Every year we go in for our um inspection.

That kind of came this last year.

He was like, Yeah, you're not going to get any more you know inspections passed.

But this scale, you're gonna need to do some uh basically full replacement with uh how it is.

Um so that information we can kind of just included that the scale replacement within our uh project uh 9061, that's uh public works um expansion project uh with that phase two.

Um so the estimated costs in our budget estimates, you know, as part of that phase two, we had 150,000 um in there.

And then after phase two was approved, we didn't sub put it out in RFP and we got two bids that came back.

Um and that's one thing that the scale is uh kind of a critical piece of uh equipment out the the transfer station.

Uh we use that to weigh in the incoming loads for the contractors and businesses.

Uh the majority of that is going out toward nerd landfill or the um for waste management and the recycling, uh which we can uh use that to bill the uh the businesses of the contractors from.

Uh we average about 200 and 300 away tickets per month.

Uh so you know, depending on the month, but some you know the summer time or summer months is a lot kind of uh a higher usage for those those scales.

Uh like the funding for this will you know, like I said, coming from uh project 9061, and that's just a combination of the SRF loans and uh some city funds as well.

Um if this is approved, uh we were trying to get it in this fall.

Uh with the uh it just won't work for now, but if this is approved, it'll be in the spring of 26, and then it'll be about two to three weeks uh for the construction to take place.

Uh just kind of wanted to like I guess bring this out um and get it approved on its own through the project.

Just more transparency is uh it wasn't specifically called out in the memos in the phase two.

Uh it was in our internal budget, so we had that in there.

It was just the cost was uh brought forward with the total of that project.

Uh and then also felt that it was good to bring this forward just for the fact that it's not housed within public works building itself or the sanitation building.

It was kind of a standalone uh piece of equipment, unlike you know, we're gonna have to buy um some overhead cranes or equipment for our public works facility, which that'll be you know part of that project, but this was kind of a standalone um a separate contract.

So we felt that uh the need to get this approved on its own uh in front of you tonight.

Uh so I'll ask for approval uh and award the bid to prairie scales and the amount of 135,000 808 dollars, and I'll stand for any questions.

Questions for Mr.

Andrick?

Mr.

Jorgensen.

I just see the original cost, whatever is 129.983.

Which one of the additional recommended options are included to get it to that 135?

Oh didn't have that one on there.

Um I think it was the end.

I can see that right.

I think it was on the end one of the end wall replacements.

I think yeah, I think it's replacement not patching for that, the long-term fix on the end walls, I think was what was uh the add-on that we're doing with that.

Um as well, there's some uh settling on the sidewalk.

I think we can see in one of the pictures that uh we're gonna look at doing that um with our crews that we can maybe try and foam jack that and raise that up as well.

So that was obviously about the only thing we kind of picked out was that uh that end wall fix with that.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Commissioner Olson.

Matt, you said that we got this is like 27 years old and it's been out in the elements the whole time.

Um if it were enclosed, would it last longer?

Yeah, if we did have it enclosed, it would be you know, I'm sure you can get a few more years out of it that way, you know, as long as it's routine maintenance being outside you know, like this.

I'm sure we get salt on there.

Uh I think there's some pictures accompanying this, so you can see just how corroded you know those those parts underneath are.

Um, but yeah, if we had it in closed, that would be um a little bit, you know, we get some more longevity out of it that way.

I know you're not asking for that tonight, but I'm just thinking a way to prevent this from and I don't know how long scales last that are indoors anyway.

You know, these they wear everything wears out if it's mechanical at some point.

So I was just thinking that it could be if we keep that transfer station going, something to consider down the road might be to enclose that if possible.

I know it's a tight spot there people coming and going, and I've been there a number of times, so it's a tight spot to enclose it.

But type of street wall would you need to cover that.

Uh I we'd probably just get by with some walls.

I think we would probably need to go at least 14 feet high, though.

You know, probably 16 would be better.

Um, you know, it would just be I guess you'd get really just two walls and or a wall or roof, and then you let the two ends would be open.

I would just have to make sure that we had it plenty wide and high that we could get any of those loads, and sometimes they have random weird things sitting, you know, up over the top.

But uh I wouldn't take a whole lot to do, but uh uh that was part of the reason why we've kind of pushed down the road a little bit to see what we want to do with the transfer station.

We had some plans that possibly moving it with uh the expansion, and we were just kind of uh trying to make it work until we kind of figured out a plan with that.

So that was we pushed it as far as we could.

Um but now we just have to either put a lot of money into repairs or just uh purchase a new one, which was actually more cost beneficial.

Commissioner Olson quick follow-up follow-up.

Yep.

If you would move the transfer station to other places, could you move the scale with you?

Definitely something we could look at.

That would be a possibility of that.

Um another thing we brought up too was another uh possibly if some if the scale company wanted to sell that to they had another client that would want a similar scale that would fit there, uh that would be something we could repurpose to that we definitely look into.

Commissioner Zundell.

That's my question.

Okay.

Anything else additional for Mr.

Andre.

Commissioner Olson moves to approve the transfer station scale replacement for 135,000 eight hundred and eight dollars as presented.

Sir a second.

Second.

Mr.

Zundell seconds.

We have a motion in a second to approve the 135,808 expenditure for a scale replacement.

Is there any further discussion?

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

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you, Mr.

Anderson.

Thanks.

Item number seven is an improvement district twenty-two sixty-five ninth street and seventh Avenue Northeast reconstruction.

We're gonna call on Mr.

Dan Hanson, senior director of community and development.

Purpose of this discussion is to conduct the determination of protest and sufficiency and approve an associated resolution.

Mr.

Mr.

Hanson.

Thank you, Commissioner President Dartis and Commissioners.

As stated uh at the September 8th Commission meeting, we passed a resolution of necessity when we created the improvement district, which would be the funding mechanism that we would use to special assess the improvements for the reconstruction of 9th Street Northeast and 7th Avenue Northeast.

Um again, 9th Street Northeast is intended to be reconstructed from Main to 12th Avenue and 7th Street from 9th Street uh east to our city boundary.

And uh with that project, uh we do have a lot of funding that we've been able to obtain through grants for it, but there is a remainder that would be a local share, and that local share is intended to be assessed at a 70% uh uh assessment rate as per the guidance of the 2024 CIP.

And uh so uh we passed that resolution of necessity, uh which was after we created the district.

Uh we sent out letters uh that are included in the packet, and as of uh right now we have not received any written protests from any of the letters that we had property owners of the letters that we had sent out.

Uh so uh with that um lastly kind of just ancillary to what we're talking about tonight.

Um but before we end this uh item, I did add uh a couple different uh renderings that were provided by Houston Engineering of what the uh corridor is intended to look like with you can see Maine here, and you can see that the there's the bridge, which will be bid and constructed in the same year, but under a different project all the way north uh to the improvements of the roundabout up at uh uh 12th Avenue as well.

Um, but before we end this uh item, I did add uh a couple different uh renderings that were provided by Houston Engineering of what the uh corridor is intended to look like with you can see Maine here, and you can see that the there's the bridge, which will be bid and constructed in the same year but under a different project all the way north uh to the improvements of the roundabout up at uh uh 12th Avenue as well, and then uh there's another rendering that I've shared in the past of the intersection of 7th Avenue and 9th Street.

Uh just to give you a little bit of a uh glimpse of what it might eventually plan to look like, and you can see there is a frontage road uh to protect the access control for the corridor.

Uh there will be a northbound uh frontage road running along those businesses so that way we don't have multiple uh driveways accessing a major corridor through through town.

So uh those are just provided for informational purposes, but uh the item in front of you tonight is to uh pass the resolution uh declaring that we did not uh receive sufficient protest with the creation of the improvement district.

And with that, I would answer any questions.

Questions for Mr.

Hansen motion to approve.

Commissioner Georgine moves to approve the improvement district twenty-two sixty-five ninth street and seventh avenue northeast reconstruction and approve then is the associated resolution uh that there's not sufficient protest.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Zondell, seconds.

We have a motion and a second.

Is there any further discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carried.

Thank you, Mr.

Hanson.

Thank you.

Item number eight is an improvement district number sixty fifty-nine sidewalk improvements 2024 walks.

Mr.

Jerry Wallace, City Engineer is leading this discussion and is to approve the final assessment list.

Good evening, Mr.

Wallace, and welcome.

Thank you, Mr.

Commission President and Commissioners.

Uh I'm here before you tonight uh for improvement districts 65 60 59, which is our uh sidewalk improvement district that we typically bring forward every other year.

Um, this is to address uh areas of town where uh you know the the build-out, so to speak, is typically uh largely complete and we still have existing sidewalk gaps present in the uh the sidewalk network.

Uh we come in and issue a notice of order to construct on the front end of the project and essentially give the uh property owners time to uh construct the improvements themselves if they so choose to.

Um and if not, we come forward with the project and install the sidewalk and then uh turn around and assess 100 percent of the costs.

Um, you know, two of the benefiting properties.

Uh this is 100 percent in conformance with our uh city ordinance under chapter two.

Um again the total project cost as shown in the financial summary was 308,000 uh $59 and one cent.

Uh that includes soft costs.

Uh the actual construction came in around 267,000 in change.

Uh soft costs ran about 15 percent, so nothing to be alarmed with there.

Um with all that said, uh in your packet is the uh all the benefiting properties and uh the uh resolution of assessment.

Um and with that I'll I'm available for any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr.

Wallace.

Commissioners questions move we approve.

Commissioner Zendow moves to approve the district number 6059 sidewalk improvements for 2024 walks uh as presented by Mr.

Wallace for the total amount of 308,059 dollars.

Is there a second?

Second, Commissioner Anderson seconds.

We have a motion and a second.

All but is there any further discussion?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number nine is the first reading of ordinance twelve sixty-four.

That's a parking ramp ordinance.

We're gonna call on Katie Schmidt, City Attorney for the City of West Fargo.

Ms.

Schmidt.

Thank you, Commissioner President and Commissioners.

This is the first reading of an ordinance to regulate the use of city-owned parking ramps.

The police department has encountered issues with individuals using parking ramps for things other than parking, and these issues have presented safety concerns for the PD.

Mayor Dartis asked that we work together to draft an ordinance to address these issues.

This ordinance is to is designed to limit the use of city-owned parking ramps to uses specifically related to parking.

Again, this is a first reading, and I am available for any questions.

Thank you, Ms.

Schmidt.

Commissioners, any questions?

Well, we approve first reading.

Commissioner Olson moves to approve first reading ordinance 1264.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Jorgens in seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve the first reading of ordinance 1264 parking ramp ordinance.

Is there any other discussion?

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

Opposed.

Motion carried.

We now are on item number 10.

These are resolutions authorizing the issuance and sale of bonds for public works expansion.

Again, we call on Ms.

Schmidt, City Attorney for the City of West Fargo.

We have a wastewater treatment revenue bond and a water treatment revenue bond.

Ms.

Schmidt.

Thank you, Commission President and Commissioners.

These are resolutions authorizing the sale of bonds to the North Dakota PFA for $8.5 million and 2.7 or excuse me, $2.7 million for the public works facility.

The interest rates on these bonds is 1.5% with a point five percent administrative fee with 30-year maturities.

I am available for any questions you may have about them.

Questions for Ms.

Schmidt?

Do you need separate motions for each?

Yes, please.

I move we approve the wastewater treatment revenue bond series 2025 C.

I have a motion to approve the wastewater treatment revenue bond series 2025 C.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Olson seconds.

We have a motion and a second.

Again, to approve the wastewater treatment revenue bond series 2025 C.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carried.

Commissioners are now on the water treatment revenue bond series 2025.

Move to approve.

Commissioner Olson moves to approve.

Commissioner Zundal seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve authorizing the issuance and the sale of bonds for water treatment revenue bond series 2025 D.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Opposed?

Motion carried.

Thank you.

We are now on item number 11.

We call on the city administrator, Mr.

Dustin Scott for City Administrators Report.

Good evening and welcome.

Good evening, Commissioner President Dotis and Commissioners.

Really don't have much for updates tonight, but I do want to start off with a warm thank you to the Commission for a very uh productive meeting we had with our growth area master plan team this afternoon.

Uh shaping our future growth is uh certainly a vital endeavor and uh we really appreciate all of the uh active participation that we're getting from not only the commission but of course all the other stakeholders that we've been working with.

So uh really proud to be on on track with this with this project and um can't thank uh again the commissioner and our team enough.

So uh but with that I again I really don't have any updates uh but stand for any questions that you have for me.

Thank you, Mr.

Scott.

Commissioners, anything for Mr.

Scott?

We're good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All correspondence has been distributed and are in your mailboxes.

Does any commissioner have any non-agenda item they'd like to bring forward at this time?

Any department head have anything you'd like to bring forward at this time.

All right, uh Commissioner Jorgensen.

Move to the adjourned.

Commissioner Anderson.

Second.

We have a