All right, let's try that.

Let's try that again.

Um Commissioner Anderson.

Here.

Commissioner Olsen.

Here.

Commissioner Tardas.

Here.

Commissioner Zondell.

Here.

Commissioner Jorgensen.

That's a record show that Commissioner Jorgensen is not with us this evening.

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

I've been notified that item number three on the regular agenda, which was the abatement hearings, that uh the petitioner has withdrawn those for the evening.

So item number three.

We will not be discussing due to the again.

The petitioner withdrew.

And then item number six, project number 2284, uh regarding the intersections has been withdrawn by Jerry Wallace, our city engineer.

Uh waiting on additional information.

So with that said, item number three and number six are being pulled from the agenda.

And our order uh commissioners, next order of businesses to approve the agenda.

I move to approve the agenda with those changes.

Thank you, Commissioner Zundell.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Anderson seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve the order of agenda, with the uh exceptions of item number three being removed by the petitioner and item number six being removed by city engineer Jerry Wallace.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Item E is the approval of the minutes of November 17th.

They have been distributed and are in your packets.

Move to approve.

Commissioner Olson moves to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Anderson seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of November 17th as presented.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Item F is building permits.

Again, Commissioners, it has been distributed and in your packets.

Move for approval.

Commissioner Anderson moves to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Olson seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve to approve the building permits report 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 because is the consent agenda.

Commissioner Zundell.

I will need to recuse myself.

Commissioner Zundell move uh is recusing herself on item C of the consent agenda.

Commissioner Olson moves to approve the order of the consent agenda.

Items A through H.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Anderson seconds.

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

Items A through H.

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.

Item number one is public comment.

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

I do not have anyone.

Thank you.

We close public comment.

We move on to public hearings.

We have no public hearings that are uh will be presented this evening.

So we now move on to item number three has been withdrawn by the petitioners.

We move on to item number four.

Umber not item number four is the FM Metro Cog Metro Railroad Needs Study Presentation.

We're gonna call on Mr.

Dan Hanson.

Uh this is an informational discussion.

Mr.

Hanson.

Uh thank you, Commissioner President Artisan Commissioners.

Uh we're here tonight.

Uh there is representatives uh from MetroCog, uh, Mr.

Uh Ben Griffith, and also with him is Dan Bergerson with HDR.

HDR was the consultant that MetroCog used uh for this rail uh study.

Uh Metric Og started this uh a little while back.

Uh we had a number of meetings.

Basically, what they did is they took a look at all the different places where railroads cross roadways within the metro and they came up with uh some results.

And for tonight, uh Mr.

Bergerson is going to come up and just uh present the results of the study, especially as it relates to the four crossings that we have in West Fargo for your information.

Okay.

Good evening and welcome.

Good evening.

Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners and Administrator Scott for having us this evening.

Um, just to give a little quick background, a little over three years ago, BNSAF Railroad approached several local jurisdictions and Metro COG about a study of key rail crossings in the community.

And then also some rail-related locations, which mainly the rail yards that are in the area.

All parties agreed to the need for a comprehensive study to assess current conditions and identify potential future improvements.

And BNSF agreed to provide the local match for the project, which relieved the local jurisdictions of normally having to provide that.

HDR began work on the project in June of last year, and their local office drew upon rail expertise from their firm's offices across the U.S.

and Canada.

Project manager Dan Burgesson from HDR will provide a brief PowerPoint presentation, and we'll be glad to answer any questions that y'all may have.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening and welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you for having us here.

Yeah, so we'll get right into the next slide.

So this study covered 15 locations throughout the metro area.

As uh Dan and Ben noted, they were selected by the jurisdictions uh prior to work on the study beginning, and there are four locations in West Fargo.

The key objectives are evaluating existing conditions, assessing potential improvements, and recommending infrastructure enhancements.

So there was quite a bit of uh public engagement work that went into this.

We had a study review committee and a stakeholder committee that we met with throughout the study, and representatives from West Fargo Fire, West Fargo Police Department, West Fargo Public Schools, as well as Cass County Engineering, uh Cass County Planning, NDDOT, and uh Dan was on the study review committee as well.

Um we had uh a couple pop-up events in the community, one of which was at the Kawanis Pancake Carnival in February, and we also had public meetings in each of the cities within the study um area, and that included one at the Rusted Recreation Center as well as the Fargo Public Library on the North Dakota side.

So we'll get right into the preferred alternatives.

Um of these locations do only have one alternative, and it is kind of there's a caveat that you know, if uh an improvement is to move forward, that would be the preferred alternative.

We're not comparing them versus the no build.

Um 26th Street, Northwest.

I think you guys just heard about the study for the West 94 area, and this is kind of closely related to that.

Um with that potential interchange at reconfiguration at 26th in Maine and I-94.

This would be a structure over the railroad.

Um the selected alternative is for six lanes to match in with traffic projections from the West 94 area um study.

And it would remove the at-grade crossing and uh provide the six lanes for that traffic, as well as adding a shared use path to allow for pedestrian and bicycle access.

Uh 15th Street was also touched on in that West 94 area study.

This would be uh adding a structure where there is not currently a grade crossing of the railroad uh just to increase mobility in the West Fargo community.

This is a pretty challenging location given the um I guess the local business and the the number of tracks that are there, the width that you'd have to cover the the span of that bridge would get a little bit large.

Um so I think that was factored into that West 94 area study findings as well.

Ninth Street uh Northwest.

Uh we had a couple alternatives that we looked at.

Um it's a low clearance um underpass that's there currently.

And we look to an overpass as the preferred alternative.

The underpass that we did analyze is the other alternative would increase the vertical clearance.

It'd kind of just be redoing that with an underpass.

But overpasses are generally preferred by the railroad.

Uh this did score similarly to the underpass though.

This did score similarly to the underpass, though.

So if cost is a consideration, uh certainly could go either way and still be a pretty big improvement over existing infrastructure today.

This would be a wider structure with again bicycle and pedestrian facilities included.

At center street, this location has been uh particularly challenging with some of the vehicle strikes that occur there due to the type of traffic that's using center street.

Um so this structure would be an overpass as the preferred alternative.

Very similar to 9th Street, where we did evaluate an underpass uh with some additional grading to get the 16 and a half foot vertical clearance that's kind of the standard uh preferred by BNSF now for roadway underpasses, but again, the overpass is just a little bit easier to maintain in the future and not have to worry about anything uh impeding the rail, particularly.

And once again, a little bit more expensive for the overpass than the underpass.

Um so a consideration down the road when funding uh options are identified.

Uh just to touch on some of the uh methodology that we had.

This looks pretty confusing, but it's not uh we call it a multiple county valuation.

We had the the study review committee and the stakeholder committee rank uh basically the level of importance of the criteria that are listed on the top row of the table.

And you can see that the magnitude of project benefits as well as emergency service access and uh community impacts are the top three of those criteria based on the the results of our survey.

We use the matrix to score the alternatives, all the alternatives throughout the metro area, and you can see that uh the some of the West Fargo alternatives um definitely scored well.

26th Street Northwest uh given some of the future um projections for that area actually has the the highest score out of the entire metro area.

So again, those uh other results are all there as well.

And um, yeah, just to keep it brief, uh like to thank you all again.

And if you do have any questions, we could do our best to answer them.

Any questions for the gentleman commissioners?

This is a non-action item, it's only for information.

Anything for the gentleman?

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Moving on, we are now on item number five, and that is improvement district number 1356.

Brookwood meter pit replacement.

It's on the east side.

I'm gonna call in Jerry Wallace, our city engineer.

Purpose of this discussion is to approve the engineer's report and direct the engineer to prepare plans and specifications.

Mr.

Wallace, good evening, welcome.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Commission President and Commissioners.

Uh I'm before you tonight on this item.

Um, improvement district number 1365, the Brookwood meter pit replacement.

Um essentially the uh the meter pit that is currently serving the east side of the Brookwood Mobile Home Park.

Uh it's 50 years old.

Uh it's in pretty tough shape.

Um when I was able to take a look at it, I was actually surprised it's uh still in service and we haven't been having current issues with it.

Um but it's due to be replaced uh well past this design service life.

Um we've completed the engineers report, um, outlined what we think is and feel is the need for uh the project, and uh essentially I'm here before you tonight with uh the engineers report, the district map, and the associated resolutions and uh the staff recommendation is to approve the engineers report and direct the engineer to prepare plans and specifications.

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

Thank you, Mr.

Wallace.

Commissioners.

Could you show the special assessment district map, please?

Just want the public to see.

So the the benefit areas where the water supply of this meter pit is for that benefit area, does not expand beyond that.

Correct, sir.

Just wanted the information uh presented to the public on that.

Move we approve.

Mr.

Olsen moves to approve uh improvement district 1356 brickwood meter pit.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Anderson seconds.

We have a motion and a second to approve district number 1356, Brookwood meter pit replacement as presented.

Is there any discussion?

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you, Mr.

Wallace.

Thank you.

Again, I'd remind the public that item number six on the agenda has been pulled by the engineering department.

We move on to item number seven.

That is project number 663, A Street West Multi-Use Path.

Again, we call on Jerry Wallace, the city engineer.

The purpose of this discussion is to review the bid and concur with the North Dakota DOT's recommendation.

Mr.

Wallace.

Yes, thank you again, Mr.

Commission President and Commissioners.

Essentially, as you can see in your packet here, we conducted a bid opening for the project, which is essentially reconstructing the A Street West multi-use path.

Excellent project that we're uh excited to bring to the neighborhood there.

Um bid was for the amount of 509,985 dollars and thirty cents.

Uh we had two responsive and responsible bidders.

Uh the bid was uh 24.1 percent below the engineers estimate.

Um we recommend awarding the contract to Northern Improvement Company.

Uh again, in your packet here, the uh we we have the DOT notice of bids and the resolution accepting the bid.

Um and again our recommendation is to concur and award the contract to Northern Improvement Company for 59,985.30 cents.

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

Thank you, Mr.

Wallace.

Commissioners make the motion to approve.

I have a motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr.

Zundal Mr.

Anderson moves to approve.

Commissioner Zundell seconds.

One question.

Uh would you share with the public what the revenue how the revenues will be drawn to pay for this?

Uh yes, sir.

The um essentially we uh were awarded uh 412,731 dollars and ten cents in grant funding through various sources.

Uh the remaining costs will be uh coming from the capital improvement sales tax fund.

No special assessments.

That is 100% correct.

No special.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

We have a motion and a second.

Any discussion.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carried.

Thank you, Mr.

Wallace.

Thank you for your time.

Item number eight, we're gonna call on Dustin Scott, our city administrator.

Purpose of this discussion is to present the revised military leave policy.

Mr.

Scott, good evening and welcome.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Thank you, Commissioner President Artis and Commissioners.

Um the military leave policy was approved on October 20th, uh, shortly after implementing it into our lexi poll system.

We did notice that it needed some additional uh review.

Uh Nick and our HR team consulted with our city attorney to make some uh revisions that ensure full alignment with the North Dakota Century Code as well as uniformed services, employment and reemployment uh rights act.

So these these updates, uh the uh in your packet you can see exactly the revisions that have been made.

Uh they they clarify the federal and state military leave requirements, uh refine notice and return to work language, and provide a more detailed explanation of paid military leave under North Dakota Century Code.

Also included our reference tables that demonstrate how the military leave hours are calculated.

So with that, I will stand for any questions.

Any questions from the commission?

No.

All right.

Move to approve the revised military leave policy.

Commissioner is presented.

Commissioner Olson moves to approve the revised military leave policy as presented.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Zundell seconds.

We have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed.

Move on.

Item number nine is the city administrators report.

Again, we call on Mr.

Dustin Scott, our city administrator.

Thank you again, Commissioner President Artis and Commissioners.

Um first update here.

I just want to remind uh the commission that we have a couple of upcoming neighborhood meetings, one for the first Avenue Reconstruction and other for the Meadow Ridge Reconstruction Project.

So uh if your schedules allow, please attend.

They will be certainly very informative.

And we are excited to engage the residents on those important infrastructure projects.

So take a look at the calendars.

I don't recall the exact dates, but we do have those posted on our website.

Thank you.

And speaking of calendars, uh Rachel with her uh forward thinking mind is uh already planning for next year's commission meetings.

We want to get uh a calendar updated, but more importantly, bring forward a schedule that outlines our commission meetings for 2026, get that approved at the up uh the next meeting on December 15th, and that's where we can uh set those holiday uh those commission meetings that need to get rescheduled for holidays.

Uh we do she did note that there are four months where we have uh five-week uh periods where uh three week gaps between meetings.

So uh we'll we'll likely put some language in there about uh if we identify some needs for uh special meetings like dealing with bills and some of those uh necessities when we have those long gaps.

We'll try to address all of that at our next commission meeting.

So uh we are gonna take a look at what we will recommend.

Uh I think there's only a couple holidays to really contend with next year, but we will try to get out in front of that and get all of that squared away and on our website for for 2026.

Um aside from that, I know that the the uh the team is very busy trying to get through all of our annual evaluations.

We are uh for the first time using NeoGov, our HIRS software, to uh conduct those employee evaluations.

So they're working through some of those early challenges with the software, but uh it sounds like everything's going well, and I hope to have all of those wrapped up in the next few weeks.

Likewise, it is also time for my annual review.

So I believe the HR team has reached out to commissioners to uh get that ball rolling and uh follow our our contract to get that evaluation done.

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

Questions for Mr.

Scott.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Correspondence has all been distributed, Commissioners in your mailboxes.

Uh one item of note Thursday evening at six o'clock at the MIAPOW.

We're going to be lighting the Christmas tree.

So we would invite the public to come to that, particularly uh bring your children as well.

And uh West Fargo events will be coordinating it, and I believe it's at 6 6 p.m.

Anyone else have anything?

Commissioner Zundell.

Just uh thank you to our public works staff for getting us through the first ever storm.

So first storm of this winter season, anyways.

I think when I um spoke with one of them today, they said they put on 5,000 miles on the plows and snow equipment dealing with the the first big snowfall.

So thank you to them, and then thank you to our first responders for working over the holidays.

So the rest of us could enjoy time with our family.

Good.

Anyone else?

No.

Any non agenda items any commissioner would like to bring forward?

Anything else?

Any department head?

Anything you'd like to bring forward this evening?

All right, Commissioner Wilson.

Move we adjourn.

Commissioner Zundell.

Second, we stand adjourned.

Thank you.