Convention Center Commission - April 21, 2026

Present: Katlyn Balstad, Charley Johnson, Clare Hughes, Shirley Hughes, Joe Raso, Kent Kolstad, Emma McIntyre, Taylor Snelling, Denise Kolpack, Tim Mahoney, Dave Piepkorn, Shannon Full, Michelle Turnberg.

Absent: John Strand.

Others Present: Jim Gilmour; Erik Johnson (via conference call); Susan Thompson; Tom Hazinski, HVS (via conference call); David Earnhart and Madeline Garza, Baker Tilly (via conference call).

David Earnhart and Madeline Garza presented an individual assessment of the four Convention Center proposals focusing on feasibility and financing:
• EAPC (Civic Center Reuse):
o Fits within the $41 million budget but relies on a "base case" scenario.
o Likely requires an additional $5 million in TIF funding and an operating subsidy in year five.
• Brewhalla:
o Focuses on new development with the second-largest proposed budget.
o Concerns regarding complex team structure and lack of clarity on who is ultimately responsible for financing guarantees.
• FARGODOME:
o Highest value proposal ($25 million over bond proceeds) with a $12 million budget gap and no identified solution.
o Concerns regarding land lease issues with NDSU.
• Scheels Arena:
o Lowest cost, fitting the $41 million budget but lacks essential amenities such as a commercial kitchen and sufficient meeting rooms.
o Reliance on $17 million in philanthropy/naming rights for upgrades was deemed "optimistic" and risky.

Tom Hazinski provided a third-party ranking based on market conditions:
• Rankings (out of 100):
1. Civic Center: 82
2. Brewhalla: (Second place)
3. Scheels Arena: (Third place)
4. FARGODOME: (Lowest)

• Market Context: Mr. Hazinski noted that financing new hotels is currently difficult; therefore, the Civic Center’s proximity to existing hotels (Radisson Blu and Jasper) is a major strategic advantage.

• Operating Projections: Significant variance exists between proposals (revenue projections range from $1 million to $4 million), making direct "apples-to-apples" comparisons difficult.

• Financial Viability: Susan Thompson expressed concern that none of the projects appeared fully financially viable as presented.

• Operating Subsidies: The Mayor and Commissioner Piepkorn emphasized that the City does not have funds for a perpetual operating subsidy. The current model assumes a $500,000.00 subsidy for the first few years, decreasing to $200k–$300k later, funded by lodging taxes.

• Next Steps: Jim Gilmour and Erik Johnson advised that the Committee should rank the proposals 1 through 4. The top-ranked developer would then enter a "deep dive" negotiation phase to resolve unanswered questions and finalize equity/guarantees.

• Data Consistency: Commissioner Turnberg and Shannon Full requested more standardized data (event mix, line-item costs) to better compare the "fruit salad" of different proformas.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:42 p.m.