Convention Center Committee - May 2, 2025
Present: Katlyn Balstad, Charley Johnson, Mallari Ackerman, Clare Hughes, Joe Raso, Kent Kolstad, Emma McIntyre, Taylor Snelling, Tim Mahoney, Dave Piepkorn, Shannon Full.
Absent: Denise Kolpack, John Strand, Michelle Turnberg.
Others Present: Jim Gilmour, Assistant City Attorney Erik Johnson (via video conference), Michael Redlinger, Susan Thompson.
Charley Johnson mentioned that the final version of the HVS study is available on the Visit Fargo Moorhead website for review by interested parties, including potential developers.
Jim Gilmour provided an overview of the three-phase selection process.
• Phase 1: Focuses on the site, its suitability and the development team's capability.
• Phase 2: Narrows down to two or three finalists who will provide detailed financial information and designs.
• Final Phase: Selection of one developer for negotiation. If an agreement is not reached, they can move to another high-ranking proposal.
Mr. Gilmour provided, via a voteable QR Code, a list of site considerations. The initial considerations included capacity for recommended building program, status of site control, site assembly costs, proximity to existing/planned lodging and proximity to existing/planned dining/retail.
Refinement of Site Considerations:
• The term "capacity for recommended building program" was clarified to mean the physical site capacity.
• It was suggested that "status of site control" and "site assembly costs" could potentially be combined into one criterion.
• The proximity to existing and planned lodging, dining and retail was discussed, with emphasis on the importance of a connected hotel. The language for this criterion was debated, considering terms like "adjacent" vs. "connected" and whether it should be a requirement or a desired attribute. It was suggested that scoring could reflect the degree of connection.
• Ease of auto access, pedestrian access and potential for traffic congestion were suggested to be moved to the "urban considerations" category as they relate to the surrounding area.
• Potential for expansion was also discussed as an important site consideration.
Susan Thompson said the inclusion and weighting of financial considerations should be in the first phase. She said while detailed financial information is expected in Phase II, some financial aspects, such as site assembly costs and the overall potential cost relative to the city's budget, should be considered in Phase I to avoid advancing proposals that are clearly unaffordable.
It was proposed to add a standalone fifth category for overall cost considerations.
The level of detail needed for criteria, such as the number of loading docks or ceiling height, was debated. It was noted that features like loading docks and support space are crucial based on tours of other convention centers. It was suggested to potentially have a single line for "support space" with bullet points detailing specific requirements like loading docks, power, and storage.
The distinction between absolute minimum requirements and weighted factors in the evaluation was raised. It was suggested that the RFP should clearly outline minimum requirements, while the weighted criteria would evaluate aspects above and beyond those minimums. The connected hotel was cited as a potential ironclad requirement.
Timeline and Next Steps:
• Developers will submit questions within the first 30 days online, and coordinated answers will be provided.
• A potential "pre-bid" meeting was discussed as an optional session for developers to ask questions and understand the public-private partnership statute.
• The draft RFP has not yet been distributed to the committee but has been shared with a few individuals for comments.
• The committee plans to refine the criteria list further, potentially combining or eliminating items, and will bring back a revised list for the next meeting.
• A discussion with Baker Tilly regarding preliminary financial models is planned for the next meeting.
• It is expected to take a couple more meetings to finalize the criteria and develop the RFP.
Committee members will refine the criteria list, combining and eliminating items as discussed.
Shannon will provide a draft list of minimum requirements, particularly regarding support space.
The refined criteria list and draft minimums will be shared with the committee before the next meeting.
Mr. Gilmour will send his working draft of the RFP to Charley for comments.
Baker Tilly is tentatively scheduled to discuss preliminary financial models at the next meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:05 p.m.