Convention Center Committee - July 18, 2025
CONVENTION CENTER COMMITTEE MEETING
July 18, 2025
1:00 p.m.
Present: Katlyn Balstad, Charley Johnson, Mallari Ackerman, Clare Hughes, Kent Kolstad, Emma McIntyre, Denise Kolpack, Tim Mahoney, Dave Piepkorn, Shannon Full.
Absent: Taylor Snelling, Joe Raso, John Strand, Michelle Turnberg.
Others Present: Jim Gilmour, Assistant City Attorney Erik Johnson, Michael Redlinger, Susan Thompson.
Charley Johnson said there were about 49 or 50 questions that had been submitted regarding the proposed Convention Center project and this meeting will be focused on reviewing and finalizing answers.
Jim Gilmour, Erik Johnson and Mallari Ackerman assisted in crafting the responses and before delving into the questions, Mr. Johnson provided a synopsis of the state statute for public-private partnerships (P3). He explained that this law offers potential solutions for the project and influenced some of the answers to the questions.
Mr. Johnson explained the P3 statute using two examples:
• I-94 Construction: Mr. Johnson contrasted the traditional, sequential method of building I-94 in 30-mile stretches over 10 years with the potential of a P3 model. A P3 approach would involve a single large contractor completing the project faster, potentially in five years, and the government shifting risk to the private contractor. This model could also allow the private contractor to use tolls or fees to pay for the project, relieving the taxpayer of the cost.
• Roberts Commons Parking Ramp (ROCO): This was presented as a local example of the P3 statute in action. The City, which owned one-third of the land, partnered with a private developer, the Kilbourne Group, to assemble the land and build a multi-level parking garage integrated with private development. The developer conveyed the parking garage portion back to the City upon completion but was contracted to manage and operate it. A guaranteed maximum price was set to cap the City's payment, shifting risk to the developer and avoiding public bidding. The project is financed through parking fees, similar to the toll fees mentioned in the I-94 example.
Responses to Proposers' Questions:
The Committee reviewed the draft answers to the submitted questions. The following key points were discussed and clarified:
• P3 Statute: Several answers referred to the public-private partnership law as a way for the City and developers to negotiate specific terms, use private dollars, and consider various incentives. Mr. Johnson’s synopsis and the full statute will be posted online for the benefit of proposers.
• Financials: The City's budget for the project is estimated to be between $37 and $41 million. This is a total estimate, and the City did not prepare a breakdown of costs; proposers should create their own budgets based on their experience. There are no additional funds set aside for the Convention Center beyond this budget. The City is budgeting for an operating loss of up to $300,000.00 per year after the first two years. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a potential option to support parking, but it would require substantial private development to generate the funds.
• Venue Operations and Ownership:
o The City expects to own equipment and assets purchased with convention center funds. Developers can propose to own equipment they purchase.
o Outdoor maintenance, snow removal and utility costs must be included in the developer's budget for operating the convention center.
o The developer should propose their preferred level of city involvement in operations and governance. This will be negotiated in the final agreement.
o Regarding Visit Fargo Moorhead's role, the developer can propose their preferred involvement. However, Visit FM will, at a minimum, promote the facility and send leads to its management, treating it like other meeting venues in the area. The importance of a single, consistent sales representative was highlighted to avoid client confusion.
o The City is open to suggestions regarding liquor licensing and food, and beverage exclusivity.
o The City may consider naming rights for the Convention Center.
• Hotel and Space Requirements:
o The goal for the hotel is an attached, full-service hotel with a minimum of 150 rooms and a maximum of 200 rooms.
o "Connected" to the Convention Center includes connectivity via skyway.
o The proposed number of breakout rooms should be based on the developer's business plan, using the minimum square footage guideline from the RFP.
o The 50,000 square foot ballroom/exhibit hall program is a goal and can be adjusted to reflect financial realities. The Committee clarified that this space should be able to be separated into a minimum 25,000 sq. ft ballroom and a separate 25,000 sq. ft exhibit space, possibly using an air wall.
• Timeline and Approvals:
o The goal is to select finalists within three months and give them three months to create a final proposal. The negotiation and execution of the final agreement is expected to take several months.
o Public approvals like zoning and building permits will vary based on the site but could take 30 to 90 days.
o Final decisions will be made by the City Commission based on recommendations from the committee and evaluations by third-party consultants.
Next Steps:
The answers to the questions will be posted online.
Mr. Johnson said the Committee will meet on August 15th at 1:00 p.m. to begin reviewing the proposals that have been submitted. Proposers should download the proposals from the Bonfire system once available, he said.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:48 p.m.