Convention Center Committee Meeting - August 15, 2025

Present: Katlyn Balstad, Charley Johnson, Mallari Ackerman, Clare Hughes, Joe Raso, Kent Kolstad, Emma McIntyre, Taylor Snelling, Denise Kolpack, Tim Mahoney (via conference call), Dave Piepkorn, Shannon Full, Michelle Turnberg.

Absent: John Strand.

Others Present: Jim Gilmour, Assistant City Attorney Erik Johnson, Michael Redlinger, Susan Thompson.

The meeting began with a discussion of potential conflicts of interest for three committee members: Emma McIntyre, Kent Kolstad and Clare Hughes.
• Emma McIntyre: Her organization, Folkways, was named as an entity in one of the proposals. Ms. McIntyre clarified that the proposal references Folkways Studio, a separate entity run by Joe and Simone Burgum, and not the Folkways community nonprofit she works for. She said she has no prior knowledge of the project proposal.
• Kent Kolstad: His company, Livewire, was listed as a vendor in one of the proposals. He stated that his company is likely to be involved in any of the projects, regardless of who is chosen. He also disclosed that Mark Bjornstad and Kevin Bartram are partners in the LiveWire building, which has a tie to one of the distinct proposals. Mr. Kolstad said he has had no direct conversations with any of the developers about the proposals.
• Clare Hughes: Her spouse works with Dan Hurder at Great Plains Hospitality, and that firm was named as a partner in one of the proposals. Ms. Hughes echoed Mr. Kolstad’s statement, saying that because her husband's business is well-known in the catering industry, it will likely be involved regardless of which project is chosen. She also stated that she had not had any direct conversations with developers about the proposals.
Erik Johnson defined a conflict of interest under state law as a "direct and substantial personal or pecuniary monetary interest" in an item. He noted that being an advisory body to the City Commission gives the Committee more latitude. He suggested that the body can vote to waive a conflict, authorizing a person to vote on the matter if they choose.
The general consensus from the Committee members was that the connections did not rise to the level of a conflict of interest.
Mr. Johnson also disclosed that he has a long-standing client relationship with Kevin Bartram, a figure involved in one of the proposals. He stated that because he is not a voting member, his conflict is a matter of legal ethics. He committed to recusing himself from any negotiations or contract drafting related to that proposal and would hand off those duties to another attorney.
Review Process of Proposals
The Committee discussed whether to hire the professional consulting firm HVS to review the nine proposals.
• Cost: Charley proposed using HVS for a fee of no more than $6,000, which he will pay for out of his organization's budget.
• Conflict: There was a question about HVS potential conflict of interest. Charley stated that HVS was asked by the FARGODOME to update previous work but, after a conversation, chose not to in order to stick with the Committee.
• Scoring: It was decided that HVS would use the same scoring categories the Committee developed, which were based on an HVS model.
Key Decisions on Scoring:
• The Committee agreed that they would complete their scoring before receiving the HVS scores to avoid being influenced.
• The Committee would average their scores and HVS would do the same. They would then compare the two sets of scores to identify any discrepancies.
• There was a suggestion to hire a financial advisor, such as Baker Tilly, to review the financial strength of the individual investors in the second phase of the process.
• The Committee also discussed how many proposals to advance to the second round, with members suggesting three to five. The consensus was to wait and see how the scores fall before making a final decision.
Scheduling and Next Steps
The Committee agreed to schedule the developers' presentations over three consecutive Fridays: August 22nd, 29th and September 5th. The meetings would be scheduled for two hours to allow for presentations and questions.
• Presentations: Each of the nine proposals will have a 30-minute slot. The Committee requested that developers focus on the project itself — the site location, size and layout — rather than team bios, which are already in the proposals. It was suggested that presentations be 15 to 20 minutes, with 10 to 15 minutes for questions and answers. Visual aids and drawings were encouraged.
• Scoring: Scoring will not officially begin until after all nine presentations have been completed. Committee members are encouraged to take notes and review the video of the presentations before scoring.
• Finalizing scoring: There will be a week off after the final presentations on September 5th to allow Committee members to complete their scoring. The next meeting will be on September 19th, where the Committee will review the cumulative scores and potentially discuss them with HVS. The purpose of this meeting is to determine which proposals will advance to the next phase.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:42 p.m.