Convention Center Committee - October 10, 2025
Present: Katlyn Balstad, Charley Johnson, Mallari Ackerman, Clare 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, Assistant City Attorney Erik Johnson, Shirley Hughes.
Charley Johnson provided an update on the next steps for the four finalists, assuming the City Commission approves them on Monday.
• Format: The next two meetings, originally scheduled for the following two weeks, were to be one-hour Question and Answer (Q&A) sessions for each of the four developers.
• Purpose: The Q&A sessions are an opportunity for the Committee to discuss what they liked and disliked about the proposals, ask for clarifications and offer feedback before the developers submit a second presentation.
• Preparation: Attendees were encouraged to come prepared with questions to fill the whole hour with each developer.
• Complex Questions: Mayor Mahoney suggested that complex questions be sent to Mr. Johnson beforehand, who could then forward them to the presenters to allow them to prepare a complete answer. Jim Gilmour affirmed this was acceptable, especially for complex questions.
• Developer Questions: Developers may also have questions for the Committee, such as what the Committee liked about their proposal, to help them clarify and improve their subsequent submission.
• Standard Questions: A Committee member suggested having a set of standard questions to ask all four developers for transparency and a level playing field, with the option to add customized questions. Mallari Ackerman later suggested a shared document be created to manage and coordinate questions from all Committee members, which would also be shared with the development teams in advance.
• Scope of Questions: It was agreed that anything is "fair game" for the Q&A, including questions relevant to the second half of the Request for Proposal (RFP). Joe Raso suggested the Q&A should focus on setting a foundation by addressing major issues or positive attributes observed in the initial proposals.
Due to Committee questions about traffic flow around the proposals, City Traffic Engineer Jeremy Gordon and City Engineer Tom Knakmuhs presented a preliminary, high-level traffic analysis for the four sites.
The analysis covered:
• Travel routes and key intersections
• Site access points
• Daily traffic counts
• Trip generation (based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Manual for Convention Centers)
• Other notes, including vehicular/pedestrian access and site-specific comments
Trip generation estimates were calculated based on the gross floor area of the proposed Convention Centers. A Convention Center's peak traffic is usually at the beginning and end of an event.
It was clarified that the trip generation numbers presented are for the Convention Center use only. Simultaneous events (such as a game at an arena and a convention) would definitely be a concern and would necessitate a more in-depth traffic study.
The Committee discussed the need for a formal traffic impact study, as the preliminary analysis was not a highly detailed one.
• Scheels/FARGODOME: A full study may not be needed, as the sites are already used to host large events without major system issues.
• Brewhalla/Civic Quad: A more in-depth study was suggested for these two sites.
• Cost/Timing: A consultant would be hired to complete the study. The Committee members felt it was essential for all four sites to have a traffic study done on the front half of the process, before developers put additional work into the final proposals. Mr. Knakmuhs explained that the City typically requires a study to understand if public infrastructure additions (signals, turn lanes, safety devices) are needed.
The Civic Quad site has significant City-owned infrastructure conflicts:
• 3rd Street: Building on 3rd Street would conflict with existing water, fiber, sanitary and storm sewer lines. Most critically, a sanitary sewer line and a lift station are in the proposed building area and would need to be rerouted.
• Cost: Relocation of this critical infrastructure could cost more than $1 million and is not currently programmed in the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The concern is that the cost of relocation would fall to the City if it's not part of the developer's proposal.
• Access: The proposed truck loading and unloading area on 1st Avenue North is undesirable and the driveway placement is too close to an intersection. City staff would not allow the proposed driveway access as shown.
The Committee discussed the need for the developers to meet with City staff to review site plan concerns before the Q&A sessions.
• Site Plan Review Meetings: Staff recommended the four finalist teams meet with the City's Site Plan Review Group (City Engineering, Fire, Planning and Traffic Engineering). These meetings are typically done with all departments at once to streamline the process. The purpose is to allow developers to find out about concerns and address them in their final proposal.
• Schedule Change: To allow time for these meetings and for the proposers to address concerns (particularly for the Civic Quad site), the Q&A sessions will be delayed by one week.
The revised schedule is as follows:
1. Next Week (Original Q&A Week): The Committee will meet to discuss the RFP itself and the scoring. Committee members will also use this time to build the specific Q&A questions in a shared document.
2. Next Two Weeks (Original and Bumped): City staff will meet with the four shortlisted development teams for the Site Plan review.
3. Week of October 27th (Tentative): Q&A sessions with the four finalists will begin (pushed from the 17th).
The Committee will recommend the City Commission proceed with a vote on the four finalists, as the four were clearly the top-ranked. The potential for one site to become unviable does not warrant adding a lower-ranked option.
Mr. Gilmour said he will work to get the Site Plan review information to the four finalists so they can contact Maegin Elshaug in the Planning Department to schedule the meetings.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:57 p.m.