Convention Center Committee Meeting Minutes - October 3, 2025

Present: Katlyn Balstad, Charley Johnson, Mallari Ackerman, Clare Hughes, Kent Kolstad, Taylor Snelling, Tim Mahoney, Dave Piepkorn, Shannon Full.

Absent: Denise Kolpack, Emma McIntyre, Joe Raso, John Strand, Michelle Turnberg.

Others Present: Jim Gilmour, Shirley Hughes, Assistant City Attorney Erik Johnson.

Charley Johnson said he has received emails from "interested parties" (referred to as lobbying) and stated he will be sharing such communications with the Committee. He said that all Committee members have connections to people involved in the nine proposed projects and recognized that only one project will ultimately be selected, which means eight will face disappointment. The process involves narrowing down the project to four finalists, he said and then ultimately choosing one.
The discussion moved to the SWOT analysis, pros and cons of the proposals. The Committee decided to focus on the top four scoring projects to be recommended to the City Commission. The conversation included an overview of the HVS (Tom Hazinski) strengths and weaknesses for each of the four top-scoring proposals, along with Committee member questions and concerns.
1. RLE (FARGODOME Site)
• HVS Strengths: Local development experience, use of FARGODOME function space, parking availability.
• HVS Weaknesses: Location, potential conflicts with stadium schedule, need for lease negotiations with NDSU, lack of hotel vision.
Committee Questions/Concerns:
• Ability to run a Convention Center.
• Project finances and commitment of the existing $47 million fund.
• Clarity on a full-service hotel plan, including the reason for not having one.
• Details of the complicated NDSU lease negotiations and agreements (including connecting to the basketball arena and parking).
• Who is responsible for developing the "little village" area in front of it?
• The long-term lease on state land and the private development on that leased land.
2. Enclave Project (Scheels Arena Site)
• HVS Strengths: Local development experience, connection to Scheels Arena, other hotels nearby, site control.
• HVS Weaknesses: Location, potential conflict with arena schedule, no attached hotel cited in the plan (though it is connected).
Committee Questions/Concerns:
• Commitment of land involving Sanford and the Park District.
• Relationship between the Convention Center, the hotel and food service, as proximity was noted as important.
• Parking structure plans: The current plan relies on existing surface parking, but parking will be an issue once the surrounding land (including for a proposed Science Museum) is fully developed and then what the funding plan would be for a parking structure.
• Clarification on unifying the Metro Sports Foundation (MSF) with the project.
3. Mutchler Bartram (Brewhalla Site)
• HVS Strengths: Local development experience, location, site control, connection to Brewhalla.
• HVS Weaknesses: Not currently a walkable destination (must be self- contained).
Committee Questions/Concerns:
• Clarity and models for financing.
• Concerns about traffic and the ability of First Avenue to handle the volume. The City's Engineering Department will be asked to provide traffic counts and projections.
• Management of the facility (a different "breed of cat" compared to the current use) and the relationship with Visit Fargo Moorhead (CVB) for marketing and sales.
• Mitigating sound from the proximate railroad for event planners.
• The management structure, emphasizing a preference for one facility representative over multiple entities.
4. EAPC (Civic Center/Downtown Site)
• HVS Strengths: Local development experience, location, connection to the Civic Center, existing hotel plus new rooms under development, site control.
• HVS Weaknesses: Long distance to the connected Radisson Blu, no apparent expansion opportunities.

Committee Questions/Concerns:
• Clarity on the enclosed walkway/skyway connection to the hotel (through the Civic Center), including cost, funding and maintenance.
• The role of the Civic Center (as an exhibit hall or part of an expansion).
• More details on the proposed hotel, financing and location.
• The food service/kitchen location, which is not close to the building (potentially underground), raising concerns about logistics for large- scale catering (e.g., service, loading docks, storage, hot carts).
• City-owned land: Clarification that the land (Civic Center and the proposed site) is owned by the City of Fargo and is not being given away for free. The highly valuable Downtown property requires a clear financial arrangement (lease or purchase).
• Traffic congestion in the Downtown area and unclear
pickup/drop- off points.
• General parking.
• Limited loading docks and storage space, which will limit event turnover and business volume.

Mallari Ackerman moved to recommend to the City Commission the RLE, Enclave, Mutchler/Bartram and EAPC projects as the four finalists for the first round of proposals, based upon the cumulative scoring rubric.
Second by Katlyn Balstad. On call of the roll Members Ackerman, Hughes, Full, Kolstad, Balstad, Snelling, Mahoney, Johnson and Piepkorn voted aye.
Absent and not voting: Members Kolpack, McIntyre, Raso, Strand and Turnberg.
The motion was declared carried.
The next round of the Request for Proposal (RFP) will require more detailed plans for the Convention Center and full-service hotel. Specific requirements will include:
• Architectural concept drawings.
• Site plan details for parking, vehicle access, pedestrian connections and landscaping.
• More detailed cost estimates (land, building, site, furniture, equipment).
• A comprehensive financial plan (equity, loan commitments, property tax incentives).
• Pro-forma.
• Details on integration with Visit Fargo Moorhead's sales efforts.
• Schedule for construction completion.
The Committee agreed that the developers should provide responses to the specific Committee questions raised during this meeting as part of their Phase Two proposal.
The Committee will meet to finalize the evaluation criteria and determine how to weight various factors. Potential criteria discussed included:
• Site advantages.
• Convention Center site plan and floor plan (HVS will be brought back to review this for operational flow, e.g., catering distance).
• Architectural designs (subjective).
• Hotel plan (clarifying the full-service requirements such as a restaurant, conference rooms, pool).
• Convention Center operations plan/pro-forma (including shared revenue and losses).
• Costs and schedule (must be within the $37–$41 million range).
• Capability of the developer (deep-dive financial background checks, potentially using an external firm such as Baker Tilly, will be done before a final agreement is signed).
The Committee acknowledged that financial information (e.g., identity of investors) may be submitted confidentially to a financial consultant, who will then advise the Committee on the plan's adequacy.
Mr. Johnson said the next meeting will be Friday, October 10th. He said the purpose is to finalize the detailed second-round RFP and scoring rubric.
Q&A Sessions with Finalists: The Committee plans to hold two, two-hour Q&A sessions with the four finalists after the City Commission approves them.
• October 17th (two hours)
• October 24th (two hours)

The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.