2026-10-12 - City Commission

I call the meeting to order if we could have roll call please. Galiksan, here. Peterson. And for the record, Commissioner Peterson will be joining in Executive Session via phone. Is he virtual here?

Okay. Strand? Here. Turnburg? Here. Bushe? Here. All right, we have a quorum. The City Commission will convene, has convened at 4 p.m. and we will retire into Executive Session in the Red River Room.

For the purpose of receiving our attorney's advice and guidance regarding reasonably predictable litigation with Tallgrass LLC, including the legal risks, strengths, and weaknesses of the City's

position, and to discuss negotiating strategy or provide negotiating instructions to our attorney or other negotiator regarding the potential litigation. Discussing these matters in an open meeting

would have an adverse fiscal effect on the bargaining and/or litigating position for the City. Accordingly, an Executive Session for these purposes is authorized pursuant to North Dakota Century Code

Chapter 44-04-19.1, deserts 2, 5, and 9, and North Dakota Century Code Chapter 44-04-19.2, subsection 1. Is there a motion to retire into Executive Session in the Red River Room to discuss said matter

as authorized by North Dakota Century Code? I so move. Second. There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Discussion? Hearing none, we'll go in a roll call vote. Turnburg? Aye. Beleksohn?

Aye. Strand? Yes. Bushe? Aye. Motion carries. We will recess up into the Red River Room and return back to the chambers at 5 for our full session. Thank you. All right. Well, welcome to our 5 p.m.

session for our October 12th Commission Meeting. We just recessed from Executive Session. We'd already called the meeting to order. So with that, I'll move to the Pledge of Allegiance. And if you're

able to stand, join us. Allegiance. Thank you. And with that, we'll go to a roll call vote again. Beleksohn? Here. Peterson? Here. Strand? Here. Turnburg? Here. Bushe? Here. We had a chance this

evening to observe the City Commission. We're always glad to have students and other people from the community here to get a firsthand look at how local government works and the work that goes into

serving our community. We'll be available after the meeting if you have any questions for us. But I know some of you are here on assignment. So if you have follow-up questions of what happened during

the meeting, myself and I think other commissioners will be available for any clarity that you might need. We have the agenda in front of us as it was proposed. Are there any changes to the agenda or

approval? A motion to approve? So moved. Second? There's a motion and a second to approve the agenda. Any questions? Mayor, was item number 27 pulled from consent to the regular agenda? It is already.

So yes, thank you. So a note for the public. Item number 27, excuse me, item number 41A, right? Oh, no, it's moved to 41A. So yes, item number 27, 41A is showing up on our agenda. That was moved prior

to the meeting, but we'll recognize that in the notes. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries. We have our last meeting minutes, which was

September 28, 2026. Is there a motion to approve the minutes or are there any amendments to the minutes? I so move. Second. There's a motion, a second. Any discussion? Discussion? Hearing none, all in

favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Thank you. The motion carries. We have the consent agenda in front of us. I move approval. Second. There's a motion, a second, to approve the consent agenda. Any

discussion? Discussion? Hearing none, we'll do a roll call vote. Strand? Yes. Gullickson? Yes. Peterson? Yes. Turnburg? Yes. Boucher? Aye. Motion carries. We will hold off on our public hearings which

are scheduled for 5.05. So commissioners will go to item number 41, which is the reappointment to the historic preservation commission. You have in front of you two names of people who are currently

serving. We have not added any new people to the historic preservation commission. The mindset there is that as we work our way through the land development code, we see that the historic preservation

commission who has an important role in with the planning commission, its role may evolve. And so we're not recommending any new people, but we have two people willing to continue to serve after the

expiration till we can get to that point. So those are the two names you have there, Mr. Larson and Ms. Holden currently serve and just reappointing as carryovers until we see the future of the

historic preservation commission. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. The reappointments? Thank you. Second. Motion to second. Any discussion? Discussion? Hearing none, we'll do a roll call vote.

Gullickson? Yes. Turnburg? Yes. Peterson? Yes. Strand? Yes. Boucher? Aye. Thank you for that time. Mr. Radnick, if I could invite you up for item number 41A, which was moved from the consent agenda

agreement for property demolition with master construction company for 111 to 113 32nd Avenue North. And we have some change to that. So we'll let you speak to that. Good evening, Mayor and

commissioners. Tonight, the inspections department requested that item number 27 on the consent agenda be removed to the regular agenda for a brief discussion. On Friday, October 9th, 2026, an

attorney for freedom mortgage who holds the mortgage on this property, um, requested an extension of time. Freedom mortgage has been, uh, in the process of foreclosing on this property for an extended

period of time. And they are requesting a 75 day extension so that they can access, get estimates for repair and get estimates for repair on the property. The department has reservations about this

extension because it does not include a timeline for repairs of the property. Um, this time or this timeframe will only allow the property to deteriorate further and will not set a timeline for

repairs. I'll just for some background on this property in 2023, there was a fire that caused extension extensive damage to a detached garage. A permit was obtained to rebuild the garage, but during

the process, the contractor closed the permit on November 2nd of 23 because all the building materials and things were being stolen from the site. So you could not continue to work. Um, the work has,

uh, the work had not been performed and the materials that were there and were up in the air have been removed so that garage is not existing anymore. Um, also, um, one of the tenants that was in that

property for quite a while was writing leases to other tenants based on some power of attorney he thought he had from the owner. Um, I don't think that they were proper leases. I don't think they were

legal leases, but he was still living in the property and giving others access to the property, but the property owner did not receive any of the funds. And as a result in, um, October of 25, uh, the

water service was terminated due to lack of payment. And um, because they kept turning the water service back on, they apparently had the tools to be able to turn the water service back on at the curb

stop. This the, um, the water department actually had to fill that curb stop with sand so they couldn't turn it on anymore. After that, they started stealing water from the neighbors and using, um,

tanks on site to provide water to the structure, which is not an allowable use at all. Um, and the neighbors were complaining about those types of conditions as well as junk in the yard, junk

vehicles, um, vagrant people coming in and out, um, you know, just unsightly things and things that should not be going on in a property in a neighborhood like that. Um, on, uh, the property was

posted as a dangerous building on April, uh, in April of 2026. And the city commission approved the dangerous building on June 22nd of 2026, uh, the commissioner's findings and or the commission's

findings effect and order also established an August 21st deadline and the direction of the city to proceed demolition. If the property was not brought into compliance, we did not actually issue that

RFP until September 23rd because we had heard that there were two people interested in buying the property and rehabbing the property. So we were trying to work and allow them some time to actually

maybe get this property saved. Um, on some September 23rd, the inspection department was contacted by Tyler Wierich. He is, was inquiring to the condition of the property and if it had been demolished

yet. Um, the RFP for demolition was open at that same day and Mr. Wierich asked how to stop the process and it was informed that he would need to do so through the court system. He also asked if there

were, if we were open for allowing the property to be repaired, which we did indicate. Yes. If they would go through the court system and do it properly, I said that we were always open for

alternatives to demolition, but he would need to present a timeline and work with the assistant city attorney to drop an agreement that can be brought to the city commission for consideration. The

next correspondence we received from Mr. Wierich was the request for an extension on October 9th. Again, the department is hesitant with this requested 75 day extension, uh, that freedom mortgage is

still only proposing to obtain access, secure estimates, and develop a repair plan that, uh, rather than actually complete any of the necessary player repairs or demolish the property. Given the

length of time that this property has been in its current condition, the freedom mortgage was aware of all activities with the property. We're advising, um, and we're advised during a phone

conversation of the pending demolition process and the possibility of seeking relief through the court, despite that conversation, we did not receive any posted plan or any further substantial

information until now. The department feels that the project should be awarded tonight and that the structure should be removed as stated in the RFP that was issued on September 23rd and I'll stand

for any questions. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Rabbit? Uh, commissioner strand. Thank you, Sean. I'm just curious as a interpreting the letter from their attorney, he's initially, as I see it

asking for 75 day extension to then report back and tell you what they see in the very second and last paragraph, it says they're proposing providing a written status update within 30 days addressing

the appraisal access, repair, estimates, and next steps. Are they asking for 30 or 75? Um, they're asking for a 75 day extension and they're saying within the next 30 days they could possibly have

that information back to us. But if anything holds true with the way this, uh, property has been handled, um, we won't see anything within the next 30 days. It's been largely, um, pushed to the side.

I have to say that it's been neglected and that, um, nobody's really taking substantial responsibility for this property. They're just asking for things at the end to try and save an investment. The

other questions, commissioners, I just like to make a motion before you do that. I think we have a speaker to it. Thank you. Any other questions? And then we have a speaker, uh, Mr. Wearek, are you

online? I am. Can you hear me? Okay. Yep. We'll have the volume turned up a little bit in the chamber, but we can hear you. Let me see closer to my microphone. There we go. We can see you. The floor

is yours, sir. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I appreciate, uh, Mr. Radnick's comments as well. Uh, now as it relates to not taking, but let me address that issue, uh, head on here. The problem

we're running into is that my client does not have an ownership interest or an occupancy interest in this property. We can't do a whole lot right now. My client is interested in that of a mortgage

holder funds to get a foreclosures action completed. We actually have a foreclosure judgment and we're just waiting to execute. The problem that we're having there is we've kind of run between, we're

kind of in a rock and a hard place by candidate. We've got a judgment. We'd like to be able to fix the property, but we don't have access to the property. We can't legally just go on there and make

the change. And then the borrower, for some reason, um, has gone through the federal, or the process of doing a, a, um, a loan modification. And under the, uh, under reg acts and the rest and respa,

um, once that application is filled in, and we can't proceed with the foreclosure and that kind of what's delayed us here is that they've been under doing this, um, loss mitigation program where they

try to refinance the loan, um, or one of these other sort of programs that are out there federally. And so we're, we're, we've kind of been stymied and stuck by that. We haven't been able to do

anything on it. Um, my client wants to and, you know, but they just haven't been able to get the access that they need to get. They, they legally can't just go on there and do it. I mean, they do have

some right to go and lock the property down. And I understand that, uh, from the, you know, I think they did a drive by inspection just recently. And I don't, and then correct me if I'm wrong, I

understand there weren't any squatters on the property that they could see, at least from their drive by inspection, but their, their goal is to, uh, is to fix it. And, and certainly it is to save an

investment. Um, and that, that is correct because my client does stand to lose a significant amount of money if, if this property is torn down and they don't have an opportunity to repair it. And they

had, like I'd mentioned, I mean, they, they'd like the opportunity, but haven't had the legal ability to do so. And that, that's why we're here and that's why we're, we're, we're asking for additional

time. So now that we want to just put this off or lay it to the side or set it to the side, we just simply can't do it right now. We don't have the ability to do so. Um, and so yeah, we are asking for

an additional 75 days and we would provide a status report in 30 days. It wouldn't be the thought process behind that would, would be not to say, Hey, this is, um, you know, we're just kind of a

promise that we'll have everything done is to let you know where we're at in the process and how close we are to the process, um, being done with the process. Now, as it relates to where the

foreclosure stands and the change of title as to the property, um, interviewing the, uh, in the, uh, loss mitigation and the program there, it has been ongoing for awhile. And generally speaking, what

they do is they, um, under these federal programs, they're the owner of the property is given a trial and modification. They have three, three months to complete that. They complete that successfully.

Then they go through and they do a loan modification where they, you know, whatever behind his mind and the loan, they throw to the back of the loan, recapitalized the loan. Um, they're willing to

that process. And so I wouldn't think, I mean, I anticipate it would be done sooner rather than later because this has been ongoing with a sufficient time now for me based on my experience for that,

um, loss mitigation process to be finished up. Um, what questions are the, uh, does the commission have for me? Thank you, Mr. Work. Any commission, uh, questions from the commission commissioner

Gullickson. I'm not quite clear who the question is for. It's to Sean, but is this house even salvageable, uh, mayor and commissioner Gullickson. Yes. This house could be salvageable. It's just that

the longer we let it sit with open sides and stuff like that, because there is some siding that's open. There's birds nesting in it and things like that. There is going to be more damage. Uh, if we

wait another 75 days, we're well into the winter and that's going to create even more problems with this structure. Um, especially since nothing's been winterized, we're the ones that had to secure

it, things like that. So there's, there's going to be more damage. Um, and you know, it's not the city's responsibility to make sure that there isn't damage incurred. It's more of the city's

responsibility to make sure that these bladed structures need to go. Thank you. Mr. Strand. John, is it possible to pull up a picture of this property so I can just remind myself what it looks like? I

don't have any pictures, but I do believe the last commission meeting where this one was brought up was emailed out. I don't have pictures with me. What would, if I might continue, what would be the

assessed valuation of the property in its current state now? Um, I'm not sure what the assessed property value is on that, that I'm not qualified on that one, nor have I looked recently on it. So what

I'm wondering is what its value is, if it's worth saving financially, value wise, property value wise, locationally, it is, you know, that's, I'm curious about is the status of that. Mr. Is there any

other questions for Mr. Wierk? Mr. Mayor, may I ask a question of our attorney? Commissioner Peterson. Yes. Floor is yours. Thank you, sir. Ian, put you on the spot here. To what degree is the

timeline presented by the clients or this owner's attorney accurate? And if you don't know, I'm not going to be critical, I'm just curious to find out how accurate he is. Yeah, I'm not a hundred

percent sure, Commissioner Peterson. I'm telling too much in the foreclosure space. So if he says 75 days, I don't know whether that is correct or not, or even access the property. You know, I want to

be sympathetic, but in the same breath, it's this isn't a new property to us, but try to figure out what is not to say anyone's misleading anyone, but it's I'm trying to figure out what the timeline

really actually was and is. I don't believe that they would be able to access the property except for to lock it up because they're not the legal owner out of this product at this point, whether it

would take 75 days to become that me, I mean, I think if the commission were to want to give an extension, I can surely look at a shorter deadline and say, we want to report within 30 days with the

repair plan, and if the ownership is not changed within that time limit that we're moving forward, I mean, make up 30 days, 45 days, whatever it was the commission wanted to do. Yeah, Mr. Mayor,

commissioners, my concern is, if we allow, you know, whatever extension, will the courts prevent anything from substantively happening anyway? And unfortunately, the path of least resistance has

probably demolished the property in lieu of continuation, continuation, continuation, and and blessed patients, but it's this isn't a new project for us to be looking at. So thank you, Mr. Mayor,

thank you, Commissioner, Mr. Weir. Can you speak to the timeline you're you're asking for 75 days, but you have a hard day to when you take ownership within that 75 days, we don't have a hard day. We

don't have a hard day because it's going to depend on when the, the, the state of foreclosure, the federal based on federal law lists. I mean, we would have to note a hearing on a, or not a hearing, a

foreclosure sale and go forward from there. And so, no, I don't, I can't give you an exact date on that. The 75 took into account time for noting up the share. So I believe it's a 31 day once we noted

that before we go to sale and the property considered, I believe, abandoned by the court. And I believe that we find that note complaint and pleading. So that would be, that would waive any sort of

post sale, um, redemption period. Thank you. Commissioner Turnburg. I feel like we have a whole lot of word salad going on here, Mr. Radnick, this is house has been a problem since 2023. At the least.

Yeah. I'm hearing commissioner Turnburg. That's correct. I do want to point out one other thing that I didn't mention before, but, um, there was a sheriff's sale on this property was brought to the

sheriff for sale and there was no file follow through on it. So they couldn't put it out there to sell it. And, uh, uh, from what the information that I got from, um, the sheriff was that they had to,

uh, return it with no action. So I don't know what that means or what, uh, what happened with that process, but they did try and sell it at the sheriff's auction and there was no action. So the

sheriff couldn't sell it. Basically what they indicated to me when I spoke to him was they were waiting for information from the bank and the bank never got it to him. This, this, I remember it

clearly from June and then this property has been bad for years. Um, we have a mortgage company based out of Boca Raton. We have an attorney based in Salt Lake city. We could be hearing things that we

don't know if it's true or not. We follow city ordinance. We follow your recommendation and I feel like that's the proper way to go. This trying to extend, extend, extend only creates bigger problems

and other people have the expectation of the same. So here we get the very last hour, another letter, even though this has been going on since 2023. So I move that we go ahead and have follow the

recommendation of the inspections and demolish the home. Second that there's a motion and a second to follow the recommendation of the inspections department on consent agenda item number 27, which is

now agenda item number 41 a discussion discussion. Hearing none. We'll go to a roll call vote. I'm sorry. I'm not sure how the procedure works. I'm used to court where it goes back and forth there.

Yeah, I'm sorry with the motion on the table where we have to move forward with our procedures. So I can't speak to the sale issue or any of that. Not at this point since the question wasn't directed

at, you know, Mr. Peterson, did you have something to add? Nope. Just point of order. Well done, mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. All right. Motion carries. Thank you, everyone,

for your time. We'll go back to our 505 public hearing with item number 36, our first public hearing related to special assessments for nuisance abatement fees related to snow removal. We have miss

bear from the county or excuse me, the city auditor's office. Thank you, mayor. And good evening commissioners, the 2026 snow removal. These are done on a complaint driven system. So these are tenants

or owners that are not taking care of their snow removal or on the property. So then neighbors or someone will complain. We do have pictures that are taken before and after the snow removal. We bill

them out in our financial system, but if they do not pay, then we assess it to the property. This year there were 57 properties and it was a little over $10,000. And I'm looking for a motion to

approve the 2026 snow removal assessment list. I so move. Peterson. Second. The motion is second. Any discussion? Mr. Strand. I'm just curious, Mayor, maybe Nicole or somebody could remind me of this.

But didn't we provide some relief for modification in the snow removal social services funding proposals? Yes, I believe it was. It's for this assessment is for people that are not taking care of

their property. And the other one is they I believe that we can confirm with Nicole, but it they can apply for it if they need assistance to help remove their snow. Thank you. And commission before we

move forward with the vote, I forgot to mention that this is an open or public hearing. So any other questions from his bear thing that I know there's a motion, but would you mind rescinding the

motion for us to all the public hearing? Yes, I'll send the motion. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to the city commission regarding these special assessments? Is

there anyone from the public who would like to speak to these special assessments? Seeing none. Mr. Turnburg. I so move to move ahead with the special assessments for snow removal. Mr. Strand. I shall

second again. Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Commissioner Peterson. Any further discussion? Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll go to a roll call vote. Turnburg. Yes. Peterson. Yes. Galaxian. Yes. Strand. Yes.

Bush aye. Motion carries. Special assessment of business improvement district. We have Ms. Thompson from the finance office. Hi. Good evening commissioners. I'm presenting the bid assessment for 2026.

The bid was established in 2012. We contract with the DCP to administer the bid. Each year, some of you that have been on the commission for a while are familiar, but each February Rocky and Victor

with the DCP and the bid come forward and do a presentation on how they are expending these funds. So the bid, it's very specific purposes that this money can be used for downtown. The assessment is

calculated based on some zone methodology, including both the assessed value and the square footage. This year the bid is anticipated to generate approximately $822,000. So following any public

comment, I would request to have these approved. Thank you. Any questions from Ms. Thompson? Any questions? Is there anyone from the public who would like to address the City Commission regarding

these special assessments? Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to these special assessments? Seeing none. commissioners, is there a motion? So moved. Second. Thank you. There's a

motion and a second. Any discussion? Discussion? Hearing none, we'll go to a roll call vote. Alexson? Yes. Strand? Yes. Peterson? Yes. Turnburg? Yes. Bush aye. Motion carries. We will proceed to the

village west 5th edition seeking approval recommended by the planning commission from their September 1st meeting. With that we will have it's related to zoning and a first reading of a rezoning

ordinance and a plat to village west 5th edition. We have Mr. Kress who will be joining us from planning department once we get the screen all set up. Mr. Kress? Thank you, sir. Good afternoon,

commissioners. Donald Kress to the Department of Planning and Development. I'll be presenting the next two items. These items include ordinances prepared by the City Attorney's Office. Our first item

is the mayor has stated as village west 5th edition. If you'll please follow my cursor here. Here's the subject property along 13th Avenue South, 44th Street. For reference this is the Olive Garden

restaurant down 13th Avenue South there. The proposal is a minor subdivision and a zone change. These photos show the site here. This was once the Gold's Gym Fargo Athletic Club back in the 1980s. And

it's now an office building. See the site there along 13th Avenue. And what there's the red line here indicates the property line that's going to move and we'll show that in a moment here. And then

these are just from the rear here looking down 44th Street and 11th Street and down the 43rd and a half Street side there. The apartments there, the Cheyenne Apartments, as you see the sign here. The

underlying property is made up of eight lots that were platted back in 1979. And these, the two properties are cut out of there. This larger piece is the apartments. The smaller area will be the

office building which is creating two platted lots rather than the deed split lots that are there now which we always appreciate having platted lots. The zoning here is both MR3 in the orange and GC

General Commercial in the red. And so here's what we're really doing here. This is where the current lot line is, this yellow lot line. And as you see the parking lot of the office building is really

partly on the apartment property. So this line is going to move forward to here and this little area of MR3 is going to get rezoned to GC. So when we talk about a zone change from MR3 to GC on lot

one, that's what we're talking about here. So pretty straightforward there, just a simple lot line adjustment. The applicant's representative David Schlossman of Horizon Real Estate Group is with us

this evening and they wish to address the commission. The Planning Commission's recommendation is stated in your staff report and shown on the screen. That includes staff's presentation for the

Village West Fifth Edition. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Kress? Questions? All right, with that, is there anyone from the public who would like to address the City

Commission regarding this rezoning? Anyone from the public to speak to us about this rezoning? Seeing none, commissioners, do you have a motion? So moved. Second. There's a motion, a second.

Discussion? Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll move on to a roll call vote. Alexson? Yes. Sternberg? Yes. Strand? Yes. Bochet? Aye. Motion carries. Item number 39, public hearing related to Urban

Plains Medical Park, Third Edition, approval recommended by the Planning Commission on their September 1st meeting. We're looking at a zoning change, a first reading of rezoning ordinance and a plat

of Urban Plains Medical Park, Third Edition. Mr. Kress? Thank you, sir. Our next item here is Urban Plains Medical Park, Third Edition. Please follow my cursor, please, here's 32nd Avenue, 45th

Street. The subject property is here. This is a well-known restaurant down here. Again here, it's the Phoenix Buffet and the plan here is to combine these two lots into a single lot and change the

zoning appropriate to what's appropriate for the proposed development. Here we see the lot is, the two properties are undeveloped. And over here is a daycare that has been there for about just a

couple years, recent development there. And as you see, the plat here combines the two existing lots into a single lot. This was the lot with the daycare here. And it's apartments on this side and on

the back as well. So that's what's proposed here is multi-dwelling residential. The zoning is LC Limited Commercial with a conditional overlay. And the proposed zoning is MR3 multi-dwelling

residential with a conditional overlay. Again, the proposed development is multi-dwelling. The site would accommodate approximately 103 residential units at the MR3 density of 24 dwelling units per

acre. The applicant's representative, Brian Patengale of Houston Engineering is with us tonight and we wish to address the commission. Just one note there, commissioners, it's noted in your staff

report that a conditional use permit for parking reduction was approved by the Planning Commission. Those conditional use permits stop at the Planning Commission. Your commission takes no action on

those. And that will go into effect when this zone changes and this plat is approved. The Planning Commission's recommendation is stated in your staff report and shown on the screen. That concludes

staff's presentation for Urban Plains Medical Park, third edition. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Kress? Questions? Seeing none, is there anyone from the public who'd like to address the

City Commission related to this rezoning? Anyone from the public who'd like to address this rezoning to the City Commission? Seeing none, we will go to a roll call vote. Oh, thank you. Is there a

motion? Is there a motion to the recommended motion? Second. There's a motion to second. Any discussion? Discussion? Hearing none, we'll go to a roll call vote. Turnburg? Yes. Gallicson? Yes.

Peterson? Yes. Strand? Yes. Fauche? Aye. Motion carried. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, Mr. Kress. Item number 40, 64th Avenue South, traffic calming recommendation from the engineering

department. Mr. Nakmos. Good evening. Thank you. Sorry about that. As the mayor mentioned, providing a recommendation from the engineering department today regarding traffic calming measures along

64th Avenue South. Some introduction of why we're here tonight. Back on January 20th, City Commission, coordinating with the North Dakota DOT approved construction of new interchange on I-29,

specifically selecting the alternative that we'll move forward with. This interchange is planned to be constructed, started in 2028. Also on that night, on January 20th, we were provided direction to

present to City Commission within 90 days a traffic calming plan in this area. Back in April, we did request additional time to allow us to have ongoing conversations with the adjacent property owners

in the area adjacent to 64th Avenue West of 25th Street, as well as get additional public feedback through an online survey that we'll speak to as well. Also want to provide some background. Some of

you have seen this in the past, but improvements along this corridor have been considered for many years. It first started back in 2006 when there was a study to preserve right away in the northeast

quadrant of I-29, 64th Avenue South. For a future interchange, there was planning taking place, and so the city wanted to preserve that land. That land was ultimately purchased by the city through the

Maple Valley addition. When that was planted in 2007, and then shortly after that, the city kicked off a corridor study along 64th Avenue, which made a number of recommendations as well as some

proposed timelines where it foresaw that as a mid-range option or as a plan, we would construct an overpass over I-29 on that 64th Avenue alignment, and then further follow up with the interchange at

this location. So since 2014, City has really done a number of projects along this corridor that I'll speak to, and we've invested more than $60 million along this corridor in order to get to this

point of supporting that future interchange at 64th Avenue. We applied for federal funds in 2015 to construct 64th Avenue overpass. We rewarded those funds in 2016. We were also doing some other

projects that did not utilize federal funds, but we constructed 25th Street to University in 2016. In 2019, we were working on acquisition of right-of-way and easements along 64th Avenue from 33rd

Street to 25th Street. That same year, MetroCog included the interchange project into their long-range transportation plan, and then the city approved the City Engineering Department applying for

federal funds for the interchange at 64th Avenue. In 2020, we were notified that we were awarded those funds, and that plan at that time was to construct ramps in 2025. So at that time, we also worked

on completing the overpass project with the intent of adding ramps in 2025. We constructed 64th Avenue from 33rd Street to 25th Street, and then we acquired right-of-way in the other three quadrants

of I-29 and 64th Avenue in order to be able to build this interchange. In 2022, the 64th Avenue project itself was completed, as well as the roadway west of that from 38th Street to 45th Street. In

that year, we were authorized to hire a consulting engineer to begin the design of the 64th Avenue south interchange. In 2023, we were notified by the North Dakota DOT that 64th Avenue interchange was

going to be delayed from 2025 to 2028 as part of our federal funds. In 2025, as part of that interchange project, we held a public input meeting at the Fargo Sports Center along 64th Avenue, and

provided correspondence with the adjacent property owners and have had continued correspondence with them since that point. And on January 5th of this year, provided a similar type update to City

Commission, talked about those proposed alternatives. Ultimately, City Commission chose alternate B1 at that commission meeting. On March 12th, like I talked about earlier, we were given direction to

look into traffic calming options. As part of that, we had a meeting with some of the property owners east of the interchange west of 25th Street to hear some of their concerns, get some of their

input on what they would like to see as options along the corridor. We notified City Commission on June 8th of this year that although the City Commission had recommended alternate B1, the North

Dakota DOT actually selected alternate B2, which just means there's going to be a roundabout on the west and east ramp locations. Very sorry for that. But as part of that, North Dakota DOT did

increase their contribution to this project to cover that additional cost between B1 and B2. And then on July 29th of this year, we held a follow-up meeting with 64th Avenue landowners that we met

with in March. Just to let them know some of the options that we're carrying forward, try to give them some additional background information on why we are recommending what we're recommending and why

we are not bringing forward some of the options that we had talked about back in March. And then again, as a reminder, the intent is to start construction in 2028. Interchange wouldn't be functional

until 2029. So again, this is really that corridor where we've considered some of the traffic calming measures, again, our correspondence and our meetings have been with the property owners in this

photo just immediately west of 25th Street, basically between there and the drain. So there's a number of different things that we looked at, you know, very initially we met with our consulting

partners on the interchange project. We had, as I mentioned, a number of property owner meetings. We've met internally, both in engineering and then with other departments. And so these were really

the six concepts in which we've considered. There have been others that have been discussed with the adjacent property owners, but this is really what we've been focusing on as an engineering

department. Some options weren't carried forward for various concerns could be just related to effectiveness, impacts, cost or future maintenance operations for public works or the adjacent property

owners. So I'm going to show you a number of concepts and I'll speak to it a little bit more that these were really the concepts that we shared in an online survey. So the first thing we discussed and

shared in that public survey was boulevard tree plantings. Here's a visual representation of what that might look like, obviously not going to look like that on day one, but you can see in this image,

kind of on the outside, the smaller trees that exist there today, ideally we would plant trees closer to the right away, they would grow. And what that does is it creates a sense of a narrower, more

constructed corridor and naturally encourages slower speeds. Number of locations where this could be implemented, we've talked with forestry, there would obviously be more consideration as we get into

it of what's realistic with underground utilities and things like that, but that's a visual of what it could potentially be. Another one was a pedestrian crosswalk enhancements. We would add a high

visibility crosswalk and a raised median near 27th Street. This image doesn't show the raised median, but I'll show you a little concept of that. It really just acts as a visual cue to users of the

roadway that something's changing and that there may be a pedestrian present, which encourages just more cautious and attentive driving. Like I said, we would look to add a raised median at this

location immediately east of 27th Street. Again, that creates kind of a bottleneck or a construction which helps lower traffic speeds as well. Driver speed feedback signs, I think a number of us have

seen these, so these are just pole mounted radar speed signs that display driver's current speeds, offers a visual representation when a driver is exceeding that speed limit. And then another one that

was presented to the public were raised center medians. It really does reduce the usable lane width by creating that physical constraint in the center median, and it does encourage drivers to remain

attentive and travel at lower speeds. We'd have to be pretty strategic in where we can implement these. It's not able to be used everywhere along the corridor because that center turn lane is used as

a left turn lane to access side streets and properties. And so we'd have to take into consideration maintaining proper access turning movements. Where are we creating adequate space for queuing of

those left turn lanes? We'd also have to take into consideration how this is going to impact public works and their maintenance operations, especially during the winter months. So as I mentioned, we

did do a public survey, worked with our comms group to create a web-based survey that was available to the public. We placed digital message boards along the corridor, providing a link to that survey.

It started in June 30th and was available for about a month. Like I mentioned, those four concepts that I just showed were included in that survey, and that's really what we solicited feedback from

the public at a large. We did receive, I was pretty impressed with this number, we received 781 unique responses in this. So I'm just going to really quickly go through those public survey results. So

first of all, we asked people what their relationship was to 64th Avenue, and 90 percent of respondents said they live on or near 64th Avenue, with the remaining either living somewhere else in Fargo

or somewhere else in the metro area. Asked how frequently people use 64th Avenue, 98 percent use it once a week or greater frequency. We asked respondents what their concerns are today, 43 percent had

no concerns, 39 percent had concerns over vehicle speeds. We found in the feedback that I'll share later too, that when respondents said vehicle speeds, it's both spectrums. Some think traffic is

traveling too slow, and some think it's traveling too fast. Concerns also over 31 percent of traffic volumes, 23 percent about difficulty crossing the road, and 11 percent about access to adjacent

properties. Like I mentioned, we asked what describes vehicle speeds today, 22 percent of respondents said it's either somewhat too fast or much too fast, 25 percent said it's about right, and 52

percent said speeds are somewhat too slow or much too slow. We also asked people which one of these traffic calming enhancements would they be supportive of, 62 percent supportive of Boulevard,

additional Boulevard trees, 51 percent pedestrian crossing enhancements, 25 percent raised center medians, 22 percent driver feedback signs, and 21 percent of respondents said no enhancements are

needed. Also wanted to gauge what people's priority was. If we did implement enhancements in the top three in this order is Boulevard tree plantings, pedestrian crossing enhancements, and then third

would come in at no enhancements are needed. You know, in hindsight, this probably wasn't a fair question to ask in the way in which we asked it, but we had asked if enhancements are needed, would you

support special assessments? You can see the results here, 31 percent yes, 44 percent no, and 24 percent unsure, likely because they don't know if they would be impacted or not from potential special

assessments. Like I mentioned, we had an open comments section, there were a lot of comments, relied on AI to help us summarize some of this, but as you can see that, you know, from most of these

going top of page to bottom, there was support for the interchange at 64th Avenue, support for increasing the speed limit along the corridor, and nearly every comment we had it seemed like there was

someone on one side and there was a polar opposite response as well. Again, there were comments in opposition to the interchange, concerns about speeding noise and needing police patrol, additional

police patrol along the corridor, some miscellaneous comments, there were requests for additional roadway infrastructure, you know, traffic signals, widening, turn lanes, roundabouts, things like

that. Some concerns about special assessments, pedestrian safety, and then there was additional support of Boulevard trees. So these are the six options that we've really been considering most heavily

along the corridor that, and they come with a varying range of cost. As you can see, the most expensive option would be adding a frontage road on the south side of 64th Avenue, and some of the, you

know, as we get into modifying pavement and things like that, these do become fairly expensive. So ultimately, as shared in the memo that I put on the City Commission agenda, staff is recommending

three of these options to be carried forward, and those are additional Boulevard tree plantings, the pedestrian crossing enhancement with a race center median at 27th Street, and then two locations of

additional speed feedback signs. We feel that these estimates are fairly robust, but we want to be sure that we can implement these things in the budget we're presenting. So I do have a motion on the

board. One thing I failed to mention earlier is that we are proposing to fund these improvements using our infrastructure sales tax. Total costs we're anticipating about $245,000. And with that, happy

to take any questions. Commissioner, is there any questions? Commissioner Turnburg. Thank you, Tom, very much for all your time and effort into this. I've had many, many meetings with the residents

along this roadway, and it's been a very contentious process moving forward and implementing the interchange, even though for the aggregate good of the City, I believe it's the best thing moving

forward. Just to clarify, everything that you've recommended be improved here is covered with the infrastructure sales tax, so there's no special assessments to any Fargo citizens, correct? Correct.

And so if residents living along 64th wanted added improvements or variations, would they be special assessed with their neighbors be special assessor? How would that work? Yeah, and really, I tried

to address that to some extent in my letter to commission as well. But, you know, I feel pretty confident that these improvements are fairly low cost, fairly high impact. I feel we can manage it

within our CAP utilizing our infrastructure sales tax. If we were to get direction from City Commission to expand the recommendations and implement more, we'd also have to have conversation about how

we're going to fund that. And so if the intent would be to use infrastructure sales tax, that likely comes with a conversation of what would we be removing from the CAP as presented earlier today. And

I think something else that was a bit confusing for me, and having spoken with both sides about it, we have residents saying that they were not brought to the table, but in fact, they were brought to

the table and had conversations with. I've been in some of those meetings where we were brainstorming and coming up with ideas, but they have been communicated with over the time. Now it's just

because they may not want to see it go forward a certain way doesn't mean that their input is the end all be all of what's being shared. Correct. Yeah. And just to expand on that, again, the meetings

that we've had, we had sent letters to the property owners that are immediately adjacent to 64th from the drain to 25th Street. We did not do the same with those that are closer to university. And

part of that reason is that traffic volumes really drop off as you go further east of 25th Street. Not all residents were able to make all those meetings, but we really had that initial one in March,

which was to try to get their opinions of potential improvements. And then the follow up, the most recent meeting was really to try to provide some explanation of what we're carrying forward, what we

intend to carry forward, why, and also provide a reasoning of why we're not carrying forward some of the things that we had talked about back in March. And so again, not all have been there and also

just want to completely be candid that we are not addressing every issue that some of the residents along the corridor would like us to address. Again, I understand that that is where we are. We are

not addressing everything that they would like us to address. Thank you very much, Tom, for all of your work on this. Mr. Mayor, my only, I know there are probably people here wanting to speak to

this. Is there any way the voice can be heard before we vote? Or does that have to be saved for the end of the meeting for public discussion? Since it was an agenda item, some folks did pre-register

and they'll be able to speak before there's any decision made. Good. Thank you. Yep. Those are pre-registered. Commissioners, any other questions or comments? Commissioner Strand. Thank you, Mayor.

Tom, I'm trying to figure out the both ends of this topic. The name of the memo is self-traffic, you know, 64th Avenue self-traffic calming measures. And yet inside of all this information is, and I'm

in favor of traffic calming, and then you're indicating to us that people want higher speeds. I don't know if you're proposing higher speed limits. I'm not in favor of that, but then we're adding

roundabouts on both sides of this, which will do nothing. That, my sense of roundabouts is they speed traffic up. So if we're trying to calm traffic down, but we're adding roundabouts to speed traffic

up, this doesn't add up to me. Which do we want, calming traffic or speeding traffic? Yeah, I don't know that I would say that or characterize roundabouts as increasing traffic. They're an efficient

mover of traffic, but I don't think they will lead to increased speeds. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Turnburg and Galiksen. I think the point being, if you were right now to be on 64th, coming from the west, you

could shoot pretty speedily across 64th Avenue at a high rate of speed with the roundabouts put in place. And we have the on and off ramps, you wouldn't be able to just go at a high rate of speed

anymore. Mr. Galiksen. Thank you. And that was a DOT requirement, correct? Because they increased the funding for it? Yeah, so again, the the alternate that City Commission selected back in January

would have been a signal at the west ramp and a roundabout at the east again, North Dakota DOT has the ultimate say City Commission's was a recommendation to them. But they have selected the

alternative that is a roundabout at east at each ramp termini. Thank you. Mr. Knack, with the pedestrian crossing proposed at 27th Street, when I look at the map this afternoon to get again, we aren't

reorient myself to the neighborhood and the street. There are two neighborhoods connected, I believe it's 33rd Street, so farther to the west. Is there any reason we wouldn't have a pedestrian

crossing there or recommended for that, again, seeing that there's two distinct neighborhoods that there may be interactions are crossing? Yeah, I would say really, the city intentionally made a

pretty significant investment along the corridor to separate the grade crossing for pedestrians. So just west of the drain. So immediately east of 33rd Street, there is a grade separated crossing. So

we installed a pedestrian box culvert that travels underneath the road. And so again, along corridors, like arterials, our goal in our newer areas of town is to separate that crossing as much as

possible. And where would that box culvert essentially walking under Pasby? I think I can go back to here. Of course, Google Street, you didn't have that. So 33rd Street is here, Selkirk Drive is

here. Here's that pedestrian box culvert grade separated crossing just west of the drain. And then where we're proposing that pedestrian enhanced crossing would be just on the east side of 27th

Street. But again, ideally, where we are prioritizing crossing would be at this grade separated crossing here. Thank you. Commissioner Strand. Thank you, Tom. I'm just curious, you know, and we have

three new members here at this desk, but many of us were involved with this and listening to the neighborhood and stakeholders. But one of the messages we got was that they didn't know about this

until Thursday, October 8th. Is that what is the status of when the neighbors affected were communicated these final recommendations? And how did that happen? Yeah, again, probably not every resident

along the corridor. But there's at least been a small group in which our office, I would say, has been trying to keep updated throughout the process as much as possible. They've done a good job at

reaching out to us when we haven't always done the best job at maybe being in touch with them. But ultimately, we shared this recommendation of what's coming forward with them late last week. But

again, there was a meeting back in July where we had talked about some of the options that we were intending to bring forward, some of the options that we weren't intending to bring forward, and some

of these were still up in the air at that time as well because we had not yet closed out our survey and received that other public input. Mr. Sran? I'll stop eventually. You know, I'm just curious if

this traffic calming conversation to me is just so important. You know, have we, and I know it's an arterial route, have we discussed like narrowing the street, which we do know slows traffic down? We

haven't. Again, you know, there are a lot of options on the table. Again, what I'd say is what we are recommending at staff at this point are what I feel are fairly low expense options that can have a

fairly high impact. There are certainly things, additional things that can be done. They just come with a much higher price tag. And so there, again, part of the issue is, is how would we go about

funding those things? Bear with me, but a narrower street wouldn't cost more, would it? The process to reduce lanes, to narrow lanes, those types of things would have an expense if we're going in

there to remove curb and gutter, you know, saw cut lanes, tack on curb and gutter, do all those types of things does come with an expense. And does anybody narrow arterial routes or is that just a

non-secretary discussion to have in the beginning? I mean, do we want ever to narrow arterial routes? So there are some things we do. There are times in which, you know, what I'd say is history.

Historically the standard was 12 foot lanes on arterial roads. And again, our standard has gone to at least 11 feet, if not 10 and a half feet. And so there's some of those things that are already

being done. Again, we have to remember the concept or our roadway network, right? Arterials are meant to move vehicles. We want to be sure that they do that safely, but they are meant to move vehicles

at reasonable volumes. And so again, our section line roads, the 45th streets, the 32nd, 52nd, 45th, veterans, so on. Again, those things are designed to be safe, but also move vehicles efficiently.

Commissioner, you already said your last name. I know. But has our law enforcement been at the table in discussing with this whole conversation of street racing, fleeing, exhibition driving, noise,

and all that across the town? I just don't want us to contribute to more of that if there's way, are they at the table? We've certainly had conversations with them in the past, not specifically about

these traffic calming measures. I do know that they have targeted, you know, times in which they're sending their officers down here. You know, we have talked about speeds a number of times. I have

shared this with Mr. Koss that's had some questions about the corridor. I didn't show this last time I was in, but, you know, we had pulled traffic data. So our driver feedback feedback signs, we can

pull traffic data from it. And so this was one of the signs out there from mid-December to mid-January. And you can see what the weighted average speed is. And so again, the posted speed limit on this

route is 30 miles per hour. And so you can see that weighted average is above that. And one of the things that we talked about last time too, and I didn't show this was the term friction, right? And

so as volume increases on the road, speeds decrease. And part of the reason for that is all it takes is one person to follow the speed limit, and everyone behind them is kind of forced to as well. And

so that's what you're seeing in this image here that you can see there's kind of a drop in weighted average speed near the AM peak time and the PM peak time. And so again, as volumes are increasing on

the road, average speeds are decreasing on the road. And then the other thing I'd show too, and I don't want to dismiss the outliers here right there in this one month period. There were two vehicles

that we're seeing going more than 60 miles an hour on this route. But when you really look at where the speeds exist, most of those speeds are really congregating in that five to 10 miles an hour of

the posted speed limit. That's where the far majority of the speeds are. So again, I think this is where some of the survey responses came from, that drivers will go naturally a speed on a route that

feels the right speed to them. And I think what some of this data is saying and what some of the survey responses are saying is that the corridor feels like you should go faster. And so that's where

really some of these traffic calming measures that we're proposing help change the feel of the corridor and naturally reduce speeds. And so as we do tree plantings that can mature, and again, that

takes time, the corridor feels narrower and it naturally reduces speeds. As we introduce things like pedestrian crossings and medians at those locations, it creates a constraint along the roadway that

naturally reduces speeds for typical users. Thank you. I'm not going to look at you anymore, Commissioner Strand. With that, I know we have some folks from the public who have registered to speak

during this public comment, or during this agenda item. So first I have Mr. Rob Coast. If you want to join us right over here to the left, or to my left, you're right. Hello, can you hear me? Good

evening. Thanks for having me. I appreciate everything the engineering team is working on. I think there are some gaps. Probably the biggest thing that I'm seeing is the driver safety and, you know,

this is a residential district. Every other residential district is 25 miles an hour. This is automatically at 30 and now you're seeing it's 35 miles an hour by the data on average with peaks in the

60s at times, right. And that's coming one direction. That's coming traffic going east. And I'd be interested to see the data of it going west because, honestly, I'm seeing motorcycles and cars drag

racing going westbound. So I'd be interested in seeing that. The other thing, vehicles passing you. I set my crews at 30. There's cars passing me all the time. So I think we need more medians

somewhere, like up on top of the dike there that he had pictured, but it wasn't chosen. I think that would be a good spot because one day I was I was passed two times at different times of the day.

So, I mean, we need to do something about that. People are frustrated. It feels like it should go fast, like he said, and we're stuck. The other thing is the delivery and service access, seeing the

speeds and the amount of traffic and then a FedEx truck or Amazon truck sitting there. Someone's going to get killed and that's not addressed at all. Where are they supposed to go? There's no place

for them to park. There's no place for them to turn around. The driveways are not designed that way. So, I mean, there's still, I mean, the whole design of that corridor, there was a mess. And I don't

know what we need to do to address it, but I think we're not there yet. So that's, I guess, where I'm at. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Walter Samuel. Mayor, commissioners. Nice to be here again. I feel

like I'm getting used to this podium. It's kind of nice to be back. I wish it was on a different topic. I like what you guys did as the engineering department. I do think there's one thing that we

could also do. I think on the, so, Tom, when you showed the picture of the expenses of investments for the city, the frontage road is about 1.2 million. And we kind of agreed that that was something

that wouldn't be a good option for public works especially. But to put turn lanes in for people that would be turning into the south side properties so that they have the ability to pull over so

people can pass them at a normal speed and then have the ability to turn without having somebody right on their back of the vehicle. It would be very helpful. Not only would it be a safety issue for

them, but also for garbage trucks, mailmen, FedEx vehicles, all that. It would eliminate all that concern for safety. So there's four drivers on the south side. I don't live on the south side. I'm

just here advocating for my neighbors. And it's one of those things where for 400,000 to solve this problem seems relatively conservative. So you're going to look at 625,000 for this project. If it

occurs over the course of a couple years, that's fine. I would imagine this is you looking at a budget for one year for the 245. So if we can grade this out, I think that would be a wise decision long

term for those people. If those houses are going to stay on the south side, ideally those houses should have been bought out when this project was done, then there wouldn't have been frontage lost on

the north side. We are where we are and it is what it is. But that would be my recommendation for my neighbors on the south side. That's all I have for you. Commissioner Turnburg. Tom, can you clarify

wasn't that bump out over a million to do that on the road? So that that option option like a turn. So the pull out and parking lanes. It really varies depending on where they are. Part of the issue

is that, you know, we did send a number of letters to the property owners in this area. There are a number of property owners that we never got responses from. And so part of the concern there is

making improvements to all of those properties on the south when we haven't received input from all those properties. And so that was part of that decision making as well. Thank you. Thank you. Any

other questions, comments, Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think this entire conversation really reinforces how important our land development code is going forward. I know

we're all busy. I know our engineers are busy. I know developers are busy, but we really, really need to engage with this as it proceeds forward because it is substantively impactful, not just

tomorrow, not just a decade from now, but 20 years from now. I think if you were able to rethink how this portion of our city would be reconstructed if you could wave a magic wand. I think we'd have a

different result. I think our neighbors are adjacent neighbors be very happy if we could wave a magic wand and change some of these things. But again, I'd be remiss in not mentioning, I think how

important this land development code is and that we need to really, really dig into it and pay great attention to detail. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Turmburg. And if there's action taken tonight,

that doesn't mean if there continues to be a problem, things could change in the future, correct? Correct. I think along those lines, the biggest thing for us would be finding funding mechanisms if

there's any of these other alternates or a new alternate that gets proposed as well. Commissioners, you have a proposed motion from the department. The public has spoken as well. Is there a motion to

bring forward? I make the recommended motion. Second. There's a motion and a second. Discussion? Commissioner Turmburg. I think this falls in line much like the on and off ramps. We have a very small

number of people that this impacts highly, but we have a very high amount of people where this impacts some and we're doing what we can at absolutely no cost to taxpayers. So there's no new tax,

there's no specials and there's improvements being done to help with speeding. And this doesn't mean that that's the end of it, but certainly a start and should issues arise as we go down the road and

in the future, I think we can still have conversations. And that's why people are always welcome to reach out to any one of us. Commissioner Strand. Thank you, Tom. I'm wondering, you know, this is

64th Avenue. And of course, the conversations are about 76th Avenue next. I'm guessing there are some things we can learn from this process to make sure that as we go further to the next interchange,

like, for example, having residents backing out onto that next arterial route. I would hope that in the next evolution of that next arterial route, we really proactively address these concerns of

traffic speed, calming access as early as possible. Maybe just to speak to that and it goes back to Commissioner Peterson's comments as well. You know, part of the part of the part of how we got here

is that this developed as a rural neighborhood prior to the city annexing it or being able to control it in an extra territorial area. And that's why managing our ETJ, knowing that it's going to be

within our city limits is so important as well, so that we don't have a situation like this where we grow into an area where there are residential properties that do access from a section line road.

Any other discussions on the motion? Hearing none, we'll do a roll call vote. Strand? Yes. Turnburg? Yes. Elexin? Yes. Peterson? Yes. Moshe? Okay, commissioners, we are on item number 42, which are

your liaison updates. So, Commissioner Peterson, since you're joining us virtually, I'll have you join start and we'll go from my right work our way left. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, apologies for

not being there in person today. This was a scheduled trip. As soon as the Bison announced their games down here in Las Vegas, I bought my tickets and here I am. And well, they think they should be,

we should go back to hockey is what I was hearing from a lot of the fans. So I didn't turn out the way a lot of us wanted to, but good game, good intent, a lot of fun. So I've got a busy week. We've

all got busy weeks. Predominantly, it's diversion time again next week. Outside of that, I really don't have a lot to share, just keeping busy, blessed, lucky. And thank you for your tolerance with my

being away. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Gholiksen? Thank you. I attended a North Dakota planning conference where Fargo staff had presentation responsibilities. It was a good education and

good experience while broadening my knowledge of the planning world. Last week was also a good week for planning meetings. There were a few, both here and School Board. Attended the Youth Action

Summit where several area students, I believe there were at least seven different schools, youth coming into our city. And they're learning how to work with their peers to discourage nicotine use. And

then this morning had the honor of attending the Indigenous Peoples Breakfast. And seeing the award of the Gladys Ray Award, that was pretty great. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Strand? Thank

you. Just a mention about the Indigenous Peoples Day. Fargo was the 12th city in the country that replaced Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples Day. And to see that community's response and how they

stand up and rise up and speak up and the cultures that they present to us is just really so gratifying. Today's award for the Gladys Ray recipient, Georgie, I'm not sure her last name, but is just,

it's an emotional thing to see people being celebrated for what they do to help others, especially in honor of Gladys Ray. You know, who was just, I understand the epitome of being a helpful human

being. So that was a big day today. Last week I and the mayor, I was his guest at the YWCA fundraiser with Howard Buffet in town and creating homes and shelters and protections for women and children,

especially in domestic violence. This community that night raised two and a half million dollars for that cause. So that was really something to see that type of support for people who struggle here

in our own community. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Turnburg? We still are feeling the after effects of completing our budget. So we will be working on some of the things that are coming

forward from getting added security and building departments with having to move our bus station and court system. So stay tuned, more on that to come. Thank you. And I'll add, in addition to the

comments that were made by Commissioner Strand related to Indigenous Peoples Day, in 2015, the Fargo City Commission passed a resolution recognizing the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples

Day. And as a part of that, we decided to enhance it not only through the understanding and promote harmony through recognition of Indigenous Peoples' cultures and contributions, but we were able to

do that through recognizing one of our own community leaders, Gladys Ray, who was someone that I've been able to learn more about and ever was able to meet her in person, but through her family

stories and the friends that know her. Throughout the community today, many organizations were hosting events. And if you're still interested, at 7 o'clock tonight is a grand entry for a powwow over

at Moorhead High School. But I think a special honor in how we recognized Gladys Ray was the free community breakfast put on by the Indigenous Association in partnership with the City of Fargo. But we

also were able to award our annual Gladys Ray Award, which went to Georgiana Warren. And Georgiana actually works for the City of Fargo. She works with people experiencing homelessness and addiction.

You Fargo Cast Public Health Withdrawal Management Unit, and that's co-located at the Gladys Ray Shelter, named in honor of Gladys Ray here in Fargo. Georgiana brings amazing compassion and

understanding shaped by her own experiences of addiction to help folks who are experiencing withdrawal, especially as a team leader there. So we're glad to have her there to ensure guests are treated

with kindness and dignity. We certainly hope everyone takes the opportunity to continue the conversation, not just today, but moving forward. And so with that, we'll open it up to public comment. We

had four people pre-register for our public comment section. And so I first would invite if Ms. Jean, I believe Ms. Sorry, Jean Boltman is here. Great. All right. If you want to come up to this

microphone here. And as a reminder, you'll have two and a half minutes to share your thoughts with us. And if it goes over, maybe could you allow me a little bit of time? It's just a couple, a minute

or so. We'll have to keep it as close to two and a half as possible. You'll hear a buzzer starting going off near you. Okay? Okay. Mayor and commissioners, thank you for hearing me. My biggest concern

is the huge gap between fixed incomes and the cost of housing in Fargo. And many people earn too much to qualify for HUD or subsidized housing, but they still cannot afford market rate housing,

property taxes, the special assessments, the insurance and everyday expenses. Waiting lists can be years long. Many people fall outside the eligibility limits. And where's the help for these people?

We need broader meaningful tax relief, housing affordability, measures for long-term residents and people living on fixed incomes. Please compare the public tax incentives offered to developers,

including the 950,000 incentive approvals for the view on university apartments in 2019 with the limited relief for ordinary residents. Please also review Oak Grove, Ponyland and other developments to

ensure that infant structure costs, special assessments, traffic, street and housing damage are handled fairly. You must also plan responsibly for data centers and other large facilities. Please

assess waste heat, power generation emissions and impacts on the surrounding communities. I ask the city to review smart meter placements and electrical safety in residential buildings and to explore

credible new energy resources alongside with practical renewable energy. The economic development should benefit the whole community. People should not be priced out of their housing while public

incentives support development. We need fair taxes, meaningful relief and solutions for people who earn too much to qualify for assistance, but too little to afford housing in Fargo. We also ask Fargo

to explore recovering usable waste heat from data centers and other large facilities to help heat-free climate-controlled public warming centers during dangerous winter weather. Anyone should be able

to come inside, warm up, leave freely without housing status restriction and limitations. Mrs. Boltman, Ms. Boltman, thank you. Next we have Ms. Romaine Kildee. Good evening, Mayor and City

Commissioners. My name is Romaine Kildee, and I am a resident of downtown Fargo and a board member with the Downtown Neighborhood Association. Following my public comments on September 28th at the

City Commission meeting regarding our Historic Preservation Commission, I have conducted additional research on the records of the HPC and received formal compliance documentation directly from the

North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office. Furthermore, because my advocacy centers on both historic preservation and public art, I have completed a parallel operational audit of the Fargo Arts

and Culture Commission. I met with Commissioner Nikki Gullickson on October 5th to brief her on my research, and she requested that I share my findings. Tonight I am personally delivering hard copy

packets of both of these completed and dependent audits to you. They map several critical operational, vacancy, and funding gaps across both commissions and offer clear, constructive, and actionable

recommendations to help guide the City Commission, especially as you move through the Land Development Code rewrite. A stable and engaging Historic Preservation Commission and Arts and Culture

Commission are the true backbone of a thriving city. The new Downtown Convention Center is projected to generate $27 million a year in economic stimulus. If we can encourage just one-third of those

convention attendees to stay and extend for one additional day and explore our heritage and creative arts scene, we would be able to add an additional $8 million annually to our local economy. As we

move forward with building our new Downtown Convention Center, we must look to our regional peers. Both Bismarck and Grand Forks already have premier, active, and thriving convention centers, and

crucially, they back them up with highly active and robust Historic Preservation and Arts Commissions. They understand that a distinct sense of place, historic character, and a vibrant public arts

scene are exactly what draw convention attendees out of their hotel rooms and into the local economy. Capital projects alone cannot build a destination. By failing to concurrently prioritize Fargo's

unique historical, cultural, and public assets, we are missing out on both federal funding and visitor revenue. Let's work together to reform these boards. Thank you. Thank you. Give a Mr. Daniel

Wall. In a reminder, you'll have two and a half minutes. Okay, I'll try. First of all, thanks for having me. Second of all, I'd like to know how I walked in here at 501. I looked at my phone, and you

already did the Pledge of Allegiance, the roll call, approved the order of agenda, and minutes of September 28th meeting, and did you then vote on item number 26 already? That was part of the consent

agenda, so it was approved with the consent agenda. Well, you all knew I was coming. In one minute, you did all that and got to number 26, huh? How in the world could you do that in one minute? This

is a two-page add-on that Mr. Sean over there, the inspector, sent me late in the game after you guys gave me 14 days to do my house. He sent inspectors out, and maybe with a few days left, I get two

pages of add-ons that he wanted me to complete, that it had to be done before the outside of my house was done as well, remember, on the 14-day extension? Here's what my house looks like now. I don't

know if he showed any of you, but Zillow has it at close to $200,000 right now. You've been lied to, and that's the bottom damn line here. You've been lied to. It's new construction, the whole second

floor, and the roof, and everything's all brand new and shingled, and 17 new windows, him and his -- not him. He sent his team, and a construction crew, and four police cars, and a bunch of police to

my neighborhood, surrounded the place, and went in, and cut a hole in my living room ceiling so they could get to the top windows, which nobody could even get to, and boarded all them up, and boarded

up 17 new windows inside my house. How do you suppose I feel? $600,000 loss this is going to be to me, and he talked you guys in with a bunch of lies into voting for it. See, these are all charges I

had against the city of Fargo, and I dropped them, because all I want to do is build my house. The guy is nuts. Here's the proof. >> Mr. Wall, part of our protocol is we ask that you not make

derogatory payment towards staff or the board. Part of our policy, which you agreed to when you signed up, was to not make derogatory comments toward staff or the board. So please keep your comments.

>> Sorry, but there's no other reason. Nobody can figure out why he's doing this to me. Can you look me in the eye and tell me why this is being done? This is -- I'm a disabled senior citizen. And if

you read -- >> Mr. Wall, your time has expired. Mr. Wall, your time has expired. Thank you. Is there a Mr. Danwall? Commissioners, is there a motion to adjourn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> There's a

motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed, nay. Thank you.