[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6209217,"mediaKeyId","3736370-7a560a1e24430896e875ec0738860b8a","parentId",3736370,"title","Committee reviews draft RFP for convention center; flags budget, parking and timeline questions","audioSeconds",495,"startMs",505000,"endMs",1000000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3736370-7a560a1e24430896e875ec0738860b8a&start=505&end=1000","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3736370-7a560a1e24430896e875ec0738860b8a/thumbnail_505000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6209217/Fargo/Cass-County/North-Dakota/Committee-reviews-draft-RFP-for-convention-center-flags-budget-parking-and-timeline-questions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6209217-941cfcbcc33d1d066f8f1e3738f7023d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172995&Signature=mNK2CoSHpfg9SslBxPg3L5I4RblAVllsK-Q1KgwyVnENhELvQCyconC-JHfcs5JJ8ivJtJol9Qf5gl6zSE2LujYP-C13mDw1mX1-Fp41DK63czUjxWTaDQKkkh7TxY0n5Z8eOYN9m0N2iT7z3ExOzAod8-Yv7Y-7mUu1w9LbJj9Z39DT7gnnlaOR82eSlb3dcT5XrdPap4lh9dDus1rMAk~DAmA10GJK7LzrWd2eRLkRvoUUvdXvXAg1uh5OHiENfODLqlx73j6-vDZvGvoKyxQScH6XSYvl2F2KA0yWWmOnNVHscF030kO45ax~B4mPTgG~i4VhN0QASR5smcB20Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Fargo, ND","date","2025-05-30T00:00:00Z","article","Committee staff summarized a draft request for proposals (RFP) for a proposed convention center and associated private development and asked members for feedback on scope, selection process, schedule and budget assumptions.

Jim Gilmore, the staff author of the draft, said the document clarifies that developer budgets must cover site acquisition, site preparation, construction and furniture, fixtures and equipment. “One of the key points is … our budget will have to include land, site preparation, construction of the building and then building or furniture, fixtures and equipment,” Gilmore said as he walked through the draft.

Members discussed several substantive points:

• Budget and funding: Staff cited an initial analysis that projects the lodging‑tax construction fund at roughly $37 million to $41 million. Committee members noted that the estimate does not guarantee full project funding and that the community may face a shortfall for a facility built to the larger program size discussed; private developers might seek tax incentives or phased construction as ways to bridge gaps.

• Timeline and process: The committee reviewed two calendar options and tentatively agreed to an accelerated schedule: issue the RFP in mid‑June, accept written questions (a one‑month question window was discussed), with answers provided in about a week, and set proposals due in early August. The group discussed meeting in mid‑ to late‑August to review proposals and identifying up to five finalists for more detailed responses or presentations before forwarding recommendations to the City Commission for final decisions.

• Site and parking: The RFP will require site descriptions including size, adjacent streets, utilities and land‑use notes, but committee members asked clarifying language so proposers understand that “adequate parking” can be on‑site or in nearby/shared facilities rather than strictly contained within the proposed parcel.

• Phasing and incentives: Members discussed allowing flexibility for phased construction and for proposers to request incentives (for example, property‑tax exemptions or tax increment financing) during a later, more detailed phase, provided proponents justify the assistance with financial information.

• Arts and public art set‑aside: City Commissioner Denise Kolpak raised a request from a local artist asking whether the project would include a commission for public art. The committee asked staff and arts partners to research models (for example, a one‑percent‑for‑art set‑aside) and return with options to include in the RFP or later phases.

The committee instructed staff to revise the draft to (1) clarify what the $37–$41 million estimate represents and whether some amount is being held for operating reserves, (2) soften “on‑site parking” language to allow adjacent/shared parking, and (3) incorporate the selection criteria as an attachment. Staff said they would circulate a revised draft early next week and seek placement on the City Commission agenda; members noted the commission packet deadline could require final edits within days. The group scheduled a follow‑up meeting for the coming week to finalize language before submission to the commission.

No formal vote was recorded on the RFP text; members generally agreed to move the draft forward for city commission consideration after the edits.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Fargo City Convention Center Committee - 05.30.2025","oneSentenceSummary","Committee reviewed a draft RFP for a proposed convention center and associated private development, discussed an estimated lodging‑tax construction fund of $37–$41 million, parking, phased construction, incentives, an arts set‑aside, and agreed to revise the draft and advance it to the City Commission for approval on an accelerated timeline.","taxTitle","Fargo , Cass County, North Dakota","taxId",2742,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6209222,"Committee says HVS consultant may be removed from evaluations if he works for Fargo Dome",438,64000,502000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3736370-7a560a1e24430896e875ec0738860b8a&start=64&end=502","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3736370-7a560a1e24430896e875ec0738860b8a/thumbnail_64000.jpg","/articles/6209222/Fargo/Cass-County/North-Dakota/Committee-says-HVS-consultant-may-be-removed-from-evaluations-if-he-works-for-Fargo-Dome","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6209222-ee9f80e000b9549fc10196073b8222ad/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172995&Signature=HvLlNEW0yuOHYqPmKv1tLV3WHuJMJAWfbChMFvUeMjC7xj9Gb9siAsYQ04uMeq5xkQm12DYh-F~8X~TJRU8p-AAyJqZOe9SdCXTdE9wsGVM2DH2jWBt2G2Bz7JbqQjMjdtS7OWmAAS8tedYJUYTYARZNbsb1Ozkwh6zFbOPTO2InxMkFLE6BUKqulH-dRd-yAVfCouNKtB0~xRuPXAh-ajISRjIItOaRSXTQblJfDxRra7XGhnSsm8vQv5Di1U3NIjRynN7ngfd81cfXlPZh0dUcqj5UwXscYoWEFJJjxLAz60AKMPNh5bNSmWkM8aPw9Ici76k6rPIlfJ19A28F2w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a Visit Fargo‑Moorhead committee meeting, members agreed that HVS consultant Tom Hazinski would be ineligible to perform proposal evaluations for the group if he accepts an engagement to update pro forma numbers for the Fargo Dome.

The decision followed a committee discussion about whether Hazinski’s updating of prior pro forma work for the Fargo Dome would create a conflict of interest if HVS later evaluated proposals for the Visit Fargo‑Moorhead project. Committee chair Charlie Johnson summarized conversations with Hazinski and with Fargo Housing Authority representative Dave Supas and said Hazinski is free to take outside work but the committee should avoid any appearance of a conflict.

“Tom can do what he wants,” Johnson said, “but if he chooses to do that business … we would have to eliminate him from doing any evaluations going forward.”

Committee members discussed the optics of a consultant updating forecasts for a potential private developer while also serving on selection or evaluation work. One participant noted that the consultant’s prior pro forma and market materials are publicly available to all developers and the selection committee, but committee members said even with publicly available work the perception problem could remain.

A committee member moved that if HVS chooses to do the work for the Fargo Dome, the group would look elsewhere for evaluations. No roll-call was taken; members voiced “aye” and the motion carried. Johnson said he would call Hazinski to relay the committee’s message.

The committee did not adopt a written exclusivity clause or formal change to HVS’s contract at the meeting; members said the consultant remains free to take outside engagements but that the committee would not use HVS for evaluation work in that event.

The matter was raised during the meeting’s opening agenda items and was treated as a committee direction rather than a binding contractual action. Johnson said the committee’s board of directors had discussed the situation informally and advised the committee to avoid any appearance of a conflict.

What happens next: Johnson said he would contact Hazinski and inform him of the committee’s position so the group can plan for an alternate evaluator if needed.","At a Visit Fargo‑Moorhead committee meeting, members agreed to tell HVS consultant Tom Hazinski that if he takes a paid engagement from the Fargo Dome they will seek another evaluator for this project to avoid appearance of conflict; the motion passed by voice vote.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee reviews draft RFP for convention center; flags budget, parking and timeline questions

Committee says HVS consultant may be removed from evaluations if he works for Fargo Dome