The Fargo City Commission considered policy changes to align with North Dakota Senate Bill 2180 but voted down a proposed rule limiting public comment to items on the current agenda and the immediately preceding agenda, rejecting the restriction on a 3–2 roll call. Commissioners also declined to adopt changes restricting virtual testimony, leaving the current practice intact.

Michael Redlinger, a city staff member, told the commission the state legislature updated public‑comment language in Senate Bill 2180 and that the city already met many of the new minimum legal requirements. Redlinger presented three options: adopt a restriction limiting resident comment to agenda‑related items, remove virtual testimony entirely, or preserve the current practice. He explained that the law no longer requires the city to verify residency or business ownership for commenters and that the commission could choose to be more restrictive than the state if it wished.

Public commenters urged the commission to keep both non‑agenda comment and the virtual option. Olivia Fisher, a Fargo resident and frequent commenter, appealed to commissioners: “I’m speaking tonight to encourage you not to agree to remove non‑agenda public comment opportunities nor limit the virtual comment option…Community members want to be heard.” Christopher Cohn said the commission should aim higher than the statutory minimum: “I don’t think the goal should be to just be the threshold — the minimum requirements of the law. So I think it should be higher, and we should have more transparency than that.”

Commission discussion centered on balancing meeting focus and transparency. Some commissioners said limiting comments to agenda items would keep meetings focused; others said the existing policy, which allows residents and business owners and provides virtual access, has worked and should remain in place. No change to the virtual testimony procedure was adopted.

What happens next: because the commission declined the restriction, the city will continue its current public‑comment practice (including virtual testimony) while staff and the city attorney stand ready to draft policy changes if the commission revisits the issue in the future. The staff presentation made clear the city is already compliant with the state statute and was considering whether to adopt a narrower local policy.

Ending: commissioners said they would revisit the matter if virtual or non‑resident comments become disruptive; for now the city remains more permissive than the statute’s minimum.