The Fargo Convention Center Committee discussed and revised the draft RFP criteria for developers, focusing on site capacity, a hotel attachment, conceptual building program, and development-team experience.

Committee members agreed to keep as a requirement an attached hotel in the 150–200-room range and to seek contiguous ballroom/exhibit space large enough to host major events; discussion coalesced around a single, divisible space of roughly 40,000–50,000 square feet, with some members proposing a 50,000-square-foot minimum for planning purposes.

Jim Gilmore, speaking about development-team evaluation, said the city will require evidence of developers’ and operators’ capacity to complete the hotel and restaurant elements so the convention center is not built without supporting lodging or kitchen facilities. "If they're gonna provide— you don't get something where construction starts and then stops," he said, urging early-phase vetting and a deeper financial review for finalists.

The committee set minimums or guidance for several back-of-house and operational items: a minimum 6,000-square-foot kitchen to serve convention needs (recognizing some proposals may provide larger or combined hotel/catering facilities), additional meeting-room minimums around 8,800 square feet (with discussion of 10,000 as preferable), and storage in the 10,000–12,000-square-foot range to accommodate chairs, tables and event equipment. Members recommended at least three loading docks, including one ground-level door and two truck-height docks (typical truck doors ~13 feet), and discussed design features such as an airlock/back-of-house sequence to limit cold-air loss in winter.

Committee members flagged accessibility and internal traffic flow (movement between hotel, pre-function and exhibit space) as criteria to be evaluated in proposals rather than hard minimums tied to building code (ADA and building-code requirements remain mandatory). They also discussed resident sentiment and public engagement: several members said public comment should not be the deciding factor but agreed that a public information session or town-hall near the finalist selection would be appropriate so residents can hear how finalists were evaluated.

On scoring, staff and members noted that many criteria are value judgments rather than strict yes/no compliance. The committee asked staff and Jim Gilmore to prepare a sliding-scale scoring rubric (for example, a numeric best-fit scale rather than a strict compliant/partially compliant labeling) and to circulate drafts before the next meeting.

Next steps and directions recorded in the meeting: the committee moved several urban and site-related items (proximity to hotels, dining and retail) into the urban/compatibility category; asked staff to post the criteria and supporting HBS materials for review; and scheduled follow-up work on scoring methodology at the next meeting at 9 a.m. in City Commission Chambers. No formal RFP was released and no vote on final minimums was recorded at this meeting.