Fargo committee debates site control, budget and criteria for convention center RFP

FARGO — City staff, commissioners and local stakeholders spent most of a committee meeting refining the request for proposals (RFP) process for a proposed Fargo convention center, debating how much to require from developers up front, how to weigh financial feasibility and whether site control should be a pass/fail requirement.

The committee discussed a two‑phase approach in which developers submit conceptual proposals first and only shortlisted teams are asked to deliver detailed pro formas, site studies and design work. Tom Hysinski, president and managing director of HVS, described a scoring system that ranks sites and criteria numerically and allows the city to reweight priorities depending on local concerns.

The conversation matters because the committee must decide how much detail to require at each stage, how to account for land and parking costs in a roughly $40 million–$45 million financing estimate tied to lodging‑tax revenue, and how to protect the city from selecting a proposal that is attractive on paper but unbuildable or underfunded.

Committee members and stakeholders pressed for clarity on budget assumptions, site control and evaluation weightings. Jim Gilmore, City of Fargo staff member, urged the group to require basic team qualifications and site information before asking developers to invest in full pro formas: “Do they actually have an option on the site and what's the site going to cost because that's going to affect our overall budget,” he said. Joe Raso of the Greater Fargo Moorhead EDC asked whether the commonly cited $40 million–$45 million figure was meant to be inclusive of revenue from any new hotel tied to a development; committee members agreed the figure did not include that new hotel’s lodging tax revenue and that additional assumptions would be required.

Susan Thompson (staff) warned the committee that ongoing operating costs and staffing were a major liability: “Once the building is built, the City of Fargo, we are in charge of the staffing. And so the costs for ongoing staffing, that that's the concern,” she said, adding that parking and maintenance obligations should be included in financial planning.

Several speakers favored a phased RFP to limit upfront design expense for proposers. HVS’s Hysinski recommended an initial round focused on qualifications, concepts and site capacity, followed by a short list of two or three teams asked for more detailed financial and design work. “One of the things you wanna do in the RFP process is to only require a lot of work from the proposals that you're taking really seriously,” Hysinski said.

The group debated whether site control should be a threshold requirement. Some commissioners argued a demonstrated option or control over a site is necessary because land cost substantially affects total project size and cost; others cautioned that requiring full site control might exclude promising proposals that could obtain options during a second round. A staff member noted that owners sometimes give multiple developers an option on a site, allowing the city to select among feasible proposals.

Committee members discussed specific programmatic minimums to include in the RFP. Suggestions included minimum loading‑dock height and counts, higher ceiling heights for the primary multi‑purpose space (several speakers referenced a ~16‑foot hotel meeting‑room ceiling as too low), parking capacity estimates and basic pass/fail zoning compliance. Kent Holstead, president of LiveWire, suggested defining minimums for features such as ceiling height rather than prescribing one fixed design.

The committee also discussed whether to hire an outside advisor or consultant to evaluate market, financial and operational assumptions. Several participants, including Hysinski and commissioners, recommended engaging a consultant to review developer pro formas and operating plans; members discussed whether Visit Fargo Moorhead already had such services under contract and whether the city should run its own procurement for an adviser.

Timing was raised near the end of the discussion. Mallory Ackerman, convention sales director at Visit Fargo Moorhead, summarized the committee’s draft schedule: issue the RFP in April, allow questions and shortlisting through May, and target receipt of detailed proposals by July. Hysinski advised allowing sufficient time for developers to do basic due diligence and to avoid timelines so compressed that the development community assumes the process is pre‑selected.

The meeting included a separate logistical note that the committee plans an in‑region site tour in March, meeting at the Visitor Center at 8 a.m. and visiting River's Edge Convention Center and the Mayo Civic Center in Rochester; those trip arrangements are covered by Visit Fargo Moorhead for registered attendees.

No formal motions or votes were recorded during the meeting; the session focused on refining the RFP outline, selection criteria and timeline and on identifying what additional technical or financial expertise the committee should solicit before issuing the RFP.