City of Fargo staff, commissioners and local businesses and civic groups met in a Gateway Commons working session to refine the selection criteria that will guide a request for proposals to develop a new convention center and related hotel.

The group discussed the RFP structure and scoring approach, agreed to keep four broad evaluation categories for the first phase — site considerations, conceptual plan/layout, urban/adjacent considerations, and development team qualifications — and debated whether to add a standalone financial category or handle costs within those existing categories.

Charlie Johnson, Visit Fargo Moorhead, opened the meeting and framed the session: “This is a…working session, so, you know, we’re not necessarily gonna make any final decisions, but we’re gonna go through the criteria list.” He and other participants said the first phase will stay high-level (focusing on site suitability and team qualifications), with a second phase narrowing finalists to two or three for detailed pro formas, designs and financial stress testing.

Participants discussed a 30-day developer question period and the possibility of an optional pre-bid meeting to explain the public–private partnership rules. Eric Johnson, City staff, said the state public–private partnership statute contains flexibility that developers should understand: “a lot of people aren’t all that familiar with the public private partnership statute…there’s a fair amount of flexibility that comes into play.”

A recurring point of debate was how specific the RFP should be about hotel relationships. Several participants urged flexibility to allow creative proposals, while others pressed for measurable preferences. Charlie Johnson summarized a position that gained support: “The one ironclad thing is whatever hotel, existing or new, has to be connected so you don’t have to go outside to get to it.” Several commissioners and attendees said connection should earn higher scores but that proximity shortfalls could be handled by weighted scoring rather than an absolute disqualification.

Committee members also sought clearer definitions for line items in the rubric (for example, whether “site capacity” refers to physical footprint), and discussed combining related subitems — for instance, status of site control and site acquisition cost — to avoid double-counting in scoring. Several attendees recommended evaluating the four broad categories from a higher level (e.g., assigning percentage weights to each category) in this first round, then drilling into line-item weights in a later meeting.

Support-space requirements surfaced as another priority. Attendees who visited comparable facilities in St. Cloud and Rochester said loading docks, service corridors, power capacity and pre-function spaces materially affect usability; the committee agreed to capture those items as minimum requirements or design support notes rather than try to enumerate every technical detail in the first-round criteria.

On financing, participants agreed the first round should remain conceptual but noted the RFP draft will include a ballpark figure for the city’s available contribution so proposers design within realistic limits. Commissioners gave examples during discussion of hypothetical municipal capacity (participants referenced figures such as $40 million–$45 million as illustrative examples), and several speakers said thorough financial review and pro forma verification should be part of phase two.

The group assigned follow-up work to staff: combine and streamline the criteria, separate “must-have” minimums from “best-practice” preferences, circulate revised draft language and return the group’s refined materials at the next meeting. The committee also planned to invite a Baker Tilly representative to the next session to review preliminary financial modeling and to circulate a draft list of minimum support-space requirements prior to the next meeting.

Next steps include staff circulating a consolidated criteria draft and minimums list, scheduling the Baker Tilly briefing at the next committee meeting, and preparing an RFP that signals the city’s expected funding range and the two-phase review process.