Fargo committee outlines RFP goals, space and financing parameters for proposed convention center

The Fargo Convention Center Committee met to set initial requirements and process steps for a proposed convention center, agreeing on minimum program elements, financing assumptions and an RFP timeline.

Committee members said the planning team should define minimum space needs — including a large dividable hall, breakout rooms, back-of-house facilities and at least one attached hotel — and gather operation and finance data from comparable facilities before issuing a request for proposals. The group also directed staff to assemble materials on finances and operations, to consider bonding and tax incentives as possibilities, and to produce a draft RFP for review within about 30 days.

The meeting, led by Charlie Johnson, president and CEO of Visit Fargo Moorhead, and attended by Mayor Tim Mahoney and city staff, centered on the technical requirements the RFP will ask bidders to meet. Johnson outlined recommended minimums based on recent consultant work: a large, dividable 50,000-square-foot multipurpose hall (described as roughly 25,000 square feet of exhibit space and 25,000 square feet of ballroom space), roughly 20,000 square feet of breakout meeting rooms (6–12 flexible rooms), dedicated loading and catering support, and pre-function and storage space. Johnson said planners should expect total building area (excluding an attached hotel) in the range of roughly 100,000–110,000 square feet and roughly 70,000–80,000 square feet of meeting space.

"We need a 25,000-square-foot potential ballroom," Johnson said, noting the community's largest existing single ballroom is under 15,000 square feet. Mallory Ackerman, director of convention sales at Visit Fargo Moorhead, and meeting-planning participants added that dividable space with air walls is acceptable and commonly used by event planners.

On financing, Johnson said the city’s current lodging-tax revenue produces about $1,100,000 per 1% of tax and that, based on preliminary bonding assumptions, each $1.1 million of annual lodging tax could support roughly $17.5 million of bonds — a rough, illustrative figure that the group used to estimate a potential bonding capacity on the order of $40 million to $43 million. Johnson also recommended preserving part of the new lodging-tax revenue for operating subsidies and maintenance, saying, "I would hope a half penny of that every year" be set aside for operations.

City staff cautioned about tax-exempt bond constraints and suggested the city may instead issue taxable bonds to avoid private-activity restrictions. An attendee identified as Eric (city finance/legal staff) explained that tax-exempt financing can impose limits on management arrangements and that issuing taxable bonds could avoid those entanglements.

Committee members discussed whether to require an attached hotel in the RFP. Several participants favored an attached or connected hotel of roughly 150–200 rooms to achieve "compression" in the local market, meaning the ability to concentrate out-of-town room nights around the event weekend. Mallory Ackerman and other meeting-planning representatives said that most convention planners prefer on-site or attached exhibit and hotel access for exhibitors and attendees.

On incentives and public participation, the group agreed the city has existing tools — for example, tax increment financing (TIF) and other policies — that could be applied on a case-by-case basis if a developer requests assistance, but committee members did not commit to any specific incentive in the RFP. Jim Gilmore, city staff, said the RFP can note openness to proposals that describe developer requests for incentives, while leaving final decisions to the commission and customary review processes.

The committee agreed to a two-step procurement approach: a high-level initial submission to produce a shortlist and then detailed proposals from finalists. Members also asked staff to gather pro forma operating and cost data from comparable facilities (Saint Cloud, Rochester, Grand Forks/Alaris Center, Duluth, Sioux Falls, Fox Cities/Appleton) and to arrange one or more site visits, tentatively in March. The committee set a recurring weekly meeting cadence and scheduled the next meeting for 1:00 p.m. next Friday to begin drafting RFP material and to review collected comparative documents.

The meeting concluded with assignments for staff to assemble documents, solicit operational and financial data from peer facilities, consult with financial advisors (named firms included Baker Tilly and PFM as possible advisors) and prepare a preliminary list of RFP evaluation criteria and a scoring rubric for future discussion.

The committee did not take a formal vote on any ordinance, bond issuance, or incentive; members set process steps and information requests for the next phase.