Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Inmate Housing Contracts topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Cass County to consider terminating Fargo inmate-housing contract amid disputes over property, rate and ITV court duties

5575216 · August 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Cass County commissioners on Aug. 13 voted to prepare for a Sept. 2 consideration of whether to exercise a 90-day termination clause in the county’s existing inmate-housing contract with the City of Fargo.

Cass County commissioners on Aug. 13 voted to direct staff to prepare for a Sept. 2 commission consideration of whether to exercise the 90-day termination provision in the county’s existing jail inmate-housing contract with the City of Fargo.

Robert Wilson, a county staff member who presented a memorandum tracking two years of communications with Fargo and West Fargo, told commissioners the discussion is separate from a new contract the commission approved June 16. “I do have a memo here that has a list of various communications and contacts and actions at various points between 06/19/2023 and today,” Wilson said while summarizing emails, draft redlines and attorney-to-attorney exchanges.

The memorandum and testimony from Sheriff Johnner framed three recurring sticking points: (1) the scope and storage of inmate property the county would accept under the contract, (2) the daily per-inmate rate Fargo sought versus Cass County’s cost estimates, and (3) responsibility for interactive video (ITV) courtroom services for municipal cases.

State’s Attorney Hegvig told the commission the county’s approach to inmate property storage follows legal guidance. “I do. And we have had multiple conversations with the attorney general's office. They have given us direction. It is very much in line with what the sheriff's policy has been and will continue to be,” Hegvig said when asked whether the county’s practice complies with the North Dakota Century Code and attorney-general guidance.

Sheriff Johnner described operational limits that he said preclude accepting the broader property requirements proposed by Fargo. “If we were accepting everything and something comes in that's a public health hazard, what would we do with 300 plus inmates if we had to shut the place down? We'd pay to fumigate it to rectify it so it was safe to house people in there,” Johnner said, urging the commission to weigh jail safety and operational control.

Wilson’s timeline, as presented to the board, traces negotiations back to June 19, 2023, when county officials and the sheriff’s office first discussed raising the county’s per-inmate daily rate from $85 to $120. Fargo’s edits to a draft agreement included proposed changes that county staff and the sheriff’s office found unacceptable; at one point Fargo suggested a $100 daily rate instead of $120. The county’s state’s attorney’s office and Fargo city attorney Nancy Morris exchanged redline drafts and legal comments through 2023 and 2024, and the matter continued into 2025, including meetings involving Mayor Mahoney and Fargo city administrators.

Wilson and the sheriff also said the county has provided ITV services to municipal partners since about 2016–2017 for Fargo and West Fargo, a service that was expanded around the COVID years. The sheriff said ITV operations and staffing requirements were another persistent source of disagreement because additional ITV duties would affect county staffing and budgets.

Commission discussion referenced a county finance estimate presented during the meeting that the county had absorbed roughly $753,000 in costs related to the issue over the period reviewed; commission discussion included a county calculation that 62.6% of the county’s taxable value is within Fargo, which the speaker used to estimate Fargo’s share of that cost at about $471,000 through the report date and suggested the cumulative shortfall could approach $900,000 by year end if unresolved. The commission did not adopt new financial figures beyond those presented at the meeting.

Two formal motions related to the topic were passed during the session. Commissioner Flacco moved, and a colleague seconded, to “direct the county administrator to prepare for the commission consideration on Sept. 2, 2025, a motion to consider exercising the 90-day termination provision in the current City of Fargo jail inmate housing contract.” The motion passed on a recorded voice roll call with the commission voting 5–0 in favor.

Commissioner Flacco also moved that the official materials presented at the Aug. 13 meeting be sent to the five members of the Fargo City Commission, including the mayor. That motion was seconded and approved unanimously on a roll call vote.

What happened at the meeting

- The board heard a detailed chronology of negotiation steps from Robert Wilson, summarizing drafts, redlines and attorney conversations dating to June 2023. - Sheriff Johnner testified the county could not accept contract language that would require taking broad categories of inmate property the sheriff deemed unsafe or infeasible to store, and he warned of operational and safety risks. - State’s Attorney Hegvig said county practice aligns with guidance from the state attorney general’s office. - The commission approved two actions: (1) prepare for a Sept. 2 vote on exercising the 90-day termination clause in the Fargo inmate-housing contract, and (2) send meeting materials to Fargo city leaders.

What’s next

The commission’s stated next step is a Sept. 2 agenda item to consider formally invoking the contract’s 90-day termination provision. If the commission votes to exercise that clause on Sept. 2, the termination timeline in the contract would begin according to the contract’s terms. The county will also send the meeting materials to Fargo city leaders as the commission requested.

Recorder’s note: the discussion also referenced a separate, newly approved contract the commission adopted June 16 that the chair said is not the subject of today’s action; the Aug. 13 deliberations concerned the existing, active contract and whether to end it under the 90-day clause.