Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Fargo advisory committee discloses potential conflicts, agrees to independent review of nine proposals
Loading...
Summary
Members of the Fargo advisory committee disclosed ties to vendors named in proposals and the group agreed to hire an outside reviewer to score nine submissions; committee members will score proposals first, then compare results with the consultant’s analysis.
At a meeting of the Fargo advisory committee, members disclosed potential conflicts of interest tied to firms named in responses to the city's request for proposals and agreed to engage an outside reviewer to evaluate nine submitted proposals.
The committee — convened by Visit Fargo Moorhead and made up of city commissioners, local economic development and hospitality representatives and other stakeholders — discussed whether three members should be disqualified or recused after their connections to firms named in one or more proposals were raised. The group ultimately opted to proceed with those members participating after public disclosure and legal counsel’s guidance; the committee also agreed to hire a consultant to provide an independent review of all nine proposals and to schedule public presentations by proposers across three upcoming Friday meetings.
The committee’s decision follows a review of conflict-of-interest standards under state law by Eric Johnson, Fargo assistant city attorney, who summarized the legal test for disqualification. "There's sort of this duty to vote. That's sort of the starting point," Johnson said, adding that a conflict arises when a member has a "direct and or and substantial personal or pecuniary monetary interest in the item." He noted that the city attorney can give an advisory opinion and, in some cases, questions can be referred to the North Dakota attorney general.
Committee members identified three people for disclosure: Claire Hughes (Clubhouse Hotel and Suites, general manager), Kent Kolstead (president, Livewire) and Emma McIntyre (Folkways). Hughes and Kolstead disclosed relationships tying their households or businesses to vendors or venues named in one or more proposals; McIntyre clarified that the Folkways organization she works for is a nonprofit distinct from a separate Folkway Studio identified in a proposal.
Emma McIntyre explained the separation: "There's 2 different parts of Folkways. So there's a Folkway Studio, which is a, like, solo entity that is run by Joe, and Simone works on projects in that. And then there's Folkway is the community nonprofit, which is the entity that I work for, which is the separation between the 2 of them." The committee discussed those distinctions as part of the conflict analysis.
Charlie (Visit Fargo Moorhead), who led the meeting, and legal counsel said disclosures and an open, public discussion were appropriate. The group did not record a formal recusals motion; instead members signaled they were comfortable proceeding after disclosures and counsel's analysis.
On procurement review, the committee agreed to hire the outside firm HBS (also referenced as HVS in discussion) to provide a professional review of all nine proposals. Charlie said Visit Fargo Moorhead previously paid HBS $25,000 for work included in the RFP and that the consultant had proposed to review the nine submissions for "no more than $6,000" and had initially mentioned $10,000 before capping the fee. "We paid them, visit Fargo Moorhead paid HBS $25,000 for the work that was included in the RFP," Charlie said. He added that HBS told the committee it could probably do the review for up to $6,000 and would cap the fee at that amount.
Committee members resolved that the committee itself would complete its own scoring before seeing the consultant’s scores. Commissioner Dave Pepporn and others argued that seeing the consultant’s scores first could unduly influence committee members. As Kent Kolstead put it, members would be influenced by a professional score if it were revealed early: "I'd be influenced by that for sure, you know, if I got their scoring ahead of time."
Members asked HBS to use the same scoring categories the committee developed so that results would be comparable. The group also discussed whether to use the consultant's scoring once (for phase 1 only) or for both Phase 1 (initial review/site selection) and Phase 2 (finalist evaluation). The committee agreed it would likely use the consultant for both phases and that Charlie would confirm costs and scope, with an informal cap discussed and no formal motion required.
The committee set logistics and next steps: it will invite proposers to present across three Friday sessions (allocated roughly two hours each to accommodate presentations, questions and transitions), give each proposer approximately 25–30 minutes to present with time for Q&A, and require that committee members complete their scoring only after hearing all nine presentations. The committee will use the Bonfire scoring tool to collect scores and planned a follow-up meeting (discussed for the 19th) to review cumulative scores and determine how many proposals will advance to Phase 2 — the RFP said the process could advance up to five finalists, but committee members expressed a preference for narrowing to three or four when practical.
The committee also discussed bringing financial reviewers (for example, Baker Tilly) in Phase 2 to assess investors' financial strength rather than relying solely on the building/programming expertise of HBS.
The meeting closed with staff directed to finalize scheduling for the three presentation sessions, confirm HBS’s final fee and scope for both review phases and circulate instructions to proposers about presentation content and time limits.
