Fargo committee narrows convention-center RFP work; awaits Baker Tilly, HVS financial analyses

Charlie Johnson, chair of the committee reviewing proposals for a Fargo convention center, told members the group has winnowed nine original proposals down to four finalists and must now narrow questions and priorities before sending a recommendation to the City Commission.

The committee met to align on next steps, ask consultants for clearer financial comparisons and decide how to rate proposals once supplemental analysis from HVS and Baker Tilly is received. Johnson opened the session by tracing the project’s history back to early feasibility work and earlier votes that left some financing tools available and some options unresolved.

Why it matters: The city approved a 3% lodging tax on the November ballot that passed with roughly 52% of the vote, a result Johnson said makes construction of convention space possible. A separate sales-tax measure tied to Fargo Dome renovations failed in late 2023 after falling short of a 60% threshold, leaving the committee to reconcile how much public subsidy will be necessary for each finalist.

“We’ve got four really good proposals,” Johnson said, summarizing the RFP results. But Susan Thompson, the City of Fargo finance director, cautioned committee members that the 3% lodging tax alone will not pay for every element proposers have included. “My concern is … 3% isn’t going to build the hotel,” Thompson said, adding that the committee needs a clear picture of any remaining funding gap and how it would be covered without saddling the city’s general fund.

Eric Johnson, a legal and procurement adviser, described phase three of the process: the committee’s rankings will go to the City Commission, which can accept the recommendation and authorize negotiations with the top-ranked proposer. He urged members to expect prolonged, detailed contract negotiations that will address land conveyance, construction and financing structures, preconditions (for example, an amendment to the NDSU lease if the Fargo Dome site is chosen), the city’s use of bond proceeds, and long-term operational responsibilities. He noted, “bearing in mind, of course, that until we have a project that’s identified, we can’t commence collection of the lodging tax.”

Committee members pressed for specific work from the consultants. Thompson and other members asked HVS to review operating pro formas (revenue mix, catering/concessions, management fees, and demand assumptions) and Baker Tilly to scrutinize private-finance and developer-capital plans so the committee can compare proposals on an apples-to-apples basis. Tom (a consultant who advised on operations) agreed to model demand and align revenue and expense categories across proposals so the committee can see consistent comparators.

The mayor and other commissioners asked for hard answers about potential TIFF (tax-increment financing) commitments and the political feasibility of diverting TIFF proceeds. Some downtown-focused proposals have assumed up to $5 million in TIFF support; members said they must know whether that funding is realistic before recommending a project that depends on it.

Public engagement: Johnson noted staff had collected 66 pages of public comments organized by proposal. Committee members said comments ran strongly for and against particular sites and that the comments reinforced the need to examine financial and operational details rather than rely solely on public sentiment about locations.

Process and next steps: The committee asked staff to assemble written questions for proposers in a shared document and agreed to wait for Baker Tilly’s and HVS’s supplemental reports (expected April 17). The group discussed meeting the week of April 20 to review consultant work, finalize rankings and prepare a recommendation for the City Commission agenda (agenda materials are due April 23); commissioners identified the April 27 commission meeting as a likely target for placement and May 11 for possible action if timing requires.

What remains unresolved: the size of any funding gap for each finalist; whether TIFF or other incentives will be approved; whether the city will require guarantees or covenants from private partners to protect taxpayers; and operational arrangements, including whether a private partner will operate the center and how Visit Fargo Moorhead’s marketing role will be codified.

The committee did not take formal votes at the meeting; members focused on collecting questions and telling staff and consultants which analyses should be prioritized before they produce a ranked recommendation to the City Commission.