I believe there are several practical reasons for doing so.

First, inflation continues to put pressure on household budgets. Our employees face the same rising costs as everyone else. A cost-of-living adjustment helps ensure their compensation keeps pace with those increases.

Second, we need to remain competitive. Both Fargo and Cass County are planning 3% adjustments. West Fargo competes with these jurisdictions for talented employees, and we need to be mindful of that reality.

Third, retaining good employees is fiscally responsible. Losing an experienced police officer, firefighter, or other city employee comes with significant costs. Recruiting, hiring, training, and getting a replacement up to speed can cost far more than a modest adjustment in compensation. There’s also a cost to losing the experience and institutional knowledge those employees bring to our community.

What About Step Increases?

One argument against a 3% COLA is that most employees will also receive a step increase, resulting in a larger overall compensation adjustment.

I understand that concern, but I believe it’s important to distinguish between the two.

Our current step system was established following a compensation study in 2018. Step increases are designed to recognize progression within an established pay structure. A COLA serves a different purpose: adjusting compensation in response to changes in the cost of living.

These are two separate components of our compensation system, and I believe they should be evaluated separately.

That doesn’t mean our overall compensation structure shouldn’t be reviewed. In fact, after eight years, I think it’s reasonable for us to evaluate changes, but as I’ve said since the election, that needs to be completed on a timeline for next year’s budget process. Making changes to that structure deserves a thoughtful, comprehensive review, not a quick adjustment during the final stages of the budget process.

Balancing Fiscal Responsibility and Employee Retention

I’ve consistently emphasized the importance of fiscal responsibility and sustainable city budgets. That hasn’t changed.

But fiscal responsibility isn’t simply about spending less. It’s about making decisions that deliver the best long-term value for taxpayers.

We ask a lot of our city employees. They keep our neighborhoods safe, maintain our infrastructure, respond to emergencies, and deliver the services residents depend on every day.

We need to compensate them fairly while continuing to carefully manage taxpayer dollars.

For those reasons, I expect to support moving the 2027 COLA from 2.5% to 3%, while also supporting a more comprehensive review of our compensation system in the future.

But technological disruption didn’t start with computers, the internet, or artificial intelligence. It’s been happening for centuries. The Industrial Revolution, beginning in the late 1700s, fundamentally changed how people worked, lived, and built their communities.

And people weren’t always happy about it.

In fact, the battle between humans and machines isn’t some futuristic conflict involving Skynet and the Terminator. It actually played out more than 200 years ago during a little-known chapter of history called the Luddite Rebellion.

In the early 1800s, English textile workers fought against the introduction of machinery that threatened their livelihoods. They protested, organized, and even destroyed machines.

They won a few battles. Fortunately, the machines weren’t particularly Terminator-like.

But ultimately, they lost the war.

Not because the machines were stronger, but because the real opponent wasn’t technology. It was economics.

And economics is a difficult force to stop.

History Has a Way of Repeating Itself

I’ve been reading a lot about the proposed development of data centers across North Dakota. And there are plenty of people who are concerned.

I understand that. In fact, I think asking questions about major infrastructure projects is not only reasonable, it’s necessary.

How much water will they use? What happens to electricity rates? What about noise? What infrastructure will be required? Who pays for it? What are the long-term benefits to the community?

These are all legitimate questions.

But here’s the important part: We need to be willing to listen to the answers, too.

Too often, I see concerns repeated long after information has been provided that addresses them. Water usage is a good example. Not all data centers use the same cooling technology, and some designs can dramatically reduce water consumption. Rather than assuming every project will consume enormous amounts of water, we should be asking what technology a specific project will use and what its actual impact will be.

The same applies to electricity, infrastructure, and other concerns.

That doesn’t mean every answer will be satisfactory, or every project should be approved. It means we should evaluate projects based on facts, not assumptions.

And we’ve been through this before.

Imagine Fargo Without the Railroad

Think about the railroad expansion of the 1800s.

Railroads transformed America, connecting communities, moving agricultural products to market, and creating economic opportunities that had never existed before.

But not everyone welcomed them.

Historical opposition to railroad expansion included concerns about sparks causing fires, excessive noise, accidents, damage to farmland, and threats to livestock and people. Farmers and communities pushed for restrictions and protections, while critics challenged the influence railroad companies held over local economies and government.

Some of those concerns were absolutely legitimate. Railroads brought real risks, and the companies building them didn’t always treat communities fairly.

But imagine what Fargo, or North Dakota as a whole, would look like today without railroad development.

Our region’s agricultural economy, population growth, and connection to national markets were shaped by those tracks.

The railroad wasn’t simply a new way to move people and products. It was economic infrastructure that helped determine which communities would grow and prosper.

Then Came the Interstate Highway System

Fast-forward to the 1950s and 1960s.

America embarked on another massive infrastructure investment: the Interstate Highway System.

Once again, there was opposition.

Critics warned about increased noise, pollution, traffic, destruction of farmland, and damage to local businesses. Residents feared highways would divide neighborhoods, displace families, reduce property values, and threaten the economic vitality of towns bypassed by new routes.

Grassroots organizations organized protests, circulated petitions, and pressured elected officials to stop or reroute highway construction.

And again, many concerns were justified. Interstate construction displaced entire neighborhoods in some cities and created consequences that communities are still addressing today.

But the interstate system also transformed commerce, manufacturing, transportation, tourism, and economic development across the country.

Consider what Interstate 94 and Interstate 29 mean to Fargo and the surrounding region today.

It’s difficult to imagine our regional economy without them.

Two different centuries. Two massive infrastructure investments. Two examples of significant public opposition. And two developments that fundamentally shaped the economic future of our communities.

Now It’s Data Centers

Today, we’re watching another nationwide infrastructure buildout, driven by cloud computing, digital services, and artificial intelligence.

Data centers are part of the physical infrastructure that makes our increasingly digital economy possible.

Every time we use online banking, stream a movie, store photos in the cloud, or ask an AI tool a question, we’re relying on infrastructure somewhere.

That infrastructure requires land, electricity, investment, and people to build and operate it.

And just like railroads and interstate highways, it creates both opportunities and challenges for the communities where it’s located.

North Dakota has some real advantages. We have available land, a favorable climate for certain cooling technologies, access to energy resources, and a history of supporting major infrastructure and industrial development.

That doesn’t mean every proposed data center is a good fit for every community.

It does mean we should be careful about closing the door before we fully understand what’s being proposed.

The Problem With Moratoriums

One of the ideas being discussed is placing moratoriums on data center development.

I understand the motivation. Communities want time to study the impacts, establish rules, and protect their residents.

But there’s a difference between taking the time to make informed decisions and simply putting up a sign that says we’re closed for business.

A moratorium might pause development in one community, but it won’t stop the demand for data centers. That demand is being driven by national and global economic forces far beyond North Dakota.

And if companies can’t build here, they’ll look elsewhere.

Other states and communities are competing for those same investments.

The question isn’t whether data centers will be built.

The question is whether North Dakota wants to participate in the economic opportunities they create, and under what conditions.

We should be asking how to structure development agreements, protect existing utility customers, manage water resources, establish appropriate locations, and ensure communities receive meaningful benefits.

Those are productive conversations.

Simply saying no without considering the answers or opportunities isn’t much of an economic development strategy.

We’ve Done This Before

North Dakota has a history of embracing major economic opportunities.

Railroads helped build our agricultural economy.

The interstate highway system connected our communities to the rest of the country.

Energy development, including oil exploration and production, created enormous economic activity and helped reshape our state’s financial position.

None of these developments happened without controversy, risk, or legitimate concerns.

And none came without costs.

But our state benefited because people were willing to recognize opportunities, make difficult decisions, and invest in the future.

That same choice is in front of us today.

We can’t stop technological advancement. Artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and digital infrastructure aren’t going away.

In fact, most of us are already using these technologies every single day, whether we realize it or not.

So why wouldn’t we want to participate in the economic activity that supports them?

Be Smart. Ask Questions. But Stay Open for Business.

I’m not suggesting we give data center developers a blank check.

Quite the opposite.

We should ask tough questions. We should demand transparency. We should establish reasonable rules. We should protect taxpayers, utility customers, and our natural resources. And we should make sure the economic benefits are real, not just promises.

Some projects may not make sense. Some locations may not be appropriate. And some developers may not be willing to meet the standards our communities establish.

That’s fine.

But we shouldn’t confuse responsible oversight with resistance to change.

The Luddites couldn’t stop the Industrial Revolution. Communities couldn’t stop the expansion of railroads or the interstate highway system. And North Dakota isn’t going to stop the growth of artificial intelligence by refusing to participate in the infrastructure that supports it.

We can’t fight the underlying economics of technological change. But we can decide how we respond to it.

Let’s keep asking questions. Let’s listen to the answers. Let’s establish reasonable expectations and hold developers accountable.

And let’s remember that some of the infrastructure we now consider essential was once viewed as disruptive, controversial, and even threatening.

The next generation may look at today’s data center investments the same way we look at railroads and interstate highways.

We have an opportunity to help shape that future.

Because if we don’t, someone else will.

One technology that has become increasingly common in communities across the country is the automated license plate reader, or ALPR. One of the largest providers of these systems is Flock Safety.

West Fargo uses Flock cameras, and like many technologies used by government, I think it is worth understanding both what they can do and the legitimate questions their use raises.

This isn’t an argument for or against Flock cameras. My goal is to provide some context for a conversation I think communities should be willing to have.

What Exactly Is a Flock Camera?

Flock cameras are automated license plate readers. As vehicles pass a camera, the system can capture information including an image of the vehicle and license plate, the plate number and state, vehicle characteristics such as color and make, and the date, time and camera location.

That information can then be searched by authorized law enforcement users. For example, a camera could identify a vehicle reported stolen or associated with an AMBER Alert and provide an alert to law enforcement.

Flock says its default retention period for license plate reader data is 30 days, after which the data is deleted. Different retention periods can apply depending upon local laws or policies.

The Public Safety Argument

The benefit of this technology is fairly easy to understand.

A police officer cannot be everywhere at once.

If officers are looking for a stolen vehicle or a vehicle connected to a crime, traditionally they might have to rely on witness descriptions, surveillance footage, traffic stops or simply an officer happening to see the vehicle.

ALPR technology gives investigators another tool. And to be clear, Flock has assisted in solving multiple crimes in West Fargo to date.

It can help identify when and where a particular vehicle entered or left an area, provide investigative leads, and alert officers when certain wanted vehicles are detected.

For a growing community with finite police resources, there is an obvious appeal to technology that can help officers work more efficiently.

There is also an important distinction between these systems and traditional traffic enforcement cameras. Flock cameras are generally intended as an investigative and public safety tool rather than something like a red-light camera automatically issuing traffic citations.

The Privacy Argument

The concerns are also easy to understand.

The overwhelming majority of vehicles passing these cameras are presumably being driven by people who are not suspected of committing a crime. Yet their vehicle information is still being captured.

One individual camera recording a license plate at a particular intersection may not seem particularly intrusive. But as networks of cameras grow, the collected information can potentially provide a much more detailed picture of where vehicles have traveled. That can understandably feel a little “Big Brother.”

Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have raised concerns that large networks of automated license plate readers can effectively create databases of people’s movements, particularly when information can be searched or shared across jurisdictions.

The issue, therefore, isn’t necessarily the photograph of a license plate.

It is what happens when thousands or millions of those photographs become a searchable database.

Who Has Access?

This may be one of the most important questions for communities using the technology.

Flock says customers control their data, including who can access it and how it is shared, subject to applicable laws and contractual requirements. Data sharing has become an important part of the national discussion surrounding ALPR systems, particularly the possibility of information being accessed across jurisdictions or used for purposes the community purchasing the cameras never contemplated.

That makes West Fargo’s specific practices important to understand.

The West Fargo Police Department has disabled all sharing and the ability to share Flock data with other agencies. Access to the system also requires prior supervisor authorization.

When an officer conducts a search, the officer is required to enter both a reason for the search and a case number. Every query and action within the system is logged and tracked.

The department also conducts audits that are thoroughly reviewed to ensure the system is being used for its intended purpose. In addition, West Fargo maintains a public portal detailing usage standards and guidelines.

Those are meaningful guardrails. They limit outside access, create accountability for individual searches, and provide a record that can be audited if questions arise.

I think those details are important because the conversation shouldn’t simply be about what the technology could do. It should also be about how West Fargo is actually using it.

At the same time, good safeguards shouldn’t prevent us from continuing to ask whether our controls and transparency are sufficient as technology evolves. In fact, I would argue that is exactly what responsible oversight looks like.

Technology Isn’t Perfect

There is another practical consideration: accuracy.

Flock itself acknowledges that license plate translations can occasionally be incomplete or inaccurate and says users should verify a computer-generated plate reading before taking action based upon an alert or search.

That is an important safeguard.

Technology can provide an investigative lead. It should not necessarily be treated as proof that the person driving a particular vehicle has committed a crime.

That distinction becomes increasingly important as law enforcement agencies rely on more automated and AI-assisted technologies.

Maybe the Better Question Is About Guardrails

I don’t think the Flock camera discussion has to be reduced to two positions:

“The cameras keep us safe, so we shouldn’t question them.”

or

“The cameras collect information, so we shouldn’t use them.”

There is a lot of room between those positions.

A community can recognize that technology may help law enforcement solve crimes while also insisting upon strong protections governing how that technology is used.

In West Fargo, disabling outside data sharing, requiring a reason and case number for every search, limiting access to authorized users, logging activity and conducting audits are important safeguards.

We should understand those protections, periodically review them, and decide whether they continue to meet our community’s expectations.

A Conversation Worth Having

Technology is going to continue giving local governments capabilities that didn’t exist a generation ago, or even five years ago.

That doesn’t mean we should automatically embrace every new tool.

It also doesn’t mean we should automatically reject them.

I think our responsibility is to understand what technology does, determine whether it provides meaningful value to our community, understand the risks that come with it, and establish appropriate safeguards.

Flock cameras can be a useful law enforcement tool.

They can also create legitimate questions about privacy, data sharing and government surveillance.

Both of those things can be true at the same time.

And that is exactly why I think this is a conversation worth having.

I’ll end with a broader thought. What about security cameras at The Lights, our parks, our schools or countless private businesses? Those aren’t necessarily ALPR cameras, but some of the underlying questions are similar. Where is the data stored? Who has access? How long is it retained? What safeguards exist?

We live in a society where most of us are captured by cameras numerous times every day.

So perhaps the bigger conversation isn’t simply about Flock. It’s about privacy in an increasingly connected and monitored world, and where we as a community want to draw the lines.

Some see an enormous economic opportunity. Others worry about electricity, water, noise, or the relatively small number of permanent jobs. Still others are uncomfortable with what data centers represent: the rapid growth of artificial intelligence itself.

Those are fair questions. People should be asking them.

But there is an important difference between asking questions and assuming there aren’t answers.

Start With the Facts

One of the biggest challenges with the data center debate is that examples from across the country are often applied to every project everywhere.

Someone reads about a data center consuming millions of gallons of water and assumes they all do. Someone sees electricity prices increasing in a state experiencing massive data center growth and assumes the same thing will happen here.

We should learn from those examples, but data centers are not all the same. Cooling technology, climate, power sources, facility design and location all matter.

Rather than asking, “Do data centers use too much water?” we should ask, “How much water will this data center use?”

Instead of asking, “Will data centers increase my electric bill?” ask, “Who will pay for the infrastructure required to serve this project?”

Facts have more value in this conversation than assumptions.

Water, Power and Location

Water is a good example. Some data centers in warmer climates use significant amounts of water for cooling. Others, such as the Applied Digital data center in Ellendale, ND use very little.

North Dakota has also welcomed industries that require significant water, including ethanol production, soybean processing and oil development. We evaluate those projects based on their actual requirements and benefits. Data centers deserve the same treatment.

Electricity may be an even more important question. Large data centers can consume enormous amounts of power, and residents are right to ask whether they could end up paying for the infrastructure required to serve them.

The answer shouldn’t be, “Trust us.”

Utilities can structure agreements requiring large-load customers to pay for the generation, transmission and infrastructure they require. Policymakers at the federal and state levels are also examining additional ratepayer protections.

North Dakota should insist on a simple principle: data centers should pay the costs they create rather than shifting them to existing customers.

Location matters too. Data centers can be large, create noise and change the character of an area. A facility near residential neighborhoods deserves a different conversation than one located in an appropriate industrial area.

Sometimes the concern really is NIMBY, and that’s not necessarily unreasonable. Good zoning matters.

And Yes, Some of This Is About AI

We should also acknowledge that some of the concern isn’t really about the buildings. It’s about artificial intelligence.

For some people, AI raises legitimate questions about jobs, privacy and how technology will change society. For others, it brings to mind the science-fiction version of machines taking over the world. Call it the Skynet concern.

But whether we’re excited about AI or terrified by it, the technology isn’t going away.

AI is becoming part of healthcare, agriculture, manufacturing, education, banking and nearly every other industry. All of that computing requires physical infrastructure somewhere.

In some ways, I think this generation’s buildout of computing infrastructure has parallels to bringing electricity to farms and rural America generations ago. We don’t know exactly where AI will lead, but it has the potential to fundamentally change and strengthen our economy.

Refusing to build the infrastructure doesn’t stop that change. It simply determines where the investment occurs.

North Dakota Has an Opportunity

North Dakota has some natural advantages.

We’re an energy-producing state. We have land. We have a cold climate that can provide cooling advantages. And we have opportunities to locate large industrial developments away from residential neighborhoods.

That doesn’t make every data center a good project. It does mean we shouldn’t stick our heads in the sand and ignore an industry where North Dakota may have a competitive advantage.

Ask hard questions. Understand the water requirements. Protect electric ratepayers. Address noise. Choose appropriate locations. Understand the incentives being requested and make sure the economics benefit the community.

If a project can’t meet those expectations, we should be willing to say no.

If it can, we should also be willing to say yes.

West Fargo Is Having the Right Conversation

The good news is that I believe West Fargo is approaching this the right way.

This week, the Fargo Moorhead West Fargo Chamber of Commerce hosted its Midwest Technology Summit in West Fargo and dove into many of these issues.

On September 17 at 7:00 p.m., Civic West will host a community forum on data centers at the West Fargo Fire Department. It will be another opportunity to ask questions, hear different perspectives and better understand the opportunities and concerns.

This is exactly what we should be doing.

Let’s have the conversation before a billion-dollar project is sitting in front of us and everyone feels pressured to make a decision quickly.

Let’s understand residents’ concerns and establish expectations around location, water, electricity, noise, infrastructure and economic benefits ahead of time.

Then, if an opportunity comes along, we’ll be prepared.

Facts Over Fear

I don’t think communities should blindly welcome data centers.

I also don’t think we should blindly reject them.

Asking questions isn’t anti-development. It’s responsible. But those questions should lead us toward facts and ultimately toward good decisions.

We shouldn’t dismiss legitimate concerns. We should work through them.

And we shouldn’t allow misinformation, fear, or examples from completely different projects in completely different parts of the country to make our decisions for us.

North Dakota has some real advantages in this emerging industry. We should understand them and determine whether we can use them responsibly.

Ask hard questions. Demand factual answers. Then make the decision based on the facts.

Those decisions were made for a reason. The city determined that attracting a business, encouraging an expansion, or supporting a particular project was good for West Fargo’s long-term economic growth.

But there is an important piece of those decisions that I think deserves more attention: Who pays for the incentive while it is in place?

Today, when the City provides a property tax incentive, the City simply collects less property tax revenue from that property for the duration of the incentive.

That means the City’s general budget absorbs the lost revenue.

I believe there is a better approach.

Use Economic Development Dollars for Economic Development

West Fargo has an Economic Development Sales Tax Fund. These are dollars specifically set aside to support economic development in our community.

My proposal that I made in July is pretty simple:

Each year, calculate the amount of City property tax revenue we are foregoing because of previously approved economic development incentives, and reimburse the appropriate city fund for that amount using the Economic Development Sales Tax Fund.

In other words, make the City budget whole.

If West Fargo would otherwise have collected $500,000 in City property taxes from properties receiving previously approved economic development incentives, we would transfer $500,000 from the Economic Development Sales Tax Fund to replace that lost city revenue.

The incentive remains exactly as it was approved. The business receiving it sees no change. Property owners see no new tax. I’m happy the full commission agreed and our 2027 budget will pay for these past economic development efforts with dollars already dedicated to economic development.

What This Proposal Is NOT

This distinction is important.

This is not a new tax.

This is not a proposal for a new sales tax.

This is not a new property tax incentive.

And it is not a proposal to retroactively change the incentives that businesses were previously promised.

It is about how the City accounts for the financial impact of incentives that have already been approved, including incentives dating back more than a decade that may still be affecting City revenues today. Yes, it’s really just a boring accounting thing.

Those incentives were economic development investments. I believe it makes sense for our existing economic development resources to cover their cost.

Why Does It Matter?

City budgets ultimately come down to revenues and expenses.

When we approve an incentive that reduces property tax collections, the city’s expenses don’t automatically decline with it. We still need police officers, firefighters, streets, parks, snow removal, and all of the other services residents and businesses expect.

The revenue simply isn’t there.

Over time, multiple incentives can add up to a meaningful amount of foregone revenue.

Meanwhile, we have an Economic Development Sales Tax Fund specifically intended to help advance economic development.

To me, connecting those two things makes sense.

If an incentive was provided for economic development purposes, using economic development dollars to cover its cost creates a clearer and more transparent picture of what those incentives actually cost the city.

It also helps protect the health of our annual operating budget.

It Also Creates Better Accountability

There is another benefit to this approach.

Economic development incentives are sometimes discussed as though they don’t cost anything because the city is simply “giving up revenue” it otherwise might not have received.

There can certainly be good reasons to use incentives. But they still have a financial impact, and I believe we should be transparent about that impact.

By calculating the amount each year and reimbursing the City from the Economic Development Sales Tax Fund, the cost becomes visible.

Residents could see exactly how much existing incentives cost the city each year.

City leaders could see how much of our economic development resources are already committed through previous decisions.

And when future incentives are considered, we would have a much clearer understanding of their long-term financial impact.

That is good budgeting and good transparency.

A Simple Principle

My thinking comes down to a straightforward principle:

Economic development incentives should be paid for with economic development dollars.

West Fargo has already collected and set aside sales tax dollars for economic development. At the same time, our annual budget continues to feel the impact of property tax incentives approved for economic development purposes over many years.

Connecting the two would help strengthen our budget, provide greater transparency around the true cost of incentives, and put existing economic development dollars to work for exactly the purpose they were collected for.

No new tax.

No new incentive.

Just a more responsible way to account for decisions we’ve already made. I think there is an idea here to think about going forward. Maybe we should stop giving out any property tax incentives and instead use these dollars to pay out directly based on set outcomes. For example, pay out an amount to a new business each year for a period of time based on hitting certain hiring goals. We are in a unique position to be able to think about this and execute on this differently while protecting the city’s bottom line.

As we work through West Fargo’s preliminary 2027 budget, I’m pleased with where we are. The budget is in a solid position, it is fiscally conservative, and I believe we’ve taken several important steps toward making our budgeting process more sustainable and predictable.

Here are a few updates worth highlighting.

Putting City Hall Rent Where It Belongs

One change I strongly support is moving the cost of our City Hall rent into the annual operating budget.

In previous years, the city chose to pay this expense from our reserve fund. While that kept the expense out of the annual budget, City Hall rent isn’t an unexpected or one-time expense. It is a known, recurring cost.

If we know we’re going to spend the money every year, I believe it should be reflected in the budget every year.

Including the rent in our operating budget provides a more accurate picture of what it actually costs to operate the city and protects our reserves for the purposes they are intended to serve.

Very Limited New Hiring

Personnel is one of the largest ongoing expenses for any city, and every new position we add creates a financial commitment that extends well beyond a single budget year.

For 2027, we’ve been very disciplined about adding staff.

The preliminary budget includes just one new position, in our finance area.

As West Fargo continues to grow, there will always be requests and legitimate needs for additional employees. But particularly in an environment where revenue growth is constrained, we need to be thoughtful about adding permanent expenses.

A 2.5% Cost of Living Adjustment

We’ve also reduced the proposed cost of living adjustment, or COLA, for city employees to 2.5% in the preliminary budget. It’s worth noting that most employees also get a ‘step’ in their compensation in the ballpark of 4% - 5%.

Our compensation and benefits are something we need to evaluate closely before we form the 2028 budget…the costs seem unsustainable. That said, our employees are critical to providing the services residents depend on every day, and maintaining a strong workforce remains important. Finding the right balance will be important over the next year.

Planning Ahead for Equipment

Perhaps the change I’m most excited about is the creation of a dedicated equipment fund.

Cities require some very expensive equipment. Fire trucks, snowplows, garbage trucks, and other major pieces of equipment can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in some cases significantly more.

The challenge is that we don’t purchase those items every year.

Historically, that has contributed to significant ups and downs in our annual budgets. One year might have relatively modest equipment needs, while another could include several major purchases.

With the new 3% property tax increase limit, that approach becomes increasingly difficult to manage.

The equipment fund allows us to plan ahead. Instead of waiting until a fire truck or snowplow needs to be replaced and absorbing the entire expense in a single year, we can begin setting aside money annually for equipment we know we will eventually need.

Think of it like saving for your next vehicle before your current one needs to be replaced.

This should help smooth out future budgets, make our expenses more predictable, and reduce the likelihood that a major equipment purchase creates a sudden financial challenge.

Where We Go From Here

This is still a preliminary budget.

There is additional work to do, and spending can still be reduced before the final budget is adopted. What cannot happen from this point forward is an increase in the proposed tax rate.

That distinction is important. The preliminary budget establishes the ceiling, not necessarily the final number.

I believe the 2027 budget puts West Fargo in a solid position while also introducing some important changes to how we plan for the future. Moving recurring expenses into the operating budget, limiting new hiring, taking a measured approach to compensation, and planning ahead for major equipment purchases are all steps toward a more disciplined and predictable budgeting process.

Most importantly, the process isn’t finished yet.

West Fargo will hold a public meeting on the 2027 budget on Tuesday, September 8, 2026. I encourage residents to attend, learn more about the budget, ask questions, and share their feedback.

A city budget is ultimately a reflection of priorities. The more our community understands and participates in that process, the better those decisions can be.