Committee Minutes

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
Monday, November 27, 1995 - 7:00 p.m.

Members present: Hagness, Beyer, Hamerlik, Klave.

1. Matter of adoption of Uniform Building Code, 1994 Edition,
by reference.
Bev Collings distributed copies of ordinance draft, only major change is in accessory buildings requirements, that if lot over 10,000 sq. ft. can go up to 1200 s.f. for accessory bldg.; no other significant changes; have notified builders, etc. and held meetings. Moved by Klave and Beyer to approve proposed ordinance and to introduce for first reading. Motion carried.

6. Matter of encroachment agreement for 2257 Springbrook Court
(encroachment into utility easement).
Clark Piepkorn, 1107 25th Avenue South, reported he pur- chased property in August, going through process of condoing, had survey done and part of house and garage in utility easement. Mr. Grasser reported that in going through Planning and Zoning, one of the conditions was to get encroachment agreement, utilities are installed, and no utilities in easement. Moved by Beyer and Klave that we enter into an encroachment agreement with the property owner. Motion carried.

5. C.O. #1, Proj. 3945, Highway 2 Beautification, landscaping.
Hugh Veit, KBM, Inc., reviewed change order with a deduct of $33,366.06 after adjustment to final quantities, etc. It was noted that the $60,000 for the extended warranty (Sherbrooke Sodding guaranteeing for 2 years) had been reduced by $7,200 because of removal of the ditch bottom. The committee directed engineer to increase retainage to complete the project. Moved by Hamerlik and Beyer to approve, subject to prorata of work left outstanding. Motion carried.

8. Matter of agreement with EnerTech Environmental, Inc., Uni-
versity of North Dakota Energy and Environmental Research
Center, and Energy and Environmental Research Center
Foundation.
Christi Stonecipher, recycling coordinator, reported that this is in reference to the City's agreement with EERC concerning waste energy project that the city council dealt with the summer of 1994 and set aside $200,000 in the budget for the testing of this new technology using Grand Forks garbage with the hope that what we would learn from this technology would be applied to a large commercial scale plant that would be built, possibly in Grand Forks. She presented draft agreement and that basics of the agreement is under section 2, scope of work - what City agreeing to, what EnerTech agreeing to and what EERC agreeing to; that EnerTech is a company out of Atlanta, GA which owns patent rights to the technology that EERC is testing for them. She stated that under agreement City will be giving $200,000 to the EERC in cost reimbursable expenses to conduct this test phase in their facility. (total value of test phase approx. $600,000),

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
November 27, 1995 - Page 2

with other funding from Dept. of Energy and in-kind. She stated that City would also be giving them 10 tons of garbage to do testing and agree to pursue any grants or additional funding if City gets the commercial scale plant; in return the EERC is giving information based on the testing they will be doing; EnerTech will grant the City an exclusive right of first refusal and will negotiate in good faith; technology is still undeveloped and untested. She stated EnerTech is giving City a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable license to practice it in the county of Grand Forks, and also the option to own part or all of the demonstration facility when they are done with it if it's built here.

Mr. Swanson stated that what EnerTech giving to the City is not a great deal, right of first refusal gives City little or nothing, because have not identified under terms or what conditions that plant would be located here; EnerTech can make proposal to City on a take it or leave it basis, could make proposal in such a manner that is designed and City can't afford it or won't accept it. He stated that the option to own all or part of the demonstration facility, is again same circumstances, not guaranteed anything; that agreement not particularly enforceable, not something that City is gaining anything concrete, reliable or enforceable.

Mike Jone, EERC, stated that agreement is first step, that their intention in bringing to the City was to identify what they see as a tremendous opportunity for the future; that EnerTech small company based out of Atlanta, GA and has been pursuing this technology and EERC working with them for about 3 years; he stated there is risk but also great opportunity for gain if everything goes forward; that what they see to date is nothing but positive items in terms of the technology. He noted that other groups are also very interested - large Japanese company is presently negotiating with them because they would like to buy into this technology, they see as opportunity they want to pursue in Japan, and in process there's also influx of capital coming in. He noted that there is no commitment beyond first stage; thinks they will see as viable alternative which will meet needs for the future of municipal solid waste problems that will exceed performance environmentally at reasonable cost; that they would like to see this in Grand Forks and would be major opportunity for economic development; and asked committee to give full consideration. He stated that he sees ownership issue as one that will be decided as project is put together. He stated that EERC has invested large amount of discretionary dollars that they receive from DOE through jointly sponsored research program where they match industrial dollars to the development; that they have invested lot of their time in building the program.

There was general discussion with the committee relative to type

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
November 27, 1995 - Page 3

of heat from burned garbage, and Mr. Jones stated they felt this could become fuel used steam plant at the University (low quality steam for heating); separation of ferrous metals, etc.; whether burning contaminants, plant emissions (that they are regulating terms of emissions from their facility and are obligated to deal with State Health Dept. in anything they do there.) He stated they have been in contact with Health Department and if next step goes forward, would go to Bismarck and review in more detail.

Mr. Swanson stated that he doesn't disagree with anything Mr. has stated, but has heard discussion that for the $200,000 City is getting something in return, that except for opportunity, City is buying testing and information, won't own technology. He stated that he received copy of FAX re. comments from EnerTech, that he had concerns re. two: 1) effective date; that he understands testing phase is one year; that one thing they are asking of EnerTech is to provide City with license to use the technology in some form or manner, that if testing won't be done for a year, doesn't make sense for EnerTech to give City license that's only good for a year during which the technology is not available, so arbitrarily selected ten years; EERC is suggesting 12 months. He stated other concern is Confidentiality, that they wanted specific term and were suggesting seven years, which had conflict from their own memo, as entire agreement only valid for one year, but his comment would be that that provision would last lifetime or whatever term of the agreement would be. He also stated that as government entity City might have obligations under open records law that EnerTech might not, they need to be aware of that as far as what documents they provide us, what written information they provide us, etc.

Moved by Beyer and Hamerlik to approve agreement, contingent upon review and revision by the city attorney. Motion carried.

2. Consideration of bids for water treatment plant:
a) chemicals
Hazel Fetters-Sletten, supt. of water treatment plant, distributed copies of bid tabulation, that everything about same as last year, some higher but not significantly, with exception of soda ash, where vendor made mistake last year and City held him to bid; monies budgeted. Moved by Beyer and Klave to accept low bids received (attached). Motion carried.

b) lime feeder
Ms. Sletten reviewed bid for two ea. lime feeders at $15,304 each, for a total of $30,608.00; that they had purchased used equipment earlier this year; and need to replace feeder only on units purchased in 1956; $50,000 budgeted ($6500 to purchase used unit incl. $3100 freight); leave $12,000 in budget line item. Moved by Klave and Hamerlik to accept the bid of Vessco, Inc., eden Prairie, MN in the amount of $30,608.00 plus $500.00 est.

MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
November 27, 1995 - Page 4

shipping cost. Motion carried.

c) floor scrubber
Ms. Sletten reported they received bids from four vendors, and only one met bid specs., Cole Paper; $10,000 budgeted. Moved by Beyer and Klave to accept the bid of Cole Paper in the amount of $6,945.00. Motion carried.

Hamerlik excused.

3. Request to call for bids for street sweeper.
Gary Fish, supt. of streets, stated they are requesting to write specs. for sweeper, which is budgeted in 1996 budget; that if they open this year, and award next year, save 8-10%. Moved by Klave and Beyer to approve request to call for bids. Motion carried. (comm. only)

Hamerlik reported back.

4. Matter of review of procedures for street maintenance (icy
conditions, etc.)
It was noted that Council Member Glassheim had referred this matter, but was not present. Gary Fish, street supt., reported they had plowed all streets in town over weekend. Mr. Fish stated procedures depend on amount of snow and conditions. Mr. Fish also noted that there has been increase in area to maintain; that they have better equipment but less manpower. There was some discussion re. overtime, scheduling of crews, etc. Mr. Vein noted that in last 5 years there has been considerable amount of increase in mileage, but not updated equipment or personnel. Member Beyer reported that she has received complaints from residents in her area, last to get plowed out, that their property taxes higher, tired of being last serviced; another complaint is icy approaches to Belmont. Member Klave also reported that he has received complaints (not cleaning close enough to curb causing problem for postal service. Member Hamerlik suggested to take back to department to see if can improve, adjust schedule, etc.; that this is best money spent for overtime - what people want and what paying for; and done by department rather than committee. Member Beyer suggested street department inventory parts for equipment having most breakdowns; Mr. Fish stated they do stock parts. The committee suggested rescheduling employees; however, Mr. Swanson stated that if they do, to do permanently, need to establish and identify work week, can't change on regular basis. The committee also suggested using private contractors, etc. Mr. Fish also reported they had more positive calls that complaints after last weekend. No action taken.

7. Matter of fence on 7th Avenue South.
Mark Aubol presented and stated would like to give to property MINUTES/PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE
November 27, 1995 - Page 5

owners; however, committee stated City has responsibility for maintenance. Mr. Aubol reported they are spending $700-1200 year for maintenance and suggested replacing with trees, etc. The committee asked him to come back with plans, etc.; and Member Beyer suggested that they apply for beautification funds. No action taken.

Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk

Dated: 11/28/95.