Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting 1/11/22
At the Fort Smith Board of Directors study session meeting held 1-11-22 there was discussion about the bids received for construction of the new A-6 cell at the landfill. Last spring bids were solicited for the project and only one bid was received and at $9.5 million it was significantly above the expected estimate for the project. So the bid was allowed to expire and the bidding process was started over. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality approved design changes that result in less excavation of bedrock and the use of a netting that eliminates the need for drainage gravel to be put in. These changes in the plans helped reduce the costs for the project. In response to the lack of bids on the previous try, this time the city advertised the opportunity in the Southwest Times Record, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, and Tulsa World. Also, TerraCon (the engineering consultants on this project) reached out directly to several highly qualified and experienced construction companies that they knew of to make sure that they were aware of the opportunity and invite them to bid. In addition, instead of the mandatory pre-bid conference, bidders were only invited to attend an optional one ( 2 attended and 1 other visited the site at another date).
This time, the city received 3 bids. Two were in the high $7 million range and the third bid was just over $4 million. Terracon studied and verified all of the bids (especially with the wide gap between the other two and the lower one) and they recommended that the city consider accepting the lowest bid, from a company out of Shreveport.
Director Settle inquired how long we might be able to expect the construction project to take to be completed. Terracon responded that it should take about 6 months.
Sparked by the lack of bids on the previous round of bidding for the A-6 cell project, there was discussion scheduled for the agenda for this meeting about possibly making changes to the 5% local preference policy for bids for city contracts. Director Morton expressed concern that the 5% preference might discourage bidders from outside the city from bidding and that might result in higher prices. He expressed being most concerned about that effect on big expensive construction contracts where the margin for profit is thin and the process of bidding is a big effort. He worried that some out-of-town companies might not want to spend the time and effort to make a bid if the local preference was likely to result in them not winning the bid anyway. He expressed wanting to make sure that the city gets the best price for the taxpayers. He stated that anytime there is less than 3 bids, he questions if the city is getting the best price.
Director Dawson mentioned the $100,000 cap on the local preference and expressed her view that because of that the impact on those big construction contracts is less of an issue. She said that on million dollar contracts the cap “narrows preference so much that it’s not really contingent on that” and the local preference makes the most difference on small contacts. She agreed with Director Morton on wanting to get the best price but also expressed that the city “can’t just look at that price” but also has to consider the economic impact of keeping money in the local economy via buying from local businesses. She mentioned a situation where a small privately-owned local tire vendor narrowly won a bid with the city versus a big national tire chain just because of the local preference policy and that the owner had discussed with her how important that was to their business. If they’d lost the bid, they may have even gone out of business. She said the city needs to balance the best price with the effects of buying local and that she is “very for” the 5% preference. Director Morton agreed that it is “never harmful” on small contracts.
Administrator Geffken discussed the pros and cons of having mandatory pre-bid conferences. The main advantage is that they reduce the need for change orders after the project is started. The main disadvantage is that they may reduce the number of bidders.
Director Settle spoke about experiences the city had in the past before the local preference policy was enacted. He mentioned trouble with businesses from outside the city low-balling to win the bids and then adding change orders later. He mentioned that being far less of a problem with local companies that are invested in our city. He called the policy “fair” and referring to other cities in our state pointed out “everybody’s doing it”. He reminded that the Board always has the option to reject any bid.
Mayor McGill brought up that labor shortages are impacting construction contract bidding statewide. He said the lack of bids and construction providers is a widespread issue enough that it was a recent topic discussed at the weekly meeting for Arkansas mayors.
The 5% local preference for bids issue will be brought back to another study session at a future date after Administrator Geffken has met with department heads and done more work on crafting possible modifications to the policy.
Director Settle brought up the need to schedule the neighborhood meetings that the Board agreed they wanted to have when they postponed the sales tax renewal vote previously scheduled for February. Director Morton mentioned that he is working on a 15 minute presentation that could be used at those neighborhood meetings as well as with meetings with other civic groups and gatherings. Director Dawson expressed wanting all of the Directors to attend every one of the neighborhood meetings they could and that every meeting needs to hear the same message. Director Catsavis suggested combining the Ward 1 and Ward 2 meetings and the Ward 3 and 4 meetings as he was worried that not many people may show up. Director Settle argued that one is needed in every ward and that it’s about a sales tax, so people will show up. Director Catsavis asked if “the anti-tax crowd wants to debate, are we gonna debate them?” . Settle responded that “It’s just an informational session”. Director Rego proposed that after hearing the feedback from the public during the meetings that the issue be added to a study session to discuss exactly what to put on the ballot.
The meetings were tentatively planned to be held one in each ward every Thursday evening starting with January 20, 2022. And then there would be the study session and voting on approval at a regular Board meeting and a likelihood of the sales tax renewal issues being up for public vote on the May 10, 2022 ballot.
Administrator Geffken updated the Board on the progress on the proposed new dog park on 22 acres at Chaffee near the County soccer fields. It is planned soon as a partnership between the Fort Chaffee Redevelopment Authority, Sebastian County, and the City of Fort Smith. The land is set to be donated by the Fort Chaffee Redevelopment Authority and it will be maintained by the City. The plans for the park include fenced open room, water, trees, and benches.
Director Rego initiated discussion about televising Planning Commission meetings. Administrator Geffken responded that plans are already in the works to start televising them on the government access channel like the Board of Directors meetings. Director Settle chimed in that he’d like to see all of the commission meetings start to be held in the smaller room of the Blue Lion Building on 2nd Street where the Board of Directors study session meetings are held. Director Geffken confirmed that a plan is in the works for that,too. Soon the technology and staff and other necessary arrangements will be in place to start holding the meetings all in that location and broadcast the meetings.
