Highlights of the Fort Smith Board Of Directors Study Session 7/27/21
Kitties and Kanines Shelter gave a presentation updating the Board on their performance since they entered a contract with the city 2 years ago. They highlighted their efforts in microchipping pets for free, in getting lost pets returned to their owners, and finding new homes for stray and surrendered animals. They also mentioned their low-cost vaccination program and participation in a feral cat trap-neuter-release program. So far, Kitties and Kanines has taken in 3744 total animals, including 3239 strays , 617 owner surrenders, and 54 trap-neuter-release.
The Directors and Mayor expressed thanks to Kitties and Kanines and expressed satisfaction with their efforts. Dawson called them “Good stewards” and said they’d exceeded her expectations with the microchipping. City Administrator Geffken called the shelter “a success”.
Kitties and Kanines expressed interest in renewing their contract and future discussion of partnering with the city on an effort to build a new shelter building.
Dawson kicked off a little discussion concerning the animal licensing program that was originated around the same time that Kitties and Kanines was granted their contract but that has yet to get actually up and running.
The program has yet to be started because Docupet, the company selected to run the program, was not agreeable to the fee structure that the city had worked so very long and hard to devise. Docupet wanted a flat $10 annual fee per pet instead of the structure that Fort Smith had planned that the Board felt was more accommodating to citizen concerns in our specific city. So the licensing ordinance that was passed fell by the wayside instead of being implemented.
Morton expressed his opinion that with the improvements that Kitties and Kanines has been doing that the animal situation has improved and that he hopes that we can in the future work toward a voluntary spay and neuter program in collaboration with them instead of any sort of mandatory licensing program.
There was discussion of what to do about the bid for construction of Cell A-6, a new space to put waste into at the landfill. The project was originally set to accept a bid in May, but the original bid is no longer valid. The extra discussion and consideration on the matter was started because there was only one bid received, a bid of around $9.5 million. In addition to being a big expense, that bid was a long way off from the engineers’ initial April 2018 estimate of $3.5 million for the project.
Additionally, Director Settle wanted to delay decisions and action on the project until a new Department of Solid Waste Director is hired. He doesn’t want to have a new director come in immediately burdened with a $9.5 million construction project and hopes that a new director might even come in with fresh ideas on how to deal with it more cheaply.
Settle questioned the need for a half million dollar item attached to the project for a truck wheel washing station. That part was proposed by the former department head who had received complaints from neighbors about dirt tracked onto the road by garbage trucks. Settle suggested a simple hose as a cheaper alternative. The Board seemed to agree that that part of the project should be canceled at this time.
The engineer mentioned that about $1.5 million could potentially be cut from the plan if the State were to approve modification of our permit (based on newer landfill building practices) that would allow us to use netting and regular soil from our site instead of having to buy drainage sand. That $4 versus $30 a cubic yard would be a considerable savings. The engineer felt that it was realistic that we might be able to get the cell A-6 project cost for what we need done down to closer to $5 million.
The cell we have open at the landfill and are using currently has 22 months of life left at our current disposal rates. It will require about 16 months for a new cell to be constructed and approved by the State. So there is a time sensitive component to dealing with the issue before we run out of a place we’re legally permitted to keep putting the garbage.
Based on current volume averages the new Cell A-6 would give us 5 1/2 more years’ capacity. The Directors seemed surprised at the shortness of the additional lifespan the costly project would give us. They did not like that even if we got the pricetag down to $5 million that it would only buy us 5 years. Dawson and Settle requested the engineers to look into a plan that would allow us to go bigger at once to save money in the long run via economy of scale. A different plan would require all new approval from the State.
Morton would like to see more competitive bids. He feels one single bidder does not necessarily help assure we’re getting a good price. Also he’d like to see more market research conducted on the market value of similar services to be more certain how bids we receive stack up against that average.
There was discussion about how to increase the numbers of bids considered. Attracting experienced contractors from areas farther away was something that seemed to generate a lot of interest from the Board. Potentially waiving the current preference for local vendors was an idea that was also received positively. City policy would need to be officially modified to allow for that sort of waiving. It was decided that that issue of waiving the preference for local vendors would be added to the same agenda when we revisit the landfill cell construction issue.
Settle pointed out that 3 of the Directors were absent from tonight’s study session and the other members agreed that it was better to wait to make a more definitive decision and instead to discuss the issue further again and make that decision on a night when everyone was able to be there.
