Fort Smith School Board moves forward with investigating, repairing Peak Innovation Center’s drainage issues

FORT SMITH — The School Board has decided to investigate who is responsible for the multiple flooding issues at Peak Innovation Center as the repairs are expected to cost almost $4 million, according to district construction project manager Joseph Velasquez.

Peak’s parking lot first flooded last June, putting a custodian’s car under water.

The center flooded for the second time during spring break in March, with water entering the front office area, the adjacent hall and nearby classroom areas, according to a news release from the district. The release said no classrooms had damage and the center was open the following Monday, with the office area closed for a few weeks for repair.

Peak flooded for the third time earlier this month , with Superintendent Terry Morawski emailing School Board members notifying them water again entered the office and the unfinished area nearby. He said the event wasn’t as extensive as the one in March, with no water damage to the carpet or any furniture.

The center opened to students in March 2022 and is a collaboration between the School District and the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith, but owned by the district. It serves roughly 280 students from 22 school districts across Crawford, Franklin, Johnson, Logan, Scott and Sebastian counties through the university’s Western Arkansas Technical Center program.

The center houses courses for automation and robotics; computer integrated machining; electronics technology and industrial maintenance; emergency medical responders; medical office assistants; network engineering; and unmanned aerial systems. It’s the last of the district’s Vision 2023 plan projects to be completed, which were paid for through a 5.558-mill property tax increase voters approved in May 2018 generating roughly $121 million.

At the School Board’s meeting Monday , Scott Archer, mechanical engineer and a owner of HSA Engineering, presented a drainage assessment for Peak and how it could be contributing to the flooding issues.

Archer summarized there are holes in the drainage system right next to the building, the drainage system was downsized from a 10 inch to an 8 inch pipe and other connections from other 4-inch to 12-inch pipes aren’t standard or properly sealed.

“So my recommendations are to abandon the existing below-slab drain pipe in the building. Just get rid of it, take it out of the equation. Rework the roof drain piping between the two buildings, and at that time, fix the roof drainage that are in the existing trough drain between the two buildings,” Archer said. “At the same time, we rework this roof drain piping, and we take it to the south end of the building, take it down and take it out to the ditch and make the pipe adequate.”

Archer said those fixes would cost an estimated $160,000.

Allen Deaver, Halff Associates project manager, in August presented the board five options to keep the lot from flooding.

The board approved a drainage project to raise the lower parking lot on the property and excavating the east field for a detention pond, which was estimated to cost about $1.4 million.

District construction project manager Joseph Velasquez presented ideas to modify the project by raising the parking as discussed, removing the 42-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipes, installing 4.5-foot by 6-foot box culverts and putting in a trickle channel.

Board President Dalton Person asked if Archer’s suggestions are in conjunction with or separate from the other projects.

Archer said it’s a separate project, but the district may need both projects to keep Peak from flooding entirely.

Board member Talicia Richardson asked who would be financially responsible for the flooding problems.

Morawski said the district would need to review communications and contractual obligations to determine that.

The board decided to have the district connect with a civil engineer and go forward with a potential design and cost estimate for the project.

At the board’s special meeting Wednesday , the board agreed to open a request for qualification for a consultant to investigate the multiple Peak drainage system failures as well as the current systems in place. The board agreed to have the consultant report to and operate under the direction of the board instead of district administration, and excluding board member Sandy Dixon, who’s also the president of Turn Key Construction, the construction manager at risk for the Peak project.

According to FEMA, a construction manager at risk advises the design firm during the project’s design and planning phases and often acts as the general contractor during the construction phase. The method is known as “at risk” because the construction manager negotiates a guaranteed maximum price during the design phase, and the construction manager will be responsible for any costs that exceed that amount.

Board members and administration questioned whether Dixon should be part of the investigation discussion at all, considering her position at Turn Key and other entities related to the Peak project don’t have the same opportunity to speak.

“I have only stated that I feel like a third party review is needed and necessary, and I welcome that,” Dixon said. “At the end of the day, I am not doing business with the district in any way. When I got on this board, the project for Peak was completed. No one thought that there would be another flood.”

District Attorney Marshall Ney said board statue allows Dixon to determine whether she wants to recuse or not. He said even if the discussion is not a conflict of interest, he feels there is an appearance of impropriety for Dixon to participate, which taints the entire board.

“As I have sat here and watched this discussion, the fact of the matter is while Ms. Dixon keeps going back to saying that ‘all I have said is that I’m in favor of the process,’ there has been a whole lot of editorializing about it’s the administration’s fault, it’s the design flaw, it’s everybody’s fault and it’s not Turn Key’s fault,” Ney said. “So the platform has been used for all of those things that make it uncomfortable for the public that have faith in the process when there is a discussion like that going on.”

Dixon ultimately didn’t recuse from the discussion of whether an investigation should take place, but did recuse after the board agreed it should.

Person said he thinks the scope should involve the consultant being on-site, interview all entities and review communications among them, as well as Peak designs, contracts, change orders and other documents related to the current drainage systems.

“Then I think they need to determine the inefficiencies, they need to make recommendations for improvement, and then ultimately what I’m after is prepare and present a report to the board as to failures, the parties at fault and ultimate recommendations,” he said.

Morawski said there isn’t a cost estimate for the review process at this point, and that it would be determined in the request for qualification process.