PANAMA CITY — The county commissioner who pushed to re-examine local preference for county contracts doesn’t want to reinstate the same ordinance that was nixed two years ago.
In December, Bay County Commissioner George Gainer asked county staff to return a report on bringing back the local preference ordinance, where area contracts would receive special treatment when bidding on county projects. The old ordinance allowed local contractors to submit a bid 5 percent higher than the lowest bidder and still win the contract.
The same five commissioners who sit on the board today voted 3-2 to repeal the ordinance in January 2012. Gainer and Commissioner Bill Dozier were the “no” votes.
The board will discuss bringing back the local preference today at their 9 a.m. meeting at the Bay County Government Center, and they potentially even may set a public hearing for a new ordinance.
Gainer said he had no interest in reinstating the old ordinance, as written. He doesn’t want the county to give a 5 percent discount; he wants area firms that bid within 5 percent of the lowest bid to have the option to take the job — if they match the lowest bid. That way the county gets the best price and the money stays local.
“All we’re really doing is hiring the local contractor, but we’re not giving up any money,” Gainer said of his proposal, adding, “I’m for the local preference; I just want to make sure that it doesn’t penalize Bay County.”
Gainer said local firms should be given an advantage because that ensures the contract money stays in the county, residents are put to work and the jobs stay here. He also likes working with a firm that will be a neighbor long after the job is done.
“I think it makes a big difference,” Gainer said.
County staff provided the board with three options on the measure: reinstate the old ordinance, use a proposed ordinance similar to the county School Board’s policy or craft their own.
Commission Chairman Guy Tunnell said he wants to hear what other commissioners have to say. He’s interested in bringing local preference back and said despite improvements, the economy remains difficult and this is another way to provide a business incentive.
While he appeared to like the staff’s draft ordinance, Tunnell also said Gainer’s suggestion was an “excellent idea” and a “great option.”
“That would solve the issue,” he said.
Tunnell recommended an improvement to the policy, though, saying the county should take the 5 percent requirement out of play and allow the local firms to match the lowest bid regardless of how much higher their bids were. He also voiced support for including a three-year sunset clause, saying it was important for future boards to address the need for local preference depending on the state of the economy.
Tunnell also was keen on the draft ordinance’s narrow definition of what a “local business” is. The draft ordinance would require the firm to hold a county street address for at least six months and that subcontractors could not be used for local preference, among other provisions.
The draft ordinance would give a 5 percent local preference, like the one did two years ago, to local firms headquartered in the county and a 3 percent preference to firms that only have a branch office in the county.
It would also put a $10,000 cap on the cost differential between the lowest bid and the local preference bid, which concerned Tunnell.
“I want to hear some more explanation on that; I’m not sure one way or the other on that,” he said.
County staff also gave the board a report on all contracts awarded from 2012 to today. The county bid 76 projects and 70 percent went to local firms. Most of the contracts that went to non-local firms were because a specific item or expertise was not available locally, according to the report. Of the 23 projects that went to non-local firms during this time period, only seven used local contractors, the report shows.
Countystaff also reviewed neighboring counties’ policies, but several had no local preference in place, the report said.