Listen to Dori Monson weekdays on KIRO Radio 97.3 FM
 Dori Monson


spu.jpg
Seattle Public Utilities' new South Transfer Station was built to replace the existing recycling and disposal facility in the South Park neighborhood, which has become obsolete since its construction in 1965. (Photo courtesy Mortenson Construction)

Is Seattle Public Utilities being too 'picky' about the city's new dump?

BY Brandi Kruse  on February 5, 2013 @ 11:18 am (Updated: 7:47 pm - 2/5/13 )

Disagreements between Seattle Public Utilities and the contractor building a new, multi-million dollar city dump have cost ratepayers more than a million dollars and delayed the opening of the facility for more than seven months, KIRO Radio has learned.

While the contractor feels they designed and built a state-of-the-art facility that should have opened on schedule and come in on budget, it remains closed because SPU admits to being a "picky customer."

Last week, KIRO Radio highlighted two main issues during construction of the $75 million South Transfer Station, which was scheduled to open in June 2012. A third came to light only after several sources who work for the utility came forward.

The first problem occurred in June 2011 when the steel structure of the building, a portion of which had already been erected, was taken down and repainted. It was put back up three months later. SPU spokesperson Andy Ryan said the utility thought a more durable paint should have been used in order to cut down on long-term maintenance costs.

"We had a forcible discussion with our contractor throughout the project, before and during the taking down of the structure, in which we expressed our opinion that a better paint should have been put on there," Ryan said.

But the contractor tells KIRO Radio the original paint was up to specification and did not need to be changed.

"In our opinion, what we were trying to give them was a state of the art facility," said Mortenson Construction Vice President Jim Yowan. "We gave them a high performance paint. They decided they wanted something that was even better than what we gave them."

In the end, Ryan said the city and the contractor came to a compromise in order to avoid a lawsuit. They agreed to split the cost of the new paint, which was $2.7 million.

"I don't think anyone would debate that the dollars in question were pretty significant," Yowan said of the cost associated with changing the paint.

SPU feels differently.

"In the context of the cost of this [project] and the impact to ratepayers, it's not significant," Ryan said.

The utility and contractor also disagree about a clearance issue that continues to keep the facility closed.

The problem was discovered before SPU held a ribbon cutting ceremony for the new facility in May 2012.

According to SPU, a tunnel area of the building designed for trucks to come in and out was not built with sufficient clearance, which the utility said became apparent once a sprinkler system was installed.

"These sprinklers are something that just didn't show up on the drawing boards," Ryan said. "It showed up as soon as our operations people walked through and looked at them."

SPU was concerned that if a truck had debris sticking out of the top, the sprinkler system might be torn down. The utility asked the contractor to move the sprinklers to the side of the tunnel, which is being done right now.

While they agreed to make the change, Mortenson Construction feels as if the area had sufficient clearance for trucks even with the sprinklers where they were.

"The ceiling height was adequate for a truck to go through there," Yowan said. "If something was haphazardly sticking out of a trash hauler that could be one feet or ten feet. To plan for the eventuality of that is highly inefficient and very costly."

The cost to alter the sprinkler system to allow for better clearance is estimated at $300,000. The city will pay for one-third of that change, according to Ryan.

Ryan said the cost is a "drop in the bucket," compared to what the utility would be faced with if a truck brought the sprinkler system down.

"Do the math," he said.

Both sides agree that the building would have been completed as planned by June 2012 had it not been for the clearance issue, but unlike the contractor, Ryan said the utility is in no hurry to get the project finished.

"Honestly, this facility isn't needed online for quite some time," he said. "We have another facility that's operating right now. It's old and as you have seen it is dirty and falling apart but it's still good for a while."

A third disagreement between SPU and the contractor has to do with asphalt outside the building that was put down, then torn up and replaced.

While the asphalt was up to Seattle Department of Transportation specifications, Mortenson said SPU wanted something else.

"SPU realized that they would rather have a pavement that would be denser, more what you'd see on a road," Yowan said. "We scraped off the top layer and put a new layer down."

SPU said the cost of the replacement and who will cover it is still being sorted out between the two parties.

It is still unclear when the facility will open, although SPU has estimated it will be sometime in the first quarter of the year, nearly a year after a premature ribbon cutting ceremony. The most current data available shows that the project is over budget, at approximately $75,512,000. The government-approved figure was roughly $74,116,000.

In the end, despite their disagreements, both the utility and the contractor can agree that ratepayers will be getting one really nice dump.

Brandi Kruse, KIRO Radio Reporter
Brandi Kruse is a reporter for KIRO Radio who is as spontaneous and adventurous in her free time as she is on the job. Brandi arrived at KIRO Radio in March 2011 and has already collected three regional Edward R. Murrow awards for her reporting.
More Dori Monson

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (20)


  • Add A Comment

  • Moondoggie wrote...
    Good work if you can get it!
    February 5, 2013 1:19 pm
    I would love to have Andy Ryan’s job. He doesn’t have to worry about when his project gets finished, and the cost doesn’t seem like its much concern either. It is also great to hear him say that we don’t really need the new dump right now anyway.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Disgraceful
    February 5, 2013 1:26 pm
    Will anyone at SPU be held accountable? Will anyone be Fired? This is absolutely unacceptable. And mark my words, in about 3 months these jackasses will say they need another rate increase....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    Is Seattle Public Utilities being too 'picky' about the city's new dump?
    February 5, 2013 1:36 pm
    Pretty much sounds that way, as a GC you build to plans and specs not to what people think they should have. Building a structure isn't a wish list unless you have very deep pockets..........oh, snap, SPU has the taxpayers, what was I thinking.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Dirt wrote...
    Where is the cost accountability here???
    February 5, 2013 2:03 pm
    $300 grand for a sprinkler change order?? ehh no big deal; $1.35 million for repainting??? no problem! $Who knows how much for asphalt?? we got it covered! Where is the accountability for the person who developed the requirements? On top of that, how is it that this guy basically admits that a public utility built something they don't need, spent millions on change orders, went $25 million over the original budget and then still has a job??? It seems SPU doesn't care, cause the trickle down is only pennies to each rate payer....eventually those pennies add up!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Newton wrote...
    Its Not a Dump.
    February 5, 2013 2:36 pm
    Its a FEMA Camp. For the concentration camps. Watch them move a giant oven in there. Dave Ross can test it out. That would Be Good!.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Moondoggie wrote...
    Gee wiz Newton
    February 5, 2013 2:46 pm
    Did you really need to go there?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Moondoggie wrote...
    When I was young,
    February 5, 2013 2:51 pm
    We had to take our garbage to a dirty, sticky, dump. You can’t imagine the shame our family felt knowing that our garbage was going to such a horrid place. 40 years later, my little brother still has flashbacks.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    Over time and over budget
    February 5, 2013 2:55 pm
    Situation: Normal
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Shooting Treys wrote...
    The worst way....
    February 5, 2013 3:06 pm
    ...to build a building is the design/bid process. A designer designs the building in a vacuum (without the expertise of a contractor)...and then bids it out. The low bid contractor then finds everything that was left out and even comes up with new ideas that would have been useful during the design phase. This process of building is just not healthy for anyone involved.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • monkeyal wrote...
    What is the address and zip code
    February 5, 2013 3:36 pm
    of this new dump?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }