Consider Now Sta’s Side Of Plaza Project Story

Like a coin, a story has two sides. The time has come to provide the Spokane Transit Authority’s perspective on our Plaza project.

For eight years, STA’s team has been constantly challenged to flex and compromise. We have made continuous efforts, through openly debated actions, to deliver a major civic and transportation facility to our community.

This summer, the rewards will be worth the long wait.

Let me address some of the areas of controversy.

Cost comparisons: Before an architectural firm is chosen or design drawings are complete, budget figures for a project are just estimates. Comparing such estimates made in 1992 with actual figures from bids and contractor documents three years later can be misleading.

At the end of 1993, after the architect’s final design of the Plaza was submitted, construction cost was estimated at $13.8 million. The estimate today is $15.9 million.

The project total, when $4.7 million in land and other non-construction costs are counted, comes to $20.6 million.

Last-minute design changes: STA’s review of design drawings is intended primarily to catch mistakes and fill in some of the details that hadn’t been decided earlier. This includes corrections to items specified by STA but not included by the architect.

Although the architect was quoted as saying two additional months were needed in October 1993 to complete design drawings, project documents show only one month was asked. In response, the bid period was extended 28 days.

Rebidding parts of the project: To rebid Phase 3 - the exterior surface and interior finish work - would have incurred the cost of that process itself, delayed construction and may have meant higher materials prices - without assuring we’d get a lower bid.

STA therefore decided not to rebid. The architect team supported an engineering exercise which, according to their figures, identified changes that could have reduced Phase 3 costs by more than $500,000. Unfortunately, STA has not realized the entire benefit of that estimate.

Flat floor: Specifications called for a flat, level concrete floor. Because the concrete pours made last summer and fall are not completely level and flat, the company installing the tile floor on them will not guarantee its work unless corrective steps are taken.

Concrete vs. tile floors. It has been suggested that STA ignored the possible use of an embossed concrete floor. Actually, the original design called for terrazzo but that was deleted for a more durable and less expensive tile for a heavy-use facility. Embossed concrete was suggested as a bid alternative but , while initially lower in cost, it is porous, susceptible to cracking and subject to staining and discoloration unless kept clean and sealed.

This periodic sealing, and the uneven surface, add to mainenance requirements and markedly increase the hazard and liability risk from falls and slips. Thus, the move toward tile was made.

Project history: The transit problem in downtown Spokane has been the subject of many plans over at least two decades.

The joint-venture concept was developed by STA staff as a prudent means to stretch the use of public funds in conjunction with a compatible private development. It was pursued for several years, including through the courts, only to be dropped due to negative trends in lending markets.

Despite the innovative approach attempted and the efforts made, there still is resistance to the concept in Spokane.

Snow-melt system: This item was part of the original design. The estimated cost was $175,000.

During the value engineering of Phase 3 bids, the snow-melt system was considered essential. By last summer, the issue arose again and staff recommended that it be dropped because of unrelated construction changes and because the long-term operating savings weren’t enough to justify the cost of building it.

At the urging of the property management firm, the system was reduced to cover only the three main entrance areas and to be operable on the existing boiler system.

Last month, after further discussion of the system’s design and cost, the steering committee allowed another week for design completion and full cost information.

The staff again recommended to committee members that the system be dropped because of costs and further delays. On Jan. 17, the Steering Committee deleted the system in its entirety, saving significant funds.

xxxx