After years of rotting away...the most usless ship in the world is sold!


#21

btw,the pliticians have been doing their dammedest to get that oil money away from us , they almost got it one year by sneaking sneaking in a re-alocation under another bill …

and mat-su is at it again,this time they are trying to fight mother nature,a lot of Alaska is swamp land,lakes that have been over taken by the natural growth ,they are trying to prevent it ,why ?? not sure but but i’d bet the farm it has to do with tourism


#22

The saga continues…

Cost of fixing never-used Mat-Su ferry triples to $3M

The ferry Susitna isn’t done with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough yet.

The Mat-Su Assembly learned this week that repairs to the water-damaged engines of the borough’s beleaguered, never-used passenger vessel could cost nearly three times more than expected – $3 million instead of $1.1 million.

[snip]

Heavy, sideways-blowing rains last year damaged three of the ferry’s four engines when water entered the right-angled stacks, Moosey said in an interview Thursday.

Efforts to sell or even give away the ferry faltered until the borough Assembly in early September authorized the $1.75 million sale to the Philippine Red Cross. The borough needs to fix the engines before the Red Cross takes ownership. That was supposed to happen by March 31.

The borough planned to do the repairs at Ward Cove, where the former U.S. Navy prototype has idled since 2011. But a New York engineer hired by the company insuring the ferry, Lloyd’s of London, found on a December visit that more extensive repairs are necessary, including a full removal and rebuilding of the engines, Moosey said.

“They felt it was way too risky to repair those in place,” he said.

The ferry needs to go to Seattle for that kind of work, so Moosey is asking the Assembly for almost $2 million out of another borough account – a land management fund that the manager says will be repaid after the insurance company pays for the repairs.


#23

Better to just auction it off yo the highest bidder — which might be for scrap.


#24

That damned directional rain’ll get you ever friggin time. If only someone could design something to prevent that sort of tragedy, like even a bucket.


#25

I think the govt should pay chouest to own it and maintain it.


#26

So easy even a coonass can do it.


#27

[QUOTE=tugsailor;178992]Better to just auction it off yo the highest bidder — which might be for scrap.[/QUOTE]

seriously! didn’t the Navee pay for its construction so why would the Borough need to recover anything? Why don’t they just abandon it or turn it in to MarAd to stick in the fleet? Of course, if insurance is going to pay for this ridiculous damage, then the Borough should cut a deal with the underwriters to take a lumpsum and then dispose of the pig as a CTL.

Also, $3M to repair engines with only fresh water in them? These engines are on deck so easy to remove and ship to Seattle to be repaired. Only a few cylinders should have water in them and the turbos would need to be replaced so what is the big deal here? It isn’t like the engines were submerged in saltwater!


#28
This is actually a good idea for one of the OSV companies to turn it into a flotel or work boat of some sort. I'm sure someone could figure out something to do with it maybe like a shallow water dive vessel for platform decom work.

#29

[QUOTE=Bayrunner;179016]So easy even a coonass can do it.[/QUOTE]

Alaskans are stoopider that coonasses.


#30

[QUOTE=c.captain;179027]Alaskans are stoopider that coonasses.[/QUOTE]

Easy there bub.

This thing has c.captain written all over it. There must be a use for it. If not strip all the expensive gear off and sell it. Turn the hull into an anchored fish camp.


#31

You take your stupid pills today? It’s the government, everything costs 3x or more.


#32

[QUOTE=z-drive;179065]You take your stupid pills today? It’s the government, everything costs 3x or more.[/QUOTE]

donchya know it! who is responsible for this debacle and WHY DON’T HEADS ROLL?

[B]Repairs to Whatcom County Courthouse could cost $34M [/B]

By Samantha Wohlfeil

BELLINGHAM-It could cost taxpayers $28.3 million to $34.1 million to repair the water-damaged exterior walls of the Whatcom County Courthouse and make other repairs, according to an assessment.

If approved, the repairs would be more expensive than the final $25.8 million bill for the 90,000-square-foot courthouse extension and remodel started in 1991. That project included the installation of the walls that are now crumbling in some places due to water collecting behind the brick.

Whatcom County Council members heard the news from HKP Architects partner Brian Poppe in council chambers Tuesday afternoon, Feb. 9. HKP, which has offices in Seattle and Mount Vernon, inspected and assessed the courthouse’s three connected buildings, built in 1948, 1972 and 1991.

“I apologize to be the bearer of bad news,” Poppe started. “We investigated the walls from the outside in and the inside out. … Drainage mechanisms that should exist in the brick walls don’t or are insufficient.”

Every time we opened a wall, we found something at variance with the as-built drawings. Brian Poppe, HKP Architects

Brick, which is porous, requires strategically placed holes so water can escape, but the courthouse walls have too few places for water to get out.

In some places, water channels were installed improperly; in others, overhangs on the roof line that are meant to prevent water from getting into the walls do not extend far enough, causing water to collect, Poppe explained.

The architecture firm also found that in most places, the way the building was actually constructed did not match “as-built” drawings the contractor provided at the end of construction on the 1991 extension.

“Every time we opened a wall, we found something at variance with the as-built drawings,” Poppe said.

Council member Barbara Brenner, who was on council at the time the courthouse addition was finalized in 1994, asked if there was any indication the walls were intentionally not constructed as they should have been.

“Yes,” Poppe replied.

Replacement or the ‘glazed box’

Poppe outlined two major options for the courthouse: replace the walls or keep them as they are and encase the newest part of the courthouse in a glass box.

The estimates – $28.3 million for wall replacement, $34.1 million for the “glazed box” – assume the worst-case scenario that construction could happen only between 4:30 p.m. and 11 p.m. because the building still would be needed for normal business.

Both options would keep the existing walls in place for the 1948 and 1972 portions of the building and install new drainage with a new brick or stone panel veneer to protect them from the elements.

Single-pane windows in the 1948 building would be replaced.

Both options would require a secondary wall to be built inside the building to protect people from the outside work.

Under option one, the walls would be replaced in kind, and appear essentially as they do now. Workers would strip the building to the wall studs and rebuild with the proper detailing, Poppe said.

Windows and sealants would be replaced with new units to meet energy codes, and construction likely would take around 16 months.

The second option would address the water issues by building a glass “box” that would extend 30 inches from the existing wall. Failing portions of the existing wall and windows would be replaced. That would likely take 14 months to build.

Poppe also said the county could take a maintenance approach and address issues with the roofing, windows, sealants and do regular work to replace cracked bricks.

“The building hasn’t gotten better on its own, and it’s not going to get better on its own,” Poppe said.

The council was not scheduled to vote on the issue Tuesday and took no action.
1991 courthouse extension

In 1990, the county hired KMD Architects and Planners to design an extension to the courthouse and an expanded juvenile detention space.

In December 1991, Strand Hunt Construction Inc. of Kirkland, the main contractor for the project, broke ground on the six-floor, 90,000-square-foot addition and remodel of the existing 60,000-square-foot courthouse.

The project was finished in April 1994, more than a year after the expected completion date.

We’re well beyond any period of recovery. Dan Gibson, chief civil deputy prosecuting attorney for Whatcom County

In addition to being 30 percent more expensive than the detailed estimations, the project had multiple issues.

:black_small_square: More than 100 county employees who worked in the courthouse during construction complained that they were sickened by chemical fumes and reported other construction-related hazards. About 350 reports for workers’ compensation were filed, according to articles published in The Bellingham Herald at the time.

:black_small_square: In September 1993, county Public Works Director Paul Rushing retired from his post. The next day he started work as an independent contractor overseeing the completion of the expansion.

Then-County Executive Shirley Van Zanten approved and extended the contract with Rushing without County Council approval, an action later deemed improper by state auditors.

Rushing later sued the county for the unpaid portion of his contract, and the county paid him a $30,000 settlement.

:black_small_square: On May 9, 1995, County Council voted 6-1, with Brenner dissenting, to pay a $2 million settlement to Strand.

In turn, Strand was allowed to sue KMD Architects in the county’s name to try to recover money to be paid to Strand for alleged issues with the design and oversight of the project.

Recourse

Current County Executive Jack Louws told the council in January 2015 that the county had no legal recourse against Strand at this point, as the county had agreed to an out-of-court settlement with the contractor long ago.

At the Feb. 9 meeting, council members asked to get a copy of the negotiated settlement.

The Bellingham Herald asked county legal staff for a copy of any additional settlement or arbitration separate from the 1995 agreement, but an arbitration file was not found and may have been destroyed under the allowable schedule for getting rid of documents.

Regardless, the statute of limitations for that type of claim has long since lapsed, explained Dan Gibson, the county’s chief civil deputy prosecuting attorney.

“We’re well beyond any period of recovery,” Gibson said. “Whatever happened back in the ’90s may be helpful for historical curiosity’s sake, but it doesn’t address anyone who’s thinking there might be recovery at this point.”

These days, the county uses outside inspectors to ensure contractors complete all work properly.

JUST GET A BIG GODDAMNED TARP TO THROW OVER IT UNTIL SOMEONE GOES TO PRISON!


#33

They just built a brand new 200,000 sf courthouse near me for $100 mil. Sounds like a ripoff out there!


#34

Anybody want to venture a guess as to what I just saw at the Foss Shipyard in Seattle?


#35

The Aiviq being painted Foss colors?


#36

Treehuggers working lines?


#37

Now you got my curiosity, C’mon out with what’s going on at Foss Shipyard.


#38

[QUOTE=salt’n steel;181542]Now you got my curiosity, C’mon out with what’s going on at Foss Shipyard.[/QUOTE]

obviously, the world’s STOOPIDEST vessel is there now…

[B]M/V Susitna arrives in Seattle after Mat-Su assembly delays repair funding decision[/B]

Zaz Hollander February 24, 2016


The Alaska Marine Highway Vessel M/V Susitna — under tow — passes in front of Gravina Island on Friday, Feb. 19, 2016.

WASILLA – The Matanuska-Susitna Borough’s ill-fated ferry made it to Seattle Wednesday, the M/V Susitna’s first journey from a Ketchikan-area dock since the borough acquired it in 2011.

If everything goes as planned, the Susitna will undergo engine repairs, sail to the Philippines to conduct humanitarian missions for the Philippine Red Cross – and never come back to Alaska.

Already there’s a slight hitch.

The borough Assembly met in a special meeting Tuesday and delayed until March 1 a decision on transferring nearly $2 million from a land management fund to the ferry to fix the engines, damaged by heavy rains last year.

The Red Cross agreed to buy the ferry for $1.75 million. The borough needs to fix the engines before the Red Cross takes ownership. That was supposed to happen by March 31.

The borough had a verbal but not written agreement to an extension of that deadline through June, Borough Manager John Moosey said Wednesday.

The Assembly, in a tie vote broken by Borough Mayor Vern Halter, on Tuesday agreed to delay the funding transfer approval decision to give the Philippine Red Cross board of directors time to meet and agree to a contract extension that factors in the time for repairs.

The Assembly entertained a motion to approve the funding subject to a signed agreement later but that motion failed.

The $1.9 million was in addition to about $1.1 million already earmarked for the engine work. The borough’s insurance company in December notified officials they wanted more extensive repairs than originally planned. Moosey contends any funds spent will be reimbursed later by insurance.

The borough got the star-crossed beach-landing prototype from the U.S. Department of Defense and then, using more than $12 million in federal grants, refitted it for passenger use in Cook Inlet between Mat-Su and Anchorage.

The ferry never started service, lacking funding for landings and other facilities, and the federal government demanded the money back.

If the sale continues, the ferry will sail from Seattle to the Philippines and not return to Alaska.


#39

the over paid outfit that was paid to maintain the vessel should pay for it… but then it was prob the tribe? (or tribe owned!)
gawd!, so many examples of billions wasted for lack of a tarp, bucket, … brain? and why send the whole thing to seattle?
keerimany, make sure you hire a struggling self employed business person if you ever need to run a ‘‘business’’.
At 60 + yrs. now I’ve seen govt. thinking change to where they now dictate the terms, it use to be otherwise. “for want of a nail”…

      • Updated - - -

well, it could be interesting to see what the Filipinos do to it…we may wish it was scrapped.


#40

[QUOTE=c.captain;181544]obviously, the world’s STOOPIDEST vessel is there now…[/QUOTE]
Wow, took long enough. I thought it was a softball question.

They’ve been serviceing some of the AMHS catamaran ferries in the yard this winter at Foss too but I have no idea why Foss is the spot for Susitna’s engine rebuild.