Commissioners deny Superior Court request to use building funds for office upgrades; jurists' law books prompt surplus debate

The Walla Walla County Board of Commissioners on Monday denied a Superior Court request to use county building funds for painting and flooring in a judge’s chambers, voting 3-0 to reject the proposal.

Rob Grandstaff, speaking for Facilities, said an elected official had requested work that would require building funds and outside contractors because the county lacks in‑house capacity. "We don't have the capacity to do it in house, so we would need to get proposals," Grandstaff said. He noted a large collection of law books occupying a wall, and asked whether the board wanted staff to pursue proposals or hold the request for a later, broader courthouse planning effort.

Commissioners and staff discussed practical steps, including surplus procedures and storage. Commissioner Kimball suggested moving books without immediate surplus declaration, but county staff and a judge’s committee representative said the law-library committee preferred to retain certain materials. County staff explained the surplus process requires an itemized listing of county‑purchased assets — "you have to list each of the items" — and public notification and hearing procedures under county policy and state statute.

Commissioner Clayton and other commissioners said courthouse space planning and a possible future workshop on courtroom access and circulation made postponement reasonable. Commissioner Clayton said an architectural review of the whole courthouse would be useful before isolated upgrades. "I think that we need to look at the whole courthouse as a whole," Clayton said.

After discussion, Commissioner Kimball moved to deny Proposal 20205310 (Superior Court request to use building funds for office painting and flooring); Commissioner Clayton seconded. The motion passed 3-0.

The board directed staff to include the request in long-range facilities planning and consider budgeting the work in a future cycle rather than using current building funds. Staff estimated it could take six to eight months to surpluses, find storage, and schedule in‑house work given current staffing constraints; staff also flagged that painting and carpet removal could trigger additional follow‑on work (shelf removal, patching and repainting) that can cascade into a larger project.

The commissioners approved a motion to deny the single‑project funding request but left open the option to revisit the chambers improvements as part of a larger courthouse planning and budgeting effort.