International Falls debate over police facility focuses on Kutaska renovation, cost uncertainty

International Falls City Council members and residents spent large portions of the March 3 meeting disputing whether to renovate the city-owned Kutaska building for the police department or to occupy space at the county Law Enforcement Center (LEC), with citizens demanding firmer cost estimates before construction proceeds.

Council had voted 4–1 at its Feb. 18 meeting to move forward with Kraus-Anderson for design and construction services for the Kutaska project; several speakers at Monday’s meeting sought to rescind or delay that course until the city provides a line-item cost analysis and clear comparison to the LEC option.

The dispute centers on how much space the police need, the projected construction and renovation costs and whether the LEC — which the county owns — could be reused. Resident Bill Valentine and others told the council they had been given or had found conflicting figures: a $1.6 million figure discussed by the council, separate higher contractor estimates and a two‑phase proposal that would raise total costs above $1.6 million. “There is currently no bid for $1,600,000. The 1.6 was being represented as the entire project,” Valentine said while reading a letter from another resident that questioned where the $1.6 million number came from.

Chief Kostrick told the council he has not requested or authorized any construction expenditures and said staff plan to present a detailed cost analysis before work proceeds. “I just wanted to let everyone know we haven't spent or approved any money yet,” the chief said. He also described two independent space studies the department commissioned — one by BKV and one by Kraus‑Anderson — and said the studies used different planning horizons and produced different space recommendations.

Council members and several residents debated projected square footage. Citizen Reynold Calder cited a comparative study and urged the council to explain why 13,000 square feet was being considered; others pointed out that the sheriff’s department and the city’s police department operate out of substantially smaller footprints now. Chief Kostrick said, on a typical night, the department generally staffs three personnel and that the earlier analyses included 20‑year growth projections.

Multiple residents warned that an open-ended authorization to a contractor could let costs escalate. “You have to be realistic,” resident Dennis Van Ryno told the council, noting construction estimates frequently rise. Several speakers asked the council to rescind the prior authorization or attach a dollar cap to future actions. No motion to rescind was made at Monday’s meeting.

City staff said the next practical steps are to complete and present an itemized cost breakdown (design, windows/door security, HVAC, roofing, interior security treatments, bullet‑resistant glass or film, mechanical/electrical work and contingency) so the council and public can compare options. City staff member Emma (staff) summarized the process: “This is one of many steps. This is a phased approach. One meeting doesn’t mean the police department’s moving tomorrow.”

Councilors and residents also discussed secondary concerns tied to the building: number and type of windows (chief’s office counted roughly 60), security upgrades, roof and mechanical repairs, and whether county departments would use unused LEC space if the city did not occupy it.

The meeting record shows the Feb. 18 motion to proceed with Kraus‑Anderson stands; councilors said they will schedule presentation of the requested cost and scope items so the public can review numbers before future votes.