Kootenai County justice building nears completion; commissioners direct interior blinds, note ADA and inspection costs

David Mendez, a construction consultant, told the Kootenai County Board of Commissioners on May 6 that the new justice building is largely on schedule, with upper floors nearing punch-list completion but several fit-and-finish issues and additional inspection costs remaining.

Mendez, identified in the meeting as "David Mendez with Turner and Townsend and Erie," said the project’s third floor (labeled Third Floor where a lower level exists) is essentially finished, the second and first floors are slightly behind, and the bottom floor is completing ceiling tiles, inspections and painting. He reported recent work including paving the sally port and asphalt approaches and early landscaping.

Why it matters: The board was asked to approve modest scope-management choices and a funding decision for window privacy treatments that will be paid from the project's furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) budget rather than as a construction betterment.

Mendez described several small change items. He said the project team recommended adding a guardrail or fence under a stair landing to eliminate a hiding space and cited a credit of $89.69 on juror tablet arms because the fold-down writing tablets are temporarily unavailable from the manufacturer. He also said the contractor requested an additional $4,600 for tablet arms after specifying a different, more expensive species of wood; he said he would research that item before responding to the contractor.

Mendez told commissioners that some added costs have arisen from inspection procedures. "I'm having to pay special inspections, having to pay more time because of the way that the inspections are happening," he said, explaining that above-ceiling inspections are being staged in small groups and require special inspectors to be present for longer periods.

Mendez also said the city has determined existing ADA ramps on Garden are not compliant with current standards, and that the county will need to remove and replace more concrete than originally planned. He described the measured cross-slope and running-slope requirements that triggered the additional work.

On window privacy, Jeff Waller (staff) presented options the board had previously asked him to study: full interior-and-exterior blinds, interior-only blinds, or a privacy/solar film. He displayed samples and a vendor quote packet. For the third floor, Waller said an interior film option was quoted at $7,800 for a 40-inch option or $9,400 for a 48-inch option. A full blinds quote (interior and exterior) was roughly $62,000; interior-only blinds across the identified spaces were about $50,000; a mix of film and blinds was estimated at about $24,000.

Waller said the prosecutor’s office reviewed the samples and raised privacy concerns with film, noting that film can allow the silhouette of a person to be seen from outside a workspace. He said that, based on that feedback, his recommendation was to install interior blinds now and defer any exterior treatment until the building has been occupied for a season to assess heat and solar loads.

Commissioners signaled agreement. One commissioner said they saw a need for full interior blinds now and that waiting on exterior treatment would be prudent; Waller told the board that the interior-only option would be covered by the FF&E budget. The board gave staff direction to proceed with interior blinds and to revisit exterior options later.

Mendez closed by noting that Stevens County, Washington, has requested a site visit to see the project; he said the board had no objection and that he would communicate the date when it is set.

The presentation did not include a formal motion or recorded vote. Staff and the construction consultant will return to the board if unresolved change-order items or costs require formal approval.