Provider profile
SERVPRO of Spokane County
Provider snapshot
What this listing says
Spokane County homeowners who need mold remediation and structural rebuild handled by one company, backed by a national franchise with 618 Google reviews at 4.9 stars.
Best for
- Spokane, Spokane Valley, and Liberty Lake homeowners dealing with mold after water damage who want one company to handle removal and rebuild
- Property managers and commercial facility operators who need large-loss restoration with minimal downtime
- Homeowners whose mold remediation requires asbestos or lead testing before demolition work can begin
- Insurance-claim situations where Xactimate-based documentation and adjuster coordination matter
About this company
SERVPRO of Spokane County is a restoration franchise on East Trent Avenue in Spokane, owned by Steve and Chandler Knight. Mold remediation is one piece of a broader operation that covers water damage, fire damage, storm recovery, and reconstruction. They hold a general contractor license (SERVPNS876BD), which means they can tear out mold-damaged material and rebuild the affected area under one contract.
The mold-specific differentiator here is the reconstruction capability. Most restoration companies stop after mitigation — drying, containment, removal — and leave you to find a separate contractor for drywall, flooring, and finishes. SERVPRO of Spokane County handles both phases with in-house crews. Their website describes using negative air pressure, HEPA filtration, antimicrobial treatments, and infrared thermal imaging to locate hidden moisture sources. They also run asbestos and lead testing before demolition, which Ken Kelly handles on most jobs based on review mentions.
The franchise has operated in Spokane for decades. Steve and Chandler Knight own it locally, though it operates under the national SERVPRO brand with access to corporate training programs and large-loss backup resources. They support local organizations including the Ronald McDonald House, Spokane Humane Society, and Second Harvest Food Bank.
A 4.9-star rating across 618 Google reviews is unusually strong for a restoration company with this volume. Most of the praise centers on fast emergency response — multiple reviewers describe crews arriving within an hour of a late-night or weekend call.
Services
Service area
Headquartered at 4625 East Trent Avenue in Spokane, Washington. Serves Spokane County including Spokane, Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, Cheney, Airway Heights, Mead, Colbert, Chattaroy, Deer Park, Nine Mile Falls, Millwood, and Otis Orchards. Northern coverage extends to Deer Park; southern coverage reaches Spangle, Fairfield, and Latah.
Review consensus
Josh Cervantes stands out as project manager across dozens of reviews — customers describe him as knowledgeable, responsive, and detail-oriented whether handling water mitigation or mold inspection. Ken Kelly (asbestos and lead testing) draws praise in at least 8 reviews for punctuality, clear explanations, and patience with questions. Travis, Christian, Derek, and Ralph form a frequently mentioned field crew praised for fast response and clear communication during emergencies. Jason (construction/drywall) and Noah get repeated mentions for skilled reconstruction work. Multiple reviewers note crews arriving within one hour of a call, including late-night and weekend emergencies. Two reviewers specifically mention the company coming in under budget.
8 found across 618 total reviews at 4.9★. Billing and invoicing problems drive the most detailed complaints. Gayle Rains found nearly $1,000 in charges for work never performed and spent months trying to get an itemized plumbing bill. Brittany Lee received a $1,000 bill after her insurance paid in full and was yelled at by Janet in billing when she questioned it — the owner apologized for that interaction and invited her to contact Chandler Knight directly. Katie Kist hired them for attic mold remediation and says the initial crew took false photos of clean areas instead of actually treating the mold; a second crew was sent but broke lights, a bathroom fan, and ceiling drywall. The owner waived her remaining balance but disputed her characterization of the testing and scope. Larry Kreyssler describes a flooring tear-out where the crew removed more material than the water damage warranted, and communication about return visits was poor. Kenneth Demonnin praised the field crew (Josh, Clayton, Jack) but says the office refused to move his furniture back until insurance payment cleared, despite his bad back. Jerry Perryman spent $50,000 on a basement rebuild and says shelving pulled loose from 5/8-inch sheetrock within a year — the owner says he placed abnormally heavy items on the shelves. Robert Buxton's small bathroom repair took two months with poor communication during the construction phase.
The split between field crew praise and office/billing complaints is consistent across the negatives. Customers who interact with technicians like Josh, Travis, Ken, and Derek rate the experience highly. Problems surface when the project moves from mitigation to billing, project management scheduling, or construction timelines. The owner responses vary: some are personalized and substantive (the Brittany Lee and Katie Kist responses name specific people and address details), while others are template deflections that invite the customer to call without engaging with the complaint. Donald Benz's 1-star review is from a rejected job applicant, not a customer — the owner confirmed this directly.
Josh Cervantes (project manager — praised repeatedly across many reviews). Ken Kelly / Kendall Kelly (asbestos and lead testing — praised in 8+ reviews for punctuality and thoroughness). Travis (field technician — praised for fast response and clear communication). Christian (field technician — praised for efficiency and honesty about pricing). Derek / Derrick (field technician — praised for mold spraying, setup work, and emergency response). Ralph (field technician — praised for quick work and professionalism). Justin (field technician — praised alongside Travis and Ralph). Reschel / Rechelle (field technician — praised for demolition work and emergency response). Jason D / Jason Walker (construction/drywall — praised for craftsmanship and project management). Noah (construction — praised for drywall and painting skill). Tyler Knight (project coordination — praised for fire damage mitigation). D'ontay / Dontay (field technician — praised). Heather (demolition — praised for tile removal). Janet (billing department — criticized for yelling at a customer and refusing to explain charges). Matt (denied warranty repair request — criticized). John (project manager — connected to mold remediation complaint involving false photos).
The field crews earn the 4.9-star rating — they show up fast, communicate well, and do solid work. The risk is in the billing and project management phase after mitigation ends. Request a detailed, line-item invoice before you approve any payment. Ask for Josh Cervantes as your project manager if you can. If your job involves reconstruction, get the timeline in writing and confirm who your single point of contact will be through the build phase.
Keep in mind
- Three recent reviewers describe billing errors and difficulty getting itemized invoices. One found nearly $1,000 in charges for work not performed. Another was told an itemized receipt did not matter because insurance already paid. If you hire them, request a line-item invoice before authorizing payment.
- They charge $250 for a bid, according to one reviewer. Confirm this before scheduling an estimate.
- Mold remediation is one service among many — water, fire, storm, cleaning, plumbing. Your project competes for crew scheduling with their emergency response work, and several reviewers noted delays and missed appointments during the repair phase.
- The service area spans all of Spokane County from Cheney to Deer Park. Crews dispatch from East Trent Avenue in Spokane, so response times to outlying areas will vary.
- One mold-specific complaint describes a crew that took false photos and failed to remediate properly, requiring a second visit and eventually a dispute over testing methods. The owner waived the remaining balance but disputed the customer's version of events.