Landes bill would let county move courthouse
RICHMOND - Augusta County voters’ loud-and-clear decision to keep the county courthouse where it is in Staunton could be completely undercut if a new bill passes in the Virginia General Assembly.
Moving the courthouse out of downtown, even moving it all the way across the city to the Verona county border near the Augusta County Government Center, would be in play under the new legislation, introduced by Del. Steve Landes, R-Weyers Cave, as it would allow for the courthouse to be moved anywhere within the city without authorization from the electorate.
“That would be in my opinion, a slap in the face to the voters,” said former State Sen. Frank Nolen, who supported keeping the courthouse in Staunton ahead of the November referendum. “I don’t think the voters would like that.”
Landes said his aim was solely to provide the county some flexibility in determining a plan for the courthouse and admitted that the bill was very broad at the moment and may need amending. Plus, Albemarle County is dealing with a similar situation with its courthouse and he wrote the bill to address its situation as well, he said.
“My goal is to provide them some options,” Landes said. “Right now the county is hamstrung in being able to do anything with that property.”
Nolen said he thinks in voting by a margin of two to one to not move the courthouse to Verona, the majority of voters were concerned about the potential cost of moving the court to a new facility and with preserving the historic building.
If the bill, HB 2192, is passed, then the county could disregard both of those concerns by building a new facility anywhere within the city limits, even in a previously undiscussed location. Current state law only allows for a courthouse to be moved to land “contiguous” with its current location, as in to property abutting where it is now — not to the other side of the city — without electorate authorization.
Augusta County Board of Supervisors Chairman Tracy Pyles said he doesn’t think that would be something the county would take advantage of and that neither he or the board have spoken with Landes at all about the legislation — “that’s something he’s done on his own.”
Landes said he’s not in favor of moving the building outside of downtown Staunton, but that the way the law is written now, makes it sound like the county could only try to acquire property for use as part of the courthouse facilities if it is right beside the current building.
He said the only thing county voters voted “no” on with the referendum was moving the courthouse to Verona — keeping the building downtown was not what people were voting on.
“I can’t deal with impressions and what people’s impressions are,” he said.
County supervisors drop $13K on referendum ads
Pyles said he's heard what county citizens want for the courthouse in keeping it on its current site and that he will follow that — that not doing so would be an "affront" to the citizens.
He said he had wanted to consolidate the county's government in moving the courthouse to Verona, so buying new land in Staunton and building a new county courthouse by itself "doesn't appeal to him" because the place that gives the county the best value is the property it already owns in downtown Staunton.
Pyles acknowledged that "theoretically, if it went to Green Hills [Industrial Park], it would be very close to the rest of what we do," but that "I think it would be very disrespectful to our voters." That property borders Verona and is just down the street from the Augusta County Government Center.
"I don’t think the people would think too much of that and I wouldn’t think too much of that," he said. "I work for the people and they kind of told us that our idea was a wrong one."
Money tracker: Who supports keeping the courthouse?
Supervisor Wendell Coleman said he was aware that this legislation had been introduced, but also said he had no involvement with it. When the county voted down the referendum, keeping the courthouse at its current site in Staunton, Coleman said, "what I took away from that [was], ‘leave them where they are,’ not ‘leave them in Staunton and move them somewhere else’ — ‘leave them where they are.'"
He said while he doesn't think the prospect of moving the courthouse from its current site would "sit well with the constituents," he "wouldn’t necessarily rule out any option" though because "what we’ve got to do, is move forward."
Supervisor Marshall Pattie said the board has found the current law "really restrictive" and so hope to gain flexibility with the bill.
"Keeping the current courthouse is part of the solution, but I don’t know what the rest of the solution is," he said.
If the bill passes, Pattie said he couldn't promise the courthouse wouldn't be moved to a new site outside of downtown Staunton, as he's just one supervisor, but that it would be in the "board's hands."
After months of back-and-forth over whether to move the courthouse to Verona, which six of the seven county supervisors supported doing, the referendum failed across all 25 precincts, with about two-thirds of the county voting "no" to spending $45 million on a new Verona facility. At the board of supervisors meeting the night after the election, Supervisor Carolyn Bragg said they were "starting from ground zero again" in figuring out a plan for the courthouse within Staunton.
Tom Sheets, who campaigned against moving the courthouse to Verona leading up to the referendum with the Augusta Citizens Coalition, said he just met with Landes, Del. Dickie Bell, R-Staunton, and Sen. Emmett Hanger, R-Mount Solon, about concerns he and others who were against moving the courthouse from Staunton have about the bill and is hoping they address them.
Nolen said he's hoping Landes pulls the bill and that he doesn't see any need to "muddy the waters" with this legislation right now — if the county determines it needs the flexibility the bill would provide later, well, "the general assembly meets every year" — they can always address it later.
The bill was assigned Thursday to the House Counties, Cities and Towns Sub-Committee: Subcommittee #2, which meets Wednesdays at 4 p.m. in the 7th Floor West Conference Room at the General Assembly Building in Richmond, but Landes said he thinks it's unlikely it will be discussed at the subcommittee's next meeting — he still is hoping to speak with Bell and Hanger about a way to address the Augusta County Courthouse situation and possibly make changes to the bill.
"If we can’t come up with a solution, then we can just not have the bill acted on," Landes said.