By Stacey Grijalva and Nina Coolidge
Lexington City Council members voted 4-2 Thursday night to approve the construction of a new courthouse facility on Randolph and Nelson streets.
The vote came less than 48 hours before the final deadline set by a state court.
If the council had refused to vote or had not passed the motion, the city could have been found in contempt of court.
The opposing votes came from Councilwoman Mimi Elrod and Councilman Frank Friedman, neither of whom gave reasons for their vote.
Several opponents spoke before the council, voicing last-minute concerns about the proposed plans, echoing much of the criticism that has developed over the past year.
The new $30-million courthouse is to be built several blocks from the current 1896 Circuit Courthouse on Main Street. It won final approval Jan. 8 from the Rockbridge County Board of Supervisors, who awarded the contract to the lower of two bidders, Branch & Associates.
In the days leading up to Thursday's City Council meeting, an e-mail opposing the new courthouse was sent to local business owners and city residents, urging them to lobby the six city council members with a short letter. The message included the city council members’ e-mail addresses.
Mayor John W. Knapp received a few e-mails, but said he did not know if they were a direct result of the plea. He was not aware of the original e-mail until Harvey Hotinger, Chairman of the Board, called him about it. However, Knapp was not surprised that such an plea had been sent out.
The debate about the courthouse may be heated, but all parties agree on one thing -- the current Rockbridge County Courthouse needs to be updated.
As far back as 1974, a circuit judge said the courthouse was insufficient and in need of repair.
Almost 30 years later, another judge sued the Board of Supervisors and the City Council over the same issue. The judge said the courthouse was so decrepit and jam-packed that it failed to meet state requirements.
A panel, which included current Rockbridge supervisor Mack Smith, found the courthouse was not only crowded, water damaged, and falling apart, but also needed adequate security, parking, restrooms and handicap access.
While the building could not be cited for safety code violations because of grandfather clauses, the building in general did not meet current standards of safety.
Complaints mentioned by the panel ran the gamut from no hot water on the second floor, open wiring, not enough space for needed documents, no reserved juror parking and a need of more restrooms.
Consultants found that it would cost more to fix the courthouse than to simply start from scratch, either at that site or a different site.
The first plan was to renovate the current building, a large red brick structure on the corner of Main and Washington streets. An annex would have been built for the District Court, and connected to the main building by a lower level for the county clerk.
But supervisors rejected this and alternate designs. The Board asked for an extension of the court-imposed deadline to find a style that was “more harmonious with the downtown architecture.
The new courthouse will be state-of-the-art and more roomy, meeting state criminal-procedure requirements, safety standards, and security needs. It also allows for possible future expansion.
Also, a parking deck will be attached, addressing another common complaint in the cramped downtown area.
Currently, juror, lawyers, and witnesses park their cars in any nearby public spot, risking getting ticketed. (The General District Court can dismiss such tickets.)
The planned parking deck will have at least 144 slots, with at least three reserved for judges and 16 spaces reserved for clerks and court staff.
Some citizens are not impressed with the capacity of the new courthouse and would have preferred the alternative plan by local contractor Peter Sils that reuses the current building. The Sils plan would not have torn down any part of the historic courthouse.
The Board rejected the Sils plan in October, even though the projected cost was $6 million less. About 600 people signed a petition in support of the Sils plan. On Dec. 29, about 100 people held a rally in front of the current courthouse in support of the Sils plan.
Despite the rally and accusations that the process was clouded by closed meetings, the Board approved the proposed new courthouse in order to meet the extended deadline of Jan. 20.
The court order requires the completion of a furnished courthouse by Dec.14, 2008, about three and a half decades after the initial recorded complaints.
Produced by Washington and Lee journalism students.
Lead supervisor: Prof. Claudette Artwick
Reporting supervisors:
Technical supervisor: Michael Todd