By Douglas Sweeney

Lexington and Rockbridge County were granted a six-month extension of all courthouse-related deadlines by Circuit Court Judge Everett Martin at a hearing on Tuesday.

The localities hope that the extra six months will allow them to modify the exterior of the courthouse. The appearance of the proposed courthouse at the corner of Randolph and Nelson streets has met with heavy disapproval from local residents, some of whom have described the design as “inappropriate” and “ugly.”

If the city and county can not come up with a “Plan B,” as Martin described it, in six months then they will be forced to build “Plan A,” meaning the current design for the Randolph-Nelson site.

Martin said that if another alternative is not reached in six months then “this is your courthouse,” referring to a schematic drawing of the current design that he held aloft.

With the extension, construction must begin by Dec. 20 and the facility must be completed by Oct. 22, 2008.

The localities filed the motion for the extension in February to address the public outcry over the cost, architectural style, and size of the proposed courthouse design.

Ford Stephens, attorney for the Commonwealth of Virginia, opposed the extension. He began his argument with a brief history of the courthouse’s need for repair. According to Stephens, the need for a new facility was first identified in 1974 when Judge Holstein wrote a letter to the county Board of Supervisors in which he commented on the “disrepair” of the courthouse.

Stephens' main reasons for opposing the extension were that the current court facilities were “deficient” and extending the use of them is unsafe. Also, Stephens expressed his fear that this extension will beget another and another.

He also addressed concerns about cost, style, and size. Stephens said that cost was “not a relevant factor” for granting an extension. He noted that Virginia requires its courts to be “safe and sufficient,” not inexpensive.

As for architectural style, Stephens argued that it was not a reason to prolong the use of an unfit courthouse any longer than necessary. Stephens said the size was dictated by the two localities based on a report from the panel they created.   Stephens emphasized the need for a resolution to the courthouse situation when he said, “I’m just trying to bring an end to a process which began when I was 12."

Lexington city attorney Larry Mann and Rockbridge County attorney Vickie Huffman argued on behalf of the two localities. Mann emphasized that the six months were merely for modifications to the existing design, not for starting the design process over.

Mann also mentioned the unexpected difficulties that led to the need for an extension. Specifically, he mentioned the added burden put on the architects of keeping the parking deck and courthouse separate, because the city owns the former and the county the latter.

When asked by Martin if the city and county had a specific plan formulated at this point, Mann responded, “No sir, that is what we need the six months for.”

After hearing both sides of the debate, Martin ruled in favor of the localities, granting them the desired extension. With the extension came a provision that the localities submit monthly progress reports to the commonwealth.

After the six months if there is a “Plan B” that receives Virginia’s approval, then “Plan B” will be the new courthouse. If, however, the commonwealth does not approve the new plan, then Martin would choose between “Plan A” and “Plan B” at trial. And if no “Plan B” materializes, the localities will be forced to build the highly unpopular “Plan A,” the current design for the Randolph-Nelson site.

Feb. 9, 2006
Delay sought on
courthouse construction

Jan. 26, 2006
Debate rages over courthouse plans

Mar. 26, 2005
New plans for rebuilding county courthouse

Oct. 11, 2003
Courthouse compromise

Nov. 14, 2002
Judge begins courthouse renovation process

Sept. 19, 2002
Voters to judge courthouse plan

Produced by Washington and Lee journalism students.

Lead supervisor:      Prof. Claudette Artwick

Reporting supervisor: Prof. Doug Cumming

Editing supervisor:  Prof. Pamela Luecke

Technical supervisor:  Michael Todd