Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Cumberland residents had questions Tuesday night. Some wanted to know why supervisors would consider spending $37 million on a courthouse renovation when the area has other needs. Others pointed out nearby Prince Edward is spending roughly the same on a 21st century elementary school, while this Cumberland courthouse would be a building most residents would never enter. And others mainly wanted to know how supervisors expected them to pay the tax increase that would likely come with such a purchase. 

“We’re talking about a $37 million courthouse for staff, judges, clerks,” said Cumberland resident Margaret Speas. “I’m sorry but that just can’t be. When did we become rich? I thought Cumberland was a poor county. That’s what everybody always tells me. Cumberland is a poor county with high taxes. So where’s this money going to come from? Some of us can barely survive right now. We are struggling. We do need some renovations and improvements but just to make it to code.” 

That seemed to be the consensus argument at Tuesday’s board of supervisors meeting. Everyone acknowledged that the courthouse, built in the 1800s, needs some renovations. But residents felt $37 million was a reach. 

“I will agree there’s some additions needed and renovations needed, but $37 million worth? I don’t think so,” said Cumberland resident Betty Myers. “And whenever we ask who’s going to pay for it, the immediate response is well, we’ll have to raise taxes up. As a citizen, I should have some say in this. I do not believe that this county needs to go out and spend $37 million on this courthouse.”  

As a majority of Cumberland supervisors, with Bryan Hamlett opposing, voted Tuesday to move forward with designs and renovation plans, they and staff argued this was a no-win situation. 

Cumberland courthouse wants versus needs

The issue here is what is required versus what is being pushed for. Staff and supervisors have been looking at ways of renovating the Cumberland courthouse for more than two years. In March 2022, the staff reached out to the Virginia Department of General Services, getting that group to perform an analysis, detailing the problems. That report came out in April 2022 and supervisors started looking at ways of incorporating renovations into the Capital Improvement Plan. 

That process wasn’t going fast enough for Donald C. Blessing, Chief Judge of the Cumberland County Circuit Court. He reached out in May 2023, requesting that Cumberland perform a more thorough and detailed analysis of the courthouse’s needs. The county contracted with HBA Architects to put that together. The firm returned a report last year, outlining eight issues labeled as critical deficiencies. 

The main one was a lack of full-time security at the building entrances. The second pointed out the lack of a vehicle sallyport, a secure entrance for judges and others to park. Third, there is no dedicated General District courtroom or chambers, just two courtrooms. Fourth, there’s no dedicated juvenile or domestic relations clerk’s office. Fifth, the courthouse and judges are in a separate building from the clerk’s offices. Sixth, HBA officials felt the circuit court and general district court clerk’s offices were undersized and inadequate, as was the Commonwealth Attorney’s office. Seventh, there’s a lack of technology, including no electronic dockets display, no electronic civil case filing options. And finally, the report stated there are non-existent exterior security provisions, including any fencing, bollards or CCTV. 

As Cumberland hasn’t moved forward yet on addressing the concerns in that report, Blessing sent two letters to Cumberland Administrator Derek Stamey over the last two months. The first was on Dec. 16, 2024 and the second was on Feb. 3 of this year. Two years is enough time to come up with a plan, he argued. In both letters, he urged the board to move forward and spend the $37 million, the cheapest option of the ones given by HBA in their report, otherwise he would “pursue alternative means to achieve this goal if necessary.” 

What supervisors are afraid of 

So once again, concern about a legal battle brings something before Cumberland supervisors for a vote. Virginia Code 15.2-1643 says that when a judge finds that “the court facilities of such county or city are insecure, out of repair, or otherwise pose a danger to the health, welfare and safety of court employees or the public,” then he or she can order the county to make renovations.

That’s what Cumberland supervisors say they’re worried about. If Blessing orders the renovations at the Cumberland courthouse, then they feel he can take control and order specific and potentially more expensive options. Instead, they want to work with him and see if there are any ways of lowering the price tag. 

Now yes, the Virginia Code does mention that a judge can order renovations to take place. But there are limits as to what those renovations have to involve. Section E under Virginia Code 15.2-1643 states that “nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a circuit court to require that an additional or replacement courthouse be constructed.” 

In other words, a judge can order renovations, but he or she can’t force a county to build an entirely new wing of the courthouse or an entirely new building. 

What are the options? 

There are four options listed in the HBA report. The first, and cheapest, comes in at $37.58 million. That includes 32,000 square feet of new construction, by adding a third courtroom and more space to the existing courthouse, at a cost of $24 million. Then an additional $3.55 million would be used to renovate 14,000 square feet of current building. Another $2.48 million comes from architect and engineering fees; $4.133 million from testing, permits and other fees; plus a 10% contingency fee of $3.416 million. 

Option Two is pretty much 53,000 square feet of brand new structure, coming in at $39.75 million. You add in $3.577 million in architectural and engineering fees, $5.96 million for the other fees involved and a 10% contingency of $4.929 million and that adds up to $54.219 million. 

For Option Three, the county would pay $29.25 million for 39,000 square feet of new construction, renovate the existing sheriff’s office at a price of $1.92 million, pay $2.8 million in architectural and engineering fees, $4.67 million in other fees and a 10% contingency of $2.865 million, for a total of $42.515 million. 

Finally, the fourth option includes new courts being built at the sheriff’s office for $31.875 million, an additional $1.92 million to renovate the sheriff’s office, $3 million for architectural and engineering fees, $5 million for other fees and a 10% contingency of $4.19 million. All that adds up to $46 million. 

Arguing against a Cumberland courthouse rebuild

But while the majority of Cumberland supervisors had nothing to say Tuesday, offering no debate or discussion about the courthouse, Bryan Hamlett was the exception. The District 1 supervisor argued that a renovation of this size wasn’t needed. 

“Look at this current courthouse, of which we have 14,000 square feet. We’re talking about building a proposed 34,000 square feet,” Hamlett said. “More than twice the size of what we currently have. To me, that’s not a repair. That’s an additional courthouse.” 

He also referred back to the HBA report and the deficiencies it found. Expanding the courthouse by 34,000 square feet doesn’t do anything to address a lack of security at the entrance, Hamlett said. That could be done by employing more deputies, at a significantly lower price. Also, he pointed out the HBA concern about a lack of full-time security makes no sense when the courthouse isn’t open full-time.  

“Of course we don’t have full-time security, we’re not open full-time,” Hamlett said, also arguing that the judge doesn’t need a sallyport for his vehicle, another concern. “It’s my understanding that our sheriff’s department escorts the honorable Judge Blessing to and from the courthouse. Much more security than you and I have. He’s got a personal escort.” 

Hamlett questioned how the county could pay for this, without raising taxes. That had been one of the possibilities raised in earlier workshops on this, going back to March 18, 2024. The other options about payment involved taking out bonds and spreading it out over time, to try and avoid having to raise taxes. But there was no guarantee given at either the March 2024 workshop or Tuesday night that raising taxes could be avoided, even in that situation. 

As a result, Hamlett made a motion to table the proposal, arguing that the county needed a better plan before moving forward. No other supervisor would second that motion. 

What supervisors decided Tuesday 

The proposal being considered, Stamey told the board, does not give authorization to approve any contracts or funding for construction. Instead, he was asking them for approval to continue to evaluate the courthouse needs. That would include tasking a group of county staff with developing a request for proposals from different firms on what it would actually cost to move forward with any of the options suggested by HBA. His hope, Stamey said, would be that through the process, the staff would be able to find ways of refining cost estimates and bring those final numbers down. 

“Once you get in there and start tailoring the design process, you can begin eliminating areas of square footage,” Stamey said, “and really tailoring the design to what’s going to meet the long-term needs of the county. But you have to have a starting point.”  

He estimated this could take between 12 to 16 months to produce the data, which would then be brought back to supervisors. The majority agreed, voting 4-1 with Hamlett opposing, to move forward with the project. Tyree, the only supervisor other than Hamlett to speak on the issue, said the board understood the concerns of residents. 

“We’re making a motion to give the team permission to proceed forward, getting all the details and coming back with an exact amount,” Tyree said. “We still need renovation. This courthouse has to be renovated, one way or another. This is not saying we’re in agreement with $37 million. We live in this county. We pay these taxes as well.”