Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Cumberland Circuit Court Judge Donald Blessing says the $37 million courthouse renovation plan doesn’t have to be the final version. Instead, he’s open to working with supervisors to “collaborate and exchange ideas (including additional options for solutions). I welcome this and look forward to it.” 

That statement came in a new letter from the judge to Cumberland Administrator Derek Stamey, one postmarked Feb. 25, a week after the board majority voted to move forward with developing design and renovation plans for the courthouse. 

In this latest letter, Blessing said that $37 million option for the renovation may not be the best fit. It was never meant to be, he said. It was only meant to start the discussions.

“ The present “plan” is predicated on a drawing and estimate resulting from a study commissioned by Cumberland County,” Blessing wrote. “This gave stakeholders the opportunity to make known their needs and wishes for an addition. Competitive bidding should provide an experienced architect who can suggest multiple paths to comply with state standards.” 

Judge Blessing weighs courthouse wants and 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 Blessing, who serves as 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 these last few 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.” 

‘Alternative means are not necessary’ 

But in the latest letter, Blessing changes his statement somewhat, saying those “alternative means” are not necessary in view of the Board’s action to start developing plans and designs. And as such, he said, the county will save money that would have been spent challenging his request in court. 

“Working together will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees (which can be used on this),” Blessing wrote. “Valuable insights can be gained and applied through discussion and civil disagreement.” 

Blessing said that after the Feb. 18 county meeting, he wanted to meet with supervisors and discuss the project but that didn’t happen, as not all members of the board would agree to it. 

“Judges are restricted from certain forms of public speech,” Blessing wrote. “Nonetheless, I offered, after a brief meeting with the former Chairperson, to meet with all Board members (in appropriate settings). One member rejected this while all others agreed. No meeting occurred as all Board members should be treated the same.” 

Had that meeting occurred, Blessing said, he would have cleared up a couple things. 

First, he said, the circuit court judges didn’t just push for this out of nowhere. They only agreed for him to send the letters and make the request when no other plan was forthcoming from the county. 

He again said the present $37 million plan was just a proposal “and can be modified, based on additional facts or alternatives if the goals are achieved.” 

In that Feb. 18 meeting, Supervisor Bryan Hamlet pointed out that the courthouse isn’t being used full-time, so why would the county pay for full-time security? And again, why is an expansion needed when the venue isn’t used full-time now? Blessing said the lack of space is why it’s not used more. 

“The courthouse would be used more often if more court rooms were available and once the additional prosecutor(s) mandated by criminal discovery requirements become reality,” Blessing said. “Presently, multi-day trials in the circuit court prevent one or more of the district courts from meeting.” 

Judge Blessing answers other questions raised 

In this latest letter, Judge Blessing went into other questions that had been raised in recent months as well. The need for a sallyport, he wrote, is due to concerns stemming from real situations that have taken place at the courthouse. It’s also not parking for judges or building staff. The issue, he wrote, is having a place for the safe and controlled passage of confined defendants to the existing holding cells. As it stands, they enter from a van near the only entrance/exit to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office. And there are more issues than just the defendants themselves to consider, he said. 

“The Sheriff insisted on escorting me to and from the building after the relative of a defendant blocked my vehicle from leaving and waited for me to leave the building,” Blessing wrote. “A similar situation occurred in Prince Edward, and the Sheriff insisted on deputies following me home. Clerks, staff and litigants have been escorted, when harassed, by deputies.”

But that part of the concept doesn’t need to be a multi-million dollar parking garage. Instead, Blessing wrote, “secured parking can be as simple as fencing and (a) fenced pathway to the entrance, compatible to the look of the building. All persons need to be safe and secure going to and from the building and while inside. Unfortunately, the building is difficult to defend as too many entrances and exits exist.” 

And finally, the judge touched on the reason he urged an expansion, rather than a renovation of the current structure. It refers back to the issues reported by the Clerk of Court, when asking supervisors in February for a budget increase to either fix flooding issues or find a new location to store records. Some of the structure just isn’t suitable to be used. 

“Use of existing offices may not be feasible due to the possible need for remediation of mildew or mold with dampness adversely impacting on important records and, possibly, the health of clerical staff,” Blessing wrote. 

 

What happens next?

It’s going to be a little while before anything else happens with the courthouse. That Feb. 18 vote didn’t give authorization to approve any contracts or fund construction. Instead, it gave permission for a group of county staff to develop a request for proposals, which would then be made public. That’s when firms would be able to submit their projections on what it would cost to move forward with designs and plans.
Stamey estimated at the last county meeting this process could take between 12 to 16 months to produce a finished product, which would then be brought back to the board of supervisors.