City: Hardy lot is 'last-ditch potential' for courthouse

Couldn't make it to the city council meeting? We've got you covered. The News Leader updated this story live throughout the meeting, which started at 7:30 p.m. and did not end till just after 10:00 p.m. Thursday night.

We cover the latest on the Hardy Lot controversy, as well as other important topics and presentations during the meeting.

The presentation given by the city during the meeting should eventually be available here.

7:00 p.m.

Things are relatively normal in council chambers; the council just adjourned its work session. A few dozen people were there in person, watching council discussing the budget.

Until the courthouse construction costs are fully known, it sounds like the decision to invest in Uniontown or the West End is being shelved. Terry Holmes called them "dead soldiers."

In the lobby, residents and business owners are gathering more signatures in opposition to the choice of the Hardy Lot for the location of the yet-to-be-constructed JDR courthouse. A petition for the candidacy of Adam Campbell for the next city council election has also been seen.

7:06 p.m.

7:15 p.m.

There's plenty of lively discussion inside council chambers as residents and Staunton City Council prepare for what's expected to be a lengthy meeting starting at 7:30 p.m.

One thing council mentioned to clarify on the courts already is that the city has only spent $22,000 on the JDR facility, and none of that has been for the Hardy Lot. It's been for things like a space needs assessment.

7:20 p.m.

The News Leader overheard some residents catching up first-time attendees on how to participate in Matters from the Public amidst broader conversations about the city's property tax rates and projects the city has to keep an eye on for the future.

7:30 p.m.

Around 70 people have shown up so far. Council is called to order.

Mark Robertson, who is attending remotely, appeared to get a solo for the pledge of allegiance on the livestream, though everyone in the room was joining in.

7:40 p.m.

The crowd is at capacity. Five people are standing in the hallway because the seats are full.

7:45 p.m.

Councilor Michele Edwards confirmed that the council plans to hold town hall meetings on at least a quarterly basis. Councilor Brad Arrowood said that he and vice mayor Amy Darby were planning to hold one soon, and councilors Alice Woods and Mark Robertson also indicated that they would want to do another as well.

7:50 p.m.

Apparently the audio stream is down. But you can watch (and hear) the meeting live using the Zoom link on the page linked above.

7:55 p.m.

We're officially underway with city council's regular meeting, as senior planner Rodney Rhodes will walk council through the next three items. All three of those items are public hearings on land use, starting with a special use permit for ground floor living quarters at a property on West Johnson Street. The city will also work through a rezoning request and an amendment for allowing pet boarding facilities in all business and industrial districts.

8:05 p.m.

Woof! City council adopted an amendment to allow for pet boarding facilities in any area zoned business or industrial. There actually wasn't an allowance for such a facility before, according to Rhodes, and this amendment will now open the door for that.

8:15 p.m.

Mayor Stephen Claffey opened a public hearing on the fiscal year 2024 budget, and former councilor Brenda Mead was first to the podium to voice her support for an 89 cent property tax rate. Council discussed lowering the rate to 86 cents during their work session.

"All those other taxes rely on factors that are completely out of the city's control," Mead said, "You're making a bet with my money, and I'm not a bettor."

Amanda Campbell is in support of the 89 cent tax rate. "The health of our city depends on this revenue," she said.

Pamela Wagner said that she was concerned about the ways the city proposed saving those three pennies on the tax rate. She was especially concerned about the reduction to the Enterprise Zone fund.

"Nothing on that list is a wish. Everything on that list is a need," resident Cindy Connors said of the many projects that chief financial officer Jessie Moyers reminded city council to keep an eye on for the future, including the West End and Uniontown. Connors is another resident in favor of the city maintaining a 92 cent property tax rate or going no lower than 89 cents.

8:20 p.m.

"Cutting the tax rate now means that we will not have the money to do the things we know need to happen," said Amy Wratchford. Wratchford wants the city to avoid borrowing money as much as it can, and is in favor of the 89 cent tax rate.

"We can only be a great city if we provide excellent services to all the people," said another resident, continuing the trend of citizens wanting to keep the tax rate where it is. She recognized the financial burden of the 89 cent tax rate on some citizens, but going lower than that number would be inadequate.

8:27 p.m.

Louella Hill said that many of her relatives in small towns across the United States are shocked when they hear the taxes that she pays in Staunton. Hill is in support of the higher tax rate, specifically to help keep Staunton's schools fully funded through the tax revenue sharing formula.

Gretchen Bishop doesn't know what the tax rate will be, but she wants the city to make clear what services will be dropped if the rate is lowered. She agrees with Brenda Mead's point about the precarious position that updated revenue projections would be, but she wanted more transparency about what the tax rate's impact would be in the city.

Mayor Claffey has officially closed the public hearing on the FY24 budget, and residents overwhelmingly spoke in favor of keeping the tax rate at its current 92 cent mark, or lowering it no further than 89 cents. That's a stark contrast to the discussion during council's work session, where council discussed moving the tax rate down to 86 cents.

8:30 p.m.

City attorney John Blair walked council through the formal parameters for their upcoming town hall meetings. The main point: council can set whatever topic they want, but they can't discriminate against a speaker because they disagree with the speaker's view point.

Now we're on to the presentation on the juvenile court facility.

8:33 p.m.

Now, it is time for our main event of the evening: City staff will be presenting an update on the city's proposed JDR project at the Hardy Lot from legal considerations through the timeline of the city's actions. They'll also discuss evaluation of potential sites, and what next steps would be. First up is Blair with the legal considerations.

8:45 p.m.

Blair explains the court orders. They include a September 2021 "Show Cause" order giving the county and city a chance to show that the current courthouses were in proper shape. Of course, they weren't, as both parties agreed; so there followed a February 2022 order to do a space needs assessment, schematic concept, description and schedule of work for a new city courthouse.

A March 31, 2023 court order created the need to schedule final design and construction schedule for a court to be up and working by November 1, 2025.

Staunton does not own the building at 6 East Johnson Street, and the city did not contest the court's contention that the facilites were out of repair. That means that the city, according to state statutes, has to provide a new facility by Augusta County's expected move-in date to Verona on November 1, 2025.

Blair goes on to say that deadlines along the way can be extended with agreement of all parties.

Schematic drawings are due by July 15, and final construction drawings are due in January 2024. Construction is expected to begin on the new courts facility by April 18, 2024.

The March court order does include the Hardy lot as the location, says Blair.

8:50 p.m.

“The council reluctantly said that the Hardy Lot is where we’ll be located," Blair said. However, Blair said the state's lawyer has been extremely flexible with the city, and would likely understand if an alternative location was presented to the city.

Blair explains that the guidelines allow for "malleability there." Not every square foot has to be accounted for exactly as the schematic describes. Accessibility and security, and circulation of personnel within the building are the most important things, he said.

8:55 p.m.

City manager Leslie Beauregard said that the council had started to consider downtown sites as early as June, 2022, as she goes over a timeline of the city's actions in the last year and a half.

At that point they had their schematics plans for a non-specific site in hand. The Commonwealth and the city continued to discuss, through six submittals, a revised estimated site development schedule.

9:00 p.m.

According to Beauregard, the city contracted a realtor company to find sites for the potential court locations. That search lasted through January and February of this year with city council considering 10 potential sites in March before landing on the Hardy Lot.

Expenditures to date total around $22,000.

9:05 p.m.

The city has spent close to $22,000 on the JDR court facilities so far, but none has been specifically set for the Hardy Lot. There are $2.3 million in American Relief Plan Act funds that have been set aside and a $10 million debt issuance in next year's budget, but that money has not yet been touched.

Director of Public Works Jeff Johnston has taken over the presentation now, and will be discussing the assessment and evaluation for the 10 potential sites and buildings for the JDR court.

Two privately-owned sites are still in consideration, along with the Hardy lot, and will not be discussed in the meeting, according to a slide being presented by Johnston.

9:10 p.m.

Johnston is going over the 10 sites.

"We really wanted this one," said Johnston of the old Chestnut Hill shopping center, "but it's not for sale."

The Grand Piano building? Close but can't accommodate security requirements. "I love the location. It's just not the right building."

The existing courthouse buildings have "existential problems" including inadequate secure parking, secure circulation, says Johnston. He says that judges, the public, and incarcerated individuals all need independent secure circulation. "Look, one of those buildings is gorgeous. The other is ... red," Johnston says, to some laughter.

The city considered the Grace Christian School complex, but the buildings will not be available until 2025. That's too tight of a turnaround for the city's current timeline.

Coming up on the March 31 deadline, the Hardy lot "had availability" that allowed them to meet the demands of the court order.

Johnston mentions issues of security and transportation accessibility about a site by the quarry near Martin's.

9:15 p.m.

City staff has received 10 new suggestions for locations, along with two locations that were previously under consideration. If an alternative location meets the same timeline is identified, the city will approach the state about amending the March 31 court order.

At the same time, the city will continue work on the Hardy Lot RFP and figuring out the long-term financing strategy for the JDR facility.

The presentation given by the city tonight should eventually be available here

9:17 p.m.

Councilor Michele Edwards asked if there would be any penalties if the city missed a deadline. Blair said that if the city didn't have a facility by November 1, 2025, the state could file a contempt order against the city.

Blair made sure to note that there are mechanisms to ask for extensions throughout the process, but the city must have a juvenile court by the time Augusta County moves into their new Verona facility.

9:20 p.m.

Claffey said that this hasn't been an ignored issue, but that real estate procurement must be discussed in closed session. The public negotiations on the old Atlantic Union Bank building caused a sudden surge in pricing when Augusta County was looking for their building, and that issue caused the county to "throw up their hands" and start planning their move out of the city.

9:22 p.m.

"I don't think one council person on this dais wants to use the Hardy Lot," Holmes said. The council just had to put in something by the March 31 date, and they continue to search.

"The Hardy Lot is a placeholder, in my mind," said Arrowood, calling it a "last ditch potential."

9:30 p.m.

Claffey has opened Matters from the Public, and there was quite a rush to get over to the podium to speak. The first speaker asked why the city could not use "eminent domain" to obtain the property they want. The speaker also wanted to know why the city didn't purchase five buildings for a dollar in 2021.

Thomas Wagner pointed out that the construction of the JDR courts on the Hardy Lot would create a roadblock in their ability to move forward and obtain grants for The Arcadia Project. Wagner is the current board president of The Arcadia Project, and also thanked the city staff and council for the time they took to speak about this issue tonight.

9:35 p.m.

Pamela Wagner brought a petition of 28 nonprofit organizations who stated their opposition to the Hardy Lot location for the JDR court facilities. Wagner also started a Google Doc to find other property locations for the court, and asked about why the city hasn't tried to "crowdsource" potential locations from residents.

Amy Wratchford said that she understood the process of having conversations behind closed doors, but she was concerned about how late residents found out that there was a need for the JDR courts.

9:40 p.m.

Suzanne Stanner talked about what she saw as heavy usage of the Hardy Lot and its presence in a historic district within Staunton. She would be intrigued about how the design would fit with the surrounding buildings, and called for a study to be done on the usage of the lot.

9:45 p.m.

Terah Cox, the owner of Words Matter, has been at the forefront of the opposition to the Hardy Lot site for the JDR courts. She said that many people start at the east end of Beverley Street because of the Hardy Lot, and it's their first exposure to downtown Staunton. She also pointed out that people with mobility issues would struggle with the multi-level garage on New Street, and that she hopes that the Hardy Lot won't even be a contingency plan.

"Otherwise, we're going to be doing all of this all over again."

Cox also brought up potential structural integrity issues with surrounding buildings in the downtown area with construction on the new JDR court.

9:50 p.m.

Former councilor Brenda Mead pointed out that one of the few times that she and councilor Mark Robertson agreed on something was their desire to purchase the downtown court buildings from Augusta County.

Mead also stated that she believed that the entire conversation around the Hardy Lot did not have to be in closed session, and that the council should have reached out to businesses and non-profits on Beverley Street prior to the March 31 deadline.

"There was no reason for it to be secret like that."

9:55 p.m.

Perry Swope sent a letter against the Hardy Lot, and pointed out that there are still process problems. His hope is that the city will address those issues moving forward.

"You have something that makes this potentially easy. You have everyone on the same page."

9:57 p.m.

Randolph Burton wanted to switch gears, and discuss the idea that libraries are under siege across the country. Burton said he was grateful and relieved to hear the proclamation supporting the library, and appreciated a heartfelt commitment to the library. He also iterated that he would like to see that commitment to the library addressed in the city's budget.

10:00 p.m.

Robin Miller wanted to bring up historic tax credits, and their potential usage for the city's new court facility. Miller said that you could save up to 20% of the cost of construction.

He also spoke to his belief that there were other properties in the city, and he wanted to volunteer his time to help city staff to figure out a new location for the JDR courts.

10:03 p.m.

Brian Dettelbach is a member of the congregation at the Temple House of Israel, and spoke to his appreciation of a meeting with Beauregard and Johnston at the temple to clarify concerns on the JDR courts. Dettelbach spoke about a rare stained glass window at the temple, as well as the money invested in the exterior of the building, and the concerns about potential ramifications of construction on the structural integrity of the temple.

10:10 p.m.

Cindy Connors said that she believed that the city council is at a moment where they can show how much they care about the spirit and people of Staunton. She also publicized an event to help clean up the West End on Saturday morning.

10:14 p.m.

One resident and member of the Temple House of Israel congregation said that he was sorry to hear about the city's financial issues that prevented them from purchasing the Augusta County courts buildings in downtown Staunton, and jokingly flashed a five dollar bill. He continued to speak to the potential impact of the proposed Hardy Lot construction on the temple, and called on the city to continue to work on protecting Staunton's downtown area as they have in the past and find another site for the JDR courts.

10:16 p.m.

Angela Higgs brought a petition of 62 signatures from businesses in Staunton against the JDR court proposal at the Hardy Lot. Higgs is the owner of Accordia on Beverley Street, and is thankful for the support from other businesses on the issue.

10:28 p.m.

CJ Clark wanted to know who has been a part of the decision making process on the JDR courts, but she believed that more court staff and personnel should be incorporated into the planning process for the court facility. Clark believed that they should be as big a part of the process as anyone else, and doing so would be a part of keeping with the state's guidelines on the courts.

10:31 p.m.

And with that, Mayor Stephen Claffey has closed Matters from the Public and city council has been adjourned. Major takeaways on the night are that residents overwhelmingly support keeping the real estate tax rate at 89 cents, and that council considers the proposed Hardy Lot location a "placeholder" until they can find a better location. Residents, however, still fear that that placeholder tag may turn into the final decision.

This article originally appeared on Staunton News Leader: Staunton city council meets strong opposition to Hardy Lot choice for new courthouse