Can Augusta County build a new courthouse next door to the current one in Staunton without a new voter referendum, after the 2016 relocation vote failed?

Plain-English summary

Augusta County faced a planning dilemma. Its courthouse is in downtown Staunton (an independent city). In May 2016 the county petitioned the circuit court for a writ of election to relocate the courthouse to a specific site in the county itself. The voters rejected the relocation on November 8, 2016. The county then considered building a new courthouse on land in Staunton that was contiguous to the current courthouse, without putting that to a referendum. The county attorney asked whether that was lawful.

Attorney General Mark R. Herring said no on two independent grounds.

(1) The new location would require voter approval. Section 15.2-1644 requires voter approval to relocate a county courthouse. There is a narrow exception in § 15.2-1646: relocation to land "contiguous with its present location" does not require voter approval, but only if the contiguous land is "within the same county." Here the contiguous land is in Staunton (a city), not in Augusta County. The site fails the "same county" requirement, so the exception doesn't apply.

(2) Even if the county wanted a fresh vote, § 15.2-1655 bars another election on courthouse removal for ten years after an election has been held. The November 2016 election runs that clock until November 2026. The bar applies even when the proposed new site is different from the one the voters rejected. So the county can't move the courthouse to the contiguous city site without voter approval, and it can't seek voter approval until ten years pass.

The opinion notes that city courthouses are treated differently from county courthouses under Virginia law: relocating a city courthouse doesn't require a referendum. But Augusta County's courthouse, even though physically located in a city, remains a county courthouse and falls under the county-relocation rules.

The practical effect: Augusta County's realistic options reduce to (a) repairing and renovating the current building, or (b) waiting until the ten-year bar lifts before seeking voter approval for any relocation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2017. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Title 15.2 of the Code is periodically amended. The ten-year bar from the 2016 election would, on its face, run until November 8, 2026; check current law and the specific election history before relying on this calculation. The General Assembly has, at times, enacted special legislation for specific courthouse relocations; that route is also worth considering for any specific county.

Background and statutory framework

Virginia counties and cities are treated differently for courthouse relocation. Section 15.2-1644 requires voter approval for any county courthouse relocation, triggered either by a petition signed by voters equal to at least one-third of the county's registered voters as of January 1, or by a board of supervisors resolution. Once triggered, the circuit court issues a writ of election fixing the day for the vote on relocation to specified place(s).

Section 15.2-1646 carves out a narrow exception: "[t]he relocation of a courthouse to land contiguous with its present location ... and within the same county is not such a removal as to require authorization by the electorate." The exception has two requirements that work together: the land must be (a) contiguous to the current courthouse, and (b) within the same county.

For Augusta County, the proposed site met (a) but not (b). The site is contiguous to the existing courthouse, but it is inside the City of Staunton, which is not part of Augusta County. (Augusta County surrounds Staunton; the two share a border around the city's entire circumference. The courthouse is in downtown Staunton, not on any shared border.) The (b) requirement fails. The exception does not apply, and § 15.2-1644 requires voter approval.

That much would, in isolation, mean the county could put the question on the ballot. But § 15.2-1655 imposes an additional limit: "[a]fter an election has been held in any county upon the question of the removal of its courthouse, no other such election shall be held within ten years." The November 8, 2016 election (which the county lost) starts that clock. The county cannot put another relocation question on the ballot until at least November 2026. The bar applies even though the proposed new site (city contiguous land) is different from the original 2016 proposal (a particular county location).

The AG applied the plain-meaning rule from Archambault v. Roller, 254 Va. 210, 213 (1997): "It is firmly established that a court must accept a statute's plain meaning when the statute is clear and unambiguous." Sections 15.2-1644, 15.2-1646, and 15.2-1655 are unambiguous on their face.

The opinion implicitly acknowledges the bind this creates for the county. The current building, originally built in the 1840s with multiple later additions, may be inadequate for modern court operations, but the relocation option to a contiguous city site requires both unattainable voter approval and a ten-year wait. The realistic options are repair and renovation at the existing site, or seeking special legislation from the General Assembly (a path not addressed in this opinion).

Common questions

Q: Why does relocating a Virginia county courthouse require a referendum?
A: Section 15.2-1644 requires it. Voter approval is the default mechanism for any county courthouse relocation.

Q: Isn't there an exception for relocating to adjacent property?
A: Yes, but a narrow one. Section 15.2-1646 lets the county skip the referendum only if the new site is both contiguous to the existing courthouse and within the same county. A contiguous site in a different jurisdiction (here, a city) does not qualify.

Q: Augusta County's courthouse is already inside Staunton (a city). How can it be a "county" courthouse?
A: A county can locate its courthouse in another jurisdiction. The fact that the building is physically inside Staunton doesn't change its status as Augusta County's courthouse, and the county-relocation rules continue to apply.

Q: After the 2016 election failed, can the county try again right away?
A: No. Section 15.2-1655 bars another courthouse-removal election for ten years from the date of the prior election. The November 2016 election runs that clock through November 2026.

Q: Does the ten-year bar apply even if the new proposal targets a different location?
A: Yes. Section 15.2-1655 covers any election on the question of courthouse removal, without limiting the bar to identical sites.

Q: What options does the county have in the meantime?
A: Repair and renovate at the current Staunton location, or seek special legislation from the General Assembly (not addressed in this opinion). The county cannot relocate via the ordinary § 15.2-1644 process until at least November 2026.

Q: Do cities have to hold a referendum to relocate their courthouses?
A: No. Section 15.2-1644's voter-approval requirement applies to county courthouse relocations, not to city courthouse relocations.

Citations and references

Virginia statutes:

• Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1644 (county courthouse relocation, referendum)
• Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1646 (contiguous-property exception)
• Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1655 (ten-year bar on new relocation elections)
• Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-505 (AG advisory opinion authority)

Cases:

• Archambault v. Roller, 254 Va. 210 (1997)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2017/16-056-Benkahla-issued---referendum-on-county-courthouse-location.pdf

Original opinion text

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General
Mark R. Herring
Attorney General

March 30, 2017

James Benkahla, Esquire
Augusta County Interim Attorney
Post Office Box 590
Verona, Virginia 24482-0590

Dear Mr. Benkahla:

I am responding to your request for an official advisory opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia.

Issue Presented

You ask whether the Augusta County Courthouse, which is located in the City of Staunton, may be relocated to a contiguous parcel of land within the city without a referendum.

Background

You have disclosed that the Augusta County Courthouse is located in the downtown area of the City of Staunton. Augusta County surrounds Staunton, with the two localities sharing a common border around the entire circumference of the city. The courthouse is not contiguous to any border between the city and the county.

On May 12, 2016, the county petitioned the circuit court for a writ of election to relocate the courthouse pursuant to § 15.2-1644 of the Code of Virginia. The petition set forth several bases for the courthouse being inadequate for the administration of justice. If approved by the voters of the county, the election would have authorized removing the courthouse from the city to a particular location in the county. An order for the writ of election was entered on June 14, 2016. On November 8, 2016 the county voters rejected the writ and voted against removing the courthouse from the city to that location in the county.

The county must now decide whether to repair and renovate the courthouse at its present location or instead build a new courthouse on land in the city that is contiguous to the present courthouse. The question you have presented is whether a referendum is required to relocate the courthouse to contiguous property in the city.

Applicable Law and Discussion

Counties and cities in Virginia are governed by laws that sometimes differ. While relocating a city courthouse[1] does not require approval by the voters, relocating a county courthouse does:

Whenever a number of voters equal to at least one third of the voters of a county registered in the county on the January 1 preceding filing of the petition, petition the circuit court of such county, or whenever the governing body of any county by resolution duly adopted requests the circuit court for such county, for an election in such county on the question of the removal of the courthouse to one or more places specified in the petition or resolution, such court shall issue a writ of election ... which shall fix the day of holding such election.[2]

This statute requires voter approval for all relocations of county courthouses. It does not contain an exception for a county courthouse located in a city. There is, however, an exception to the requirement of voter approval when a county courthouse is to be relocated to a contiguous property, but only if the contiguous property is in the county, stating, "[t]he relocation of a courthouse to land contiguous with its present location ... and within the same county is not such a removal as to require authorization by the electorate."[3]

Here, while the site you have described is contiguous to the present location of the courthouse, thus meeting one of the two requirements of this exception, it is in the city and is not "within the ... county," and thus it does not meet the second requirement of the exception.[4] "It is firmly established that a court must accept a statute's plain meaning when the statute is clear and unambiguous."[5] Accordingly, it is my view that this statute requires voter approval to relocate the county courthouse to a property in the city that is contiguous to the present courthouse.

However, while an election by the voters would be required to relocate the courthouse to the city site in question, the law further provides that once there has been an election for relocation of the courthouse, no other election may occur for ten years, stating, "[a]fter an election has been held in any county upon the question of the removal of its courthouse, no other such election shall be held within ten years."[6] Since the election for relocating the county courthouse occurred on November 8, 2016, with the voters voting against relocation to the site that was then in question, the Code of Virginia prohibits another election for ten years, even though the election would be for a different site than the one proposed in the 2016 election.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is my opinion that under the present statutory framework enacted by the General Assembly, voter approval would be required to relocate the courthouse to the city site in question, and such approval may not be sought for ten years for the reasons stated.

With kindest regards, I am

Very truly yours,

Mark R. Herring
Attorney General

[1] Use of the term "courthouse" herein shall mean only the courthouse of a circuit court.

[2] VA. CODE ANN. § 15.2-1644 (2012) (emphasis added).

[3] Section 15.2-1646 (2012) (emphasis added).

[4] Id.

[5] Archambault v. Roller, 254 Va. 210, 213 (1997) (citations omitted).

[6] Section 15.2-1655 (2012).