Augusta County; removal of county courthouse, authorization by electorate. (SB283)

Introduced By

Sen. Emmett Hanger (R-Mount Solon)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Removal of county courthouse; Augusta County; authorization by electorate. Allows Augusta County to hold a referendum on the courthouse removal in 2022, despite the 10-year waiting requirement, if plans are developed for (i) relocating to a newly constructed courthouse in Augusta County and (ii) either (a) the renovation and expansion of the current courthouse in the City of Staunton or (b) the construction of a new courthouse in the City of Staunton. The bill specifies that both plans are to be schematic, prepared by a licensed architect, include good faith estimates of the costs of construction, including necessary acquisition of property, and be made available to the public at least two months before the planned referendum. The result of the referendum shall be binding. The bill also directs the architect preparing the plans to consider options for reducing record storage space requirements and for shared use of facilities within Staunton and to develop a plan for the preservation of the existing courthouse regardless of which plan is chosen. This bill is identical to HB 902. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Passed

History

DateAction
01/11/2022Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/12/22 22102090D
01/11/2022Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections
01/21/2022Senate committee, floor amendments and substitutes offered
01/25/2022Reported from Privileges and Elections with substitute (14-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
01/25/2022Committee substitute printed 22104659D-S1
01/27/2022Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/28/2022Read second time
01/28/2022Reading of substitute waived
01/28/2022Committee substitute agreed to 22104659D-S1
01/28/2022Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute SB283S1
01/31/2022Passed by for the day
02/01/2022Passed by for the day
02/02/2022Engrossment reconsidered by Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/02/2022Reading of amendment waived
02/02/2022Amendment by Senator Obenshain agreed to
02/02/2022Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute with amendment SB283ES1
02/02/2022Printed as engrossed 22104659D-ES1
02/02/2022Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/02/2022Passed Senate (39-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
02/21/2022Placed on Calendar
02/21/2022Read first time
02/21/2022Referred to Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns
02/22/2022Assigned CC & T sub: Subcommittee #1
02/25/2022Subcommittee recommends reporting with substitute (9-Y 0-N)
03/04/2022House subcommittee amendments and substitutes offered
03/04/2022Reported from Counties, Cities and Towns with substitute (22-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/04/2022Committee substitute printed 22107100D-H1
03/08/2022Read second time
03/09/2022Read third time
03/09/2022Committee substitute agreed to 22107100D-H1
03/09/2022Engrossed by House - committee substitute SB283H1
03/09/2022Passed House with substitute BLOCK VOTE (100-Y 0-N)
03/09/2022VOTE: Block Vote Passage (100-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/10/2022House substitute rejected by Senate (0-Y 40-N) (see vote tally)
03/10/2022House insisted on substitute
03/10/2022House requested conference committee
03/10/2022Senate acceded to request (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/10/2022Conferees appointed by Senate
03/10/2022Senators: Hanger, Mason, Bell
03/10/2022Conferees appointed by House
03/10/2022Delegates: Avoli, Campbell, R.R., Hudson
03/11/2022Passed by temporarily
03/12/2022C Amended by conference committee
03/12/2022Conference substitute printed 22107916D-S2
03/12/2022Conference report agreed to by House (99-Y 0-N)
03/12/2022VOTE: Adoption (99-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/12/2022Conference report agreed to by Senate (38-Y 2-N) (see vote tally)
03/21/2022Enrolled
03/21/2022Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB283ER)
03/21/2022Signed by President
03/22/2022Signed by Speaker
03/22/2022Enrolled Bill Communicated to Governor on March 22, 2022
03/22/2022G Governor's Action Deadline 11:59 p.m., April 11, 2022
04/11/2022Governor's recommendation received by Senate
04/11/2022Governor's substitute printed 22108110D-S3
04/27/2022Passed by for the day
04/27/2022Communicated to Governor on April 27, 2022
04/27/2022G Governor's Action Deadline 11:59 p.m., May 27, 2022
05/27/2022G Approved by Governor-Chapter 807 (effective - see bill)
05/27/2022G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0807)

Comments

Ingrid writes:

To allow this bill to succeed would be to undermine the results of an Augusta County referendum and to generally reward bad behavior, mostly, though not exclusively, on the part of Augusta County.
First, it would allow Augusta County elected officials to ignore the clear will of their constituents, who in 2016 voted overwhelmingly (2-1) against moving the Augusta County courts out of Staunton.
Second, passing this bill messages to Augusta County elected officials that acting in bad faith is acceptable, as demonstrated by them repeatedly refusing, out of hand, any and all contributions made by the City of Staunton to help offset costs of maintaining Staunton as the County seat and keeping the courts here.
Third, the timing of the draft resolution for County and City consideration on supporting this bill was such that it came across to us City residents as an ultimatum, with no time for us to understand what was afoot. While not opining here on the merits of the underlying arrangement proposed (i.e. Courthouse moves to Verona in exchange for essentially giving the City of Staunton several buildings and a lot), the whole way in which the resolution was hastily brought up for a City Council vote was a travesty.

Randall Wolf writes:

I do not support this bill because it disrespects the 2-1 vote by Augusta citizens in 2016 to not move the courthouse to Verona. That vote was taken with the understanding of it lasting a minimum of ten years.

Lallon Pond writes:

I am writing to urgently request that you do not pass SB283 out of your committee and to continue to vote “no” after crossover until it is totally killed. I am a Staunton City resident, and I have heard from my neighbors as well as Augusta County residents that they are NOT in favor of this bill. In the referendum that was held in 2016, the vote was overwhelmingly (2-1) NOT in favor of moving the Augusta County courts out of Staunton. People think their votes in the referendum are being ignored.

Carolyn Dull writes:

This bill has been amended to remove any ability for the city of Staunton to participate in the planning process. It no longer states that it is binding, and changes the referendum question entirely. I certainly hope this bill will be killed in committee.

Post a Public Comment About this Bill



if you have one


(Limited HTML is OK: <a>, <em>, <strong>, <s>)