A new courthouse is needed, but funding and details remain in dispute

Richmond officials and members of City Council are acknowledging the city needs to address its aging John Marshall courthouse, but tight funding may mean a wholesale replacement isn’t in the cards at this time. 

“We are not disputing the fact that we know we need to build a new courthouse,” Interim Chief Administrative Officer Sabrina Joy-Hogg told Council’s Public Safety Committee last week. But the $350 million she said the city was quoted several years ago for a replacement “is not something the city can afford.” 

In January 2024, Michael Nguyen, the city’s deputy director of debt and investments, told members of City Council that the courthouse project would cause the city to violate a debt management policy that calls for Richmond to pay down 60% of any debt over 10 years.

Full replacement is not included in the budget proposed by Mayor Danny Avula Thursday, although it would put $14.6 million toward planning and design of the project in 2027 and 2028. 

Councilor Reva Trammell (8th District) said the city is “going to have to do something ASAP” about the situation.

Councilor Stephanie Lynch (5th District) said the city’s decision to use tens of millions of American Rescue Plan Act dollars to build two new community centers and majorly overhaul two others “left the priorities that should have been at the top of our priority list to the wayside.” 

“This is a do or die. This is not something that we can ignore,” she said. 

Judges at the John Marshall Courts Building have recently increased pressure on the city to fix or replace the 1970s-era facility that sits between 8th and 9th streets and East Marshall and East Clay streets downtown. In a Feb. 27 letter to Mayor Danny Avula and City Council that was first reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Richmond’s seven Circuit Court judges threatened to take legal action against the city if it didn’t begin to tackle a situation they described as “untenable.”

“We are mindful of the City’s numerous obligations beyond court infrastructure,” the judges wrote. “However, this Court has demonstrated a patience that cannot and will not continue indefinitely.”

On Tuesday, Chief Judge Jacqueline McClenney told the committee that “one of the reasons our court sent the letter was to ensure that in addition to the work we were doing with the administration, we recognize that the City Council has to make the ultimate budgetary decisions about what happens for the administration of justice throughout the city.” 

A multitude of issues

Among the problems with the courthouse cited by McClenney were a roof long past its life expectancy, “almost daily” plumbing leaks, a lack of courtroom cameras or electronic locks on many doors, and HVAC and accessibility problems. 

“There are hundreds of people that come through the courthouse, hundreds that aren’t just employees and certainly aren’t judges there,” McClenney said. “We have an obligation to ensure the safety and security of the public and employees.” 

The John Marshall Courts Building is the busiest of Richmond’s three courthouses, which also include the Marsh Manchester Courts Building on Hull Street and the Oliver W. Hill Courts Building near the city jail in Shockoe Valley. Besides housing the circuit court, the John Marshall courthouse also handles some General District Court cases.

The city has long been aware of the problems plaguing the courthouse. Reports by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Virginia Department of General Services have flagged security problems at the building as well as maintenance issues significant enough to cause building code violations. 

The 2021 DGS report, which the city requested from the state, particularly highlighted a lack of accessibility for people with disabilities, communications and infrastructure systems that were in disrepair, an aged HVAC system and concerns over the safety of the building’s all-glass, untinted, non-bulletproof facade.

“The John Marshall Courts Building functionality is outdated,” wrote Director of Public Works Bobby Vincent in a memo about the state’s DGS request in 2021. 

Location a potential sticking point

A special committee convened by the city to begin planning for a replacement was launched in late 2021, but disagreements eventually broke out over where the new building would be sited. 

While former Mayor Levar Stoney’s administration floated the idea of relocating John Marshall to Shockoe Valley, where it would be closer to the Oliver Hill Courthouse and the jail, the plan was opposed by a group of lawyers and judges, who instead pushed for it to be built at the John Marshall Plaza across 9th Street from its current site.

“The court has generally felt it best we be in the downtown environment,” Circuit Court Clerk Ed Jewett said Tuesday. “It’s the most central place as far as public access.” 

A January 2024 project summary indicates the city had spent about $1.6 million on conceptual planning by that time.

On Tuesday, McClenney said the judges were “open to renovation” but indicated location could still be a sticking point. 

Asked by Councilor Sarah Abubaker (4th District) about how willing the judges would be to consider a different location, McClenney appeared to be choosing her words carefully.

“We have said to the city it is important for us to have accessibility to the public,” she said. “That’s not an absolute yes or no.” 

While McClenney told Abubaker she couldn’t give a definite answer without the agreement of all the judges, she said she believed that “if we have to stay in the building that we're in right now, and you say, ‘If you go to this location, you will have a brand-new courthouse,’ we would not sacrifice the safety and administration of justice for the sake of that.” 

State law allows City Council to impose a $2 or $3 fee for legal actions filed in its courts “for the construction, renovation, or maintenance of courthouse or jail and court-related facilities and to defray increases in the cost of heating, cooling, electricity, and ordinary maintenance.” 

Richmond code includes an ordinance that orders the assessment of a $2 fee for construction, renovation or maintenance of any court building, although it is unclear how much revenue has been collected as a result. 

Contact Reporter Sarah Vogelsong at svogelsong@richmonder.org

This story has been updated to note that Richmond has an ordinance allowing for assessment of the $2 courts fee.