Martinsville City Council has authorized the next phase of planning for a courthouse renovation project that city officials say is required under Virginia’s courthouse standards, with preliminary estimates placing the project cost at about $46 million.
The decision came during a June 30 special meeting, when council approved a contract amendment allowing Moseley, an architectural firm, to begin the schematic design phase. The conceptual design work is expected to continue through the summer, with preliminary plans due Sept. 19.
City Manager Rob Fincher said the project stems from a courthouse evaluation completed in 2025 and is driven by state requirements for court facilities.
He said the city explored numerous options to reduce costs before recommending the current approach.
“We have worked with Moseley diligently to figure out every single possible way that we can save the citizens money,” Fincher said. “I don’t want to have to write a $50 million check, but it’s a lot better than a $100 million check, and we don’t have any choice.”
The council approved moving forward with the design work, with Council Member Aaron Rawls casting the lone dissenting vote.
Fincher said the project is not simply about renovating an aging building but about meeting current Virginia courthouse design standards, which include security and circulation requirements that did not exist when the Municipal Building was completed in 1968.
“What you’re measuring against … is not only just what might be comfortable, but what Virginia calls courthouse guidelines,” Fincher said. “When you have to do a renovation or new construction, you have to meet the current courthouse guidelines. That’s been the way it’s has been done for over a quarter of a century.”
Among the biggest challenges, he said, are requirements to separate the movement of judges, inmates, court employees and the public.
“The zones of circulation … are really the biggest concern that the courts have,” Fincher said. “You can’t have the public using the same elevator that the judge uses.”
He said complying with those standards would require separate entrances, hallways, elevators and secure parking for judges.
Unlike many localities, Martinsville combines city government offices and court functions in the same building.
“Most places have separate buildings. You’ve got a courthouse building and you’ve got a municipal building,” Fincher said. “The ones that did have joint ones had long since built new courthouses and separated the buildings.”
If the renovation moves forward as envisioned, the Municipal Building would become dedicated court space, requiring city administrative offices and Council Chambers to relocate elsewhere.
“The courts are saying they need this whole building and then some,” Fincher said. “Everyone outside of the courts would have to vacate this building during the course of the renovation.”
He said the city is evaluating other buildings that could house municipal offices.
The current $46 million estimate includes a $10 million contingency and is not considered a final construction cost.
“That is not a final number, and we’re not locked into that number,” Fincher said.
Fincher said city officials also asked whether the state’s findings could be appealed but were advised that no locality has successfully overturned such an order after it was issued.
He added that the city cannot avoid the project by consolidating its court operations with Henry County.
“No, we would not have to do it, but … it would then require the county to do it, and we’re passing our problems on to other people,” he said. “Those costs would still fall upon the citizens of Martinsville.”
Fincher also addressed questions about the city’s legal representation, confirming that Sands Anderson no longer represents Martinsville because of what he described as a conflict of interest stemming from ongoing litigation involving members of city government.
“The mayor has entered in a lawsuit where he is suing Mr. Rawls and suing the firm of Sands Anderson. And he utilizes the same attorney that the former manager is using to sue the city,” Fincher said. “It is a conflict of interest. The attorneys there said, ‘we cannot represent you anymore because it’s a conflict of interest to us.’ So, essentially they had to terminate that arrangement.”
