Augusta County; removal of county courthouse, authorization by electorate.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 283 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 283.
You're tracking SB 283
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 283 — Augusta County; removal of county courthouse, authorization by electorate.
Last action — Approved by Governor-Chapter 807 (effective - see bill)
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed Senate
-
✓Passed House of Delegates
-
✓To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 11, 2022. Enacted.
Signed by Governor Glenn Youngkin (Republican) on May 27, 2022.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
HighHow often bills like it became law.
-
Enacted
Current position in the legislative process.
-
1 sponsor
1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Mixed recorded votes
11 passed, 1 failed in recorded votes so far.
Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.
Summary
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.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
43 added · 48 removedPlain-language change summary
The recent amendments to Bill SB 283 allow Augusta County to hold a referendum in 2022 to decide whether to move the courthouse from the City of Staunton to Augusta County. The new version simplifies the voting process by specifying that plans must be made public two months before the referendum and includes a requirement for cost estimates and property valuations for any proposed changes. This change is important as it ensures that the community has adequate information and time to understand the implications of the courthouse's relocation before casting their votes.
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2022 RECONVENED SESSION SENATECHAPTER SUBSTITUTE807 22108110DAn SENATEAct BILLto NO.allow for a referendum to be held in 2022, relating to the removal of the Augusta County courthouse from the City of Staunton to Augusta County.
283[S AMENDMENT283] INApproved THEMay NATURE27, OF2022 A SUBSTITUTE (Proposed by the Governor on April 11, 2022) (Patron Prior to Substitute––Senator Hanger) A Bremoval of the Augusta County courthouse from the City of Staunton to Augusta County.lating to the Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
Notwithstanding the provisions of § 15.2-1655 of the Code of Virginia, Augusta County may hold a referendum at the November general election in 20232022 on the removal of the Augusta County courthouse from the City of Staunton to Augusta County 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 ofeof Staunton.
TwoBoth sets of plans shallshall: be prepared separately by two architects, duly licensed to practice architecture in the Commonwealth and selected by the judge designate in Case Numbers CL21002043-00 and CL2100500-00.
Each1. set of plans shall:
E 1.
N3. such estimates;
anddInclude a good faith estimate of allthe reasonable costs of construction utilizing the same methodology in arriving at 3.such estimates;
Beand made4. available to the public at least two months prior to the planned date of the refeAendum.
IfBe themade proposedavailable planto for renovation and expansion of the currentpublic courthouseat inleast thetwo Citymonths ofprior Stauntonto or construction of a new courthouse in the Cityplanned ofdate Staunton requires acquisition of property, tTe appraised value of that property shall be included in the computationreferendum. of the total cost for that option.
clerkIf of the court,proposed theplan court,for byrenovation orderand enteredexpansion of recordthe incurrent accordancecourthouse within Articlethe 5City (§of 24.2-681Staunton etor seq.)construction of Chaptera 6new ofcourthouse Titlein 24.2 of the CodeCity of Virginia,Staunton shallrequires requireacquisition theof regularproperty, electionthe officialsappraised value of thethat countyproperty toshall openbe theincluded pollsin and take the sensecomputation of the voterstotal oncost thefor matterthat asoption. herein provided.
B.
Upon submission of plans meeting the requirements of subsection A by the governing body to the clerk of the court, the court, by order entered of record in accordance with Article 5 (§ 24.2-681 et seq.) of Chapter 6 of Title 24.2 of the Code of Virginia, shall require the regular election officials of the county to open the polls and take the sense of the voters on the matter as herein provided.
Notwithstanding the provisions of §§ 15.2-1652 and 24.2-684 of the Code of Virginia, the Slectionelection shall be by ballot that shall be prepared by the electoral board of the county and on which shall be pri"Underprinted Virginia law, Augusta County must provide an adequate court facility for the Augustafollowing: County Courts.
"Under Virginia law, Augusta County must provide an adequate court facility for the Augusta County Courts.
B [ ] Shall the county courthouse be relocated to Verona in Augusta County and constructed at Sa cost of $ [insert estimated cost]? 35 or T[ 37] atShall athe costcounty ofcourthouse $remain [insert estimated cost]?"n in the City of Staunton andat bea renovatedcost andof reconstrIcted$ /[insert 38estimated cost]?" D.
The ballots shall be counted, returns made and canvassed as in other elections, and the rTsultsresults / 39 certified by the electoral board to the court ordering the election.
The court shall enter an order 40 proclaiming the results of the election and a duly certified copy of such order shall be transmitted to the governing body of the county.
The governing body shall proceed to implement the plan certified Tsas 2.receiving the most votes in the election.
That2. each duly licensed architect, in preparing a set of plans pursuant to the provisions ofEthis act, shall consider options that use technology to potentially reduce space requirements for record storage.
EachThat suchthe architectduly shalllicensed explorearchitect, optionsin forpreparing both plans pursuant to the sharedprovisions of this act, shall consider options that use oftechnology facilitiesto withpotentially thereduce Cityspace ofrequirements Staunton.for record storage.
EachSuch such architect shall alsoexplore developoptions an appropriate plan for the preservationshared use of thefacilities existingwith courthouse in the City of Staunton,Staunton. regardless of which plan is ultimately chosen, and the ballot pursuant to subsection C of the first enactment of this act.he cost estimates printed on the 3.
ThatSuch thearchitect provisionsshall ofalso thisdevelop actan shallappropriate notplan becomefor effectivethe unlesspreservation reenactedof bythe existing courthouse in the 2023City Sessionof Staunton, regardless of thewhich Generalplan Assembly.is ultimately chosen.
S 3 3
View plain text versions (6)
- CHAP0807 View text Current pdf May 27, 2022
- Substitute Governor's substitute printed 22108110D-S3 pdf April 11, 2022
- SB283ER View text pdf March 21, 2022
- Conference Substitute Conference substitute printed 22107916D-S2 pdf March 12, 2022
- Committee Substitute Committee substitute printed 22107100D-H1 pdf March 04, 2022
- Engrossed Printed as engrossed 22104659D-ES1 pdf February 02, 2022
Action History
-
Approved by Governor-Chapter 807 (effective - see bill)
-
Governor's Action Deadline 11:59 p.m., May 27, 2022
-
Communicated to Governor on April 27, 2022
-
Passed by for the day
-
Governor's substitute printed 22108110D-S3
-
Governor's recommendation received by Senate
-
Governor's Action Deadline 11:59 p.m., April 11, 2022
-
Enrolled Bill Communicated to Governor on March 22, 2022
-
Signed by Speaker
-
Signed by President
-
Enrolled
-
Conference report agreed to by Senate (38-Y 2-N)
-
VOTE: Adoption (99-Y 0-N)
-
Conference report agreed to by House (99-Y 0-N)
-
Conference substitute printed 22107916D-S2
-
Amended by conference committee
-
Passed by temporarily
-
Conferees appointed by House
-
Conferees appointed by Senate
-
Senate acceded to request (40-Y 0-N)
-
House requested conference committee
-
House insisted on substitute
-
House substitute rejected by Senate (0-Y 40-N)
-
VOTE: Block Vote Passage (100-Y 0-N)
-
Passed House with substitute BLOCK VOTE (100-Y 0-N)
-
Engrossed by House - committee substitute SB283H1
-
Committee substitute agreed to 22107100D-H1
-
Read third time
-
Read second time
-
Committee substitute printed 22107100D-H1
-
Reported from Counties, Cities and Towns with substitute (22-Y 0-N)
-
House subcommittee amendments and substitutes offered
-
Subcommittee recommends reporting with substitute (9-Y 0-N)
-
Assigned CC & T sub: Subcommittee #1
-
Referred to Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns
-
Read first time
-
Placed on Calendar
-
Passed Senate (39-Y 1-N)
-
Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N)
-
Printed as engrossed 22104659D-ES1
-
Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute with amendment SB283ES1
-
Amendment by Senator Obenshain agreed to
-
Reading of amendment waived
-
Engrossment reconsidered by Senate (40-Y 0-N)
-
Passed by for the day
-
Passed by for the day
-
Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute SB283S1
-
Committee substitute agreed to 22104659D-S1
-
Reading of substitute waived
-
Read second time
-
Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N)
-
Committee substitute printed 22104659D-S1
-
Reported from Privileges and Elections with substitute (14-Y 1-N)
-
Senate committee, floor amendments and substitutes offered
-
Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections
-
Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/12/22 22102090D
Sponsors
- Hanger, Emmett W., Jr. · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 147 not signed on · 36 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Hanger, Emmett W., Jr. Voted No
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (147)
147 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 147 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 98 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 98 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 99% | 0% | 0% | 1% |
How each member voted (99)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 38 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 38 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 95% | 5% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 0 | 40 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 0 | 40 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 99 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 99 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (99)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (22)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| March, Marie E. | — | Yea |
| Angelia Williams Graves | — | Yea |
| Avoli, G. "John" | — | Yea |
| Briana D. Sewell | — | Yea |
| Cordoza, A.C. | — | Yea |
| Danica A. Roem | — | Yea |
| Elizabeth B. Bennett-Parker | — | Yea |
| Gooditis, Wendy W. | — | Yea |
| H. Otto Wachsmann, Jr. | — | Yea |
| Irene Shin | — | Yea |
| James W. Morefield | — | Yea |
| Jason S. Ballard | — | Yea |
| Jenkins, Clinton L. | — | Yea |
| Joseph P. McNamara | — | Yea |
| Kory, Kaye | — | Yea |
| LaRock, Dave A. | — | Yea |
| M. Keith Hodges | — | Yea |
| Mike A. Cherry | — | Yea |
| Mullin, Michael P. | — | Yea |
| Phillip A. Scott | — | Yea |
| Scott A. Wyatt | — | Yea |
| Subramanyam, Suhas | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 90% | 0% | 0% | 10% |
How each member voted (10)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Avoli, G. "John" | — | Yea |
| Danica A. Roem | — | Yea |
| Elizabeth B. Bennett-Parker | — | Yea |
| Gooditis, Wendy W. | — | Yea |
| Jason S. Ballard | — | Yea |
| Jenkins, Clinton L. | — | Yea |
| Joseph P. McNamara | — | Yea |
| M. Keith Hodges | — | Not Voting |
| Mike A. Cherry | — | Yea |
| Phillip A. Scott | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 39 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 39 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 98% | 3% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 39 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 39 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 98% | 0% | 0% | 3% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 14 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 14 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 93% | 7% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (15)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| McClellan, Jennifer L. | — | Yea |
| Spruill, Lionell, Sr. | — | Yea |
| Bell, John J. | — | Yea |
| Bryce E. Reeves | — | Yea |
| Ebbin, Adam P. | — | Yea |
| Howell, Janet D. | — | Yea |
| Jennifer B. Boysko | — | Yea |
| Mark J. Peake | — | Yea |
| Mason, T. Montgomery "Monty" | — | Yea |
| R. Creigh Deeds | — | Nay |
| Ruff, Frank M., Jr. | — | Yea |
| Ryan T. McDougle | — | Yea |
| Scott A. Surovell | — | Yea |
| T. Travis Hackworth | — | Yea |
| Vogel, Jill Holtzman | — | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 283 do?
- 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.
- Who sponsors SB 283?
- SB 283 is sponsored by Hanger, Emmett W., Jr..
- What is the current status of SB 283?
- This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 11, 2022. Enacted.
- Where can I track SB 283?
- Track SB 283 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 283
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 283
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →