Special Joint Council and Board of Supervisors Meeting

Special Joint Council and Board of Supervisors Meeting Agenda Thursday, April 30, 2026 at 10:00 AM Culpeper Police Department, Community Room 740 Old Brandy Rd, Culpeper 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 2. AGENDA APPROVAL Motion to approve or amend the agenda. 3. PRESENTATION BY VIRGINIA TECH CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY 2 ENGAGEMENT (VT CECE) ON CULPEPER COUNTY COURTHOUSE Culpeper Courthouse Pre-Meeting Workshop Packet_V3.pdf Clerk Note: Attachment added on 4/24/26 at 10:22am. 4. ADJOURNMENT Adjournment of Meeting Page 1 of 70 Joint Special Board of Supervisors and Town Council Meeting April 30th, 2026 Goal: The goal of this meeting is to provide a clear overview of the courthouse scenarios, including key considerations, stakeholder input, and insights from comparable case studies, to ensure all participants have a shared baseline understanding. The session will also facilitate a discussion to gather perspectives, address questions, and identify remaining information needs. This discussion is intended to inform future analysis and decision-making, while helping to educate participants on the advantages and challenges associated with each scenario. Agenda Welcome & Project Overview; Ashley Crouse, VT CECE [10 •minutes] Opening remarks and participant introductions • Overview of meeting purpose and expectations • Study scope, process, and key inputs to date Courthouse Needs & Moseley Study Findings; Paul Howard, Culpeper County [20 minutes] • Summary of current facility and key constraints • Implications for site design, layout, and project options • Discussion and Q&A o Does this algin with your understanding? o What is most important to consider? o Where do you see the biggest challenges? Evaluation Framework & Case Study Insights; Ashley Crouse & John Provo, VT CECE & John Accordino, VCU [20 minutes] • Overview of evaluation criteria • Key takeaways from comparable communities • Implications for courthouse location, design, and community impact The Virginia Tech Center for Economic and Community Engagement Page 2 of 70  • Discussion and Q&A o Do these feel like the right factors to consider? o What feels most relevant to Culpeper? o Is there anything missing? ----------------------------------------------Intermission --------------------------------------------------- Stakeholder Feedback; Ashley Crouse & John Provo, VT CECE & John Accordino, VCU [20 minutes] • Summary of stakeholder perspectives across scenarios • Key themes, areas of alignment, and concerns • Discussion and Q&A o What stands out most? o Where do you agree or disagree? Wrap-up Discussion & Next Steps; Ashley Crouse, VT CECE [10 minutes] • Summary of key themes, reactions, and perspectives shared • Identification of key considerations and potential risks • Discussion of questions and remaining information needs Session Expectations To ensure a productive and respectful conversation, we ask participants to: • Engage with an open mind and consider multiple perspectives • Focus on the information presented and the trade-offs across scenarios • Share input constructively and allow space for all voices • Help keep the discussion focused on key considerations and priorities The Virginia Tech Center for Economic and Community Engagement Page 3 of 70 Culpeper Courthouse Scenario Workshop Pre-Meeting Reflection Questions Reflection questions are included to help you think through the key issues, trade-offs, and priorities in advance of our discussion. Taking a few minutes to review and consider these questions will ensure we can use our time together more effectively, focusing on meaningful dialogue, areas of alignment, and key decisions rather than background information. Your input will help ground the conversation and support a more productive and informed discussion. 1. What are the top 2–3 factors that should drive this decision? 2. Which trade-offs feel most acceptable? Which feel most concerning? 3. What is the biggest risk or concern you have about this decision? 4. What key information do you feel is still missing? The Virginia Tech Center for Economic and Community Engagement Page 4 of 70 Culpeper Courthouse Scenarios Overview This document provides an overview of the three courthouse scenarios being considered. 1. Expand the existing courthouse at its original historic downtown site 2. Relocate the courthouse outside the historic downtown core but within the Town of Culpeper 3. Relocate the courthouse to a site elsewhere in Culpeper County This document is intended to help stakeholders understand what each scenario means in practical terms, highlight the key benefits and challenges of each option, and support a more informed and productive discussion during the workshop. This is not a recommendation, but rather a tool to help clarify choices. All scenarios have been evaluated using consistent criteria, including access and convenience, facility performance and long-term needs, cost considerations, community and economic impacts, feasibility and implementation, and civic identity and historic role. Page 5 of 70 Scenario A: Expand at the Existing Downtown Site The courthouse remains in its current downtown location and is improved over time by expanding and upgrading the facility in stages. This could include renovating the existing building, adding new space nearby, or using a combination of buildings that function together to meet long-term needs. Benefits Challenges Maintains downtown access and walkability Limited space may constrain design and long- term growth Preserves the courthouse’s role as a civic Construction could be complex and disruptive and historic anchor Supports existing downtown businesses May be harder to fully meet modern security and and activity operational needs Avoids the need to fully relocate court Typically, more expensive per square foot due to operations site limitations Maintains downtown access and walkability Scenario B: Relocate Within the Town (Outside Downtown Core) A new courthouse is built somewhere else in the Town of Culpeper, outside the historic downtown area. The specific location is undetermined at this time. Benefits Challenges Allows for a modern, purpose-built facility Loss of courthouse as a downtown activity anchor Improves parking and vehicle access Potential impact on local businesses and foot traffic More flexibility to meet long-term space and Requires a clear plan for reusing the existing security needs courthouse site Potentially more efficient to operate over Outcomes depend heavily on where the new site time is located Scenario C: Relocate to Culpeper County The courthouse moves to a new site outside the Town, somewhere in Culpeper County. The specific location is undetermined at this time. Benefits Challenges Provides the most flexibility for a long-term Increased reliance on driving (less walkability) solution Fewer physical constraints ensures easier to Highest risk of reducing downtown activity design for security, expansion, and efficiency Potentially more predictable construction Requires significant investment or reuse planning and operating costs for the current site Represents a larger shift in civic presence and identity Page 6 of 70 Culpeper County Courthouse Study FINAL REPORT PROJECT NUMBER 641337 April 24, 2025 Prepared by: Moseley Architects Trunk Branch Twig Bud Timmons Group Page 7 of 70 Executive Summary CULPEPER COUNTY – COURTHOUSE STUDY 02 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 1 OF 4 Page 8 of 70 In the summer of 2024, a team lead by Moseley Architects was engaged by Culpeper County to provide a comprehensive facility study of the Culpeper County Courts reviewing current and future space needs planning for the 20-year horizon and analysis of existing facilities. The following is a summary of the major findings of the study. Current & Future Space Shortfall A Space Needs Assessment was developed from which it was determined that the area of current facilities has a short fall of 47,159 GSF and a short fall of 68,264 GSF for the space needs in 20 years in the year 2045. Space for Future Growth An analysis of caseloads was performed, and it was determined that the courthouse facility will need to provide an additional two courtrooms to accommodate the anticipated growth in court cases by the year 2045. CULPEPER COUNTY – COURTHOUSE STUDY 02 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 2 OF 4 Page 9 of 70 Building Security - Circulation The existing courthouse facility was assessed for compliance with the Virginia Courthouse Facility Guidelines and a security issue was identified. The movement of in-custody detainees through public spaces was identified in the guidelines to be strictly prohibited. Zoning The team reviewed the existing zoning requirements for the sites selected and identified the applicable parameters. Part way through the process of study’s development it was determined that the Town of Culpeper was currently working on rewriting their zoning ordinance. The team reviewed a draft of the proposed new zoning ordinance and discussed it with the town. It is anticipated that the new zoning ordinance will be approved later in the year. The options advanced in the study are based on the parameters of the new zoning ordinance and edits discussed in the meeting that occurred with the Town. Confirmation of the zoning ordinance edits discussed is necessary for the advancement of the options proposed in this study. Closing of Cameron Street Two of the options reviewed require the closing of Camereon Street. This street closure was discussed in several meetings with the Town of Culpeper. CULPEPER COUNTY – COURTHOUSE STUDY 02 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 3 OF 4 Page 10 of 70 Building Expansion Based on the space needs short fall and circulation issues of the existing building, a new structure is required to contain the majority of the courthouse functions. Three options were developed to accommodate all space needs in a combined building, on two sites. Budgetary estimates were prepared for the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) project cost for each option with costs ranging from $103 million to $115 million. Parking All courthouse options are located in an area of the Town of Culpeper that is identified as a Parking Overlay District, exempting the courthouse from any zoning parking requirements. Through analysis of the parking utilization, it was determined that the existing nearby surface parking could accommodate the short-term increase in parking. Long- term parking increases could be accommodated by two proposed parking structure options which were developed at different sites located near the courthouse. Budgetary estimates were prepared for the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) project cost for each option with costs ranging from $18.2 million to $36.6 million. CULPEPER COUNTY – COURTHOUSE STUDY 02 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 4 OF 4 Page 11 of 70 March 3, 2026 Courts Study Update Culpeper County Page 12 of 70 Agenda 01 Study Recap 06 02 Space Needs Assessment Update 07 03 Parking Study 08 04 Project Design Variables 09 05 Next Steps 10 Page 13 of 70 Study Recap Page 14 of 70  CLOSE PORTION OF OPTION B CAMERON STREET DEMO EXISTING BUILDINGS Existing Historic Jail Courthouse Historic Jail Page 15 of 470  VEHICLE SALLYPORT ENTRY & SECURE PARKING OFF ALLEY OPTION B PHASE 1 – NEW 4 LEVELS CONSTRUCTION 104,000 GSF PHASE 2 – 3 LEVELS 23,000 GSF ADDITION Existing Historic Jail Courthouse COURTHOUSE Historic ENTRY PLAZA Jail Page 16 of 570 Space Needs Assessment March 2026 Update Page 17 of 70 Program of Space Needs – First Round Purpose of Exercise: Courthouse Elements:120,117 GSF Other Elements: • To maximize the possible space (2045) needs (for site test purposes). Victim • To allow for different Witness configurations of elements to be tested. Circuit Court Clerk Circuit Magistrate Cust. Svc. Court- • Each element was programmed rooms in isolation, with all required Magistrate spaces included. CJ Services Admin. • All elements were included in Culpeper the courthouse. General District Court County Jail Sheriff • Total GSF of all elements was Clerk • 104,410 (2025) Central Shared • 120,117 (2045) Holding General District Courtrooms Decisions made: J&DR Court Clerk Sheriff • Option B was preferred. Admin J&DR Courtrooms Commonwealth's Attorney CSU Page 18 of 770 Three-Dimensional Adjacencies (Stacking) Staff Areas Restricted Access Areas Mixed Access Areas Public Areas • Consideration for horizontal and vertical adjacencies • Three paths of circulation – public, secure, mixed Secure Access Areas Page 19 of 870 Program of Space Needs – Second Round Purpose of Exercise - Efficiencies • Public - Better defined waiting, restrooms, and circulation. Courthouse Elements: 97,556 GSF Other Elements: • Staff - Maximized sharing of (2045) meeting rooms, break rooms, Victim toilets, and circulation. Witness • Courtrooms - Negotiated Commonwealth's Circuit Court Clerk Circuit sharing one courtroom between Attorney Magistrate J&DR and GD. Court- • Confirmed elements to include: rooms Cust. Svc. • Elements to relocate inside the new courthouse: Shared ▪ Commonwealth's Attorney ▪ Court Service Unit General District J&DR Courtrooms ▪ Criminal Justice Services Magistrate • Elements to remain outside: Courtrooms Shared Admin. ▪ Victim - witness ▪ Magistrate's Customer Culpeper Sheriff Service) County Jail CJ Services Central CSU • Total revised estimated GSF Holding • 88,760 GSF (2025) General District Court Shared • 97,556 (2045) Clerk Sheriff • Program reduction of 15% (2025) J&DR Court Clerk 19% Admin reduction and 19% (2045). Page 20 of 970 Footprint Reduction The original footprint filled all available site area. Next steps include revising the original Option B. Page 21 of1070 New Element – Intake and Local Lockup A local lockup will: Questions: • Provide a local intake for new arrests by the • Should Culpeper County pursue a stand - Culpeper Police Department and Culpeper alone intake and local lockup? County Sheriff's Office; • Should this element be added to the • Facilitate local screening for pre - trial courthouse? alternative programs (Criminal Justice Services); • Allow for local release of individuals with stays of <12 hours (bail, bond, OR releases). • Stage local arrestees for transfer to either a new local jail or an outside facility. • Approximately 6,000 GSF of additional space required if added to the courthouse. Page 22 of1170 Parking Study Findings Page 23 of 70 PARKING LOT SUMMARY Page 24 of1370 ON-STREET PARKING SUMMARY Page 25 of1470 EXISTING TOWN PARKING UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Page 26 of1570 WEDNESDAY OBSERVATION Page 27 of1670 MONDAY OBSERVATION Page 28 of170 MONDAY OBSERVATION Page 29 of1870 COMPILED OBSERVATIONS Page 30 of1970 WEDNESDAY SUMMARY MONDAY SUMMARY Page 31 of2070 Project Design Variables Page 32 of 70  CURRENT SPACE AVAILABLE DEMO EXISTING MAINTAIN BUILDINGS OPERATIONS AND ENTRY TO COURTHOUSE Existing Historic Jail Courthouse Historic MAINTAIN MAINTAIN Jail ACCESS TO OPERATIONS AND BUSINESS ENTRY TO JAIL PARKING Page 33 of2270  PROPOSED CAMERON STREET IS BUILDING CLOSED FOOTPRINT DEMO EXISTING BUILDINGS MAINTAIN OPERATIONS AND ENTRY TO COURTHOUSE Existing Historic Jail Courthouse Historic MAINTAIN MAINTAIN Jail ACCESS TO OPERATIONS AND BUSINESS ENTRY TO JAIL PARKING Page 34 of2370 MAINTAIN OPERATIONS AND ENTRY TO COURTHOUSE Existing Historic Jail Courthouse Historic MAINTAIN Jail ACCESS TO BUSINESS PARKING Page 35 of2470 WEST STREET IS TRANSITION FROM COMMERICAL TO RESIDENTIAL Existing Historic Jail Courthouse Historic Jail Page 36 of2570 • MAINTAIN WEST STREET RESIDENTIAL SET BACKS • CREATE PARKING ALONG WEST STREET • CREATE CENTERED ENTRY OFF DAVIS STREET COURTYARD Existing Historic Jail Courthouse Historic Jail Page 37 of2670 Next Steps Page 38 of 70 Questions for Next Steps • The analysis indicates we don’t need a parking garage for this project, what are the next steps for parking? • In planning for the new courthouse, does the jail remain? • Do we include the lockup in the in the space planning? Page 39 of2870 Next Steps • Develop Floor Plan Layouts • Temporary Modifications for Phase 1 • Connection to Historic Courthouse • Entry Courtyard Page 40 of2970 Thank You. QUESTIONS? Page 41 of 70 Culpeper Courthouse Case Studies Each case documents economic and redevelopment impacts and the social, symbolic, and community identity roles that courthouses and civic anchors played in the decision. Each case helps inform a framework of best practices and lessons learned that can be applied to the Culpeper planning context. Case 1: Montgomery County Courthouse – Existing Expansion Retained downtown, rebuilt and expanded on original site Case 2: Southampton County Courthouse Retained downtown, expanded on original site Case 3: Albemarle County Courthouse — Charlottesville, VA Retained downtown, expanded adjacent. Case 4: Augusta County / Staunton Courthouse — Relocated to Verona Relocation outside the city Page 42 of 70 Case 1: Montgomery County Courthouse Town of Christiansburg, Virginia Retained downtown, Rebuilt and expanded on existing site The Montgomery County Courthouse is located within an incorporated town, Christiansburg, rather than a standalone county seat. This town–county governance context closely parallels Culpeper, where courthouse decisions intersect with downtown land use, civic identity, and shared local infrastructure considerations. Economic and Redevelopment Impacts 1. Courthouse siting in Courthouse Square anchors downtown • The courthouse’s long-standing presence in the historic core has shaped surrounding land use patterns, pedestrian activity, and the concentration of professional services in downtown Christiansburg. Regular weekday visitation by county staff, legal professionals, jurors, and residents conducting civic business continues to contribute to downtown activity and supports nearby offices, services, and commercial uses. 2. Evolution through Redevelopment • Each phase of courthouse redevelopment represented a deliberate decision to modernize facilities while retaining the courthouse at its historic location. The replacement of earlier courthouse buildings, including the demolition of the 1909 Edwardian courthouse and construction of the modern facility in the 1970s, reflected changing functional, safety, and space requirements, while preserving the courthouse’s role within Courthouse Square. 3. Public Safety and Civic Infrastructure • Facility upgrades and related public safety improvements addressed modern service needs while continuing to support the courthouse’s central role in local governance and civic life. Page 43 of 70 Social, Symbolic, and Community Identity Roles 1. Courthouse Square as a Civic Core in Town Identity • The retention of courthouse functions in the historic center reinforces Christiansburg’s identity as the seat of county government and justice, even as the town has grown and evolved since its chartering in 1792. • The historic district’s listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register and National Register of Historic Places underscores the communal value placed on downtown’s architectural and historic resources, within which the courthouse plays a central symbolic role. 2. Preservation of Historic Courthouse Artifacts as Symbolic Memory • Though the historic courthouse buildings themselves were replaced, the eagle sculpture from the 1909 courthouse cupola was preserved and placed on the courthouse square as a civic artifact. This eagle has become a symbol of continuity and heritage, anchoring collective memory of earlier civic architecture and connecting present-day Christiansburg with its judicial history. Lessons for Culpeper Christiansburg / Montgomery County Dimension Transferable Lesson Insight Sustained courthouse siting in the historic Evaluate how courthouse siting contributes Downtown square supported downtown visitation and to downtown economic stability in Anchoring land use stability Culpeper Balancing functional modernization with Consider heritage narrative and community Evolution vs preservation concerns shaped sentiment when modernizing historic civic Preservation redevelopment choices buildings Use symbolic artifacts and interpretive Symbolic Preservation of artifacts (eagle sculpture) elements in downtown planning to maintain Continuity reinforces civic memory identity continuity Investing in public safety and judicial Integrated Plan courthouse modernization in facilities can align with broader civic service Infrastructure coordination with adjacent civic functions delivery Best-practice takeaways • If the courthouse function changes, define a replacement “identity program” (arts, culture, or community-serving uses) that preserves the building’s symbolic role while sustaining downtown foot traffic. • Prioritize continuity of place where feasible. Modernization or redevelopment that retains courthouse functions on or near the historic site helps maintain civic identity, access, and downtown activity. Page 44 of 70 Case 2: Southampton County Courthouse Town of Courtland, Virginia Retained Downtown, Expanded Existing Footprint The Southampton County Courthouse is situated within the Town of Courtland. This town–county relationship mirrors Culpeper’s context, in which courthouse investment decisions carry implications for both county judicial operations and the vitality of a small-town downtown. Economic and Redevelopment Impacts 1. Courthouse Investment as a Downtown Stabilizer • The courthouse expansion and renovation represented one of the most significant public capital investments in Southampton County in recent decades, reflecting a long-term commitment to modernizing judicial infrastructure rather than a routine facilities upgrade. • By retaining and expanding the courthouse at its historic downtown site, the County sustained weekday judicial activity, county employment, and visitor traffic in Courtland. Court functions, associated offices, and the nearby Sheriff’s Office continued to reinforce downtown Courtland as the focal point of county governance and public services. • Unlike the Christiansburg case, this investment followed visible public deliberation and debate. Board of Supervisors meeting records document extended discussion of project scope, cost, funding strategies, and preservation priorities, along with public comment reflecting both concern and support prior to the final decision. 2. Modernization Without Relocation • Rather than dispersing court operations to a new site, Southampton County chose to modernize in place. The expanded courthouse integrates secure circulation, updated courtrooms, administrative offices, and technology infrastructure within a design that remains visually and spatial connected to Courtland’s historic core. • This approach minimized disruption to existing land use patterns and preserved the courthouse’s functional relationship with surrounding civic and governmental uses, supporting a cohesive civic campus rather than fragmented facilities. Page 45 of 70 Social, Symbolic, and Community Identity Roles 1. Courthouse as a Generational Civic Asset • Public comments documented in Board of Supervisors meetings demonstrate that residents view the courthouse as a symbol of county heritage, justice, and leadership. Speakers emphasized the courthouse’s role as a generational institution and advocated for recognizing local judges, public servants, and county history within the renovated facility through naming, displays, and interpretive elements. • These discussions reveal that the courthouse was understood not merely as a building, but as a representation of Southampton County’s civic values and identity, reinforcing its importance beyond functional considerations. 2. Preservation and Civic Continuity • By keeping the courthouse in its historic location and preserving its visual prominence, Southampton County reinforced continuity between past and present civic life, strengthening community trust and attachment to place. The project’s receipt of a historic preservation honor award further reflects its success in balancing modernization with respect for architectural heritage. Lessons for Culpeper Dimension Southampton County Insight Transferable Lesson for Culpeper The courthouse was modernized and Evaluate options that allow courthouse Courthouse expanded in place, preserving its historic functions to remain in or closely tied to location downtown site Culpeper’s historic core Retaining the courthouse sustained Recognize courthouse presence as a Downtown vitality weekday activity and reinforced Courtland’s stabilizing force for downtown activity and role as the civic center civic use Residents viewed the courthouse as a Treat courthouse decisions as identity- Civic identity generational symbol of justice and county defining choices, not solely facilities heritage decisions Use transparent, ongoing public Extensive public discussion reinforced Public process engagement to build trust around major legitimacy during a complex capital project courthouse investments Integrate preservation goals with Preservation + Design balanced historic preservation with operational upgrades rather than treating modernization contemporary court requirements them as competing priorities Best-practice takeaways • Acknowledge and reinforce the courthouse’s symbolic role. Incorporating heritage, recognition of local leadership, and civic narratives strengthens public trust and long-term community support. Page 46 of 70 Case 3: Albemarle Courthouse Complex Albemarle County / Charlottesville, VA Retained downtown, Expanded adjacent Economic and Redevelopment Impacts 1. Downtown Retention Preserved an Existing Economic Ecosystem The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) found that maintaining a centralized downtown courthouse campus produced significant operational and economic efficiencies: • Attorneys, judges, clerks, court services, probation, treatment providers, and interpreters benefited from co-location, which reduced continuances, delays, incarceration time, and attorney fees. • Early case resolution was facilitated by spontaneous interaction between defense attorneys and prosecutors, reducing court time and public costs. • Adjacent court services increased compliance with court-ordered rehabilitation and reduced recidivism, producing downstream cost savings for law enforcement and detention. • The courthouse functioned as a weekday economic anchor, sustaining downtown foot traffic and supporting professional services, food establishments, and support functions. 2. Relocation Offered Only Modest Development Potential Stantec’s cost-benefit analysis concluded that: • Keeping courts downtown was least expensive and economically neutral (it preserved value rather than created new value) • Relocating courts was more expensive and offered only modest development stimulus, largely symbolic rather than market-driven. • The courts themselves were not expected to generate enough spending to anchor meaningful retail or restaurant development in a new location • The primary redevelopment lever would be public parking infrastructure, not the courthouse itself. Page 47 of 70 Social, Symbolic, and Community Identity Role 1. Court Square as Albemarle’s Historic Civic Core • The NCSC report explicitly documents the courthouse’s identity function. Courts have operated in Court Square since 1762 with hosting figures such as Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. The courthouse provides a “significant historical community image” and “historic court dignity”. • Public and stakeholder surveys showed 83.3% opposed relocation and 63.5% strongly supported staying downtown, citing centrality, access, and continuity • The downtown courthouse represented stability, legitimacy of the justice system, continuity of civic memory. • Relocating risked eroding this identity capital. The County was advised that relocation would require a public marketing campaign to rebuild legitimacy. 2. Civic Access and Equity Considerations • Public transit was sufficient downtown but inadequate at the relocation site. • Stakeholders emphasized that relocation would disadvantage residents without vehicles. Lessons for Culpeper Dimension Albemarle Insight Transferable Lesson Courts sustain professional/service Evaluate preservation value, not just catalytic Economic ecosystems more than they create new potential markets Pair relocation with a strong complementary Courts alone rarely drive private Redevelopment anchor (e.g., major employer, arts hub, or development parking investment) Courthouse identity matters deeply to Treat courthouse decisions as identity planning, Symbolic public trust not just land use Access Location affects equity of justice access Map transit, walkability, and user burden Process Public legitimacy shapes success Measure and manage community acceptance Best-practice takeaways • Treat the courthouse decision as a campus strategy (phasing, adaptive reuse, and adjacency) rather than a binary “move vs. stay.” • Quantify and describe downtown continuity benefits (weekday activity and adjacent civic/support uses) even when the main justification is security/ADA. Page 48 of 70 Case 4: Verona Courthouse Staunton/Verona, VA Relocated outside the city Economic and Redevelopment Impacts 1. Expanded Judicial Infrastructure with Operational Efficiencies • The new Augusta County Courthouse, currently under construction, is a 124,000-square- foot, four-story facility designed to house eight courtrooms, offices for more than 100 staff, support spaces, and secured parking and circulation areas that the historic courthouse could not accommodate. 2. Broader Economic and Access Footprint • The Verona site was selected for its transportation accessibility. This location improves countywide access for legal professionals, staff, and citizens from across the region, potentially reducing travel times compared with downtown Staunton. • Construction activity itself has created direct economic impacts through local contracting, and is likely to continue to generate economic activity through project completion. • However, relocating the courthouse outside of the downtown core also introduced the risk that weekday foot traffic, and related support spending, could shift away from Staunton’s historic business district. Social, Symbolic, and Community Identity Roles 1. Historic Civic Identity Grounded in the Downtown • The 1901 Staunton courthouse, situated on a site with court functions dating back to 1747 had long been a defining element of the historic downtown streetscape. Their presence contributed to the downtown’s visual identity, civic continuity, and cultural memory for residents. • The decision to relocate was not made lightly. Opposition argued that court functions had long served as a cornerstone of downtown activity, helping to sustain pedestrian flow, Page 49 of 70  nearby commercial activity, and the presence of professional services. The relocation was seen by some as a potential loss of a civic anchor and an important piece of the historic identity that distinguished Staunton’s central business district. 2. Groundbreaking Ceremony and Symbolic Transition • When construction began, a groundbreaking ceremony was scheduled to symbolize a collective investment in the county’s judicial future and acknowledge the significance of the courthouse as a civic institution. • The architectural design reflects the civic architectural language of the historic courthouse. 3. Evolving Identity and Downtown Adaptation Conversations Debates about the fate of the historic courthouse and adjacent properties have catalyzed broader conversations about downtown Staunton’s identity. Preservation advocates have emphasized: • Adaptive reuse strategies that keep historic buildings active, relevant, and integrated • The importance of economic and cultural programming that can sustain or replace traditional courthouse–driven activity, and • Recognition that civic identity can evolve while preserving architectural heritage. Lessons for Culpeper Dimension Staunton Insight Transferable Lesson Large, modern facilities can improve Conduct forecasting of courthouse– Development courthouse operational capacity, but generated demand and develop backfill impact relocation may shift economic activity away strategies for downtown if relocation from historic cores occurs Historic courthouses serve as anchors of place Embed identity preservation and design Historic identity memory and civic continuity continuity into redevelopment strategies Ceremonies and design language can mediate Community Use civic rituals and architectural cues to transitions by reinforcing civic values even as transitions signal continuity, not abandonment functions relocate Transportation access matters for equity and Evaluate relocation impacts on both Access regional connectivity downtown and broader community access Best-practice takeaways • If functions relocate, pair the decision with a downtown backfill plan so the community does not experience “anchor removal” without a replacement. • Use referendum/public process outcomes as impact data (not just politics): it is evidence of community priorities and risk tolerance. Page 50 of 70 Survey and Interview Analytical Synthesis Key Stakeholder Group Takeaways March 2026 This document analyzes key stakeholder feedback regarding the redevelopment of the Culpeper Courthouse. Culpeper County engaged the Virginia Tech Center for Economic and Community Engagement (VT CECE) to evaluate three potential scenarios: (1) expanding and modernizing the existing courthouse in historic downtown, (2) constructing a new courthouse within the Town of Culpeper but outside the historic downtown, and (3) constructing a new courthouse elsewhere in Culpeper County. To inform this effort, VT CECE partnered with Culpeper County to distribute a virtual Culpeper Courthouse Community Impact Survey via QuestionPro to downtown residents and merchant groups, receiving 62 responses (42 complete and 20 partial) between February 19th and March 12th. In addition, 12 stakeholder interviews were conducted to gather more in-depth perspectives from community, business, and government representatives. This analysis integrates findings from both survey responses and stakeholder interviews. Survey data provides broad, quantitative insight into the perspectives of downtown residents and merchant groups, while interviews offer deeper qualitative context from a wider range of stakeholders, including organizations operating within, connected to, and outside of the Town. The findings are intended to support decision-making by clarifying considerations rather than recommending a specific outcome. Question 1: How would you describe your relationship to Culpeper? The survey respondent group includes a mix of town and county residents (27 and 26 responses, respectively), along with property owners (27) and business owners located in both the town (26) and county (11). Additional responses came from employees (12), government staff (10), and legal system employees (7). No respondents identified as visitors, indicating the data reflects individuals with ongoing ties to Culpeper. In total, there were 147 selections across categories, exceeding the number of individual respondents, which confirms that respondents selected multiple categories and hold overlapping roles. Notably, town-based stakeholders, including town residents and town business owners, are slightly more represented than their county counterparts. Page 51 of 70  Other, 1 Property owner, 27 Resident (Town), 27 Legal system employee, 7 Government employee, 10 Resident (County), 26 Employee in Culpeper, 12 Business owner (County), 11 Business owner (Town), 26 Figure 1: Respondent Relationship to Culpeper Interview participants represent a diverse mix of backgrounds and connections to Culpeper, including long-time residents, newcomers, and individuals who have returned after careers elsewhere. They span a wide range of roles, including public safety, legal and judicial services, local government, economic development and downtown revitalization, and community-based services. Across interviews, participants often described “wearing multiple hats,” reflecting involvement in various professional, civic, and volunteer roles over time. This combination of personal ties and professional experience provides a well- rounded perspective on Culpeper’s growth, community dynamics, and the potential impacts of courthouse-related decisions. Question 2: How frequently do you interact with the courthouse? The largest share of survey respondents reported interacting with the courthouse on a yearly basis (19), followed by those who never interact with it (14), and, in contrast, those who engage on a monthly basis (12). This distribution may indicate that courthouse interactions are often need-based rather than routine, while a smaller group relies on the courthouse more consistently, likely due to professional or recurring obligations. Page 52 of 70  Daily, 8 Never, 14 Monthly, 12 Yearly, 19 Quarterly, 7 Figure 2: Frequency of Courthouse Use Interviewees described varying levels of interaction with the courthouse based on their roles, ranging from regular and direct engagement to more periodic or indirect involvement. Those in legal, public safety, and government-related roles indicated more consistent interaction as part of their professional responsibilities, while others engage with the courthouse less frequently, typically in relation to specific services, cases, or community needs. Question 3: How important is the courthouse in Culpeper beyond its judicial function? The majority of survey respondents indicated that the courthouse is very important to Culpeper beyond its judicial function (39), followed by those who view it as slightly important (11), with few respondents indicating it is not important (4). Interview findings present a more nuanced perspective. Stakeholders closely connected to downtown and community development similarly describe the courthouse as central to Culpeper’s identity, economic ecosystem, and sense of place. However, other interviewees, particularly those focused on operational or government functions, view the courthouse primarily as a functional facility with more limited broader community influence. This variation suggests that perceptions differ based on stakeholder proximity to downtown, professional role, and lived experience. This contrast in perspectives is illustrated in the following stakeholder quotes: “The courthouse is part of the ‘DNA’ of Culpeper… it is central to how the community sees itself.” “Primarily a functional building… not something people actively notice.” Page 53 of 70 Question 4: In what ways does the courthouse contribute to Culpeper today? (select all that apply) When asked in what ways the courthouse contributes to Culpeper today, survey respondents indicate that it is most commonly viewed as contributing through employment (46), which may also reflect its role in supporting local government (40), as well as serving as a civic landmark (45). A notable number of respondents also identified its role in supporting downtown businesses (29) and attracting visitors (20). 50 45 Number of Responses 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Supports Provides Serves as a Supports local Attracts Has minimal Other downtown employment civic landmark government visitors broader businesses impact Figure 3: Ways the Courthouse Currently Contributes to Culpeper Of the smaller number of “other” responses (3), several emphasized the courthouse’s historical and architectural significance, noting its role as a contributing structure to the town’s character. Question 5: Please briefly describe the courthouse’s role in Culpeper today. Survey participants were given the chance to briefly describe the role that the courthouse plays in Culpeper today. Responses indicate that the courthouse serves as the central hub for judicial and legal functions in Culpeper, including court proceedings, records management, and access to government services. Beyond its functional role, many respondents describe it as a historic landmark and civic anchor that contributes to the town’s identity, character, and downtown environment. It is also frequently noted as supporting local economic activity by bringing people into the area and maintaining connections to surrounding businesses. These perspectives are illustrated in the following stakeholder quotes: “It is the most iconic and historically significant building in the Town of Culpeper and in Culpeper County more generally, in my opinion. Something attractive about Culpeper is its Page 54 of 70 historic 'core' which attracts people to this area and improves the quality of life for residents and visitors.” “It houses all local courts and related services, including the Clerk's Office for the Circuit Court. The Clerk's Office also houses and records all land records and other governmental records for public access.” Interviewees similarly emphasized the courthouse’s dual role as both a functional government facility and a defining community asset. Several noted its importance as an anchor for downtown activity and its connection to surrounding businesses and services. At the same time, some interviewees placed greater emphasis on operational limitations, including space constraints, aging infrastructure, and challenges meeting modern security and circulation needs. These perspectives are illustrated in the following stakeholder quotes: It’s not just a legal facility; it’s a symbol of community governance & civic pride.” “It is the center of judicial processes, land records, and related functions for Culpeper County.” Question 6: Please rate the potential impact of expanding and modernizing the courthouse at its current historic downtown location on impact on downtown businesses, accessibility for residents, traffic and congestion, convenience, contribution to Culpeper’s identity, long- term sustainability, and overall community benefit. Survey responses indicate positive perceptions of expanding and modernizing the courthouse at its current downtown location across most factors. The strongest positive impacts are seen in contribution to Culpeper’s identity (25 very positive), accessibility (23 very positive), and impact on downtown businesses (22 very positive). Convenience (21 very positive) and overall community benefit (20 very positive) also received largely favorable ratings. However, responses are more mixed regarding traffic congestion, where 26 of respondents indicated negative impacts. Page 55 of 70  Community benefit Sustainability Identity Convenience Traffic Accessibility Downtown businesses -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Number of Responses Very Negative Somewhat Negative Somewhat Positive Very Positive Figure 4: Perceived Impacts of Expanding and Modernizing the Existing Courthouse in the Town of Culpeper Interviewees similarly highlighted the benefits of maintaining a downtown location, particularly for supporting local businesses, preserving community identity, and maintaining accessibility. However, interviews introduce more pronounced concerns about feasibility than reflected in survey responses. These include physical space limitations, construction disruption, parking constraints, and the ability of the current site to accommodate long-term growth and modern facility needs. These perspectives are illustrated in the following stakeholder quotes: “Keeping the courthouse within the downtown district preserves the cultural and historical integrity of Culpeper.” “Expansion of the existing courthouse is suboptimal… a 50-year plan is needed.” Question 7: Please rate the potential impact of building a new Courthouse within the Town of Culpeper, outside the historic downtown on the impact on downtown businesses, accessibility for residents, traffic and congestion, convenience, contribution to Culpeper’s identity, long-term sustainability, and overall community benefit. When asked about building a new Courthouse within the Town of Culpeper, survey responses indicate more mixed perceptions. Accessibility (24 positive) and long-term sustainability (23 positive) received more favorable ratings, along with overall community benefit (23 positive). However, impacts on downtown businesses are evenly split between positive (19) and negative (23) responses, and contribution to Culpeper’s identity is viewed more negatively overall (25 somewhat or very negative). Page 56 of 70  Community benefit Sustainability Identity Convenience Traffic Accessibility Downtown businesses -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Number of Responses Very Negative Somewhat Negative Somewhat Positive Very Positive Figure 5: Perceived Impacts of Building a New Courthouse Within the Town of Culpeper Outside the Historic Downtown Interview findings closely align with this balanced perspective and often frame this option as a potential compromise. Stakeholders note that a well-selected site within Town limits could preserve proximity to downtown, maintain economic connections, and allow for improved design, parking, and expansion capacity. At the same time, interviews reinforce concerns that moving away from the historic core could weaken the courthouse’s symbolic connection to Culpeper’s identity if not carefully planned. Question 8: Please rate the potential impact of building a new Courthouse outside of Town, within Culpeper County on the impact on downtown businesses, accessibility for residents, traffic and congestion, convenience, contribution to Culpeper’s identity, long- term sustainability, and overall community benefit. Survey responses indicate more negative perceptions of building a new courthouse outside of Town within Culpeper County. Impacts on downtown businesses (37 negative) and contribution to Culpeper’s identity (28 negative) are viewed most negatively. Accessibility (30 negative) and convenience (28 negative) also received predominantly negative ratings. In contrast, traffic and congestion is viewed more positively (32 positive), and long-term sustainability shows more favorable responses overall (26 positive). Page 57 of 70  Community benefit Sustainability Identity Convenience Traffic Accessibility Downtown businesses -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Number of Responses Very Negative Somewhat Negative Somewhat Positive Very Positive Figure 6: Perceived Impacts of Building a New Courthouse Outside the Town of Culpeper, within Culpeper County Interview perspectives on the Courthouse locating to Culpeper County are more mixed. Some stakeholders emphasize opportunities for improved efficiency, space for long-term planning and expansion, and the ability to co-locate government services. Others express strong concerns about loss of downtown economic activity, disruption on the existing network of legal and supporting services, and transportation barriers for individuals without reliable access to a vehicle. At the same time, interviews introduce a more supportive perspective from operational and government-focused stakeholders, who highlight the advantages of a county location for long-term planning, security, expansion, and potential consolidation of government services. These perspectives are illustrated in the following stakeholder quotes: “If land is available to the county… it makes sense to design a courthouse complex that meets modern needs.” “Moving the courthouse away… would diminish the vibrancy of downtown Culpeper.” Question 9: Are there any additional strengths or limitations that you would like to discuss? Survey respondents who provided additional strengths or limitations highlighted the importance of long-term, phased planning, coordination between courthouse decisions and jail or broader government facility needs, and the potential to develop a consolidated government complex. Survey participants also raised the opportunity for adaptive reuse of the existing courthouse if relocated, suggesting uses such as public space, museum, retail, or consolidated government offices. Additionally, some comments emphasized the need to Page 58 of 70 carefully consider site selection, including parcel size, future expansion capacity, and alignment with surrounding assets such as trails or adjacent civic spaces. These perspectives are illustrated in the following stakeholder quotes: “If a new courthouse is built outside the town the old building could be used to consolidate county services/offices now spread among several buildings.” “As a legal firm employee, the convenience and presence of the courthouse is crucial to our daily dealings with all aspects of the law. No need to reinvent the wheel. Leave it where it is!” Interview findings reinforce several key themes identified in the survey, including the importance of long-term planning, coordinated government services, and flexibility to accommodate future growth. Many interviewees also identified opportunities to repurpose the existing courthouse if relocated, suggesting uses such as a museum or heritage site, public or civic space, consolidated government offices, or retail and mixed-use development that continues to support downtown activity and preserve its historic character. Question 10: Using a rating of 1–5, how do you believe each courthouse location option would affect the following groups or places? (1 = very positive, 2 = very negative) Survey responses indicate that expanding and modernizing the courthouse at its current downtown location is viewed most positively for downtown businesses, visitors, property values, and legal professionals, with an average rating of 4, suggesting perceived benefits tied to its central location and existing economic activity. Building a new courthouse within the Town but outside the historic downtown reflects more moderate perceptions across survey respondents, with average ratings of 3 across most categories. In contrast, building a new courthouse outside of Town is more frequently associated with lower ratings for downtown businesses, visitors, and town-based stakeholders, averaging 2, while impacts related to traffic, county residents, and some operational considerations remain more neutral, with average ratings of 3. Page 59 of 70  Table 1: Average Ratings of Perceived Impacts to Groups by Courthouse Scenario Group Downtown (Current Site) Town (Outside Downtown) County (Outside Town) Downtown Business 4 3 2 County Business 3 3 3 Town Residents 4 3 2 County Residents 3 3 3 Gov. Employees 3 3 3 Legal Professionals 4 3 2 Visitors 4 3 2 Property Values 3 3 3 Traffic 3 3 3 Interviewees were not asked to rate impacts numerically; however, their responses provide important context on how each scenario may affect different groups and systems. Interview stakeholders consistently noted that maintaining the courthouse downtown supports existing relationships with nearby businesses, particularly restaurants, law offices, and retail, which benefit from steady weekday foot traffic. This option was also seen as reinforcing accessibility for town residents, legal professionals, and those who rely on proximity or walkability. Relocating the courthouse within Town was generally viewed as a middle-ground option, with more limited disruption to the local economy while potentially improving parking, circulation, and space for expansion. However, interviewees noted that impacts would depend heavily on the specific site and its connectivity to downtown. In contrast, relocating the courthouse outside of Town was frequently associated with reduced interaction with downtown businesses and potential declines in foot traffic, particularly affecting small businesses and legal services clustered near the current site. At the same time, some stakeholders identified potential benefits, including improved traffic conditions, greater space for co-located government services, and more efficient operations. These perspectives are illustrated in the following stakeholder quotes: “Where the courthouse is located affects the steady weekday foot traffic that keeps nearby small businesses… consistently busy.” “If the new location is large enough… growth can occur in an anticipated, coherent, and economical manner.” Page 60 of 70 Question 11: Which groups would be most affected by courthouse relocation? Survey responses indicate that the groups most affected by courthouse relocation are legal professionals (30) and downtown businesses (29), followed by residents in Town (24). Government employees were also identified by a notable number of respondents (18). Fewer respondents identified residents in the County (8), property owners (8), or visitors (5) as most affected. Overall, survey responses suggest that impacts are perceived to be most concentrated among those directly tied to downtown economic activity and the legal system. Interview responses reinforce these findings while adding nuance around specific populations. Many highlighted the need to consider elderly individuals, people with disabilities, and those reliant on public transportation. These perspectives are illustrated in the following stakeholder quotes: “Travel beyond 10 minutes becomes significantly harder for some populations.” “Law offices and services cluster near the courthouse.” Question 12: How important are walkability, accessibility for elderly and disabled, proximity to other government services, safety and security, and convenience when selecting a courthouse location? Survey participants were asked to indicate the importance of walkability, accessibility for elderly and disabled, proximity to other government services, safety and security and convenience were to the courthouse location. Survey responses indicate that accessibility for elderly and disabled individuals (88.37% very important) and safety and security (90.70% very important) are the most highly prioritized factors when selecting a courthouse location. Convenience (60.47% very important) and walkability (58.14% very important) are also viewed as important by the majority of respondents. Question 13: Are there particular populations, communities, businesses, customers that should be considered when evaluating these scenarios? Several populations were identified for additional consideration, particularly those with direct reliance on courthouse access and surrounding services. Frequently noted groups include legal professionals, law enforcement, elderly individuals, people with disabilities, and those with limited mobility or reliance on public transportation. Survey respondents also identified broader community groups such as government employees, small business owners, and individuals who regularly access court services, including lower-income or vulnerable populations. Many noted that impacts extend to all residents and taxpayers, underscoring the need to consider both town and county perspectives. Page 61 of 70 These viewpoints are illustrated in the following stakeholder quotes: “Ultimately all County taxpayers (which includes Town residents) should be fully aware of the impacts - both financial and otherwise especially if a referendum is required.” “Where the courthouse is located affects the steady weekday foot traffic that keeps nearby small businesses, especially coffee shops and lunch spots, consistently busy. It also impacts how easy it is for lower income and historically marginalized residents to access court services without added transportation costs or logistical strain.” Interview findings reinforce these perspectives, highlighting similar populations and considerations related to access, community impact, and connections to surrounding businesses and services. Question 14: Which courthouse location would provide the best overall access to court services? The majority of survey responses indicate that remaining on the current site in historic downtown and expanding and modernizing the courthouse would provide the best overall access to court services (25). New Courthouse in County, 9 Expand & Modernize, 25 New Courthouse in Town, 9 Figure 7: Preferred Courthouse Location for Access to Court Services Page 62 of 70 Question 15: Please rank accessibility, cost to taxpayers, economic impact, community identity, convenience, expansion space, long-term flexibility in order of importance when deciding courthouse location. Where 1 is most important and 7 is least important, survey responses indicate that accessibility (average rank 3.33) and cost to taxpayers (3.20) are among the highest-priority factors when deciding courthouse location. Economic impact (3.85) and convenience (4.00) fall in the middle range of importance. Community identity (4.56), long-term flexibility (4.24), and expansion space (4.81) are generally ranked lower on average, though responses show some variation, with a portion of respondents still identifying these as higher priorities. Table 2: Average Rankings of Factors by Importance Factor Average Rank Accessibility 3.33 Cost to taxpayers 3.20 Economic impact 3.85 Community identity 4.56 Convenience 4.00 Expansion space 4.81 Question 16: Looking 20–30 years ahead, what should decision-makers be prioritizing when planning the location of the next courthouse? Survey respondents consistently emphasize growth, particularly increasing population, a central consideration, along with the need to ensure sufficient space for expansion and the ability to “grow in place.” Cost is also frequently noted, with survey respondents highlighting the importance of making long-term investments that avoid the need for future relocation or reinvestment. Accessibility, including proximity to other government services and public transportation, is also identified as critical. As well as emphasizing maintaining Culpeper’s historic identity and supporting downtown vitality. These perspectives are illustrated in the following stakeholder quotes: “Community impact. Maintaining the historic identity of the town.” “Account for room to further expand, renovate, and add additional government functions.” Interview findings strongly align with these themes highlighting the importance of planning for long-term growth, integrating courthouse decisions with broader government infrastructure (including jail and administrative services), and ensuring flexibility to adapt Page 63 of 70 to technological and operational changes over time. These perspectives are illustrated in the following stakeholder quotes: “Future demand will exceed the current footprint.” “Continued reinvestment in old buildings becomes inefficient.” Question 17: What is the most important factor decision-makers should consider when determining the courthouse location? When asked to discuss the most important factor decision-makers should consider survey respondents stated accessibility, ensuring access for all residents, including those with limited transportation options. Cost to taxpayers is also a commonly cited priority, along with the need to plan for future growth, expansion, and long-term flexibility. Survey respondents continue to emphasize the importance of maintaining Culpeper’s historic identity and downtown presence, as well as considering economic impacts on surrounding businesses and the broader community. These perspectives are illustrated in the following stakeholder quotes: “Keeping Culpeper identity as small town for people, tourists, citizens, small businesses.” “The cost to taxpayers and the impacts on surrounding properties” Interview responses reflect similar priorities with continued emphasis on accessibility, cost, and planning for future growth. Interviewees more frequently frame these within a long-term planning context, emphasizing the need to avoid short-term solutions that may require reinvestment. Stakeholders also highlight the importance of site functionality, such as space for expansion, co-location of government services, and operational efficiency. While community identity and downtown connections remain important, interviewees more often balance these considerations with practical constraints related to infrastructure, capacity, and long-term viability. These perspectives are illustrated in the following stakeholder quotes: “The County will get only one chance to get this right.” “Future needs, expansion availability, and current and future costs must be factored into any decision.” Question 18: Please share any additional thoughts or concerns about the courthouse location decision. Additional thoughts included at the end of the survey highlight the importance of balancing preservation of community character with practical considerations such as growth, cost, Page 64 of 70 and functionality, while recognizing the long-term implications of the decision. These perspectives are illustrated in the following stakeholder quotes: “Proximity to Town is important, but having a parcel large enough for a series of multiple expansions in the coming decades is paramount. The County will get only one chance to get this right. If it fails, our community will pay the price in perpetuity for waste of every related resource.” “The Town's reliance on tourism is significant. If the County makes decisions that cause the charm and character of the Town to be erased or, at the very least compromised, visitors will no longer flock to a Town that looks like what they are trying to escape in Arlington, Fairfax or Manassas. The financial impact of that will put a larger tax burden on Town residents.” Interview responses reinforce these themes, with stakeholders emphasizing the importance of long-term, forward-looking decision-making. Similar to survey respondents, interviewees highlight the need to balance community identity and downtown vitality with practical considerations such as space, infrastructure, and operational needs. Additional emphasis is placed on thoughtful site selection, including adequate room for expansion, parking, and coordination with related government facilities. Overall, interviewees stress the importance of making a well-informed decision that considers both immediate needs and long-term impacts on the community. Page 65 of 70 Overall Stakeholder Insights Several key themes emerge consistently across both survey responses and stakeholder interviews. Community Identity vs. Facility Capacity Stakeholders widely recognize the courthouse as a defining feature of Culpeper’s historic downtown, contributing to its character, tourism appeal, and sense of place. At the same time, both survey respondents and interviewees acknowledge that the current facility may not fully meet modern operational needs, including space, security, and circulation. This creates a tension between preserving the courthouse’s symbolic and economic role in downtown and ensuring it can effectively serve its core judicial functions. While stakeholders frequently referenced “the courthouse” as a contributor to community identity, there is an important distinction between the historic courthouse fronting W. Davis Street and the later addition along W. Cameron Street. The historic courthouse is widely understood to be a defining feature of downtown Culpeper’s character and is highly unlikely to be removed under any scenario. As such, its contribution to sense of place, tourism appeal, and community identity would remain intact regardless of future operational decisions. In contrast, the courthouse addition along W. Cameron Street is generally not perceived to carry the same historic or aesthetic value, and its removal or redevelopment would likely have minimal impact on how stakeholders perceive downtown character. Accessibility vs. Court System Efficiency Maintaining a central, walkable location is seen as critical for accessibility, particularly for individuals who rely on proximity, public transportation, or have limited mobility. However, alternative locations outside of downtown are often associated with opportunities for improved traffic flow, parking, and the ability to co-locate government services. Stakeholders consistently note that these benefits may come at the cost of reduced accessibility for certain populations and decreased interaction with downtown businesses. Immediate Needs vs. Long-Term Planning and Growth Across both data sources, there is strong emphasis on the importance of long-term planning. Stakeholders frequently express concern about making a decision that addresses immediate needs but creates limitations in the future. Considerations such as population growth, expansion capacity, and evolving service needs are viewed as critical, with many emphasizing that the County has a limited opportunity to “get it right” and avoid future reinvestment. Page 66 of 70 Downtown Economic Support vs. Countywide Development Opportunities The courthouse plays a key role in generating consistent daytime activity in downtown Culpeper, supporting nearby restaurants, retail, and legal services. Relocating the courthouse would likely shift, rather than eliminate, this activity, redistributing economic impacts to other areas of the County. However, stakeholders note that this shift would not be evenly experienced. Downtown businesses and town-based stakeholders are expected to face more immediate and direct impacts, while potential benefits such as improved infrastructure, expanded facilities, or new development opportunities may occur in other parts of the County. Page 67 of 70 Potential Economic Shifts from Courthouse Relocation Important Disclaimer: The estimates below are based on a set of scenarios and are intended to illustrate the potential scale and distribution of economic activity that could shift if the courthouse is relocated. These figures do not represent a net loss to the regional economy, but rather a likely redistribution of activity within Culpeper and surrounding areas. This analysis does not account for potential redevelopment or longer-term market adjustments. The analysis relies on secondary data sources, including business location data, estimated sales volumes and jobs, and industry patterns. They should be interpreted as planning-level estimates. As such, these figures are not intended to represent exact outcomes, but rather to provide a general sense of potential impacts. Estimated Downtown Economic Snapshot Using a refined dataset of downtown Culpeper businesses, focused on those most closely associated with courthouse-related activity, estimated sales and employment data were compiled to represent current economic conditions in downtown Culpeper. • Total Estimated Downtown Sales Activity: $270 million • Total Estimated Downtown Employment: 1,300 jobs Together, these figures provide a baseline for understanding how changes in courthouse location may influence downtown economic patterns. Sectors Overview and Assumptions Building on this baseline, downtown businesses were grouped into key sectors based on industry type, estimated sales, and employment. This approach helps illustrate how different types of businesses may respond to changes in courthouse location. Table 1: Downtown Economic Activity by Sector, 2024 Data Estimates Number of Estimated Estimated Assumed Sector Embedded Industries Rationale Businesses Sales Jobs Shift Legal, Real Estate, High reliance on Professional Accounting, 70 $128 M 500 25%-40% courthouse Services Administrative Services proximity Dependent on Restaurants & Full-service 30 $89 M 580 10%-20% daytime foot Food Services restaurants, cafes, bars traffic Indirect Retail Trade Shops, specialty retail 35 $54 M 220 10%-15% dependence on worker presence *Data sources include Lightcast & DatabaseUSA business listings. Page 68 of 70 Estimated Economic Activity Shift Based on these sector characteristics, the following scenarios estimate the potential range of economic activity that could shift under different conditions. Table 2: Scenario-Based Direct Economic Activity Shift by Sector Estimated Estimated Sector Low Scenario Moderate Scenario High Scenario Sales Jobs Professional $32.0M / 125 jobs $41.6M / 163 jobs $51.2M / 200 jobs $128M 500 Services (25%) (32.5%) (40%) Restaurants & $8.9M / 58 jobs $13.4M / 87 jobs $17.8M / 116 jobs $89M 580 Food Services (10%) (15%) (20%) $5.4M / 22 jobs $6.8M / 28 jobs $8.1M / 33 jobs Retail Trade $54M 220 (10%) (12.5%) (15%) Total $271M 1,300 $46.3M/ 205 jobs $61.8M/ 278 jobs $77.1M/ 349 jobs Total Economic Effects (Including Ripple Impacts) In addition to direct changes in business activity, broader economic effects may occur throughout the local economy. As a reminder, economic impacts occur in three ways: Direct effects reflect initial Indirect effects capture the Indirect effects capture the change in economic activity, resulting decrease in resulting decrease in such as a decline or shift in business-to-business activity, business-to-business activity, sales and jobs at businesses. as affected companies reduce as affected companies reduce purchases from suppliers. purchases from suppliers. • Indirect effects Page 69 of 70 Using conservative industry multipliers (1.3–1.6, which estimate how changes in business activity ripple through suppliers and household spending), the total regional economic effect: Total Estimated Impact Low Scenario: $60M – $74M Moderate Scenario: $80M – $99M Higher Scenario: $100M – $123M Additional Considerations It is important to note that these estimates reflect a potential shift in economic activity associated with courthouse relocation and do not represent an immediate or permanent outcome. Changes in employment and business activity would likely occur over time. In addition, this analysis does not account for potential redevelopment or reuse of vacated spaces, which could offset or, in some cases, exceed current levels of jobs and sales. As such, these estimates should be understood as illustrating a potential transition rather than a final economic condition for downtown. Key Takeaways Overall, several key themes emerge from this analysis: • Professional services represent a substantial share of downtown economic activity, and are most closely tied to courthouse operations • Restaurants and retail rely on consistent daytime activity, contributing significantly to employment • Potential impacts vary by sector, with some industries more directly tied to courthouse proximity and others influenced more indirectly through changes in foot traffic and activity levels • The analysis suggests that a portion of downtown economic activity may shift geographically depending on changes in courthouse location • These estimates are intended to provide a general indication of potential changes in economic patterns, and should be interpreted as planning-level insights rather than precise forecasts • These estimates reflect potential shifts in activity and do not account for longer- term redevelopment or market adjustments Page 70 of 70