Goochland Board approves $250K for outside counsel in tech district lawsuit

Goochland County supervisors voted at their Feb. 3 meeting to approve a $250,000 supplemental appropriation to the County Attorney’s “outside counsel” budget line to pay outside lawyers defending a lawsuit challenging the county’s Technology Overlay District. The suit was filed Dec. 4, 2025 in Goochland Circuit Court by property owners Cynthia Haas, Peggy Knisley, Virginia H. Reed and Gail A. Minnick and names Goochland County, the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission as defendants.

Local meeting coverage noted the $250,000 item had been placed on the consent agenda but was pulled for separate discussion and a standalone vote. “One item, a $250,000 supplemental budget appropriation to the ‘outside counsel’ line in the County Attorney’s budget, was pulled out for discussion and a separate vote,” the coverage reported, and the amendment was described as providing funding for defense of the county, board and planning commission in litigation regarding the Technology Overlay District.

The complaint filed by the four property owners alleges the county did not properly identify properties that would be impacted and that the measure ultimately adopted differed from published notices. Plaintiffs seek to prevent a district that county leaders say could allow construction of data centers within a corridor along Route 288; dozens of residents opposed the November 2025 board vote that created the district, citing concerns about noise and environmental impacts.

Board members and county officials framed the outside counsel hire as a staffing and fiscal decision. Supervisor Charlie Vaughters said, “You don’t want to hire a full-time attorney if you’re not going to be utilizing them on a regular basis.” County Attorney McGee’s office described coordination with outside counsel as strategic: “Her office has meetings on the facts, with which they are intimately familiar to develop strategy with outside counsel ‘not just because litigation is best done in a strategic manner, but to make sure that the vison of Goochland as a client is heard.’” McGee’s office also said it provides oversight and liaison between county employees and outside counsel and called the request an effort to deal with an “unforeseen expense.”

Budget mechanics were described in varying ways in coverage. A social-media post quoting local press said the county “moved $250,000 out of its general fund to help pay an outside law firm,” while local minutes labeled the action a supplemental appropriation to the County Attorney’s outside counsel line. County spokesperson Jessica Kronberg noted Goochland holds public officials liability insurance through the Virginia Association of Counties that “provides up to $100,000 for the costs of defense in litigation.”

Citizen comment at the meeting included pointed criticism of the funding placement on the consent agenda. Two residents “contended that inclusion of the outside counsel funding in the consent agenda was intended to hide the appropriation from public scrutiny,” and called the expenditure “a waste of taxpayer dollars because the county has its own attorney to handle litigation and seemed to imply that county attorney and her staff sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting for lawsuits to come in the door,” local coverage reported.

Local coverage also reported it is believed opponents who filed the suit are raising at least $200,000 for legal fees; that figure was presented as a belief rather than a verified fact. Supervisor Tom Winfree, who voted in November to create the district, said at the Feb. 3 meeting, “I’ve never been convinced any more than I am today that we made the right decision in this case.”

With the appropriation approved, the county plans to retain outside counsel to defend the pending complaint in Goochland Circuit Court; no hearing dates or further docket entries were reported in the coverage assembled for this story.