Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EDA discusses virtual-shell buildings and workforce partnerships to attract industry
Summary
The EDA heard an update on a New River-Mount Rogers sector partnership and discussed a ‘virtual shell’ pre-approved building concept to shorten site-to-occupancy time; staff estimated roughly $100,000 to develop a virtual shell and noted EDA interest revenue could partly fund the work.
Montgomery County’s Economic Development Authority received two related updates: a workforce-sector partnership led by the New River and Mount Rogers workforce investment board and a staff briefing on a “virtual shell” program to pre-develop building plans that speed tenant occupancy.
Staff said the workforce investment board, working with Marty Holiday, has formed sector partnerships in health care, construction trades and manufacturing/logistics, intended to connect employers, educators and workforce-development partners to create career ladders and improve hiring readiness. Staff reported a visit to New River Community College with three Montgomery County employers — Spectrum, In Motion and ESS Technologies — to review training facilities.
On real-estate tools, staff described the virtual-shell concept: a locality or EDA develops a finished site plan and near-complete building structural plans (all interior mechanical, electrical and plumbing excepted) so a prospective tenant can rapidly reach a vertical shell. Staff said the concept was used historically; a packet and rendering package dating to February 2004 were shown to board members as examples.
Staff provided a range of cost references: a previous Lot 2 site plan had cost about $100,000; a set of renderings once cost about $6,000; and staff’s current rough estimate to create a modern virtual shell was about $100,000. Staff noted the EDA had about $83,000 in interest revenue in the past year that could offset some costs, and said the EDA would solicit current pricing from designers and builders before returning with firm recommendations.
Board members discussed which parcel to prioritize. Staff suggested Lot 3 for a smaller-scale 25,000–50,000 square foot shell aimed at existing manufacturers and Lot 2 for a larger 100,000–300,000 square foot opportunity, though staff comments included inconsistent square-foot figures during the discussion. Members also raised whether the virtual shell would help attract prospects who prefer existing buildings; staff said two-thirds of prospect requests to state partners are for existing buildings, so the virtual shell would be one of several tools.
Members discussed alternatives, including incubator/shared manufacturing space and flex buildings that combine office, lab and light manufacturing. Staff said one recent local example was a 20,000-square-foot building developed to support a startup manufacturing tenant. Board members also asked whether state marketing partners (VEDP and Onward NRV) would market virtual-shell sites; staff said those partners would market eligible sites but that some state programs require a minimum parcel size (for example, certain site funds require 50 contiguous acres). Staff concluded by recommending follow-up: define demand, get updated cost estimates from builders and return with a budget and preferred lot recommendation.
