Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Virginia Tech study projects $100M upside for industrial use of Pathway Park; supervisors debate non‑industrial options
Summary
A Virginia Tech PRIFA study presented to the Smyth County Board shows industrial and manufacturing uses of the Pathway Park site yielding the highest returns (cited at $100 million) versus $14 million for non‑industrial uses; supervisors and town officials raised water, housing and grant‑repayment concerns during a lengthy discussion and public comment.
A Virginia Tech economic development specialist told the Smyth County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 22 that industrial and manufacturing development of Pathway Park would produce the largest economic return, while non‑industrial uses would return substantially less.
Ashley Crouse, a Virginia Tech Economic Development Specialist, summarized the PRIFA Economic Study and said the analysis showed "the highest return on investment at $100 million for MultiUse Advanced manufacturing" versus "the lowest return on investment at $14 million for non‑industrial use." She and county staff said industrial use is required to retain a $5.8 million federal grant tied to enhancements at the site; Crouse told the Board that using the site for non‑industrial purposes would require the County to "pay back the $5.8 million grant to the federal government."
Director of Community and Economic Development Kendra Hayden said the county has three current prospects for the property and that the study was commissioned to better market the site to manufacturing and industrial buyers. Hayden also said Pathway Park has $0 debt and the County has "presently invested $0 in the property, as long as the industrial use requirement is met for the $5.8 million federal grant."
Supervisors asked whether tourism‑oriented development (hotels and restaurants) was fully reflected in the non‑industrial numbers. "Do those numbers account for hotel and restaurant profits?" asked Chilhowie District Supervisor Mike Sturgill. Crouse replied that the non‑industrial projections "accounted for these profits and any other local business revenue generated by nonindustrial uses that produced tourism."
Rye Valley District Supervisor Jason Parris questioned whether the county has sufficient housing to support jobs that an industrial facility would bring, and County Administrator Shawn Utt said that housing is a focus of the SmythGrow initiative. During public comment, Chilhowie Town Manager Brian Martin said limited water supply in Chilhowie could be strained by a new facility; Utt later noted the site has a well rated at "700 gallons/minute" and said staff is evaluating water and infrastructure constraints.
Saltville District Supervisor Roscoe Call reminded the Board that choosing non‑industrial uses could trigger repayment of the $5.8 million federal grant. Opinions among supervisors varied: some encouraged selling or marketing for industrial use, while others—including supervisors and one town manager—said they were open to recreational or sports uses if the property remained unsold for years.
The study and discussion leave the county weighing the tradeoffs between higher projected economic returns for industrial development, infrastructure and housing needs, and the legal and fiscal consequences of abandoning the industrial requirement on the grant. Supervisors asked staff to continue marketing and provide follow‑up information; no formal decision on Pathway Park’s future use was made at the meeting.
