By Stephen Smoot
Eight years ago, a chapter closed in the history of the former Sugar Grove Naval Base. As hard as those working to write the next have labored, bringing in a new tenant to open a new story in using the base has faced barrier after barrier.
The most recent opportunity developed over spring and summer of this year, but never came close enough to fruition to even issue a major announcement.
Two federal contractors, Exeter Government Services LLC and Parsons Corporation (no connection to the town) together took a close look at the Sugar Grove facility. Their goal lay in finding facilities capable of taking in 13- to 17-year-olds who illegally crossed the border, “have no support structure,” and landed in federal custody. Stays at Sugar Grove, should the site have been approved, would have been very short term before transfers to other federal sites.
Those brought to Sugar Grove would have been placed in open sleeping facilities in the warehouses, not in barracks or other base housing. Children in the facility would have been quarantined on the base with as little contact as possible between them and locals.
This has been the latest in a series of efforts by Matt Roiz, part of the owenership group for the base, to find a tenant for the base that will both defray some of the staggering costs so far incurred while also bringing a tenant that would bring maximum benefit and a minimum of problems to the area.
Exeter Government Services opened discussions with Roiz 18 months ago as it explored using the Sugar Grove facility. A federal request for proposal was issued in April. Since then Exeter, along with Parsons, worked with Roiz to learn more about the base and plan for potential operations there.
On July 12, Parsons met with local officials, State Senator Robert Karnes, and Delegate Bryan Ward to discuss their plans on how to utilize the facility. They described a one-year lease with four options coming behind it. Company officials described it as “a five-year project.”
Karnes told Parsons representatives that “I think it’s a great facility. I’ve been bugging people all these years to find something.” Karnes asked questions about effects on local infrastructure, particularly the school system’s ability to handle the children of incoming staff.
Rick Gillespie, Pendleton County emergency services coordinator, stated in the meeting that “it will breathe new life into all those structures and improve future marketability.” Throughout the process, Gillespie was working to gain support for county emergency services due to the fact that they might have to respond to issues related to the base and its tenant.
Company officials also discussed community support, such as patronizing local businesses for goods and services, sponsoring a golf tournament at Fisher Mountain, and other ideas.
When Karnes asked about obstacles that such a facility might have to overcome, officials responded by saying the main problem lay in “language, having bilingual people,” but he added that they had “new software that instantaneously translates. We’re still exploring it.”
Parsons representatives discussed at the July 12 meeting plans for how many to accept in the first 30 days, that they already had “identified and measured the spaces” and made sure that the facility was compliant. He said of Roiz’ maintenance efforts that “I have to give it to the owner. They’ve done a lot of work to keep it maintained.”
Within a week, however, Parsons informed Pendleton County officials and Roiz that Sugar Grove would no longer be considered for site selection.
The call came on the morning of July 18, before the regularly scheduled county committee meeting. During the meeting Laura Brown, executive director of the combined Pendleton and Grant County economic development authority, shared that “Sugar Grove was not selected for phase two” and that the EDA would continue to work with the owners of the base, although there were no additional leads at the time.
Later that day, county officials held a call with Roiz to discuss the aftermath. He said, “I just heard it myself yesterday and I was more than a little surprised,” and said, “Maybe Parsons didn’t want the headline risk.” Roiz also confirmed that the number of children that the facility would have held are already in decline.
Brown shared that Parsons Corporation had a high opinion of both the Sugar Grove property and of Pendleton County in general. She said Sugar Grove “is still at the top of the list” and that Parsons “appreciated the county’s support,” saying “delegates and senators were easy to work with.”
She later added that after “very in depth discussions . . . Matt and the other owners are committed to bringing something that not only fits in our community, but something that the people can be proud of.”
Roiz said, “I wish I had more concrete answers. Everyone did everything on this call right.”
