Care4Suffolk

Eagles’ Nest Identified on Development Site

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 23 Feb 2026 21:38:08 +0000

A citizen of Suffolk recently spoke at City Council about bald eagles nesting on the old VDOT campus at 1700 N Main Street. This property is the site of a rezoning application (Riversbend) that City Council will vote on next month (after multiple delays). The developer, Ryan Homes, wants to build 500 homes on that property.

After hearing Erin Clemow speak, I decided to reach out to her to learn more about the eagles and how this development may impact them.

When asked how she first learned about the eagles, Erin responded, “I saw a Facebook post about the eagles in the vicinity of the site. I reached out to a neighbor from the Nansemond Gardens neighborhood on River Road to find out more about the eagles and where their nest is.” (This is the neighborhood across the river from the VDOT property.)

She said she also put up two posts on local Facebook groups, Suffolk 411 and Care4Suffolk, to see if anyone knew anything about these eagles.

“I started researching who I should contact statewide and looking for what I can do if I am able to find their nest, “ Erin stated. She added, “I was specifically looking for the proper protocol to handle that.”

The first person she spoke to was Troy Andersen with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS.gov). He provided her with the link to the nest mapper on the Center for Conservation Biology’s website, part of the College of William and Mary.

The above image shows the eagles’ nest as the yellow dot in the middle of two concentric circles. Those yellow circles are the buffers.

According to the Center for Conservation Biology, there are two buffers:

The smaller 330′ “primary buffer” is where human activities are considered to be detrimental to breeding pairs (e.g. residential/commercial development). The larger 660′ “secondary buffer” is where human activities are considered to impact the integrity of the “primary buffer” (e.g. construction, multi-story buildings, new roadways).

Below is an image of the parcel, for comparison.

You can see that the eagles’ nest with its buffers are within the northern half of the VDOT property.

Erin also spoke with Shaughn Galloway, another representative with U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Region 5. He shared a lot more information with Erin and provided her with the Northeast Bald Eagle Project Screening Form. She asked him what would happen if someone took down the eagles’ tree and he told her that authorities would be sent and someone would be going to jail.

During this time, Erin said that the nearby community pulled together and found the nest. She received photos and videos of the eagles and their nest. One neighbor pinned (or geotagged) the location to provide her with the exact tree.

Erin then got in touch with Bryan Watts with the Center for Conservation Biology at William & Mary. He told her that the geotag is key (meaning the longitude and the latitude of the tree). He also explained that they do flyovers to pinpoint nests.

“This was not an easy journey,” Erin recalls, “I was just a concerned citizen and I was dealing with professionals in the field. They were asking me questions that I didn’t really know the answers to, but they were very patient and worked with me to help me understand, and they clarified the process with me.”

Erin shared with me the type of information and documentation that these agencies were requesting. She said they wanted pictures of the eagles’ nest, although that alone wasn’t enough to show that it was an active nest. They wanted pictures or video of the eagles actually in the nest. One tell-tale sign of an active nest is if the eagle is bobbing its head, which means there could be young in the nest. Erin added that they were looking for other signs too, like whitewash on the tree, which she explained is eagle excrement accumulating on the trunk of the tree. Other indicators could be scattered fish carcasses and turtle shells which indicate the eagles are eating above that area. The most important part was getting the tree pinned.

“It was a crash course in eagles,” Erin said as she gently laughed. She added that she didn’t know much about eagles before all this began, but now she wants to share this with others. It is clear in speaking with Erin that she is very passionate about this and truly cares about the eagles nesting in Suffolk.

Erin continued, “I was just relieved that the nest is mapped and now I know the proper authorities will be involved in this in order to get permits.”

To clarify further, Erin stated:

“This is not about targeting Ryan Homes or any particular developer. It’s about making sure the public understands that these animals are legally protected. If they are living near the river on farmland that is later slated for development, that protection does not disappear. Any future property owner or developer will be required to address and comply with those protections.”

Erin shared that it is up to the developer to reach out to Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR) to get the correct permits in place. “Now that the nest has been formally mapped,” she explained, “there is no question that the nest is there. As I understand it, the nest is naturally protected, and the tree that the nest is in, is protected.”

Erin said that one of the reasons she spoke at City Council, and why she agreed to sit down and talk with me, is because she wants everyone to be aware. She wants to draw attention to the eagles, that they are protected, and to let everyone know (Council Members, Ryan Homes, and the public) that the eagles are nesting on that property and that nothing can happen to them without steep consequences.

Here’s a link to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Bald and Golden Eagle Protect Act. It states:

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), enacted in 1940, and amended several times since, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald or golden eagles, including their parts (including feathers), nests, or eggs.

The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle … [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part (including feathers), nest, or egg thereof.”

The Act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” Regulations further define “disturb” as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior” (50 CFR 22.6).

In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers effects that result from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle’s return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment.

A violation of the Act can result in a fine of $100,000 ($200,000 for organizations), imprisonment for one year, or both, for a first offense. Penalties increase substantially for additional offenses, and a second violation of this Act is a felony.

Erin also shared the email that she sent to City Council. She said it was very important to her that they knew about the nest.

What touched me the most about Erin’s speech to Council is at the end, when she says the following:

“What a profound blessing it is to witness these majestic creatures nesting, hunting, and raising their young among us. They are more than wildlife; they are a reminder of resilience, unity, and the promise of renewal.

Suffolk deserves hope. Our citizens deserve it. And the presence of these eagles feels like a quiet but powerful sign that hope still lives here.”

Attachment:

Erin’s speech to City Council

Environmental Concerns at Riversbend

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 17 Feb 2026 02:26:10 +0000

According to the environmental studies (attached below) conducted on the old VDOT site at 1700 N Main Street, there were numerous soil and water samples that contained high amounts of Diesel Range Organics (DROs) as well as other toxic chemicals like arsenic, toluene, ethylbenzene and naphthalene that were found in the samples from the site.

Slide 1 created by Care4Suffolk with sources: Environmental Studies Phase 1 and 2, Duke University, and DC Department of Energy and Environment.

On Slide 1, the sample S-19 shows a large amount of DROs (Diesel Range Organics) present in the soil. This sample was taken from soil near the old VDOT administration building (the building is labeled 03 on the map and is circled in yellow).

According to Duke University and the DC Department of Energy and Environment, any DRO amount greater than 100 mg/Kg (or ppm) needs remediation, a form of environmental clean up. Soil sample S-19 measured DROs at 16,000 mg/Kg– 160 times higher than that level.

Known health impacts of DROs include: lung inflammation, difficulty breathing, decreased liver and kidney function, neurological system effects, eye damage, skin irritation, and some DROs are suspected of causing cancer.

If the Riversbend rezoning is approved as things currently stand, the City will be receiving this particular building and roughly 2 acres surrounding it to use for the new Suffolk Public Schools administration building. Then it will fall to the City to clean up this hazardous DRO waste.

Slide 2, created by Care4Suffolk with sources: Environmental Studies Phase 1 and 2

On Slide 2, additional areas were found to have DROs above the 100 mg/kg remediation level. This area is on the southeast portion of the parcel adjacent to the Nansemond River. The rezoning application shows this portion of the site remaining B-2 (commercial) and as the possible location for a marina (which has since been downgraded to a kayak launch.)

Other toxic chemicals like arsenic, toluene, ethylbenzene and naphthalene were found in samples from around the VDOT site:

From PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, page 21

From PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, page 24

None of this is terribly surprising considering the Virginia Department of Transportation owned and used the land for roughly 80 years. I don’t think anyone is surprised that this type of site, used the way it was for so long, contains numerous hazardous materials that have leaked, leeched, or spilled into the ground and water.

These chemicals CAN be cleaned up to allow the site to be reused for other purposes However, that process takes time and money.

The City is about to assume the cost to clean up the hazardous waste located on the portion of the site containing the old VDOT administration building. Why has none of this been part of any of the presentations to the Planning Commission or City Council? The Interim City Manager has been very involved in this project, so surely he is aware of these studies. Did he notify the EDA (Economic Development Authority) Board, which is a party to this application?

The high levels of DROs, the associated health risks, and the remediation were not included in Mr. Hughe’s presentations (there were two!) to Suffolk’s School Board about the VDOT administration building. Is the School Board even aware of this? They already would have to contend with the mold, asbestos, and lead paint in the building itself. Do they want to add this remediation cost and time to their limited window to complete a new school administration building?

Environmental Studies:

Other sources:

Diesel Range Organics by Duke University
DC Department of Energy and Environment

Is Riversbend Part of a Trade-Off?

Eryn Siegel — Fri, 13 Feb 2026 14:48:10 +0000

Is the City using approval for the Riversbend rezoning project as a trade-off to accomplish certain CIP projects sooner? That was the impression I had when leaving the Education Committee earlier this week.

This Education Committee is made up of School Board members and Council Members and allows them to meet in a smaller group to discuss issues that impact both bodies. The committee has no power to vote on any issue, but it gives them a chance to discuss issues in more depth. The CIP is the Capital Improvements Program published by the City of Suffolk each year to establish long-term, high-cost investments in public infrastructure and facilities. The City is about to finalize the CIP for 2027.

About 40 minutes into the meeting, Council Member Ebony Wright stated:

“So what I would like to start with is, I want to acknowledge that Nansemond has moved up. So. So, I think we are making progress. So we moved that, it looks like two years now. So that’s great progress, but it’s still far from where we need to be. [Unable to understand] acknowledge that. We are making progress and I think that as we evolve with our CIP we’ll find other opportunities to possibly move it up again. I think you’d probably get that support if other opportunities present itself.”

This comment was interesting because the new CIP includes $7.6 million for the Suffolk Public Schools administration building (down from the previous CIP amount of $22 million). When they were considering a new build on the same site as the school district operation center on Pruden Blvd, it was estimated at $22 million. However, in the Riversbend project (Ryan Homes development of 500 new homes on N Main Street), the developer proffered to donate the old VDOT admin building in lieu of paying actual cash school proffers for the specific purpose as an administration building for the Suffolk Public Schools, and coincidentally, $7.6 million is the estimated cost for renovating that old building. It appears that the CIP has been adjusted in the anticipation that City Council will approve the Riversbend rezoning.

Interestingly, at the same time that the renovation costs for the Riversbend donated building has been put into CIP, the Nansemond River High School addition project has just been moved up by two years–meaning it is two years closer to being built.

In no way am I against the expansion of Nansemond River High School. However, that project should not come with the baggage of increasing the strain at two other schools if 500 new homes are added to Main Street.

So I question again, are these linked? Is there a trade-off going on here? It sure looks that way from where I am sitting.

UPDATE on FOIA Violation

Care4Suffolk — Wed, 11 Feb 2026 15:16:25 +0000

After the last article was published, the city reached out to provide the withheld email.

In the original article, Riversbend FOIA Issue – FOIA Violations Are Piling Up!, we showed that this one email was withheld completely from the FOIA request with the reason given that it is a “working paper” for the City Manager.

Here is the withheld email (It contained the attached slideshow presentation as well):

Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes was just forwarding an email with an attached presentation to Mayor Duman. This definitely does NOT qualify as “working papers” despite the claim made by the City.

We experienced another FOIA violation last year, where an email was withheld under Attorney-Client privilege, only to find out there was no attorney present on the email.

In this FOIA violation, we were told this was working papers, when it clearly isn’t. We may have since received the email requested, but it does NOT un-do the violation of my FOIA rights. Additionally, the City is showing a pattern of withholding public documents under false pretenses.

Another thing to note here is that Mr. Hughes was emailing Mayor Duman at his private email (mike.duman@mikeduman.com) – NOT his official email (mayor@suffolkva.us). Why?

Why is Mr. Hughes sharing this with the Mayor who is barred from being part of the process because of his conflict of interest? Why is he using the Mayor’s personal email instead of the Mayor’s public email? How much other city business is being conducted using communication methods that obfuscate FOIA rules? If I want to see any communication between the Mayor and, say, a developer, how would that work? As a Mayor that could constitute official business. But how would the FOIA office even have access to that information if it is out of the City’s system?

I appreciate the City finally releasing this email as they were legally required, but I now have more questions than answers.

Riversbend FOIA Issue – FOIA Violations Are Piling Up!

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 05 Feb 2026 16:46:16 +0000

The FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) violations by the City of Suffolk are starting to pile up! The latest is from a FOIA request asking for emails between Mayor Duman and Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes:

There were three responsive documents – three emails that fit the criteria. One email was just a notice to all City Council Members stating the developer wanted to delay until December (their favorite month to put controversial votes!) The Riversbend rezoning was then delayed again to be voted on at the February 18th city council meeting.

The second document was an email dated October 14, 2025, that contained the slide show presentation that Kevin Hughes presented in front of the October 9, 2025 meeting of the Suffolk Public School Board. This was the meeting where Kevin Hughes, on behalf of the Mayor and City Council, asked the SPS Board to weigh in on the Riversbend rezoning and the potential administrative building proffer that the school board could receive as part of the project.

The third document was actually withheld completely. It was an email that was not included at all, with just the reason given that it is a “working paper” for the City Manager.

I wrote to the head of the FOIA department back on December 19, the day after receiving this and followed up recently, having not yet received a response. I included in my email part of the state code that discusses the duty to redact. State code is very clear: it can only be excluded entirely if the entire content of the email has to be excluded. Otherwise, the City is required to release those portions that don’t qualify under the exclusion.

By fully withholding the email, there is no way to ascertain WHEN it was sent, WHO is on the email, or any other information that may be gleaned from a redacted email, like how long it is, whether there were any attachments, etc..

We have had previous articles on FOIA violations by the City of Suffolk. You can read about another instance experienced by a member of Care4Suffolk here and here. In that case, the City redacted under the guise of Attorney-Client privilege, only for the member to later learn, after paying $80 to schedule a court date, that the email did not even have an attorney on the email, so withholding it on the basis of attorney-client privilege was definitely a violation.

We can follow that process again, by writing another petition for mandamus and spend the roughly $80 to have the City served and be required to appear in court – and we may yet choose that option, again – but we shouldn’t have to.

The City of Suffolk should not be hiding information from citizens. They used the attorney-client privilege when there was no attorney on that other email. Now they are using “working papers” as an excuse. Why are there even “working papers” for Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes in his communication with Mayor Duman, when Mayor Duman has a conflict of interest with the Riversbend rezoning and has had to recuse himself from the proceedings?

I just want to take this opportunity to remind everyone that this whole Ryan Homes project for Riversbend has had a top-down push through the whole process. Examples include:

Mayor Duman has a conflict of interest in this project because of a financial relationship with Ryan Homes. (See videos below.)
Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes, who reports directly to the Mayor and City Council has been very hands-on with this particular rezoning, even prior to the application being submitted to the City.
March 19, 2025 – Email from Melissa Venable, of Land Planning Solutions, to Kevin Hughes to set up a meeting to “move forward with the VDOT property zoning”
March 26, 2025 – Email sent ahead of meeting with site map. Map had an original date of November 26, 2024 and then updated Mar 21, 2025, already showing EDA land as part of the site plan. (The EDA is the City’s Economic Development Authority board, so the land is owned by the City of Suffolk.)

April 22, 2025 – Email from Melissa Venable to Kevin Hughes stating: “I wanted to verify that the Econ. Dev. Parcel shall remain as a MUD parcel on the attached? We are finalizing the application to get to you for signature” Note that this email was from 3 weeks before the EDA Board even knew about the project. Kevin Hughes was arranging for the EDA land to be included in the application. The EDA approval was just a formality.
April 23, 2025 – Email from Melissa Venable to Kevin Hughes and Adam Edbauer (Ryan Homes) with subject heading: VDOT Application & Signatures. Venable mentions proffer language that Edbauer and Hughes have discussed.
May 14, 2025 – EDA Meeting: During a closed-door session for 2 properties unrelated to Riversbend, Kevin Hughes gives a presentation on the Riversbend project and makes a push for the EDA to approve the EDA’s joint venture with the Riversbend Project. Approved by EDA. Note: the EDA land was essential for the Riversbend project to move forward because it need the the land for the primary entrance/exit. (Purple land on map is EDA owned land.)
September 11, 2025 – Hughes, in an unprecedented move, makes presentation to School Board and asks for formal response from the School Board
October 9, 2025 – Hughes, stating he is representing the Mayor and City Council, answers questions and again requests a formal response from the School Board. School Board votes 8-0 to deny support of the Riversbend Project. Again, with the Mayor’s conflict of interest, why is Mr. Hughes claiming to be speaking on behalf of the mayor?

Suffolk Mayor Mike Duman on his Facebook Live (December 1, 2025) discusses his conflict of interest with Ryan Homes and the Riversbend project.

Suffolk Mayor Mike Duman during City Council Meeting (November 19, 2025) wanting to ask a question regarding the Riversbend project and asking the City Attorney if he can with his conflict of interest. Meeting link

Suffolk Mayor Mike Duman during joint City Council & School Board Meeting (December 3, 2025): In this video clip, Mayor Duman is told multiple times, by City Council’s lawyer no less, that he is not allowed to speak on the Riversbend project, yet here is, trying to share his opinion on it. Meeting link

The above video clip is from the September 11, 2025 School Board Meeting. In this clip, Interim City Manager states that they don’t present to the school board ever on rezonings, because it is City Council’s purview. So we know that this unprecedented move makes this rezoning special, specifically regarding the proffers that Kevin Hughes helped write.

The above video clip is from the October 9, 2025 School Board Meeting. In this clip, Interim City Manager states he is there “representing the Mayor and City Council” which is particularly interesting since Mayor Duman has a conflict of interest with this project.

And now we know that sometime between January 1 to December 3, 2025, there was an email that included BOTH Mayor Duman and Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes, and we know it was regarding the Riversbend project.

Yet, we are to believe that the city can’t release this email – not even the date or the subject or who was included on the email – because it is “working papers” for Kevin Hughes.

What does “working papers” even mean? The Code of Virginia defines it in the following way:

“’Working papers’ means those records prepared by or for a public official identified in this subdivision for his personal or deliberative use.”

§ 2.2-3705.3. (Effective July 1, 2026) Exclusions to application of chapter; records relating to administrative investigations

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) explains it a little more fully:

“Most probably, the purpose of the provision is to provide certain high-ranking executives some privacy over their decision-making prior to that decision being made. The idea being that if the public can see the decision-making process at every step along the way officials might not be able to be as candid and the quality of the decisions they reach might be affected.”

Both of these identify the deliberative use, or decision-making process, as a necessary part of the “working papers”. So if this email is truly “working papers” for Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes, then why does it involve Mayor Duman, who indisputably has a conflict of interest with this specific rezoning? What decision was being considered by Mr. Hughes regarding the Riversbend rezoning, especially considering that the decision actually lies with City Council, not him? What Riversbend-related decision would Mr. Hughes need to involve the Mayor in, considering he is not only prohibited from voting on the issue, he is not allowed to discuss it?

The Riversbend project itself is rife with transparency issues. Suffolk’s Mayor has a financial conflict of interest with the project, and yet the Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes has been very hands-on from the very beginning. If this isn’t concerning enough for citizens, the city government is refusing to fulfill their legal duty to provide this email communication and instead is hiding behind “working papers.”

Here are some FOIA Violations to date, that we are aware of:

December 2024 – City Council voted to adopt the 2045 Comprehensive Plan without giving the required public notice.
August 2025 – FOIA request resulted in a response of a fully redacted email while FALSELY claiming attorney-client privilege. It was later discovered no attorney was involved in the communication.
May 2025 – City of Suffolk’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) entered into a closed meeting to discuss two projects (Polka and Goober). The Riversbend project was also discussed during this closed-door session without being on the agenda, even though it did not meet the qualifications for closed-door session because the Suffolk EDA was not contemplating the sale of a parcel or any other “publicly held real property”. Therefore, using the exemption at 2.2-3711-(A)(3) was improper. (See email and information below)
August 2025 – FOIA request for the slide show presentation given by Kevin Hughes to the EDA Board May 2025 meeting. The FOIA request was denied for the reason: closed door meeting. However, “no record that is otherwise open to inspection under FOIA shall be deemed exempt by virtue of the fact that it has been reviewed or discussed in a closed meeting.” (See email and information below)

The email below is from the FOIA Council, after the EDA Vice Chair reached out to them concerned about the EDA May 14th Meeting and whether proper procedure was adhered to. The FOIA Council response explains the following:

FOIA should be narrowly construed, meaning the city shouldn’t be using it to get around disclosure requirements.
Closed sessions are for the purchase, sale, or lease of real property and not for rezonings. Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes should not have used the closed meeting for his presentation to the EDA Board, as it was for a rezoning, not a sale, lease or purchase ofland.
The EDA Board’s vote on a rezoning application should have been part of the open session and part of the official record.
The city failing to provide the presentation that Mr. Hughes used to convince the EDA Board was also violation of FOIA. It should NOT have been withheld because it should have all happened during open session AND a closed session can not be used to prevent disclosure of information that would otherwise be open to inspection.

2025 City of Suffolk Annual Comprehensive Financial Report

William Webb — Sun, 25 Jan 2026 15:50:37 +0000

The City of Suffolk’s recently released 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) paints a picture of a municipality in a remarkably strong financial position. While the report was published without a public announcement just before the holidays, its contents are of significant public interest. City finances, with their various funds and activities, can be complex, but this analysis will highlight the key takeaways from the report. Specifically, we will examine the substantial budget surplus the city has accumulated for the second year in a row, how our tax rates and household tax burdens compare to the rest of the Hampton Roads region, the city’s extensive and largely untapped borrowing capacity, and whether our current economic development strategy is truly serving the best interests of Suffolk’s residents.

Some Highlights:

General Government (Police, fire, schools, roads, parks, libraries, etc.; services paid for via taxes): FY25 general revenues: $341.3 million vs. expenses: $212.5 million – net increase $128.7 Million (Surplus)

City’s business-type activities (Water, sewer, airport, refuse, etc.; services paid for via charges/fees): FY25 revenues: $95.8 million vs. expenses: $73.0 million & $1.5 million transfer to general fund – net increase $20.3 Million (Surplus)

“The City’s combined net position (which is the City’s “bottom line”) increased by $149.9 million in fiscal year 2025” (Pg. 8 of ACFR). For FY2024, the City’s “bottom line” increased by $133.8 million.

Over the past two years, the City has increased its “bottom line” by $283.7 Million.

The Mayor doesn’t really like when I talk about the “budget surplus”, so I made sure to double-check the definition. According to Investopedia.com: “a budget surplus occurs when a business or government’s revenue exceeds its expenses during its fiscal year.”

According to the ACFR, page 9, heading “Excess of revenues over expenditures”, the City had a $150 million surplus, with $100,000 being transferred to a different account, for the $149.9 million “Change in net position.” This came from total revenues of $544.5 million vs. total expenses of $394.5 million. If this doesn’t meet the definition of “Budget Surplus”, I am not sure what would.

For context, every 1 cent of the Real Estate tax equates to around $1.66 million ($177,492,532 ÷ 107 = $1,658,809). A 10 cent reduction would cost around $16.6 million, which is barely over 10% of the overall budget surplus from last year. I think it is time that the City lowers our tax rates.

And before anyone tries to claim that Suffolk has the “3rd lowest rate in the area”, Suffolk actually ranks 5th highest for Real Estate Tax Rate out of the 22 areas that make up the Hampton Roads Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which is how the Census defines Hampton Roads.

Furthermore, when you apply the tax rate to the average assessment, the Median Household in Suffolk pays $3,836 per year, which ranks 2nd highest in the MSA. The only locality that pays more per household is Poquoson, which comes in at $4,214.

The regional average real estate tax rate is $0.85 per $100, with the Statewide average being $0.94 per $100. Virginia Beach is at $0.97 per $100, while Chesapeake is $1.01 per $100. Smithfield comes in at $0.935 per $100, while Isle of Wight is $0.775 per $100. With the City running an annual budget surplus over $100 million for each of the past 2 years, it is about time we lower the rate and help out our local residents.

In regards to the City’s debt and borrowing capacity, the state allows a locality to borrow up to 10% of the assessed value of taxable real property within the locality. Suffolk has imposed a lower threshold, allowing borrowing up to 7% of the assessed valuation. The City currently has $768.5 million in available “credit” when looking at the City’s imposed limit and $1.29 billion in available “credit” when comparing to the state threshold. (ACFR Pg. 53)

So what does that mean? We could build 4 new King’s Highway bridges and still have credit left over. We could build a new high school, two new middle schools, and 5 new elementary schools and still have over $250 million in borrowing capacity available before we bumped up against the City’s self-imposed limit. The City has plenty of money and even more “credit” it could put to work. So why do we have kids learning in trailers? Why do we have overcrowded classrooms? We have the money; let’s put it to work.

Looking at Economic Development in the City in FY25, the statistics are interesting. I sit on the City’s Economic Development Authority and I have been advocating for diversifying our economic roadmap and ensure we aren’t putting all of our eggs in one basket. According to the report, a warehouse produces 1 job for every 18,590 sqft of building. For comparison, Medical Offices are coming in at 1 employee per 140 sqft of building, while retail added 1 employee per 270 sqft of retail space. Advanced manufacturing came in at 1 employee per 3,835 sqft of building space. So these warehouses are bringing the traffic and congestion but producing very few jobs for the space.

The Mayor likes to discuss the capital investment of the warehouses. According to the report, Advanced Manufacturing brings in $691 of capital investment per sqft of building, Medical Offices brings in $429 of capital investment per sqft of building, Retail brings in $321 of capital investment per sqft of building, and warehousing only brings in $70 of capital investment per sqft of building. While no one wants to see a loss in farmland and open space, if we are going to have some development, shouldn’t we be focusing on areas that bring the most bang-for-our-buck?

Lastly, as this is something that has stood out to me for a while but I haven’t heard any elected officials discuss, Suffolk has seen a sizeable swing in our median household income over the past decade. We have seen a -$10,955 swing vs. the state median household income over the past 10 years.

According to the City’s budget documents and US Census Bureau, in 2014 Suffolk had a median household income of $66,085 vs. $63,907 for the entire state, resulting in a net of +$2,178 per household. In 2024, Suffolk had a median household income of $81,154 vs. $89,931 for the entire state, resulting in a net of -$8,777 per household.

In short, Suffolk families aren’t keeping pace with our peers across the state and region. While prices have continued to increase, our take-home wages continue to stagnate. We aren’t attracting the employers and industries that will provide a thriving middle-class for our City. We must do more to diversify our economy and attract the careers that will keep pace with the rising costs in our region.

In summary, the data presented in the City of Suffolk’s own financial report reveals a clear and compelling narrative. With a combined surplus of over $283 million in the last two fiscal years, significant untapped borrowing capacity, and real estate tax burdens that are among the highest in the region, the argument that the city cannot afford to provide tax relief or increase investment in critical services like education falls flat. Furthermore, the city’s economic development focus on warehousing appears to yield a low return on investment in terms of both jobs and capital, while household incomes in Suffolk are alarmingly failing to keep pace with the rest of the state. The time has come for a fundamental re-evaluation of our fiscal and economic priorities. We have the financial resources and the borrowing power to lower the tax burden on our residents, invest in our schools, roads, and greenspaces, and strategically attract diversified industries that will build a prosperous future for all of Suffolk. It is not a question of capacity, but of political will.

Cluster Development

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 20 Jan 2026 04:40:31 +0000

The City of Suffolk touts Cluster Developments as a way to conserve environmentally sensitive areas, but is it just a developer give-away in disguise?

The idea behind a Cluster Development is to build homes closer together to free up more land for open space or to preserve wetlands. Normal city codes have regulations on minimum lot sizes and road frontage requirements. However, in a Cluster Development, many of those regulations are waived to allow a developer to build houses closer together.

If a developer has 100 acres and could normally build 300 houses on that land, this allows the developer to condense the housing portion and put those 300 houses on 70 acres and then leave 30 acres undeveloped. That all sounds reasonable and when seen in this light, it does seem to provide more open space.

However, if that same developer has 100 acres, but he would be prohibited from building on 30 of those acres of that land due natural impediments or because of local, state, or federal regulations, he would have to reduce the number of houses he could build. He would have 70 acres and he would have to abide by the city codes that dictate lot size and road frontage. He would not be able to fit those same 300 houses within that 70 acres with those restrictions and he would have to build fewer houses.

Cluster Developments allow the developer to use all the land that is part of the parcel to determine density, even if some of it can’t be built on. The city then waives the normal city regulations for lot size and road frontage. Thus, the cluster development allows the developer to build more houses than he would otherwise be able to build.

This happens a lot in Suffolk. It is happening with this Manning Road rezoning (Public Hearing on Wednesday at 6pm at City Hall). The developer has 113 acres, but that land has a railroad cutting off a huge chunk, it has a perennial stream, open water and wetlands. In all, there are 49 acres that the developer can NOT actually build on.

These are not 49 acres he is choosing to leave open. He has no choice because he can’t build within 100 feet of the water because it is a drinking reservoir and has a required buffer. This 100 foot buffer also follows the stream that bisects his property. In addition, he has no legal right to cross the railroad tracks that divide his property. In reality the developer has 64 acres that he can actually build on.

The city allows the developer to include the non-developable land in the calculation for density. Additionally, the city allows a density of 2.9 houses per acre for the residential zoning of RLM, which the developer is asking for in this rezoning request. The current zoning of A (agriculture) would only allow him to build at most 5 houses on the land. The total maximum number of houses that can be built on 113 acres at a density of 2.9 is 327 houses. He was asking for 300, but has since reduced it to 270 houses. But remember, he can only build on 64 acres. Those 270 houses will be squished onto those 64 acres at an actual density of 3.9 houses per acre!

That 64 acres is about the same size as the neighborhood across the street. That neighborhood was rezoned in the late 1980s back when the city was concerned with large density on parcels that abut drinking reservoirs. That neighborhood has 76 houses with a density of around 1 house per acre. If this Manning Road parcel is rezoned, it would share a zoning category with the other neighborhood of RLM. However, the density differences are 1 house per acre in the old development versus 4 houses per acre in the new proposed development. The old neighborhood is NOT a cluster development. Which development will have more negative impacts on the environmentally sensitive wetlands and drinking reservoir?

The city knows that higher density negatively impacts the water quality of the drinking reservoirs, which in turn can negatively impact the health of the citizens. They know this and used to avoid this type of density. Those days are gone.

Now the city and the developers think they are fooling us by saying cluster developments help preserve environmentally sensitive areas. It isn’t true. It is allowing the developers to put higher density on these parcels adjoining these environmentally sensitive areas that nature and existing regulation would otherwise curtail.

It turns out, cluster developments are just another tactic to help developers at the expense of the environment and safety of the citizens.

Mayor Duman Claims Developers are Listening

Care4Suffolk — Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:25:47 +0000

During the November 2025 City Council meeting, after the Manning Road Rezoning Public Hearing, Mayor Duman stated:

“It’s quite evident that the developers are listening. We are listening.” Then he goes on to talk about how “we have done exactly what we need to do” and how the developer is doing what he can do “to the extent that he is capable of doing what he can do and still be able to move his project forward.”

Is Mayor Duman seriously saying that this is the best we can expect from developers in Suffolk? Let’s review the Manning Road issues to see what we can expect from the city and the developer:

In 2022 the developer, Bob Arnette, provided a traffic study for Manning Bridge Rd instead of Manning Rd. The analysis stated:

And this:

If you are familiar with the site location on Manning Road, you know how ludicrous this statement is. This would mean all cars head south from the site on Manning Road and go the long way (about 4 miles!) to catch Holland Road 3 miles WEST of the Manning Rd/Holland Rd intersection.

This was approved by city staff!!

By 2024, he provided a new traffic study, but this one is also NOT for Manning Road. Instead, the developer used existing city data for the Grove Ave/Holland Rd intersection.

The developer has NEVER done a traffic study on Manning Road. Yet this traffic study was also accepted by the city.

He did have an engineer go out there and measure the road and it shows the same thing we have been saying for 3 years – the road is narrow! The lanes are well below the state standard and the developer’s plan is to slap some asphalt on the narrow shoulder, adding inches and in some cases a couple feet of asphalt. The road will still below the state standard. This will not expand the road space itself. It will just pave from ditch to ditch and guardrail to guardrail. There is no engineering report that actually states if that will make the road safer or if it is even feasible. Why is City Council even considering allowing a developer to make substandard improvements in exchange for a large development.

I guess this is the ‘listening’ that the mayor is talking about?

The school proffers have decreased by $1.2 million. In 2022, the developer was offering $1.9 million for Kilby Shores Elementary and $1.2 million for Forest Glen Middle Schools.

Now he is only offering $1.9 million for Kilby Shores and nothing for Forest Glen.

The City has recently come up with a ‘new method’ of determining school proffers – developers no longer need to count ‘uncommitted’ developments, which is any development that doesn’t have a submitted site plan.

Uncommitted houses have gone through the rezoning process, so they can be built by-right at any time just by submitting a site plan. These houses will be built at some point AND will impact our schools and roads, but by NOT counting them, the developer gets to save a lot of money. He is off the hook for the extra proffers, but that money will have to come from somewhere. It will be passed on to taxpayers.

Maybe THAT is the listening the Mayor is referring to?

This developer does NOT have a right to rezone this property. He took a risk and engaged in speculative development, which has the potential to make him a lot of money. If this doesn’t get passed, he can just sell his land like everyone else does when they no longer want the property they own. Sometimes when you speculate, you lose.

If this passes, everyone that lives on or off of Manning Road will be subjected to the tripling of traffic which will greatly increase the chance of a serious accident. It is already a dangerous road that has seen fatalities. Adding more traffic means there will be more accidents and more risk to the safety and lives for our family, friends, and neighbors, not to mention the 300 new families that will be added.

City Council can say NO to this project. It is perfectly reasonable for them to say that they value the rights of the current property owners to safely enjoy and live in their homes, and that the desire, not right, of the developer to make a profit is not a good trade-off for the city and its citizens. They represent us, not him.

If the developer, the city and City Council are actually listening then they will know that what we are opposing is a development that will predictably DECREASE the SAFETY of the current residents. If City Council truly represent the people, they will put our safety above the profits of the developer.

Suffolk’s Most Dangerous Road

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 13 Nov 2025 16:12:20 +0000

It isn’t an exaggeration to state that Manning Road is one of the most dangerous and deadliest roads in the City of Suffolk.

The number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities are tracked and the data is available on TREDS (Traffic Records Electronic Data System), one of Virginia’s most effective and innovative information technology tools in the nation to identify and address road safety concerns. The Virginia Office of Data Governance and Analytics has ADT (Average Daily Trip) data available on the Virginia Open Data Portal (most recent data for Suffolk is from 2022).

Below is a chart that shows the comparison of accidents on various roads in Suffolk.

Click on Image of Chart to Enlarge

Manning Road is the location of the proposed Lake Pointe development that will add 300 single family homes and an estimated 2,772 vehicle trips per day. This will bring the ADT from 1,600 to 4,372 trips per day, nearly tripling the amount of traffic.

The chart includes a comparison with Grove Ave because Grove Ave is the location of the traffic study that the developer used instead of conducting one for Manning Road. The developer, with the agreement from city staff, has stated that it is a reasonable substitution. The Grove Ave accident data is from Grove Ave, Northbrooke Ave, and all side streets within that neighborhood combined.

It is expected that busier roads will experience more accidents. Busy roads have much more traffic. To give us a better idea of the safety of a road, we can divide the average number of accidents per year by the average number of vehicle trips per year. This gives us a rate, in this case a very small number because fortunately most drives do not end in an accident. This rate allows us to compare busy main roads to more rural roads and to neighborhood roads. It is similar to how in baseball, they use a batting average instead of the number of hits a batter has had. The batting average is the number of hits divided by the total number of times the player has been up to bat. In this case, the comparison is the number of accidents in a year divided by the total number of vehicle trips.

If you want to know how much more likely it is to get into an accident on Manning Road versus Grove Avenue, you can take the Manning Road Accident Rate and divide it by the Grove Avenue Accident Rate:

Manning Road Accident Rate / Grove Avenue Accident Rate = Likelihood of Accident

0.0000223347 / 0.0000008934 = 25.0

A trip down Manning Road is 25 times more likely to experience an accident than a drive on Grove Avenue. Below is a Comparison Chart that compares the likelihood of an incident to occur on Manning Road compared to other selected roads in Suffolk.

Click on Image of Chart to Enlarge

What this data is telling us is that if you are a driver in Suffolk, you are more than twice as likely to get in an accident while on Manning Road than when you turn onto Holland Road. That seems counterintuitive because there are far more accidents on Holland Road than Manning Road, but there are also thousands more cars traveling on Holland Road every day. For every 1 driver on Manning Road, there are 20 drivers on Holland Road.

Manning Road is one of the most dangerous and deadliest roads in Suffolk. When you turn down Manning Road from Holland Road, you have just increased your chance of dying in a car accident by 20 times. You are 17 times more likely to die on Manning Road than Main Street and 11 times more likely than when driving down Bridge Road. Let that sink in.

When someone from the Manning Road neighborhood tells you that they live on a dangerous road – believe them. The facts support this. It is in fact one of the most dangerous roads in Suffolk.

When the Manning Road neighborhood tells you that this road is far too dangerous to add 300 houses which will almost triple the traffic – believe them. Approving this development is likely to result in more deaths.

There is no plan in the city’s CIP or 2045 Comprehensive Plan to make any improvements to Manning Road – nothing to make the road safer. This development would be about a mile south of the Holland Road/Manning Road intersection. That is a long way to go on one of the city’s deadliest roads. There are no sidewalks, no shoulders, and the lanes are narrow, too narrow to fit large vehicles. Until the city makes improvements to Manning Road to make it safer, no rezonings should even be considered, let alone approved.

This is about preserving lives. Residents of the Manning Road area already risk their lives driving this deadly road daily. The city must not compound this risk by tripling the traffic on Manning Road – one of Suffolk’s most dangerous roads.

The Fear Factor

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 23 Oct 2025 10:56:10 +0000

A common quote that developers use when faced with public opposition is: “If not this, then something worse.” I have seen this time and time again.

These are threats. They are stated for the intended purpose to get people to respond emotionally. When people are faced with two choices, they will pick what they perceive to be as the lesser of two evils. The developer is using this tactic to elicit support by threatening something worse.

This is what is happening right now with the proposed Riversbend rezoning. The Riversbend project is a development of 497 homes on 73 acres. The almost 500 houses is a big sticking point with citizens, School Board members, and some Planning Commissioners. The 500 houses is a huge project that will negatively impact already over-crowded schools and Main Street, which already suffers from heavy traffic.

How is a developer to deal with all the pushback? He could reduce the number of houses, and that might help. This option is very seldom taken.

Alternatively, he could induce fear and create a scenario that makes the 500 houses look like the better deal. For example, he could say:

“If they don’t allow these 500 houses, then 800 could be built there, ‘by right’ and it wouldn’t even have to go through rezoning!”

This is EXACTLY the scenario that is happening right now in our city. Decision-makers, like the Planning Commission and School Board were told that if they don’t agree to the 500 houses, that instead, the developer could come back with a MUD (Mixed Use Development) plan of 800 houses. City staff are actually confirming this for them.

The problem is that this threat of a development with 800 houses is a lie at worst or a deliberate misrepresentation at best.

The developer AND City staff, are saying this because this land is already zoned B-2, which is commercial zoning that allows MUD. Examples of this type of development include The Gallery at Godwin and Bridgeport. These are developments that offer both commercial and residential in the same development, like commercial space at the ground level and then apartments above.

There is a ratio set up in the UDO (Unified Development Ordinance) for MUD where there has to be one employee (one job created) for each housing unit built. They calculate the number of employees by taking the total square footage of the commercial space and dividing it by either 400 if it is retail space or 250 if it is office space. In order to put 800 homes at the VDOT site, they would need to build 320,000 square feet of commercial space. To put that in perspective, Bridgeport, which is quite large, is only 60,000 square feet of retail space.

They don’t have the ability to put that in this location. You don’t have to take my word for it– they already TRIED the MUD overlay district before applying to rezone.

In the above MUD conceptual plan, dated March 2025, look at what they were able to squeeze onto this space. They came up with 525 housing units and only 467 jobs, so the jobs number was too low! I don’t know how many iterations they worked with to try to maximize the housing, but they probably never even got to the 497 of the current application.

Also note, doing a MUD overlay does not absolve them from needing cash proffers for schools and roads, even if it does not need to be rezoned. At some point the developer looked at this, along with Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes, who was on the email that contained this plan (which I received via a FOIA request) and decided the best move was to rezone to RU-18.

All of this doesn’t even include the fact that no project of ANY density could be built there without the assistance of Mr. Hughes in gifting EDA (city-owned) land to the developer for use as the main entrance and exit. You can read more about this here.

So for everyone out there concerned that if the Riversbend rezoning doesn’t pass, we will be faced with 800 homes instead: don’t worry; this is a scare tactic. Shame on any and all city staff and city leadership that perpetuate this lie.