Care4Suffolk

The State of the City is NOT for Citizens

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 18 May 2026 21:08:50 +0000

Suffolk’s annual “State of the City” event is happening tomorrow (May 19, 2026)

Have any of you ever attended this event?

No? That’s probably because it is NOT an event that is done for the citizens of Suffolk. It is a regional series that cities participate in at the behest of the Hampton Roads Chamber (HRC). Yes, city staff get paid with our tax dollars to prepare for it every May at the Hilton, creating special videos and slideshows for the mayor to present, but it seems that the event always sells out well before the city even makes any announcement about it. The seats go to elected officials from around Hampton Roads, regional organization members, some locally appointed folks (like EDA, planning commissioners, etc.), and business leaders.

Each city takes turns trying really hard to brag about its economic accomplishments and impress the HRC. This is a win for the HRC because initiating this event series is a big flex for them in perpetuating their own importance. So the point of the “State of the City” is not to inform local citizens of what is going on, it is really to promote the HRC, which itself is very much about promoting regionalism. As the HRC president, Bryan Stephens, said last year in Suffolk when acknowledging the mayors from the other cities: their presence was “ a nod to regionalism.”

Since Suffolk is paying staff to help organize this event, citizens should probably know a little about some of the agenda that HRC president, Bryan Stephens, has for the region (and megaregion!) –especially in light of our warehouse proliferation and all the data center talk lately.

The Port of Virginia is a “strategic partner” of the HRC, with its CEO getting special recognition from Mr. Stephens at last year’s Suffolk State of the City. The HRC’s key Legislative Priorities includes “continued investment in business and transportation networks that support the expansion of the Port of Virginia.” This may sound nice, but we now know that this means moving westward into Suffolk’s prime farmland with giant warehouses and extra traffic congestion. And neither these regional organizations nor the port care about the blight on our landscapes or the community tensions this causes – prioritizing the port over actual people.

Mr. Stephens is also on the executive committee for a “non-profit” called RVA757Connects, which advocates for data centers and for a Hampton Roads-to-Richmond megaregion and “Global Internet Hub” (GIH). In fact, Mr. Stephens is the co-chairman of RVA757’s “Megaregion Institutional Council (MIC)” and is on their GIH steering committee. There are many other UNELECTED representatives from Hampton Roads regional organizations involved with this as well.

RVA757 Connects Board Members link

GIH steering committee link

It is interesting that Mr. Stephens and these other UNELECTED regional organizations think that their influence has been so successful in Hampton Roads that they want to create a “megaregion.” These are some of the same people under whose “watch” we have seen an “outmigration” of people from Hampton Roads. A study was just commissioned a couple years ago to figure out why Hampton Roads this is happening (a real head-scratcher!)

We also have billions of dollars in “unfunded needs” for our roads and our regional planners have been pushing for a sales tax increase just for our region to fund this shortfall. Mr. Stephens endorsed this tax increase last year.

As if there aren’t already enough overlapping Hampton Roads regional organizations that can’t seem to keep people here or keep up with infrastructure, the “thought-leaders” that represent some of them believe that creating yet another group involving the same people is the way to truly make a difference; it’s called the Regional Organization Presidents Committee (ROPC).

Mr. Stephens wrote a passionate column in the Virginia Pilot last year about this brilliant new committee. He claimed that we need a smaller, more exclusive group of just these regional organizations’ presidents to focus on “collaboration, advocacy and strategic initiatives that move our region forward.”

But isn’t that already the purpose of each group? And how does excluding people increase collaboration?

Mr. Stephens assures us that the ROPC won’t be “yet another organization.” Shockingly, though, it sounds like the key difference with ROPC is that it’s specifically intended to operate behind closed doors!

According to a May 2024 WHRO article about the ROPC:

“The ROPC doesn’t have any funding or employees. The only people in the closed-door monthly meetings are the top executives from each member organization – only decisionmakers allowed, no second-in-commands. The group doesn’t answer to anyone.”

What a relief! We wouldn’t want influential people to waste their time answering to anyone!

The same article quotes Mr. Stephens as saying:

“What we said is ‘What goes on in this conference room stays in this conference room.’ And so we talked about issues, we talked about regional leaders that were or were not doing what we thought they should be doing. And we made an informal pact that it would stay in the room.”

Sounds like a real regionalism fight club!

In his column, Mr. Stephens confirmed ROPC’s involvement in RVA757Connects: “Through this unified front, the ROPC seeks to advocate for the region as a whole. Whether it’s influencing legislation, championing key initiatives, or ensuring alignment among stakeholders, its influence is felt across the region. Additionally, the ROPC serves as the Megaregion Institutional Council (MIC) working with RVA757 Connects and its mission to advance economic prosperity for everyone in the Richmond and Hampton Roads regions igniting the I-64 Innovation Corridor Megaregion.“

(Just so people know, the president of RVA757Connects did give a presentation to Suffolk City Council back in the summer of 2023. His exaggerated flattery of council members was notable while he gushed about turning the I-64 corridor into a “world-class digital interconnection point.”)

Of course, all of these things are put forward in the name of economic development and prosperity, but they ignore the tangible AND intangible costs to everyday citizens. It seems that they are willing to steamroll and sacrifice everything that residents hold dear just to say they grew the regional economy.

Has anything they’ve been hoisting upon us resulted in more affordability, less congestion, or actual preservation of things like natural and community heritage? Has our quality of life actually improved? Why should we trust their judgement? Better yet, why do so many of our city officials so eagerly follow their lead?

Do we really want OUR city to be influenced by people who think it’s okay to blatantly create their own agendas behind closed doors? How much is our city council letting itself be manipulated by these people?

We should not be blinded by the platitudes coming from this elitist, regionalist echo chamber. Their intentions may sound good, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

The History of a Bad Deal

Care4Suffolk — Wed, 06 May 2026 15:24:32 +0000

Let me tell you a story about a curious plan in the heart of Suffolk. The plan started with the City receiving a piece of property as a gift. It was a property with an old building on it that needed a LOT of work. Instead of improving this free property, the City sold it to a company for an amazingly low price. The company promised to renovate the building to modern office space standards and, as part of the deal, the City agreed to rent the building back again because they were in need of office space for the Suffolk Public Schools (SPS) administration.

Does any of this sound familiar? If you were following the recent Riversbend rezoning project, it probably rings a bell because part of that rezoning application included the developer giving the old VDOT administration building to the City of Suffolk for use as new SPS administrative offices. When trying to convince the school board to support this plan, City Manager Kevin Hughes explained that the building would then most likely be turned over to a different developer who would modernize it and then lease it back to Suffolk Public Schools for a period of 10 years.

Despite the similarities in these two scenarios, this story is not actually about the Riversbend project. It is about something that happened back in 2002: how the SPS offices ended up where they are now.

For some background, the SPS Administrative Offices are currently housed in a downtown building at 100 North Main Street, called the Professional Building (also known as the American Bank and Trust Company building.) They have been in this location since March 2003.

During the Riversbend rezoning, we heard multiple city leaders like City Manager Hughes, Council Member Rector, Council Member Ward, and Superintendent Gordon state that there are serious issues with the Professional Building.

Council Member Rector (Suffolk Borough) speaking about the Professional Building at the City Council Meeting on December 17, 2025.

Council Member Ward (Nansemond Borough) speaking about the Professional Building at the City Council Meeting on December 17, 2025.

According to the reports, the HVAC doesn’t always work, leaving staff to deal with high temperatures and elevators that frequently don’t work in a building with seven floors. Additionally, when it rains, water can be heard running down the walls. That definitely sounds far from an ideal work location.

During the February 9, 2026 Education Committee meeting, while discussing problems with this building, City Manager Kevin Hughes stated, “He’s not the greatest landlord,” as if that excuses the horrid office conditions for the employees that work there. It is understandable that the SPS would not want to continue in that location, but how did they end up there in the first place?

The Professional Building has an interesting history when looking at the change of possession.

Here is the property card from the City’s website:

Here is the history of transfers:

The Sale #5 states 01/01/1900, but the city has that date for each record entered into the system when they began to process these records electronically.

You can see that the building was gifted a total of three separate times. In Sale #4, the building was gifted to the Western Tidewater Community Service Board in 1994 from Holland and Jackson Incorporated. I wasn’t able to find any information about the corporation that gifted the building, except by word of mouth that the Jackson party was Mr. G. Phil Jackson Sr. The property was previously conveyed to Holland and Jackson Incorporated back on February 1,1963 from The American Bank and Trust Company.

Less than a year after it was given to the Western Tidewater Community Service Board, the building was again gifted, this time to the City of Suffolk in 1995. That’s right – the City used to own the Professional Building at 100 North Main St. The City held onto the building until March 28, 2002 and then gifted it, along with the two adjacent buildings: 120 and 122 East Washington Street. (pictured below from Google Maps)

These three buildings were gifted to the City’s own Economic Development Authority Board (EDA), which was called the Industrial Development Authority at the time.

Just a year later, on February 27, 2003 the EDA sold these three prime downtown commercial buildings to 100 North Main LLC for the bargain price of $100,000.

Interestingly, 100 North Main LLC was created on September 6, 2002, just five months before it purchased these three buildings from the EDA and just six months after the EDA received the land from the City. This company was set up specifically to purchase and maintain these properties.

There are two names that have been found connected with the 100 North Main LLC. The first is Frank T. Gadams, also known as Buddy Gadams, who signed the first lease listed as Managing Member of 100 North Main LLC. The other name is Michael P. Zarpas, who signed the second lease as a “Member” of 100 North Main LLC.

The purchase agreement is dated September 16, 2002, just 10 days after the formation of 100 North Main LLC. Along with the purchase agreement between the EDA and 100 North Main LLC, there was a lease agreement.

This lease agreement, dated March 7, 2003, was between the 100 North Main LLC (Landlord) and the City of Suffolk (Tenant). The Lease stated the reason for selling the building was to revitalize the Downtown Historic District and provide office space for the administrative offices for the Suffolk School Board.

It was “determined that the Project would not be economically feasible without the commitment of Tenant.”

The lease agreement included an eleven-page “Schedule D” entitled “Landlord Work” that detailed all the work that needed to be done to bring the building up to modern office standards. These items included landscaping, electrical work, roofing, insulation, doors, framing, acoustic ceiling, interior demolitions, asbestos and lead paint abatement, just to name a few. In all, there was about $3 million in renovations listed.

At this point, you might be thinking that this was a good deal for the City, because $3 million is a LOT to spend on renovations. However, take a look at this excerpt from the contract:

According to this, the Landlord (100 North Main LLC) only had to pay up to $233,600 of renovation costs, and then the Tenant (City of Suffolk) had to pick up the rest!

How was this a good deal for the City of Suffolk? After the Landlord put up the $100,000 (which was for three buildings, remember!) and $233,600 in renovations, he was only in for $333,600 and the City had to pay for the majority of the work!

Remember: It was “determined that the Project would not be economically feasible without the commitment of Tenant.” What a lucky Landlord to get a Tenant to pay both rent and the extraordinary renovation costs!

So how much did the Landlord make in rent? It averaged just under $30,000/year for the first 10 years (length of first lease) for a total of $298,416.25. Then in the 11th – 20th years it averaged about $434,000/year for a lease total of $4,338,488.80. The years 2024-2026 include rent in the average amount of $470,000/year for a total of $1,410,280.

By the end of this year, the City of Suffolk will have paid in total $6,047,185.05 in rent for this building that it previously owned. This does not include any renovation costs the City paid for, which we are still investigating.

This was a horribly conceived plan. It’s a good thing the Riversbend rezoning application failed, because thanks to our City Manager Kevin Hughes, we were about to repeat this horrible mistake. That was a close one!

Documentation:

Riversbend Rezoning Denied by City Council

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 16 Apr 2026 20:50:51 +0000

Last night at the City Council meeting, the Riversbend rezoning was denied. This was a Ryan Homes’ project to build about 500 new homes on the old VDOT location at 1700 N Main Street.

Just two days ago, the developer submitted a request to defer the item until May. During the portion of the City Council meeting, when items can be removed from the agenda, a motion was made by Council Member Rector to amend the agenda to continue consideration of the Riversbend project until the May 20, 2026 meeting. This motion was seconded by Council Member Ward.

Council Member Bennett then made a substitute motion to accept the agenda as presented, keeping the Riversbend project on the agenda. Council Member Johnson seconded the motion.

Mayor Duman, who has a financial conflict of interest with Ryan Homes, was unable to to be part of a discussion or vote on the Riversbend project, but was allowed to preside over the procedural activities. He asked for clarification from the City Council’s lawyer, Mr. Hutchinson, who then clarified that two motions have been presented. The substitute motion gets voted on first. He clarified that if the substitution to accept the agenda with item 13 (Riversbend project) is approved, then that item will be heard and discussed by City Council. He further explained that Council will have the option then to vote to approve, vote to deny, or table the item.

Mayor Duman then recused himself from the rest of the process due to his conflict of interest, passing the gavel to Vice Mayor Ward. Council then voted to 4 to 3 to accept the agenda as presented, keeping the Riversbend project on the agenda.

Council Members Bennett, Johnson, Butler Barlow and Wright all voted “YES” while Council Members Rector, Ward and Williams voted “NO”.

Just before the Riversbend project was heard before Council, roughly two hours into the meeting, Mayor Duman declared a 5 minute recess. The recess lasted closer to 12 minutes, but when Council continued the session, Mayor Duman recused himself from the deliberation and vote, passing the gavel back Vice Mayor Ward.

Planning Director Kevin Wyne then gave the staff presentation, stating that there weren’t really many changes from the previous presentation.

Council Member Butler Barlow spoke first stating she thought there were both positive and negative aspects to the project. However, she felt that due to this parcel’s unique nature, Council needed to put this parcel to “its very best use.” She then made a motion to deny the Riversbend rezoning.

Council Member Johnson stated he has been against this project from day one. He then went on to second the motion. Council Member Wright commended the developer for being engaged and thanked Ryan Homes for listening and considering the voices of the people, however, she still had concerns about the infrastructure and felt the mitigations to the impact on infrastructure were not sufficient.

Vice Mayor Ward talked about how the developer has bent over backwards. He stated the developer did everything he was asked to do. He also expressed concern that the developer wasn’t even there and may be unaware of the decision made tonight. Vice Mayor Ward went on to say that he felt the developer wasn’t treated fairly. He then stated,

“I understand how you feel. But when you sit up here, you’re here to govern. That’s what you’re supposed to do. I know most of you might be against me, that’s fine. That is fine with me. But my heart says different. I listen to the developers and I listen to my council people. Yes I do.”

Vice Mayor Ward then asked for Council to be prepared to vote. Before Ward cast his own vote, he asked for clarification from the attorney who very clearly stated, “‘YES’ is for denial, so ‘YES’ is a no.” Ward asked for him to repeat it, and the attorney stated again, “‘YES’ is for denial,” at which point the Vice Mayor interrupted and said, “Okay, I gotcha.”

The final vote was a unanimous ‘YES’ to deny the rezoning. The clerk announced the motion was approved 7-0, clarifying that it was a motion to deny. At this point, members of the public can be heard cheering while at the same time, Vice Mayor Ward seemed confused.

Vice Mayor Ward could be heard, as he turned to City Manager Kevin Hughes, “I don’t want to, I’m not denying it,” then he continued, “So what happens now?” as he continued to ask Mr. Hughes, “What happens now? What happens now?”

At this point, staff and a fellow Council Member indicate to Mr. Ward that his microphone is still on. He then turns to Council Member Johnson who explains that they just voted to deny the project.

Where we are now: the rezoning has been denied and the rezoning can not be brought back up for rezoning again for a year. Ryan Homes still has a contract with VDOT to purchase the parcel, so it is unknown at this time if they will try to build a project that fits within the current zoning of B-2 (Commercial) or back out of the deal.

Can Ryan Homes Be Trusted with Toxic Cleanup?

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 30 Mar 2026 20:09:28 +0000

We recently wrote an article about environmental concerns on the old VDOT parcel on Main Street that is about to go before City Council for rezoning approval. Ryan Homes wants to build about 500 homes on this site.

Previously completed environmental studies of the property found toxic chemicals called Diesel Range Organics (DROs) and other toxins like arsenic, toluene, ethylbenzene and naphthalene by taking samples throughout the site.

These toxins have known health impacts, but they CAN be cleaned up to allow reuse of the site for other purposes. However, that process has to be done correctly, and it takes time and money.

Here’s the problem, though. It is Ryan Homes (owned by NVR Inc.) that wants to purchase the property. It would fall to them to clean up these environmental toxins. Does City Council think Ryan Homes will do its due diligence to ensure it is cleaned up and safe for the residential use that they are planning?

Here’s a 2019 news article from Delmarva Now, about an Ocean City condo community called Sunset Island. It details the problems of 11 condo buildings, built by Ryan Homes, faced with “extensive water damage” due to improper waterproofing with an estimated cost to fix around $8 million. Then Board President Roger Williams stated that Ryan Homes conditioned “any repairs that were done, to be done under the terms of what they call their settlement or release agreement which allows for the repairs to be done, but then they are released from all future obligations for the buildings.” According to the article, when there are problems, before Ryan Homes will do the repairs, they force the homeowners into arbitration and non-disclosure agreements.

Here’s another news article from Cincinnati Enquirer called Dream Home Nightmares: Ryan Homes buyers face delays, hassles as repairs lag. In this article, one Ryan Homes buyer had “toilets left unconnected to the sewer, flushing waste” under their new home for nearly a year. Another homeowner reported “improper repairs to an uneven floor that caused the possible loss of structural integrity” of the house. It’s not just the shoddy workmanship and cutting corners that are listed in the article, it goes into detail about the difficulty these homeowners and other buyers face when dealing with Ryan Homes to get repairs. The article states:

“Ryan, part of a publicly-traded conglomerate that builds more than 18,000 homes a year and churns out $800 million a year in profits, also demanded customers enter into restrictive arbitration agreements and agree never to publicly discuss their cases or repairs, homeowners say.

The secrecy means even more customers may have been affected and settled for less than they were possibly entitled to, but they are not allowed to talk about it.”

The concerns about Ryan Homes are not limited to a few homeowners. In November 2019, four U.S. Senators wrote to NVR, Inc.’s president to share their concerns:

“We write to express our concern about NVR, Inc.’s (NVR) use of mandatory arbitration provisions in its new home construction warranties, as well as its use of non-disclosure agreements. These anti-consumer tactics attempt to shield NVR, your subsidiary Ryan Homes, and affiliated entities from accountability and scrutiny over homebuyers’ complaints about negligent, faulty, or deficient home construction. We ask that you immediately remove the arbitration provisions from your agreements and stop requiring homebuyers to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to resolve disputes.”

Also in 2019, Maryland’s Governor’s Office, a Maryland State Delegate, and Maryland State Senator all wrote letters to Maryland’s Attorney General’s Office asking them to investigate the complaints from citizens into NVR, Inc.’s business practices.

A lawsuit filed in 2011 by the Cowie Law Group on behalf of Anne Arundel County (Maryland) condominium owners successfully sued Ryan Homes for $5.6 million on the basis of:

“…the complaint alleged, the company did not comply with building codes, deviated from plans, used inferior materials and did not meet minimum industry standards.

These defects led to leaking windows, flooding in the units, premature deterioration, structural instability, wood damage, peeling paint, wall and roof structural damage and mold growth…”

The point of all this is to ask: Is Ryan Homes the company City Council wants to entrust with the environmental cleanup needed to make the area safe for the 500 new homes they are planning?

We will all find out when Council votes this Wednesday, April 15, 2026 at 6pm at City Hall. Mayor Duman has had to recuse himself from voting on Riversbend because he has financial dealings with NVR, Inc., Ryan Homes’ parent company.

Below are pdfs of documents mentioned in this article:

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Letters from U.S. State Senators to NVR, Inc.
Letters from Maryland State Senator Mary Beth Carozza, Delegate Julie Palakovich Carr, Chief Legal Council of Maryland Governor Hogan to Attorney General of Maryland

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.