City Council – Care4Suffolk https://care4suffolk.org Mon, 23 Feb 2026 21:38:16 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 https://care4suffolk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/cropped-Care4Suffolk-32x32.png City Council – Care4Suffolk https://care4suffolk.org 32 32 Eagles’ Nest Identified on Development Site https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/23/eagles-nest-identified-on-development-site/ https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/23/eagles-nest-identified-on-development-site/#respond Mon, 23 Feb 2026 21:38:08 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=8907 Read More »Eagles’ Nest Identified on Development Site]]>

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.

This image shows the eagles on the Center for Conservation Biology’s website mapping tool.

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. 

This image shows the 1700 N Main St parcel.

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.

Erin Clemow’s email to City Council regarding the presence of eagles on the VDOT property. Care4Suffolk removed Erin’s personal contact information from the image

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

]]>
https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/23/eagles-nest-identified-on-development-site/feed/ 0
Environmental Concerns at Riversbend https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/17/environmental-concerns-at-riversbend/ https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/17/environmental-concerns-at-riversbend/#respond Tue, 17 Feb 2026 02:26:10 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=8838 Read More »Environmental Concerns at Riversbend]]>

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?

]]>
https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/17/environmental-concerns-at-riversbend/feed/ 0
Riversbend FOIA Issue – FOIA Violations Are Piling Up! https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/05/riversbend-foia-issue-foia-violations-are-piling-up/ https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/05/riversbend-foia-issue-foia-violations-are-piling-up/#respond Thu, 05 Feb 2026 16:46:16 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=8594 Read More »Riversbend FOIA Issue – FOIA Violations Are Piling Up!]]>

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.”

 

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.
]]>
https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/05/riversbend-foia-issue-foia-violations-are-piling-up/feed/ 0
Council Reduces Fire Safety Standard https://care4suffolk.org/2025/05/29/council-reduces-fire-safety-standard/ https://care4suffolk.org/2025/05/29/council-reduces-fire-safety-standard/#comments Thu, 29 May 2025 15:31:30 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=7116

At the May 7, 2025 City Council meeting, Council approved an ordinance to amend Chapter 38 Fire Prevention and Protection of the Code of the City of Suffolk. The main purpose of amending this chapter was to make Chapter 38 “coincide with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code Act.” Only Council Member Wright voted in opposition to this ordinance.

The way that this was phrased made the change sound like Suffolk is changing its code to meet the State’s minimum requirements, which would not seem controversial. However, there was a VERY interesting exchange regarding this city code amendment during the City Council Work Session prior to the regular council meeting, at which Suffolk’s Fire Marshal, Christopher Cornwall, made it very clear that he is against a key part of the amendment that was being proposed: striking Section 507.3 regarding fire flow requirements. 

 

While Suffolk cannot create less restrictive policies than the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code Act calls for, it can put higher standards in place. The existing code was a higher standard, and by voting to make the change on May 7th, City Council LOWERED  the standard regarding fire flows. Below is a screenshot of the ordinance amendments as presented in the City Council meeting packet. Take note that the existing code (that is lined out)  says that “fire flows required shall be the cumulative amount” of internal and external demand (emphasis added).

By eliminating this section (which was based on the International Fire Code (IFC), Appendix B), Suffolk’s code defaults to the standards set by the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code Act, which has a lesser requirement of just the greater of internal or external demand.

 

Council Member Wright astutely asked “can that formula ever produce a low, but potentially inadequate, fire flow?”

 

The Fire Marshal’s answer was:

My stance hasn’t changed as it pertains to municipal fire code Section 507.3. That’s simply that I’m not in favor of repealing it at all for that very reason.”

Suffolk’s Fire Marshal clearly stated opposition to removing this section of the fire code and most of City Council chose to ignore him?!

 

He did make it clear that the proposed change is compliant with code, but “reverting back to that State code section, becoming less restrictive by standard, it is a reduction in the amount of flow that is available, therefore a reduction in the amount of water that would be available for the suppression personnel to fight fire with.”

So why did City Council vote to approve a fire code change that may reduce the amount of water that will be available to fight fires, and against the Fire Marshal’s strong opposition?

 

This change to the code regarding fire flow requirements came from the City Manager’s Office. Fire Chief Barakey stated he spoke to City Manager Al Moor regarding this change. Why did the City Manager’s office request this change? And why did City staff frame this change to make it look like it was bringing Suffolk up to Virginia’s State standards, when the Suffolk code was already more stringent than the State?

Interestingly, Fire Marshal Cornwell brought up large warehouses a couple times when explaining his concern about reverting Suffolk’s code to the State’s lesser fire flow requirements. He gave the example that in a 200,000 square foot warehouse, the same number of sprinklers as in the council chambers would use up all the water available for suppression if we just follow the State standards. 

 

He also acknowledged that people ask how everyone else can do it (meaning follow the State code for fire flow requirements), but pointed out that they also have other types of safeguards. He gave the example of Virginia Beach having: other provisions in place to ensure that their safeguards are met as far as building construction that ensure they don’t have million square foot warehouse complexes completely unprotected by any other provision.”

This caught our attention! Is he saying that Suffolk’s fire code will now have no other protective provisions outside of the reduced fire flow requirements in the State code? Did City Council just reduce fire safety standards to the benefit of warehouse developers without adding any alternative safeguards?

 

The Fire Marshal’s stance regarding this fire code change was very clear when he said:

I feel like by reverting back completely to the state standard would leave us completely wide open to problems down the road.”

We should all take notice when a top safety official says something like this. 

 

How much risk is City Council exposing the citizens of Suffolk to by lowering the fire flow requirements? 

 

Suffolk City Council has recently approved some things that allow for warehouses and residential development in close proximity to each other, along with expanding the areas in which they feel warehouses are appropriate. If reduced fire flow requirements are a cause for concern regarding suppression capabilities at large warehouse sites, how could this potentially impact the people living in and around these areas?

In November 2023, City Council unanimously approved Ordinance Text Amendment (OTA) 2023-007, which added a section to the Unified Development Ordinance about warehouses. It established a mere 30-foot front, side, and rear setback from all abutting properties – including residential! This minimal setback was approved despite citizens voicing concerns.

In December 2024, City Council approved the City of Suffolk 2045 Comprehensive Plan, which vastly expanded the City’s growth areas and established large swathes that they desire for “Employment Centers.” (This is the new phrase they are using for warehouse/industrial areas.) These areas are colored in purple, as you can see on the below Land Use Map. These “purple” areas originally did not include allowances for residential use, but during the last few weeks of the comp plan development, “Residential” was added as an acceptable secondary use of “Employment Centers.” (Only Councilmember Bennett voted ‘nay’ on the 2045 Comp Plan and Councilmember Wright was not yet on council.)

In September 2022, City Council approved the rezoning of 540 acres to allow 5 million square feet of warehouse space in ten buildings along Pruden Blvd./Rt. 460 bounded by Kings Fork, Pitchkettle, and Murphy’s Mill Roads, close to existing homes, businesses, and a school. (Councilmembers Johnson, Butler Barlow, and Bennet voted ‘nay.’)

There are still many unanswered questions regarding the City’s decision to lower fire safety standards in Suffolk. Care4Suffolk will continue to follow this issue. As we investigate further, we will provide the public with more information. 

]]>
https://care4suffolk.org/2025/05/29/council-reduces-fire-safety-standard/feed/ 2
Rector’s Development Disconnect https://care4suffolk.org/2025/05/12/rectors-development-disconnect/ https://care4suffolk.org/2025/05/12/rectors-development-disconnect/#respond Mon, 12 May 2025 17:37:32 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=6894 Read More »Rector’s Development Disconnect]]>

“As you ride around the city, we’re 430 square miles of nothing but needs. And, um, we’re doing our best to try to keep the bandaids on the wounds that are open and prevent other wounds from occurring.”

This was the comment made by Councilmember Rector during the FY26 Budget public hearing on April 16, 2025. It’s definitely not a ringing endorsement of the management of Suffolk!

There seems to be a disconnect from some of our City Council Members. Who does Councilmember Rector think is responsible for all these “needs” and “wounds”? And how does he think we can “prevent other wounds” if we just keep forging ahead with the unchecked growth? 

 

The City has been pushing for rapid development over the last decade or more. “Economic Development” is now almost a sacrosanct phrase. We are supposed to accept any and all development without concern for the long-term impacts, fiscal or otherwise. They don’t even provide supporting data that supports that these “Economic Development” opportunities will provide positive fiscal impacts. We are expected to take them at their word and not question the rationale.  

 

Some City Council Members have consistently justified rezoning prime farmland (a limited natural resource), approving large projects on insufficient roadways and in overcrowded school zones – all in the name of “economic development.” There is a certain fear of missing opportunities and disappointing developers that overrides citizens’ concerns and wishes.

 

Mr. Rector’s choice of words about the budget seem especially obtuse in light of some comments he made at the March 5, 2025 City Council meeting, expressing concern about “competition” from other counties and keeping “our foot on the gas” with regards “economic development opportunities.” As a matter of course, these “opportunities” are not specified. 

“… there are a lot of areas that are part of the Hampton Road Alliance that are very, very eager to accept economic development and one of the newer members is New Kent County. And I can promise you that once the 64 corridor, between Williamsburg and Richmond, gets completed, New Kent County is going to be in a strong position to compete with Suffolk, and some of the areas for some of these economic development opportunities. So we need to keep our foot on the gas.” [Emphasis is ours.]

Oh no! You mean somewhere else might try to compete with Suffolk for the label “Warehouse Capital of Virginia”? Let them. We have enough warehouses and do NOT need any more. 

 

We have warehouses being built without committed tenants. Speculative housing developments are being sold to (and by) the City as necessary “extra rooftops” to attract economic development. The new 2045 Comprehensive Plan is designed around this whole speculative concept!

 

The real disconnect comes when some City Council members talk about the problems around Suffolk. They will acknowledge there are problems, but act like the cause is out of their hands and say there is just not enough money for everything. This is pretty much what Mr. Rector expressed in that first quote. 

 

Traffic, road improvements, over-crowded schools, drainage and storm water management issues are some of the most common concerns. Many of these go unfixed until they’re at a point of critical mass, often getting that way because of new development that exacerbates existing problems. Who does City Council think is allowing this to happen?  

 

Our own Public Works Department has declared our inability to pay for road improvements, stating that we need state or federal funds, for which we only qualify if the situation becomes severe. Attempting to shift this paradigm doesn’t seem to occur to anyone. Instead, they follow the old formula of more unchecked growth to increase tax revenue, which is NEVER enough. 

 

So why are some so determined to stay in this stale, tired old cycle? 

 

Is it possible that some on City Council just can’t connect that the former (extensive rezoning) is the reason for the problems we are experiencing with the latter? Their decades of rezoning for “economic development” and more rooftops has made the situation worse, not better. The citizens recognized this during the 2045 Comp Plan public engagements. The main thing citizens wanted was for the City to slow down its growth so that the infrastructure can catch up. 

 

What we need is a responsible local government that will actually use the brakes sometimes when it comes to development in order to allow time to fix our roads, schools, and storm water problems, and establish higher standards for what we want for our City. 

 

We need City Staff and Council Members who are brave enough to break the cycle of dependency on new development. Just because regional entities and developers keep telling Suffolk how lucky we are to have them, doesn’t mean we have to accept everything they send our way. This strategy has not worked and Suffolk needs to use its leverage to focus on higher-quality growth. Most importantly, we need growth that does not worsen any “wounds.”

]]>
https://care4suffolk.org/2025/05/12/rectors-development-disconnect/feed/ 0
Rector Dismisses Claim of Port-Centric Plan https://care4suffolk.org/2024/12/03/rector-dismisses-claim-of-port-centric-plan/ https://care4suffolk.org/2024/12/03/rector-dismisses-claim-of-port-centric-plan/#respond Tue, 03 Dec 2024 19:47:38 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=6369

Care4Suffolk has been watching the 2045 Comprehensive Plan process closely over the past couple years along with other city happenings and land use related issues. By observing and gathering information from various council meetings, work sessions, staff presentations, and the comp plan draft itself, we formed the opinion that much of the 2045 Plan is geared towards prioritizing the needs of the Port of Virginia. 

 

During the November 20th City Council Public Hearing on the 2045 Comprehensive Plan, Councilman John Rector (Suffolk Borough) read a very lengthy, prepared lecture focused on dismissing citizen comments and concerns as emotional and hyperbole. One of the main things that seemed to bother him was that “one of the citizens groups” sent an email to council members asking them to vote “no” on the 2045 Plan because it focuses on the Port’s needs more than it reflects citizens’ input. 

 

Mr. Rector attempted to shoot down this claim about the Port by telling everyone how many times the words  “Port of Virginia” or “warehouse” appear in the 2045 Plan draft as compared to words like “rural” and “agriculture.” It’s interesting that he thinks a simple word count would be what a citizens group would base its claim on.

Speaking up to City Council and sharing ideas publicly are not easy things to do, so as a group, Care4Suffolk makes every attempt to look at the bigger picture and tie various pieces of information together. This is how we came to our conclusion about the Port’s influence in the comp plan. 

 

During the January 17, 2024 City Council Work Session council received a comp plan update presentation from Keith Cannady as a precursor to the first draft coming out in February. We noticed that four of his slides were the same ones we had seen presented at the April 2023 City Council retreat. They pertained either directly to the Port of Virginia or to warehouse space comparisons. It really caught our attention when Mr. Cannady said this:

“Another major driver, and this is somewhat unique for this particular plan update, is really an historic investment in the Port of Virginia and growth in container traffic at that facility and really changing the dynamic for the state and for the region in terms of economic development and opportunities.”

He goes on to remind council members that they had this conversation at the retreat “trying to set the stage for what this plan, and what we, would ultimately recommend.”

The rest of Mr. Cannady’s briefing covered the new growth area boundary options they had considered and then what they were actually recommending. At this point he stated:

“Investments at the Port were creating opportunities for Suffolk; consider that as we looked at the growth area boundaries.”

Care4Suffolk actually wrote an article about this work session back in February: Port or People: What is the City’s Focus?

Since the 2045 Plan draft was shared in February, Mr. Cannady has included the slide below in multiple presentations. Clearly, they are looking at the Port as a key opportunity for Suffolk, despite the public’s negative view of warehouses. (Highlighting residential and utility scale solar as development opportunities are topics for another day.)

We also saw that city staff are labeling Suffolk as a “Port Centric Partner” during the March 20, 2024 City Council work session presentation about the Route 460 road improvement project funding.

Councilman Rector may not have liked or agreed with what we had to say, but we based our recommendation on two years of listening and observing along with the 2045 Plan draft itself, definitely not emotion. 

 

He chose to ridicule two out of the thousands of public engagement comments as a means to dismiss our claims that the 2045 Plan is not prioritizing citizen feedback. Cherry picking a couple of comments is intellectually dishonest. The bottom line is that those thousands of comments show that people do not like warehouses or the loss of rural character. City staff’s own public engagement summaries say as much.

Key Takeaways from the first set of public engagements from May – Oct 2022, p. 18, 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft

Key Takeaways from the second round of public engagements from January – March 2023, p. 19, 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft. Importantly, these were the series of public engagement sessions that were held throughout the city and were well attended.

Care4Suffolk has been reiterating the public desires that the city itself collected and summarized. These are not themes that we projected on the public – the public has already shared these with the city. The city is choosing to ignore these to push forward the goal of supporting the Port of Virginia with more warehouses and accelerating growth – expressly against the wishes of the citizens.

 

Maybe sometime soon, instead of chiding concerned residents, Mr. Rector will use his speaking time to explain why he thinks this new plan is actually needed and what is so good about it.

]]>
https://care4suffolk.org/2024/12/03/rector-dismisses-claim-of-port-centric-plan/feed/ 0
Hot Mic Mike https://care4suffolk.org/2024/11/22/hot-mic-mike/ https://care4suffolk.org/2024/11/22/hot-mic-mike/#comments Fri, 22 Nov 2024 22:23:39 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=6315

The whole point of a public hearing is so that the citizens can weigh in with their opinions and concerns on an issue before a decision is made and the votes are cast. The November 20th City Council Meeting was a mockery of that process.

 

Suffolk’s 2045 Comprehensive Plan is the controversial document that was on the agenda that night. The comp plan had previously gone before the City Council three months earlier on August 21st. At that meeting, Council Member Roger Fawcett (Sleepy Hole Borough), read his pre-written motion asking to table the comp plan vote, conveniently delaying it until after election day.

 

This past Wednesday, the farce played out in a much more obvious way. After the public hearing, at which roughly a hundred citizens were in attendance, City Council Member Shelley Butler Barlow (Chuckatuck Borough) expressed her concerns and then made a motion to table the vote until January 15, 2025. Several of the 14 public speakers that night had made this same request to delay the vote until January in order to allow the newly-elected City Council Member, Ebony Wright, a chance to take her seat (and replace Roger Fawcett). Allowing Ms. Wright the opportunity to vote on this plan would give her the opportunity to represent the citizens who elected her.

 

After Ms. Butler Barlow made her motion and just as Council Member Leroy Bennett (Cypress Borough) was seconding the motion, you can hear Mayor Mike Duman on hot mic whisper the words “substitute motion”.  About eighteen seconds later as the potential January date was being clarified, you can again hear Mayor Duman on hot mic whisper “Psst, Roger” while leaning back and looking in Council Member Fawcett’s direction.

Hear Mayor Mike Duman whisper on a hot mic, “Substitute motion.” (Time stamp: 2:12:54)


Hear Mayor Mike Duman whisper on a hot mic, “Pssst, Roger.” (Time stamp: 2:13:12)

 

The importance of the “substitute motion” is that it will get voted on BEFORE the first motion. And this is exactly what played out. After being reminded by Mayor Duman, Council Member Roger Fawcett did indeed make a substitute motion that the vote be delayed until December 18th, instead of the January date. The significance of this is that December 18th is the last meeting at which Roger Fawcett will sit up on that dais as part of council. 

 

Council Member Lou Ward (Nansemond Borough) seconded Fawcett’s motion and then the December 18th motion passed 5-3. (Council Members Butler Barlow, Bennett, and Tim Johnson (Holy Neck Borough) voted in opposition.) Because Fawcett’s motion passed, Ms. Butler Barlow’s motion was moot and didn’t get voted on.

 

This was clearly orchestrated. Mayor Mike Duman needs to make sure that this comp plan passes and if Council were to vote in January instead of December, he risks losing the guaranteed ‘Yes’ vote of Roger Fawcett, the man who served as the Steering Committee Chair for this comp plan. 

 

This is why we say that this Public Hearing was a farce. The Mayor of Suffolk and at least one Council Member (maybe more) had this planned in advance of the meeting. Members of our elected City Council had already determined how this would play out before the Public Hearing even began. Listening to all the citizen’s comments was just checking a box that is required by the State of Virginia. 

 

When votes are decided in backroom conversations, democracy is not being served. When public officials manipulate the process to obtain the outcome they desire, democracy is not being served. When the city is no longer listening to its citizens, democracy is not being served.

 

We need our elected leaders to be better – and do better – than this.

]]>
https://care4suffolk.org/2024/11/22/hot-mic-mike/feed/ 2
More Comp Plan Confusion: Master Transportation Plan Recap https://care4suffolk.org/2024/11/18/more-comp-plan-confusion-master-transportation-plan-recap/ https://care4suffolk.org/2024/11/18/more-comp-plan-confusion-master-transportation-plan-recap/#respond Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:55:00 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=6087 Read More »More Comp Plan Confusion: Master Transportation Plan Recap]]>

The Master Transportation Plan (MTP) as it is associated with the 2045 Comprehensive Plan became a topic of discussion at the May 2024 City Council/Planning Commission joint meeting. There was concern that there wasn’t one included as part of the 2045 Plan draft.

PlanningNEXT original proposal which was accepted by the City of Suffolk.

At the August 21st City Council public hearing on the 2045 Plan, the Master Transportation Plan became a main topic of discussion and clearly was the main reason why council decided to delay voting on the comp plan until November 20th.  Mayor Duman emphasized the need for it a couple times and City Manager Al Moore assured him that staff had been working on it.

After this August meeting, Care4Suffolk submitted a FOIA request for Master Transportation Plan documentation that had been done thus far. The response was a memo from VHB, a consultant used by the City, that included a cover letter, which you can see below, dated May 23, 2024, along with nine other pages of conceptual/visionary road alignment images and descriptions. 

We submitted a second FOIA request in early September to learn what additional work had been completed on the  MTP, but instead we received the exact same memo again. Was there really no additional work done since this May memo, even though it was intended to be part of a MTP and after it became a big issue at a City Council public hearing? 

 

Considering that there appeared to be no new progress on the MTP in early September, we were very surprised to see it show up as a topic on the agenda for the September 24th joint City Council/School Board meeting. It actually ended up not being discussed.  A few weeks later, we acquired an email that seemed to explain why they decided not to bring up the Master Transportation Plan at this meeting. 

 

The email was from Public Works Director, Robert Lewis, to the city manager’s office stating that he was “at a loss as to what is desired.” How could this be if staff had been working on it and it was supposed to be “pretty solid” by November 20th according to City Manager Al Moore’s comments back in August?

Also around early September,  we discovered that VDOT is supposed to review comprehensive plans, which should be submitted to them 90 days prior to adoption. A reminder had actually been put out at a September regional transportation meeting.

It turns out, Suffolk planners did not submit the 2045 Comp Plan to VDOT for review until October 2nd. Why wasn’t the comp plan submitted to VDOT before it went to Planning Commission in July? There were three public hearings on the comp plan before it went to VDOT!  And why did they submit it before a Master Transportation Plan was done?

To top that off, City Council got a confusing presentation about the MTP during their October 16th Work Session that seemed to contradict the direction they gave in August. To summarize this meeting: 

 

– No Master Transportation Plan was presented; the consultant (VHB) just provided a briefing with a basic outline of a plan

– Coucilmember Butler Barlow asked who VHB was; they were not part of the original comp plan consulting team; it turns out they are a firm that Suffolk has had an ongoing contract with for many years

– When Councilmember Johnson pressed staff on why the plan wasn’t ready, Public Works Director, Robert Lewis said that their vision was for the MTP to be a stand-alone document, that it still needed work and would need to be approved at a later time

– Mayor Duman also expressed concern that the MTP was not further along already

 

Despite having their guidance pretty much ignored, no one on City Council pushed back very much. 

 

We actually already wrote about this work session and included a few video clips here:

https://care4suffolk.org/2024/10/26/city-councils-comp-plan-confusion/ 


Just two weeks after this work session, it appears that city Staff  decided to take it upon themselves to change the goal posts on the Master Transportation Plan yet again. The suffolk2045.org webpage was updated, and an email to the public sent out, stating that new changes to the comp plan reflect Council’s directions from August to “provide additional project-specific detail and direction for the transportation policy” and that this additional work had been completed.

This is not an accurate reflection of City Council’s guidance and contradicts the comments about a stand-alone document from just two weeks earlier. It is also concerning that they were making yet more changes to the comp plan’s transportation chapter after it was already submitted to VDOT. 

 

Deputy City Manager, Kevin Hughes, sent an email to city council members over a week after these changes were posted informing them that the MTP is now included in Chapter 4 of the 2045 Plan.

To top off all this confusion, we now see that City Council is supposed to be getting an update on the 2045 Plan during their work session on November 20th–the very same day that they are supposed to be voting on it!

 

Whether a Master Transportation Plan is a separate document or included as part of the comprehensive plan is not the main concern. It is the way this matter has been handled that is very concerning. It appears that City Staff are not following procedure and are also either very disorganized or not being forthright with City Council and the public. Perhaps it’s both.

Timeline of Master Transportation Plan Events:

May 2024

Parts of MTP worked on by consultant and shared as such with the Planning Department 

MTP is a concern at joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting 

June & July 2024

No discussion of MTP

August 2024

MTP is a main concern for City Council (Aug 21); they want one ready before they vote

Al Moore says it’s underway and will be solid enough by Nov; the vote is tabled until Nov 20th

FOIA request (Aug 22) – received memo/concept diagrams done by consultant in May

September 2024

FOIA request (Sept 9) – received the same memo/concept diagrams done by consultant in May, nothing new 

MTP is on joint meeting agenda (Sept 24)

– Mr. Lewis unsure of vision for this agenda item

– MTP not discussed at the meeting

October 2024

2045 Plan initial submission to VDOT (Oct 2) 

City Council work session: staff says there is no MTP yet

It will be stand-alone, living document and be approved at a later date

MTP page and visionary project diagrams are added to Ch. 4 of comp plan (Oct 29)

November 2024

Kevin Hughes sends an email to City Council telling them that the MTP is now in Ch. 4 (Nov 8)

November 20th City Council agendas are posted online (Nov14) and a 2045 Comp Plan Update is scheduled for their work session that same day 

]]>
https://care4suffolk.org/2024/11/18/more-comp-plan-confusion-master-transportation-plan-recap/feed/ 0
2024 Comprehensive Plan Timeline https://care4suffolk.org/2024/11/18/2024-comprehensive-plan-timeline/ https://care4suffolk.org/2024/11/18/2024-comprehensive-plan-timeline/#respond Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:54:26 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=5833 Read More »2024 Comprehensive Plan Timeline]]>

Nov 2020

Request for Proposal sent out by Suffolk’s Purchasing Division for “Review and Update of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan”

July 2021

Contract executed between City of Suffolk and Planning Next (ACP/Greene & Associates, LLC)

Dec 2021

Vision and Goals to be completed; first payment executed

Plan contains no vision statement nor any goals

April 2022

Scope of Work Refinement: change of land use approach to “focus on trends or expectations about future development” verses “incorporating an entirely new, detailed scenario analysis.” 

Added additional 25% above the cost of the original scope of work

May 2022

Staff Land Use Workshop, including attendance by the Vice President of Tischler-Bise to discuss the Fiscal Impact Analysis

Several one-time, 1.5 hour focus groups held about different topics; focus group attendance ranged from 4-11 people.

Note that Keith Cannady is listed under the Industrial and Logistics focus group with Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) - where he worked to develop shovel ready industrial sites before he was hired to be the Head Planner for the Suffolk 2045 Comprehensive Plan. Shovel ready industrial sites become part of the 2045 Comp Plan.

Summer 2022

Fiscal Impact Analysis mentioned in emails between Planning NEXT and city staff

Planning staff attend various city events with a booth about comprehensive plan

Nov 2022

First public engagement gathering organized by Care4Suffolk

This was the original completion timeframe according to proposal

Feb/Mar 2023

City-organized public engagement sessions (one per borough with 2 in the Suffolk  borough)

June 2023

City-organized three open-houses and included a “dot” board activity

"Dot Board" shows how unpopular warehouses are with the public. 18 dots were placed under 'dislike', while zero dots were placed under 'like'. Additionally, farms were universally 'liked' and rural lands with scattered houses were mostly 'liked' as well.

August 2023

Fiscal Impact Analysis removed from Scope of Work to be completed after comp plan approval

Nov 2023 – Jan 2024

City Council Work Session presentations by Planning Department

All Growth Area expansion options presented to City Council in January

Feb 2024

Release of 2045 Plan draft; start of online survey

The original Growth Area expansion increased the Current Growth Area by about 25%. Additionally, there are large scale land use changes from agriculture to suburban residential and 'employment centers'.

Mar 2024

City-organized three open-houses (summary of public input)

May 2024

Reduction in Growth Area recommendations

Need expressed for transportation plan

Planner Keith Cannady stated that no Fiscal Impact Analysis needed because current growth strategy is being continued and because it is done at the site level rezonings

Public hearings delayed (TBD)

Rountree Property advertised on VEDP website and Yes Suffolk as being in the 2045 Comp Plan Growth Area although the plan had not been approved yet

This ad appeared on the City of Suffolk's website advertising land for industrial develop on Rt. 460 as "currently identified in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan as a designated growth area for industrial development" DESPITE the recent City Council issues with the suggested Growth Areas. The City was bypassing the process and assuming this plan would be approved as designed by Planning.

June 2024

Planning Commission Work Session presentation

Reduction in Growth Areas

Other changes made, only 3 briefed

Lengthy Economic Development briefing on warehouse development

Land use pie chart added

All departments present slides

New “smart growth” label appears on some slides, but with no actual discussion of smart growth

Addition of Utility Scale Solar as a use for Rural Agriculture land; this was not briefed during the work session      

July 2024

Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the 2045 Comp Plan

City Council received a work session update after Planning Commission had already voted

August 2024

Changes made to plan AFTER Planning Commission vote

Planning Commission has to have a “do over” vote because the city failed to provide the legally required public notice

Planning Commission Johnnie Edwards gives a speech stating that Suffolk is strategically important to the Port of Virginia and that the 2045 Comp Plan is the start of Suffolk serving the regional goals of the port.

Planning Commission again votes to recommend approval of the 2045 Comp Plan

City Council votes to table the vote on the 2045 Comp Plan until Nov 2024

Mayor Duman stipulates that Council needs to have the Master Transportation Plan in their hands to be able to vote on the comp plan

More new slides from Economic Development

Pie chart

Removal of “smart growth” from slides, changed to “focused growth” 

 Al Moore states that staff are already working on Master Transportation Plan it will be a “solid” by Nov 20

FOIA request for already completed parts of Master Transportation Plan

Sept 2024

Second FOIA request for any additional completed parts of Master Transportation Plan

Ground-breaking for Port 460

Image of Gov. Youngkin with Mayor Duman, and City Council Members Rector, Fawcett, Williams, and Ward. Suffolk News-Herald: https://www.suffolknewsherald.com/2024/09/05/a-new-era-begins-with-port-460-groundbreaking/

2025 Legislative Agenda presentation to City Council

Rt. 460 Project construction phase increased from $47 million to $65 million

Master Transportation Plan on Sept 24th joint City Council/School Board meeting agenda

Email from Lewis to Moore expressing confusion as to what is expected

Despite being on the agenda, the Master Transportation Plan was not discussed at meeting

City Council Work Session (Oct 16)

No Master Transportation Plan, just VHB briefing and outline

No real changes to accommodate citizen concerns

Mayor Duman states that the comp plan should reflect what the recent State of the Region report says about needing more housing in Hampton Roads and Keith Cannady assures him that the 2045 Plan “provides a strategy for that.”

Update email sent out with misrepresentation of what City Council wanted in August for Master Transportation Plan (Oct 31)

Addition of an Master Transportation Plan page and project diagrams into Ch. 4—AFTER work session & AFTER submission to VDOT

Nov 2024

Kevin Hughes sends an email to City Council informing them that the Master Transportation Plan is now in Chapter 4 of the comp plan a week after it was already updated as such on the 2045 website

City Council Nov 20th Work Session agenda posted and includes a 2045 Plan update presentation even though council is supposed to be voting on it that same evening

]]>
https://care4suffolk.org/2024/11/18/2024-comprehensive-plan-timeline/feed/ 0
Fiscal Troubles Ahead? https://care4suffolk.org/2024/11/16/fiscal-troubles-ahead/ https://care4suffolk.org/2024/11/16/fiscal-troubles-ahead/#respond Sat, 16 Nov 2024 19:52:48 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=5936 Read More »Fiscal Troubles Ahead?]]>

We are just a few days away from the City Council Meeting where the 2045 Comprehensive Plan is on the agenda. Care4Suffolk has pointed out many problems with this comprehensive plan, among the most important issues is the lack of a fiscal impact analysis. 

 

A fiscal impact analysis allows a municipality to understand how specific development will impact a city financially over time. It looks at both the revenue that will be generated from the development and also the costs of services (roads, schools, utilities, emergency services, libraries, parks, etc.) and then compares them to determine if the development will bring a net positive fiscal contribution to the city, or if it will be a net negative and cost the city money.

 

Most municipalities also do a fiscal analysis during the comprehensive planning process. It allows a city to look at the type of growth they want to see and whether it will financially benefit the city or be a drain on the taxpayers. The City of Suffolk has decided to forgo the essential fiscal analysis. Why? 

 

City Staff assured City Council that a fiscal analysis isn’t necessary for the comprehensive plan, despite the fact that it is about to increase the growth area by the largest amount of any previous comp plan. Staff’s reasoning was because the fiscal analyses are done at the site level. It is true that by law, they are required to be done for all rezoning applications.

 

Suffolk’s UDO (Unified Development Ordinance) reads:

 

B-14. – FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS.

  1. All applications for a rezoning shall include a Fiscal Impact Study containing a comparison of the public revenues anticipated to be generated by the development and the anticipated capital, operations, maintenance and replacement costs for public facilities needed to service the project at the adopted level of service standards (see Section 31-601 of this Ordinance).

  

Furthermore, the UDO states that no rezoning application is complete without a fiscal analysis. 

 

However, in a previous article, we demonstrated that the fiscal analysis for the Port 460 project, which was two years ago and was arguably the LARGEST rezoning application in years, failed to provide an adequate fiscal analysis. The developer did provide fiscal data, but it only showed all the money the city might make on the development. It left out all the costs of services. 

 

Based on the UDO, that rezoning proposal never should have made it through the Planning Department because it lacked a proper fiscal analysis. Yet, it not only made it through the Planning Department, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval, and City Council voted to approve the rezoning.

 

Suffolk has been rezoning with no idea if all this development in the long-term will bring money into the city coffers or cost taxpayers money to maintain it. The whole point of a fiscal analysis is to protect the citizens from poor planning and development that drains our resources. 

 

Currently, City Staff fail to provide oversight to make sure a complete and accurate fiscal analysis is done at a rezoning. They also refuse to do a fiscal analysis for the comprehensive plan. How can City Council be so irresponsible with our taxpayer money? If the developer and the city can’t prove that these developments are fiscally beneficial for the city, they should not be approved. The same is true with the comprehensive plan. If City Staff want to increase Sufflolk’s growth area by the largest amount of any comp plan, they should have to prove that it is fiscally sound. 

 

Join us at the City Council Meeting on Wednesday, November 20th at 6pm (City Hall, 442 W. Washington St.) and let City Council know that you do not want the 2045 Comprehensive Plan approved until they have completed the fiscal analysis.

]]>
https://care4suffolk.org/2024/11/16/fiscal-troubles-ahead/feed/ 0