developers – Care4Suffolk

Riversbend Deal Keeps Getting Worse

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:27:33 +0000

Watching the Suffolk Public Schools Board meeting on September 11, 2025 brought new information to light about this Riversbend Project. The deal that the Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes negotiated on behalf of the city, will actually turn the old VDOT Administration building over to another developer (separate from the rezoning applicant), after the rezoning. This new developer who specializes in office buildings will renovate the old VDOT Administration building, the City will then lease the building back for the use of Suffolk Public Schools’ administrative staff , and then buy the building back later down the road. Plus, there will still be no cash proffer for actually addressing capacity issues at the affected schools.

Here’s a quick list of of what’s in this deal Mr. Hughes negotiated:

Gift EDA land to a developer
Agree to no school proffers at a loss of at $6 M
Add a minimum of 135 students to already overcrowded schools
Add more than 5,000 extra vehicle trips/day on Main St, which is already near a failing level of service
Accept a building with two acres which is currently worth no more than a couple of million dollars
The city will give or sell (details are still fuzzy) this building to a different developer
After it is renovated the City will lease it for a time and then buy it back again

In a previous article, we wrote about some behind-the-scenes activity between Mr. Hughes and the Riversbend developer’s representative, Melissa Venable. We learned that Mr. Hughes was negotiating with the developer using City of Suffolk’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) owned land. He did so without the consultation of the EDA and only presented it to the EDA months after the developer had already incorporated the EDA land into the Riversbend site plan.

We also learned that Mr. Hughes worked with the developer on the language for the proffers. These proffers do NOT stipulate the value of the EDA land nor how the arrangement would work between the EDA and the new project. Additionally, the proffers offer the old VDOT Administration building in lieu of the usual cash proffers that go towards increasing school capacity.

During the presentation to the school board, city staff still presented the VDOT Administration building’s value at the hypothetical appraisal amount of $6.2million. If you read the rezoning packet and find the appraiser’s report, it turns out that this amount is reflecting the estimated value of the property AFTER the buildout/renovation to restore it to a “finish that is equivalent or better than contemporary office space.”

Despite the appraisal being for a renovated building and NOT the building in its current condition, city staff continually claim that the value of the building the city is receiving is worth $6,270,000. They say this EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT TRUE!

Additionally, the building renovations, to reach this appraisal value of $6.27 million, are estimated to be MORE THAN $7 MILLION. We know this from the presentation given to the School Board. Below is a slide from that meeting:

Why does City staff continue to misrepresent the value of this building? You might say it is the developer’s fault because he misrepresented it in the proffers. Remember though, Mr. Hughes was a party to the language of the proffers. City staff are not only repeating this lie, but at least one of them was part of the crafting of it.

Ms. Heather Howell, Suffolk Public School Board Chair, explained at the meeting that she had been told by the Mayor that this would impact Elephants Fork Elementary School. Elephants Fork is already in the CIP for a new building. In fact, the Riversbend project would impact Hillpoint Elementary, which isn’t in the CIP at all. There are no additions planned to expand this school’s capacity although it is already overcrowded.

Furthermore, as we broke down in an article about school proffers, Hillpoint Elementary School is already at 108% capacity. Adding the new students projected from the already approved housing in the residential pipeline data increases it to 150% capacity. If we add the potential students from this Riversbend development, it will be at 159% capacity. Yet there is no plan to alleviate this situation in the CIP nor in the proffers.

An additional concern is about how this process is being handled at the highest level of Suffolk’s paid staff. Mr. Hughes sprung this on the EDA board, expecting an immediate vote at that May meeting. Now he has waited until the 11th hour to ask the Suffolk Public School Board to give their approval. Why did Mr. Hughes make all these negotiations and decisions with the developer and only bring the project, last minute, to those City Boards that will be directly impacted? Why didn’t Mr. Hughes discuss this with the EDA and SPS Board early in the process? Emails show he and Planning Director Kevin Wyne in communication with Ms. Venable in early March and the title search was already complete. It is more than 6 months later, and they are just getting around to asking the School Board?

This same approach was used with the EDA Board. The EDA land was showing up in maps dated November 2024 and revised in March 2025, with EDA land already incorporated in the site plan. The EDA Board members weren’t told about this until May 2025 and were expected to vote on it immediately after they had just received the information.

This type of short-notice, strong-armed tactics have no business in city government where due diligence and open communication are expected and required.

During the School Board Meeting, School Board member Mr. Riddick stated:

“My perception is, is we’re being leveraged. As if, if we don’t accept this, we may half to keep our staff in a building that doesn’t suit our need.”

Mr. Riddick also stated:

“When I proposed us using this as our um, headquarters, at our joint meeting, it wasn’t so that a developer could get the land and we are propositioned. Because that’s what it seems like. It was us to move swiftly as a unit to get the land and move forward.”

Here is Mr. Riddick speaking at the previous joint City County & School Board Meeting last September:

School Board member Kimberly Slingluff stated after reading the school proffers aloud:

“That to me meant that the ownership of that particular lot of land and that building would be moved over to the city or to the schools. So I am confused as where we would have to then purchase it later.”

Here is a clip of Ms. Slingluff looking for further clarification:

Ms. Slingluff is confused because the deal doesn’t make sense. Suffolk is relinquishing school proffers in exchange for a building. The city isn’t going to do the renovations itself. Mr. Hughes’ plan is to give or sell (details are fuzzy) the building to another developer to renovate. When finished, the City will lease it back for a time and then buy it later.

Additionally, this is a project that is rezoning PUBLIC LAND. The State of Virginia owns the old VDOT parcel. Why were the citizens not consulted? I got to weigh in on which benches I would prefer and which garbage cans should be used in the public park on East Washington St – a park about a tenth of an acre. But for this 89 acre publicly owned land, the city doesn’t even get feedback on something as basic as: it could be a park, it could be commercial, or it could be 500 more homes – which do you prefer? This was a HUGE misstep to completely leave the public out of the process for this last large chunk of open space in the downtown area.

Waiting until the deal has been negotiated and about to be heard before Planning Commission and City Council doesn’t count. Yes there will be public feedback at the rezoning hearings, but the public voice will be in response to the deal as set by Mr. Hughes, not on what the public would have preferred to become of the 80 plus acres of public land.

It was previously suggested by the School Board to acquire this land for city purposes. Our City leadership could have led the effort and negotiated the purchase of this land from the State, renovated the admin building, kept the EDA land for actual economic development, and prevented this nightmare deal.

The taxpayers in Suffolk pay our Interim City Manager well over $200,000 in salary to work in the best interest of the citizens. How is this deal in the citizens’ best interest? This deal feels like a give-away to developers and the people of Suffolk deserve better.

Council Reduces Fire Safety Standard

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 29 May 2025 15:31:30 +0000

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.

How Much Will It Cost Us?

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 12 Sep 2024 02:12:29 +0000

The recent groundbreaking ceremony for the future 5-million square foot Port 460 development provides a good opportunity to remind Suffolk’s decision-makers about why a whole-city Fiscal Impact Analysis needs to be completed before a new comprehensive plan is approved.

After the August 21 City Council Meeting’s public hearing on the 2045 Comprehensive Plan, Mayor Duman made a few comments before City Council voted to delay final action on it. One statement (at Mark 2:59:50) was regarding the Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) that was supposed to have been completed:

“I’m not that concerned with a fiscal analysis for the whole city.”

He is not the only person on Council or city staff to feel that this FIA is unnecessary. (We wrote about Comprehensive Planning Manager Keith Cannady’s response in this article.)

However, a FIA is a very important piece of data for a city when considering growth. It details the expected revenue that different development scenarios will bring and the costs of services that the city will have to provide over time. Essentially, it tells you if certain types of growth will likely be: net positive – we make money; net neutral – we break even; or net negative – it will be a fiscal drain on the city.

Mr. Cannady offered two justifications for skipping this crucial step in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. The first reason is that city planners aren’t changing Suffolk’s current growth approach (which is to just expand the growth area every five years with each new comprehensive plan update). The second reason is that he believes that the site-level FIAs conducted by developers for rezoning applications are sufficient.

A recent example of one of these site-level FIAs is the one provided by the developer (Matan Companies) for the Port 460 rezoning. If you read through the FIA they conducted here, you will see that they include figures for jobs created, tax revenue, and the money they will spend on road construction and improvements. You will also notice there is something missing: Cost of Services. This is the second piece of the equation that would include maintenance for roads, sewers, and storm water drainage, as well as costs for emergency services and other city services. A FIA should not just look at the one-time cost of these services at installation, it is supposed to include costs over time.

Matan claims that they will be spending about $27 million dollars on road construction and improvements. Only $8 million goes to improving existing roads and the remaining $19 million is to create 5 new public roads – which Suffolk and its taxpayers will have to continue to maintain indefinitely. Roads that have non-stop tractor trailer traffic traveling on them are not cheap to maintain! Leaving out the cost of services is NOT a minor detail. It is half of the piece of this puzzle.

We don’t know the answer to how much Port 460 will actually cost taxpayers, because the developer didn’t provide the data and the city didn’t ask!

The City didn’t require an independent third party to conduct or review the fiscal analysis for this huge and impactful project – they simply took the word of the developer as they do with any other ordinary rezoning application.

Is it fiscally responsible to just trust that a developer won’t omit, distort, or fabricate data on a project worth hundreds of millions of dollars? The Mayor himself stated, as he presided over the Port 460 rezoning hearing, that he didn’t believe the accuracy of the claim from Matan when they said that they would be creating 9,000 jobs. He stated:

“I agree, you know, that the number of jobs projected seems pretty high to me. I mean, I’m telling you. I’m… you know… I guess anybody can do a study, but I don’t know where we are getting 9,000 jobs from. I mean, but I’ll take 2,000.” (Source: City Council Meeting, September 21, 2022, at mark 2:08:05)

To rely solely on these site-level FIAs goes against recommendations by experts that a FIA be done during the comprehensive plan process. If the growth approach we have been following is not making the City money, then we want to change it. If there is another way to grow and we can make money and not pave over our farmland, we want to know that, too. Suffolk seems to be blindly going down the path it has been following for decades, but with no data to prove it is a good path.

We go into great length explaining the importance of the FIA and documenting expert opinions in this article. Importantly, the FIA for a comprehensive plan is not conducted by a developer, but instead as a collaboration between the city staff and the comprehensive plan contractor. We shared all of this information with the Mayor and most City Council members. A quick summary is that this FIA allows the city to analyze multiple growth build-out scenarios (3 scenarios were originally a requirement of Suffolk’s contract for the FIA). It can offer comparisons over small or large areas and allow the city to consider the fiscal impacts if certain land is developed as residential or industrial or simply left as agricultural. Our city leaders chose NOT to look at any data on any scenarios. Not only are they skipping this step for this 2045 Comprehensive Plan, it was not done for the 2035 Comprehensive Plan either, which was adopted back in 2015.

The city has been doing decades worth of this type of growth based on no fiscal analysis.

Mayor Duman says he’s not concerned with the FIA. But Suffolk’s citizens ARE concerned. The City is putting the 2045 Comprehensive Plan on hold to complete the Master Transportation Plan, which is very much needed and may demonstrate the need for a lot of expensive projects.

We have been asking since April to hold off on the plan until city staff provides a proper fiscal analysis, as originally required, for the growth that they are proposing. If development in this new comprehensive plan will be so beneficial for the citizens, then there shouldn’t be an issue proving it with an actual FIA. This plan and any future developments should be denied until we know how much it is going to cost us – the taxpayers.

Comprehensive Plan Open House

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 15 Jun 2023 00:08:30 +0000

Today the City of Suffolk held the first of three Open Houses to get public feedback for the next iteration of the Comprehensive Plan. This document will influence how and where development happens in Suffolk.

It is an Open House, so you can come anytime during the event times and wander at your leisure, asking city staff questions about various parts of the future comprehensive plan.

They had displays around the room with large posters each covering a different aspect of the comprehensive plan: growth areas, transportation, broadband, water & sewers, parks & rec, economic development, etc. There were interactive parts as well. They had a series of posters with images of various types of development and people were placing stickers next to the images to indicate whether they liked or disliked them.

There was a survey and a questionnaire for visitors to complete to provide additional and more specific feedback.

This is your chance to weigh in on the Comprehensive Plan. Speak directly with the city and let them know what you think about their plan. These comprehensive plans are done every 7-10 years, so this next version will be used for the next decade and will begin as soon as it is approved by City Council (estimated later this year).

Don’t miss your opportunity to have your voice heard. The next two Open Houses are:

June 15 from 3-7 pm

Hub 757 at 6801 Bridgeway Dr, Suffolk, VA

June 24 from 9 am- 12 pm

City Hall at 442 W Washington St. Suffolk, VA

For those unable to participate in the sessions, online engagement is available on the project website beginning June 14. For more information, visit www.Suffolk2045.org.

Lake Kilby: More Hazards to Come with Development

Care4Suffolk — Sun, 26 Mar 2023 16:10:17 +0000

On March 23, 2023, this van ended up in the ditch on Lake Kilby Road blocking traffic. Lake Kilby is an example of the many narrow country roads in Suffolk that do not meet the minimum standards set forth by VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation).

Lake Kilby is a road with lanes that are 8′ wide and with no clear zone. A clear zone, defined by VDOT is “used to describe the unobstructed, traversable area provided beyond the edge of the through traveled way for the recovery of an errant vehicle.” Lake Kilby Road is designated as a minor collector road and should have a minimum of 11′ lanes, but recommended 12′ lanes where trucks or farm equipment use the road, and an 8′ clear zone. (Source: VDOT Road Design Manual)

This is right where a developer wants to put a 200+ housing development that was just recommended by the Suffolk Planning Department and the Suffolk Planning Commission. The developer is proffering to widen the road in front of this proposed new development, but only to 10′ lanes and no expanded clear zone. This doesn’t meet the minimum required by the state. The lawyer for the developer, Grady Palmer, stated last Tuesday at the Planning Commission, “We understand, that’s not standard. We wish we could do standard, but we can’t do standard. But 20 feet, and the way I think about this as a lawyer, can two school buses pass each other safely on 20 feet of pavement. I think the answer to that question is yes.” ( Source: Planning Commission Meeting video mark 2:39:34-2:39:55)

The developer would only be widening Lake Kilby in front of the development, so it will still only be 8′ lanes in parts, but it will add about 100 new students. So these school buses which are about 8′ wide (source Virginia Public School Bus Specifications) still have to traverse these narrow lanes. Even in front of the development, with only 10′ lanes and not meeting minimum clear zones, should something unexpected happen (inclement weather, farm equipment, vehicle loses control, etc.) there is no place for the school bus to safely veer off. Instead of a Stanley Steamer van, that could be a school bus ending up in a ditch.

The city can NOT accept sub-standard improvements. The developer is in business to make money and making the roads wide enough to safely accommodate the traffic is not something they are willing to do. We as citizens should not be forced to accept road improvements that do not meet the minimum standards. If the developer will not fix them to the minimum standard, then they should not be allowed to develop there. Our safety and the safety of our children is not worth it.

This issue isn’t done yet!

This comes before City Council on April 19. Email City Council (email: council@suffolkva.us) and tell them you do not want this approved. We as citizens can come together and let them know what we want for our city.