Port 460 – Care4Suffolk https://care4suffolk.org Thu, 09 Oct 2025 16:08:15 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.1 https://care4suffolk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/cropped-Care4Suffolk-32x32.png Port 460 – Care4Suffolk https://care4suffolk.org 32 32 File Received, Rights Violated https://care4suffolk.org/2025/10/09/file-received-rights-violated/ https://care4suffolk.org/2025/10/09/file-received-rights-violated/#respond Thu, 09 Oct 2025 15:50:11 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=8280 Read More »File Received, Rights Violated]]>

Many of you may be wondering about the redacted FOIA file issue I wrote about a few weeks ago, both here and in a letter to the editor. Well, wonder no more! I have an update for you, but it is neither exciting nor satisfying. 

In a nutshell: I decided to file what’s called a Petition for Mandamus with the General District Court, asking a judge to compel the city to let him/her review the unredacted version of the file and determine which portions, if any, should be provided to me. This petition packet was delivered, along with a court summons, to city hall. A court hearing was scheduled for Friday, September 26th. However, a few days before the hearing, an assistant city attorney contacted me and said I could have the file and asked if I’d be willing to cancel the hearing, which I did. 

 

The file I received was an email from the former City Manager Al Moor to Fire Chief Barakey and Fire Marshal Cornwell that included the final draft version of the fire code with last minute changes. (The email was sent one hour prior to the work session at which the draft was being discussed.) There was no attorney on the distribution list.

 

It appears that the file was 100% redacted for attorney/client privilege for no reason! All I was told was that it was a “mistake.” 

Some of what happened to get me to this point, wasn’t something that seemed necessary to share earlier, but I think in the whole scope of how this email got redacted and what I had to do to get it unredacted is very important to this story. 

 

I watched a City Council Work Session that felt off to me. City Council Member Ebony Wright was asking for clarification about some of the fire code changes and the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal disagreed. It sounded like the Fire Marshal, the city’s fire code expert, thought certain changes were a bad decision because they lowered standards. On the surface, it sounded bad to me too, and I don’t know anything about fire code.

 

After that meeting, I started to look into this more. I put in several FOIA requests trying to understand what code changes were made and why. In the first series of FOIA responses, I was able to piece together through a series of internal emails and emails with a developer’s engineer that the “why” was because the Port 460 development was struggling with their engineering to meet basic fire code safety standards. 

 

Clearly there were external pressures being put on the city to change the code so that Matan and Port 460 could proceed. My next question was “who” in the city thought that caving to that pressure and lowering the fire safety standards in Suffolk was a good idea. Why would paid or elected Suffolk officials risk the community’s safety by lowering certain standards? 

 

I submitted FOIA requests to better understand the internal communication that occurred to arrive at this decision. There were two separate delays. The first was a typical extension that the city needed to have more time to prepare the FOIA response. This happens frequently and wasn’t a surprise. But on the last day of that extension, the FOIA office contacted me and said they were having ‘technical issues’ and they would need more time. Almost a week later, I received my FOIA response that included the fully redacted 17 page file with “City Attorney/Client” written across each page. 

 

I didn’t jump into going to court. I just wanted to understand why it was fully redacted, so I spent about a month of emails, calls, texts, and an in-person meeting with the FOIA office to understand why an internal communication between departments and the city manager was fully redacted. I had NO WAY to VERIFY any of the following: that there were even attorneys on this communication, how many emails might be part of the file, what date they were sent, who was on them, or anything else. The city felt the need to redact it all. 

 

The FOIA office told me several weeks into this process that the city attorney would have to review it and then decide if any or all could be released unredacted. I was never contacted by the city attorney and my follow-ups to that point went unacknowledged. That is the point at which I looked at other options to pursue redress. The city never even responded until I filed my petition with the court. Only then did they reach out, essentially just to say it was a mistake. 

 

That ‘mistake’ by the city cost me $74 and weeks of my time. The city had multiple opportunities, over the course of several months, to correct their ‘mistake’ and they refused to do so until I filed to bring it before a judge. 

 

The bottom line is that there was absolutely no reason for redaction of the file that the assistant city attorney provided to me. This means that there was no reason for anyone from the city to avoid my inquiries about narrowing the scope of redactions for months. I may have eventually gotten an unredacted file, but it does not un-do the violation of my FOIA rights.

 

There is definitely more to this story. When I look at the released file, I see a document that underwent a lot of changes before coming to the final draft. What wasn’t included with my FOIA response is who made which change and if there were relevant comments in the document.  There are multiple options to track changes and share document suggestions, so maybe my FOIA request missed the mark. New FOIA requests are in order.

]]> https://care4suffolk.org/2025/10/09/file-received-rights-violated/feed/ 0 Fully Redacted — City Hiding Fire Code Amendment Emails? https://care4suffolk.org/2025/08/07/fully-redacted-city-hiding-fire-code-amendment-emails/ https://care4suffolk.org/2025/08/07/fully-redacted-city-hiding-fire-code-amendment-emails/#respond Thu, 07 Aug 2025 18:09:19 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=7853 Read More »Fully Redacted — City Hiding Fire Code Amendment Emails?]]>

17 pages of FULLY REDACTED emails

This is the City of Suffolk’s response to a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for emails between the former City Manager, Al Moor, and Fire Marshal  Cornwell regarding amendments to the City’s fire code. Changes to the code were approved by a 7-1 City Council vote on May 7, 2025 despite the Fire Marshal’s objections to certain aspects of the changes (read about this more here.)

 

Why would email correspondence between the City Manager’s office and the Fire Marshal’s office need to be FULLY REDACTED? The City likes to tout transparency, yet when a citizen requested email to better understand changes to fire safety standards, the City invoked City Attorney-Client privilege. Why would this be necessary?

Changing the fire code was done at the direction of the City Manager’s office and then approved by the majority of City Council. If this was a positive step for Suffolk, what is there to hide? 

 

A follow-up email was sent by the requesting citizen to the FOIA office regarding the fully redacted emails:

No written response was provided to this email, but we were told that this redacted file was going back to the city attorney’s office for review to determine if any changes could be made to the redactions. It has been about a month since then without any updates.

 

To quote from the Virginia Coalition for Open Government’s FOIA Citizens Guide:

“Virginia’s FOIA starts from the presumption that all government records and meetings are open and available to the public. A record cannot be withheld and a meeting cannot be closed unless a specific exemption applies, or unless some other statute in Virginia law applies. Just because an exemption could apply, however, doesn’t mean it must. Exemptions are discretionary, and they must be interpreted narrowly to increase awareness of all citizens of government activities. (§2.2-3700)”

 

Citizens deserve to know how and why the City determines what changes to make to the legal code. Fully redacted emails are the opposite of transparency.

]]> https://care4suffolk.org/2025/08/07/fully-redacted-city-hiding-fire-code-amendment-emails/feed/ 0 Port 460 Engineer Giddy Over City Fire Code Amendment https://care4suffolk.org/2025/08/04/port-460-engineers-giddy-over-city-fire-code-amendment/ https://care4suffolk.org/2025/08/04/port-460-engineers-giddy-over-city-fire-code-amendment/#comments Mon, 04 Aug 2025 06:30:00 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=7579

Back in May, Care4Suffolk published an article that described how Council reduced fire safety standards during the City Council Meeting on May 7, 2025. Against the objections voiced by Suffolk’s Fire Marshall, the fire code expert, Council voted 7-1 to approve amending Suffolk’s Fire Prevention and Protection Code (Chapter 38 of the Unified Development Ordinance) in such a way that it reduced some existing fire flow standards and added “flexibility” on approving hydrant system water connections.

 

This is a follow-up article to share further information that was obtained though FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. These emails show that city staff had concerns about the fire solution plan for Port 460* and that there were communications with the Port 460 developer and its engineers regarding this fire code change. There was a sequence of events and communications through March and April, and by early May of this year, someone in the City, under the direction of the City Manager’s office, found a solution for the water configuration issues for Port 460. The work-around was to change Section 38-73, paragraph 6 of the City’s fire code in a way that made it seem like it was just simply “necessary” to match the state’s code. However, the paragraph 6 change, while meeting state code, actually also removed an extra safeguard that Suffolk had in place and added the option to let the fire official override the fire hydrant system water supply requirement. 

 

The engineer for the developer expressed excitement when the code change passed and had even asked the involved city staff to give a pre-emptive “buyoff on the fire solution” before the Council Meeting with the assumption that the change in code would be approved. (To their credit, city staff did not do this.)

It is clear that there were concerns from city staff regarding water supply for fire suppression at Port 460 . Through efforts by the City Manager’s office, City Council changed Suffolk’s fire code such that it  benefits the developers of the Port 460 warehouse project.

It all began with an email from the Building Fire Protection Plans Examiner on March 27, when he reached out to other staff in an email with the subject heading: Port 460 Building 1 (and 2?) Fire Pump House. This email chain reflects staff agreeing to set up a meeting to discuss the water configuration for this Port 460 project.

On April 1, there was a meeting with various staff from the Fire Marshall’s Office and Public Utilities for the purpose: “Clarification of water supply for building fire suppression systems at Port 460.” During the time of this email chain, the construction of Port 460 Building 1 was already well under way and Building 2 was just beginning. 

 

On April 29, almost a month later, there was another meeting. This meeting included some City staff and at least two Kimley-Horn representatives. There was a discussion regarding “fire solutions for Port 460 Building 1 and 2”. 

 

By May 7, the morning that this fire code change was set to go before City Council, there was an email from the City Manager’s office with an update for the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal on the presentation that they were scheduled to give to City Council during the Work Session at 4pm that afternoon. These additions were regarding the fire safety code change. We learned from the Fire Chief during the Work Session presentation that this change was directed by Mr. Moor, City Manager, and his staff.

Also on May 7, Kimley-Horn was aware that City Council was about to vote to amend the fire safety code. They had already made site plan adjustments and wanted to have City staff department ‘buyoff” on the fire solution ‘assuming the code does change’. 

Bright and early the next morning, Kimley-Horn sent an email, excited about the fire code change approval.

As the city staff reviewed the site plans with regards fire safety, more issues arose. The water tank requirement had already been removed and there were new problems related to the public hydrants versus private.

This delay in action seems to have prompted a different Kimley-Horn rep to get involved and he emailed city staff requesting to schedule a virtual call, telling them that “this design item has become a critical path for approvals and to keep construction timelines.”

In response to this meeting request, the fire marshal’s plans reviewer states the need to see the final approved copy of the code change, which was then provided by then- Deputy City Manager Kevin Hughes. You can see from his email that he points out that paragraph 6 is what they are looking for.

They were able to schedule a May 12th meeting, after which a Senior Fire Protection Technician from fire protection firm, HGI (Harrington Group Inc.), joined an email thread stating that the engineers from Kimley-Horn are concerned, but that “HGI understands that the recently adopted amendments to the City of Suffolk Fire Prevention and Protection Code provide an exception for the fire official to approve alternate fire hydrant arrangements when the municipal water system cannot meet the fire flow demand.”

For reference, below is a screenshot of the code changes directly from Suffolk’s Unified Development Ordinance “municode” webpage. There is a “compare versions” icon that allows you to see additions and strike-through changes. (https://library.municode.com/va/suffolk/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_CH38FIPRPR_ARTIIIFICO)

To add to this story, the delays in publishing these emails are in part because the initial response to the FOIA request included redacted portions of emails. It is not uncommon for municipalities to redact information for the following state and federal allowed reasons:

 

Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security.

Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.

Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.

Exemption 4: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged.

Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including those protected by the:

Deliberative Process Privilege (provided the records were created less than 25 years before the date on which they were requested)

Attorney-Work Product Privilege

Attorney-Client Privilege

Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy.

Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that:

7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings

7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication

7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy

7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source

7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law

7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual

Exemption 8: Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions.

Exemption 9: Geological information on wells.

 

However, the City redacted portions for the reason: Irrelevant to Request.

That is not a legitimate reason to withhold information from the public. In fact, the requester is not required to provide any reason for the request of documents.

 

Further discussions with the City prompted an additional response to the FOIA request that was delayed, but contained unredacted copies of the emails. Both sets of these FOIA responses have been included on the Care4Suffolk FOIA page for public review. Included in the redacted portions was an email from Kimley-Horn.

 

Another FOIA request for more emails relating to the fire code change resulted in a response of 17 pages of completely redacted emails. They were literally 17 pages blacked out completely, with just the reason given as: City Attorney/Client. Look for the next article on this topic to learn more about the fully redacted FOIA responses to the FOIA request regarding fire code safety and what it means for the citizens of Suffolk.

*Port 460 is a controversial 540-acre, 5 million square foot warehouse complex approved by City Council in 2022.

]]> https://care4suffolk.org/2025/08/04/port-460-engineers-giddy-over-city-fire-code-amendment/feed/ 4 Port 460 Project – Tip of the Iceberg? https://care4suffolk.org/2024/10/29/port-460-project-tip-of-the-iceberg/ https://care4suffolk.org/2024/10/29/port-460-project-tip-of-the-iceberg/#comments Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:31:17 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=5767 Read More »Port 460 Project – Tip of the Iceberg?]]>

It has been two years since the controversial Port 460 development project was rezoned at City Council, but the frustration from the public with a city that isn’t listening still lingers. 

 

But is the Port 460 project just the tip of the iceberg? I was recently listening to a podcast of a mayoral forum hosted by the CE&H Heritage Civic League in collaboration with the Suffolk Peninsula Community Partnership and moderated by WHRO. Mayor Duman, Mr. Jenkins, and Mr. Bosselman had an opportunity to weigh in on a variety of topics. 

 

At one point, near the end, Mr. Bosselman, while discussing development in the City, made an interesting revelation:

 

“I think the city is actually being run by the developers more than the city is running the city. In my opinion. So I think we need to have some more vision and foresight here. I do know that there are outside forces bearing down on the city so far as development here. I‘ve actually been in a meeting with this Matan group that’s in charge of Port 460 development. I had to go in there to get…, I still farm some land there. I needed the key to get in through the gate. As I was looking around the room, I see a big map. And there’s a map of fields and areas that I know, including my neighbor’s land, my land, and some more land that I farm. So their plan is going to go beyond what they’re trying to do here in the City of Suffolk. It’s all about development. It’s some kind of long-term plan here that nobody knows, nobody is telling us, but it’s in the works.” (around mark 1:14:45)

 

Back in May, Care4Suffolk posted an article about the City advertising 562 acres of agricultural land off Rt. 460 that is NOT currently in the growth area. The advertisement stated:

 

“This site is currently identified in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan as a designated growth area for Industrial Development encompassing a variety of uses including logistics, manufacturing, warehousing distribution, and research development.”

This was particularly concerning because back in May, City Council was still giving City staff feedback about new growth areas in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan, while the City was selling it like it was a done deal. Rt. 460 was part of that discussion. Below is the original map proposed by City staff for the expansion of the growth areas:

There is an extended growth area of yellow to the north of Rt 460 and purple to the south of Rt. 460, and these extend all the way to the Suffolk city line. The yellow represents residential land use and purple is where warehouses can be built. 

 

The growth areas have since been reduced and that advertisement has been removed from the city’s website, but the question is still hanging there: what is being planned down Rt. 460? 

Mayor Duman spoke after Mr. Bosselman, and denied knowing anything about Matan’s future plans. I will take Mayor Duman at his word, but I find it hard to believe that there is no one in the city aware of Matan’s future plans down Rt. 460. Considering that the City’s own website was advertising the land for sale, there MUST be someone aware of these future plans. So where is the transparency? Why is our government working towards a future plan with no oversight from the public? The citizens spoke out against the Port 460 Project and the extensive growth area additions to the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. The City of Suffolk knows this is not what the citizens want.  Maybe Mr Bosselman is right – maybe “the city is actually being run by the developers more than the city is running the city.”

]]> https://care4suffolk.org/2024/10/29/port-460-project-tip-of-the-iceberg/feed/ 3 Will Taxpayers Be Footing the Bill for 460 Development? https://care4suffolk.org/2024/07/24/will-taxpayers-be-footing-the-bill-for-460-development/ https://care4suffolk.org/2024/07/24/will-taxpayers-be-footing-the-bill-for-460-development/#respond Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:28:52 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=4916 Read More »Will Taxpayers Be Footing the Bill for 460 Development?]]>

“Forty percent of the justification of any transportation project in our region today is driven by congestion. So if you don’t have congestion, you’re probably not gonna get money.”

-Robert Lewis, City of Suffolk Director of Public Works, Planning Commission 2045 Comprehensive Plan public hearing, July 16, 2024 (YouTube time stamp 2:20:50)

It isn’t Mr. Lewis’ fault that Hampton Roads’ traffic is an absolute mess. He was just stating things the way they are, but does that mean we have to just accept it?

 

He and our other city leadership seem resigned to it as the status quo instead of using the leverage our city has to demand better support of our infrastructure. Suffolk has the land that the Hampton Roads region and leaders in Richmond want to develop in support of the Port of Virginia—the port especially really wants and needs our land for warehouse space.

Our city leadership needs to hold people’s feet to the fire and not be so willing to bow down to the demands of other entities. We have what they want and they should support our city as an equal partner in this scheme they call “Responsible Regionalism.” This “responsibility” should work two ways and Suffolk should not be left scrounging to pay for the infrastructure the region needs.

 

An example is happening right now, as some people celebrate the $30 million that was just granted for Route 460 improvements to support the Port 460 project. Did you know that this three-mile project is going to actually cost a total of $86 million?  

While watching the March 20, 2024 City Council Work Session about this project, I learned the following:

  • There is no requirement for these road improvements to be in place for Port 460 to be built out (per Deputy City Manager Kevin Hughes, Time Stamp 36:10)

  • The Port of Virginia only kicked in $1 million 

  • The developer only kicked in $6.6 million

  • City officials have spent the past two years just trying to get the $30 million funding (take a look at the extensive packet that was put together to ask for this money—it looks like a lot of work hours must have been put in!)

  • City officials have decided that we are a “Port-Centric Partner” in order to “sell” our need for the funding

  • The $30 million is just for “right of way acquisition” and utility relocation

  • In order to secure the $30 million, the City had to prove that it can fund the remaining $48 million for the actual construction costs

  • As of now there is no outside funding for the $48 million, so it is budgeted into the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)

  • City financial advisors were consulted to determine the city’s ability to fund “its portion” of the project and determined that Suffolk does have “the ability to issue an additional $48,049,520 in general obligation bonds between FY 27 and FY 29” 

  • By FY 2027, Suffolk will have to find additional revenues to repay debt service; additional required revenue will increase each year

This is the point where we’ll probably accept the low-hanging fruits of development options as our sources of additional revenue. And the cycle will begin again.

And they wonder why we are concerned about a Fiscal Impact Analysis!

No doubt Route 460 must be improved to accommodate all the new traffic projected for Port 460 and the miles of even more warehouses and residential development envisioned by city staff in the new 2045 Comprehensive Plan, if it gets approved.  According to the Suffolk News Herald article about the $30 million funding, Governor Youngkin said this is all happening “through the power of partnership.” However, it feels like our “partners” are making us jump through a lot of hoops to do their bidding.

Documentation:

Please sign our petition to urge City Council to vote ‘NO’ to the new 2045 Comprehensive Plan. 

]]> https://care4suffolk.org/2024/07/24/will-taxpayers-be-footing-the-bill-for-460-development/feed/ 0