Riversbend – Care4Suffolk

Riversbend Rezoning Denied by City Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can Ryan Homes Be Trusted with Toxic Cleanup?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below are pdfs of documents mentioned in this article:

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

Environmental Concerns at Riversbend

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, page 21

From PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, page 24

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

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

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

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

Environmental Studies:

Other sources:

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

Is Riversbend Part of a Trade-Off?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Riversbend FOIA Issue – FOIA Violations Are Piling Up!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fear Factor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

School Proffers

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 18 Aug 2025 01:54:04 +0000

Residential rezoning applications may contain a proffer of a certain dollar amount that is promised to the city to help pay to “expand school capacity.” This is voluntary and the applicants are not required to include it. Proffer amounts can vary, but there is a standard formula that is traditionally used. Hopefully, this article will shed some light on the school proffers: what they are, what they aren’t, and why sometimes this works out to be a bad system for the citizens, particularly the school aged ones. The proffers listed in the current Riversbend rezoning application will be used to provide a relevant and timely example.

To start with, school proffers are only offered if the new residential development will add students AND if the added students will cause the corresponding schools to exceed their capacity. The proffers are not for other schools in the system that are overcrowded. They are only for the impacted schools that those new homes will be zoned to attend.

School proffers are not used to make updates to an existing school, unless it is an expansion to allow for added capacity. The school may really need a new HVAC system or upgrades in technologies, but that is not how the proffers are to be used – the state is very clear on this.

It is also worth mentioning that school proffers are made in today’s dollars, but the city doesn’t receive the money until a home is built and the city has issued a certificate of occupancy. If the rezoning application was filed in 2022, approved for rezoning in 2023, but is not built until 2028, the amount of proffers are in 2022 dollars, with no increase for inflation. Additionally, if the city builds a new school in 2026 and increases capacity before those 2028 homes are built, the developer can go back to the city and get the proffers removed because there is no longer a need to increase capacity.

Student Generation

Let’s look at how school proffers are traditionally calculated. First, we have to calculate the student generation of the project. Below is the table that is used to determine how many students a given residential development will produce:

This table is found in Suffolk’s UDO (Unified Development Ordinance) under SEC. 31-601. – ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES, table 601-2. Single-family homes (whether attached, detached, townhomes, or duplexes) all are considered to produce students at the same rate. Multi-family units, like apartments, are considered to produce students at a slightly lower rate. The rate is an estimate. When a developer is building, they have no way to know exactly how many students any given home will have. The city uses an average of aggregate data that gives a good approximation. Over time these are reassessed because they do change (just like families used to average more children per family than they do today.) The City examined this most recently in the 2021 Student Yield Analysis.

As you look at the chart, you will notice that elementary school, middle school, and high school all have a different rate. That is because there are 6 years of elementary school (grades K-5), three years of middle school (grades 6-8), and four years of high school (grades 9-12). The actual rate is about 0.03 students per grade. So the elementary school is 0.03 x 6 = 0.18 and that’s where the rate comes from.

Let’s look at Riversbend’s student generation. This development is a little more complicated because it is proposing both single-family homes and condos (which would fall under the multi-family/other category.) These condos are specifically designated as age-restricted for owners that are 55+ years old.

Above is the Riversbend Proffers and #1 states that they will be limited to HUD standards. Interestingly, HUD Standards do not eliminate the possibility of students living in the home. That is, HUD does not prohibit them, and in fact, it only requires one person in the home to be 55 years old AND it only requires it from 80% of the households. Twenty percent of those 168 condos, or about 33 of them won’t require the age restriction under the HUD standard. And with only one person needing to be 55 years old, it is conceivable (and even likely) that at least some of the homes may have children living there. Some parents with school-aged kids are 55+ years old. Additionally, some grandparents are the guardians of grandchildren. Below is the text of HOPA (Housing for Older Persons Act), as passed, and the basis for the HUD standard.

The Riversbend fiscal analysis states that the condos won’t add any students to the schools, but considering that they are using the HUD standard, they can’t actually guarantee that.

What I have done is calculate what the student generation rate is with no students coming from the condo (not probable) and with the rate expected from multi-family homes (also not probable). Somewhere in the middle lies the answer.

This first table shows the generation rate for the single-family homes only. Notice that the generated numbers from the developer are very different from mine. The developer’s fiscal analysis does not show how they came up with these numbers, but I will show you how I did.

There are 329 single-family homes. We both agree on that at least. Using the Generation Rates from 601-2, we calculate the following student generation:

#SFH (329) x Elementary School (ES) rate (0.18) = 59.22, round to the nearest whole student = 59 ES students

We repeat this for the Middle School (MS) and High School (HS):

329 x MS rate (0.10) = 32.9., rounded to 33 MS students

329 x HS rate (0.13) = 42.77, rounded to 43 HS students

The developer landed on 19 students per school. How did the developer come up with the same number of students for each level of school? At any rate, his calculations are way off and I stand behind my calculations.

If we repeat this process, but this time include the condos as if they will generate students at the same rate as other multi-family homes, then we get the following:

I applied the same formula as I did to calculate the single-family numbers, but used instead the lower rate for multi-family. I do acknowledge that the age-restricted (55+ years) condos will likely generate fewer students than the multi-family rate, but that it also will not be zero. This is an example where it would be good to have a more specific rate that accounts for the variance.

Subtract By-Right Student Generation

If the current zoning of a property would already allow the developer to build a certain number of houses by-right, then those students get subtracted and don’t count as part of the student generation in the school proffers.

For instance, if a developer wants to rezone 100 acres, from RE (Rural Estate) to RC (Residential Compact), the RE zoning designation already allows the developer to build, by-right (with no rezoning necessary) at a density of 0.30 for a total of 30 houses. Those 30 houses are already expected to generate 5.4 elementary students (using the SF rate of 0.18 for elementary school). If the land is successfully rezoned to RC, now the developer can build at a density of 7.3 homes per acre, for a total of 730 units. This would most likely be multi-family or some combination of multi-family and single-family units. Let’s just assume they are all multi-family to simplify this example (using the rate 0.16 for multi-family homes). Now the development is expected to generate 730 x 0.16 (generation rate) = 116.8 students.

The parcel was already expected to generate 5.4 elementary students, so this can be subtracted from the 116.8 elementary students to arrive at 111.4 added students, just for the elementary school.

Currently, the zoning for the old VDOT parcel is B-2, which is General Business zoning. B-2 is not expected to have any student generation, so for the Riversbend project, there is no by-right student generation to subtract.

School Impact

Let’s now look at how they determine school impact, which requires looking at each school level individually. Each residential parcel in the city is zoned for a specific elementary school, middle school, and high school. Each rezoning application identifies which schools serve that parcel.

If a development will add students to the elementary school, BUT that school is not at capacity, they don’t have to pay any proffers. For example, if a development will add 20 elementary students, but the elementary school that this development is zoned for has the capacity to absorb all 20 students, then no proffers are needed.

It might be the case that a development will add 20 students to the elementary school, but the elementary school can absorb only 5 students. That school is under capacity by 5 students. The remaining 15 students will cause extra strain to the school’s resources because they don’t have enough space for them. The developer can offer proffers to “expand capacity” for just those 15 students.

School Pipeline

Unfortunately, this all gets more complicated. The developer may not be the only developer looking to build in the area. In Suffolk, this is actually quite likely. Let’s make up an example to illustrate how this works:

Let’s take elementary “School A.” Five years ago, School A had a total capacity for 500 students, but only 475 students were attending. School A had the ability to absorb 25 more students. Five years ago, “Development X” was approved and these new homes will feed into School A. It is estimated that Development X will add 40 students. Development X proffered for the extra 15 students that it will add ABOVE School A’s capacity. Then two years ago “Development Y” was approved. It was estimated to add 30 students to School A. The developer for Y proffered for the full 30 students, because Development X was already in the pipeline – already rezoned and expected to be built and add to the student capacity.

In Suffolk, the RESIDENTIAL PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT report is updated periodically to keep track of all the developments that have been rezoned, how many housing units are left to be built, and which schools each will feed into. It is a 4 page document with about 100 developments listed on it. You can find the March 2025 document here and below is a small sample of what it looks like:

This spreadsheet shows how many total housing units can be built in each development. It even breaks it down as single-family detached, single-family attached, or multi-family.

It also shows if the development is committed or non-committed, meaning, has a site plan been approved or not. Sometimes construction can begin within a few months of the rezoning and sometimes there is no movement forward with the development for years or even decades.

The chart also shows how many units, if any, have been built so far. It then lists the remaining housing units and the percent remaining for the whole development. Lastly, it lists which schools each development is zoned for at each level.

In the specific example of the Riversbend project, the schools are: Hillpoint Elementary, Kings Fork Middle School, and Kings Fork High School. This rezoning hasn’t happened though, so it doesn’t appear on the list. However, Riversbend is like “Development Y” in my previous example, with many developments approved ahead of it that are already slated to generate a lot of students.

I used this pipeline report to figure out how many students will be generated for the same schools. First, I selected just the developments that impact the same schools that Riversbend will impact. It is more complicated than you might expect. Some of these developments only share a middle school with the Riversbend development, others share just an elementary school. Some even share all three of the schools. I had to look at each school on its own.

This chart below is my own creation. Any errors/omissions are my own mistakes (please feel free to let me know if you find any errors: care4suffolk@gmail.com).

In this chart, I have included every development currently on the city’s pipeline that shares at least one school with the proposed Riversbend development. Then I list the remaining housing units yet to be built, categorized by either single-family attached/detached/townhome/duplex or multi-family/other to match it with the student generation rates (way back from early in the article: table 601-2). Then, I multiplied the number of remaining units (by type) to its corresponding rate (by type). That number is the student generation expected from each of those developments for each of the schools Riversbend is zoned for. Some of the numbers are zero (0) because that school is not one of the same schools that Riversbend is zoned for. (I told you this was complicated.) You will also notice that some of the numbers are fractional (77.34 for example). I did not round to the nearest whole student because I am adding a large number of data points together. At the end, I will round to the nearest student. This will make it easier if anyone wants to check my math.

School Capacity

The next step is to figure out what the capacity of each school is, how many students are already expected to add to that capacity, and then, finally, how many students above capacity the Riversbend development will add, if it gets approved.

It turns out that a report with most of the needed information is already available:

In the above City of Suffolk Residential Pipeline Development, School Capacity from March 2025, we can easily find each school, its capacity, how many students are currently attending, and the projected enrollment.

Below is my chart with the schools of interest, their capacity, current enrollment, projected capacity from the pipeline and then total enrollment with pipeline PLUS the addition of Riversbend.

If you compare, you will notice that the city’s numbers don’t match mine. Let me explain why. First off, all the capacities do match, because I took my school capacity numbers and enrollment numbers from the city’s chart. The current capacity percentages match, too, just slightly different rounding.

However, the city has significantly lower pipeline additions (projected enrollment). Where I have 306 expected students to be added by the pipeline to Hillpoint Elementary School, the city only has 96.1 expected. For Kings Fork Middle School, I have calculated 246 students from the pipeline, the city 76.5. For Kings Fork High School, I have 275 and the city only 101.6.

These are significantly different calculations, but I can explain the difference. The City of Suffolk has decided that if a development has been rezoned BUT is not committed (no site plan), they just don’t count the students that the non-committed development will generate. The city staff’s reasoning is that it might never be built. But because these developments can actually be built by-right, at any time. For planning purposes it is irresponsible to exclude these. Let’s look at a couple of examples of non-committed developments that the city is ignoring in their calculations.

Godwin Park, approved in 2020, will have 700 housing units when the project is completed, with an estimated 15 year time frame. As of the March 2025 pipeline, 12 homes have been completed with 131 homes in the committed category. Now this development was approved with the stipulation of building it in phases. Approved during the covid epidemic, it was probably slowed down initially, but building has definitely begun. However, if you are only counting committed developments, this one will only add another 119 homes, with 569 homes in the non-committed category. That is a LOT of homes to NOT count. And there is no legitimate expectation that they won’t eventually be built. Godwin Park will feed into all three Riversbend schools: Hillpoint Elementary School, Kings Fork Middle School, and Kings Fork High School.

Another example is Lake Kilby (now called Tillman Run). All 204 homes that were part of the rezoning application dating back 2022 (approved in 2023) are still in the non-committed category, yet they are likely to break ground on that development within the year. These 204 homes are not counted in the pipeline from the city. This development will feed into both Kings Fork Middle School and Kings Fork High School. Again, this development just recently went through the rezoning process and is working on a site plan now. Why is the city NOT looking to add these homes to understand the demand on the schools?

There are no dates listed in the Residential Pipeline Development report, so there is no way for someone looking at the report to readily know how long ago a development was approved. Because these developments have all been rezoned already, at any time a non-committed development could become a committed development. It is irresponsible to NOT include these homes while calculating school capacity. If each new developer only has to look at developments under construction, then some developers will pay less in proffers, as their impact will be evaluated to be lower than it will actually be when built. Maybe that is by design, but it is not good practice.

In my chart, I include all homes, committed and non-committed, and just subtracted out the ones already built (because presumably those students are already registered in the schools). If you look at my chart, you can see that each school is already set to be well over capacity by the time each already approved development gets built. They will be over capacity by very large amounts.

Hillpoint Elementary School is already at 108% capacity and with the pipeline, it will be at 150% capacity. That means for each classroom designed to accommodate 30 students, the school staff have to figure out where to put the extra 15 students! Add in the conservative estimate of Riversbend single-family homes only, and that jumps to 159% capacity. If we then look at what happens if the condo homes end up generating students – because that is a distinct possibility – we end up with capacity at 163%. How can the city and City Council, in good conscience, allow schools to be filled at 163% capacity. How are teachers expected to teach, students expected to learn, and all the other staff expected to adequately serve 1169 students in a facility designed for 777 students?

Below is my chart that shows the percent capacity of the schools if the condos also generate students:

Proffers

Now we get to the money. The city does not dictate a certain amount of money that is set for each student, instead it is based on the level of school that child is in. The State of Virginia went and took a look at state-wide data and they distilled the amount of money to be proffered based on location, the square footage of schools, and some other complicated aspects. The exact details on how it arrived at this average escapes me, but it becomes a pretty straight-forward calculation based on the level of school.

Proffers per student per level are as follows:

Elementary School = $35,900.55/student

Middle School = $42,065.60/student

High School = $59, 402.09/student

I plugged these values in to a spreadsheet to calculate what proffers SHOULD have been offered by the Riversbend developer:

Whether you are using the conservative estimate or the higher one, the range is between $6 to $9 million. The Riversbend developer is not actually offering cash proffers. Instead, he has offered a trade. Below is the proffers statement again, but this time with the school proffers highlighted:

Here is what I can’t figure out. The developer’s fiscal analysis clearly stated that it had calculated the number of students generated to be 57. However, $4,708,322.87 divided by the 57 is equal to $82,602.16 per student. That is considerably higher than the high school amount (which is highest of the 3 school levels) of $59,402.09. That’s $23,200 more per student. They aren’t actually planning on paying that though. They are going to trade it for an old building they claim is valued at $6,270,000.

However, the building they are trading is valued at most $3.8 million, according to the City of Suffolk’s own assessment (see above). It is unclear from the city’s site if this one building is the only “improvement” being referenced on that site. Usually improvement values include things like a home, detached garage, out-buildings, etc., and there are about 30 other buildings on this property. At MOST this building is worth $3.8 million, but it could be worth significantly less.

The developer states that he had it appraised at $6.27 million, but this is the same developer that can’t figure out the student generation for the development. He may not be the most reliable source.

In the end, the amount of school proffers that should be offered for Riversbend is between $6 to $9 million, well above the estimated $4.7 million. There is a huge shortfall in school proffers here, especially when the city is receiving it in the form of an over-valued building.

In the end, the developer is trying to make the best deal for himself. I can’t blame him, it’s his job. It is the city’s job to make sure that the citizens, even the young, school-aged ones, receive a good deal, and that requires the city to start expecting developers to pay their fair share of the cost of the development. It is also the city’s job to recognize when the process isn’t working. Continually rezoning and ignoring the previously rezoned projects is putting a strain on our schools and students, and failing to adequately plan for the future.

What’s Behind the Riversbend?

Care4Suffolk — Sun, 17 Aug 2025 16:47:52 +0000

A new development called Riversbend is being proposed for the old VDOT location at 1700 N Main St in Suffolk (Suffolk Borough). The developer, NVR, Inc. (Ryan Homes), proposes to build a maximum of 497 units on 73 acres. These will include 168 age-restricted units and 329 single-family townhouses. You can read the application and all the accompanying documents here.

In this article, I’m not going to go into the specifics of the actual project or discuss whether or not it’s a good one. Instead, I want to take a closer look at some questionable aspects of the application and at some behind-the-scenes communications between our Interim City Manager, Kevin Hughes, and Melissa Venable from Land Planning Solutions (representing the developer) that helped move this project forward.

Let’s start with the situation regarding the need for city-owned land for road access to the development site. It is important to understand that the traffic study for this Riversbend project found it HAD to have an access point from Memorial Ave. The current VDOT site has no direct access to Memorial Ave itself, which means the developer needed to obtain a piece of city-owned land to even make this a possibility.

Suffolk’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) is the entity that would need to approve the use of this city-owned property, as it is in the EDA’s ownership. Instead of keeping the EDA members involved in the application process, it appears that the topic was sprung on them unexpectedly by Kevin Hughes at their May meeting, despite months of communication between Hughes and the developer’s representatives.

On May 14, 2025 the EDA – which was created by the city to promote economic growth – met for its monthly meeting. The meeting agenda did not include the Riversbend project, but instead, during the closed door session (held specifically to discuss “Project Polka” and “Project Goober”), Mr. Hughes unexpectedly gave a presentation for a different project: Riversbend. (An attempt was made to obtain the presentation that Mr. Hughes gave during that meeting, but that request was denied because it was presented during a closed-door session)

Excerpt from EDA Meeting Minutes, May 14 2025. The purpose of the closed meeting was to discuss two projects unrelated to the Riversbend project. Additionally, it is difficult to argue that it would adversely impact the EDA’s negotiating position, when the EDA was not involved in any negotiations.

We do know that as a result of this meeting, the EDA approved the use of EDA owned land, located at 1802 N Main Street, as part of the rezoning for the Riversbend development. Coincidentally, this is the one piece of land that connects the Riversbend project to Memorial Ave.

The above is an excerpt from a site map. The orange portion (that has been cropped) is the section the developer is looking to rezone to RU-18 (Residential Urban). The light red is the portion that will remain with its B-2 zoning. The purple is the land that is owned by the EDA. The green road is Memorial Ave. Note that only the EDA land borders Memorial Ave. This is the portion that the developer needs to connect to Memorial Ave.

It seems odd that the Interim City Manager, the head of all Suffolk city government (except for the Suffolk Public Schools) would be so involved with this one rezoning application. Yet there are emails back and forth between Kevin Hughes and the developer that discuss the EDA land and include copies of the site plan dating back to March.

This email from March 3rd is asking if the City Manager or Director of Planning and Development has verified the EDA boundary line. This is 6 weeks BEFORE the EDA even learns that its land will be part of this development.

In this email from Apr 22, still 3 weeks before the EDA meeting, the developer’s representative is talking about “finalizing the application” to get the required signature. It is clear from the language that Ms. Venable is confident that the EDA will allow the developer to use EDA land in this Riversbend development. They have had it included in the site map since at least March, but possibly as far back as November of last year.

This site plan is originally dated Nov 26, 2024 and then revised Mar 21, 2025. The EDA land is circled in red and has been a part of the development site since at least mid-March, almost two months before the EDA meeting.

An email from April 23rd references discussion about proffers between Kevin Hughes and Adam Edbauer (Ryan Homes) that makes it clear that the City Manager was helping with the proffer language for this application. Let’s look at what the city is being offered.

To start with, this application offers NO money for school proffers. Traditionally, when a development will be adding students to an overcrowded facility, the developer offers a proffer to help “advance school capacity.” In other words, a developer helps pay for the costs that the development will put on the school system.

It also offers no money for the EDA land. That parcel was assessed by the city as being worth $168,000. Not much in the whole scheme of the project, but since the developer HAS to have it, you would expect the developer to offer something for it. Is the land being gifted to the developer? Will the EDA retain ownership? If the EDA does retain ownership, does that mean Riversbend never has to pay taxes on that land? That is an ongoing loss of revenue for the city – indefinitely.

Above is a screenshot of the City of Suffolk’s property record for the EDA’s land (1802 N Main St). The value of the EDA land is highlighted in yellow. The value is listed at $168,000.

At the open house, while speaking with the developer’s representative, Melissa Venable, I asked if the proposed park (that is partially composed of the EDA land) would be a city park and she replied no. She said it would be maintained by the Riversbend HOA. So instead of a city park, it will be a private, HOA-run park for Riversbend use. That certainly is a great deal for the developer – free land for an exclusive park; or even better – free land and no taxes for the EDA land.

Above is part of the site map cut to show the park location. The circled red area indicates the EDA owned land that makes up half of the park.

Instead of proffering money for schools, the developer is offering a trade: the city will receive the dilapidated old VDOT District Office building and an accompanying 2 acres in lieu of money. The idea is that this old building can be rehabbed and used for the Suffolk Public Schools (SPS) which is looking for an administration building.

There is no discussion in the fiscal analysis that addresses how much money will need to be put into this old building. That doesn’t mean I am against the idea of the city obtaining the building via a trade, but it would be good to know at least an estimated cost to renovate and update it.

In the Proffer Statement, the value for the District Office building and site is suggested to be $6.3 million while the school proffers were estimated to be $4.7 million. If this were true, it might be a smart deal for the city, even if the EDA land is thrown in for free.

However, according to the City of Suffolk assessment (see below), the building is estimated to be worth only about $3.8 million, but it is unclear if this one building is the only “improvement” being referenced on that site. Usually improvement values include things like a home, detached garage, out-buildings, etc., and there are about 30 other buildings on this property. At MOST this building is worth $3.8 million. The idea that just one old buildings on this site is worth $6 million is sketchy when you consider that the entire property as a whole (including all buildings) is valued at $16 million. This is an 87 acre lot with 4,000 feet of waterfront, in the heart of Suffolk. That building alone is not worth 40% of the whole value of that land.

Another shortfall of the developer’s fiscal analysis is that it mentions a “new way” to calculate school proffers, but it does not show how they arrived at their estimated number of $4.7 million.

I did some calculations myself (which you can read about here) of the actual school proffers calculation for the Riversbend Development. It should be at least $6 million and maybe up to almost $9 million. (Unlike the developer, I will show you how I came to these numbers and support it with documentation.) This deal to exchange the building in lieu of the school proffers, will actually be a loss for the city in the amount of at least $2-3 million, but could be up to $6 million. Add to that the loss of the land that is being gifted from EDA and all around it looks like a really, really bad deal for the City.

The EDA wasn’t part of the initial discussions for this project, nor was it part of the negotiations. At the most recent EDA meeting on August 13th, the Interim City Manager gave an update about the Riversbend Project, basically just explaining the timeline and giving the EDA members some background on other projects the EDA has previously been a part of and how well that worked out for the city.

The Interim City Manager also spoke about how the EDA is a co-applicant of the Riversbend project. That was once true, as you can see from an earlier draft of the application (obtained through a FOIA). However, the current application excludes the EDA completely. It was on the application – now it isn’t. The EDA is not currently listed as a co-applicant, nor is its land mentioned other than being included in the site map.

This application was an attachment to an email from June 12, the day after this application was signed on behalf of the EDA. Note that there is no signature for NVR, Inc.

This image is from the current application on the city’s website. (Page 12) Note that the EDA has been removed as a co-applicant under the Commonwealth of Virginia. This application DOES have the NVR, Inc signature and is dated 4-30-25, still 2 weeks before the EDA learns about this. 

The older copy has a June 11th date and the more recent copy has an April 30th date. So is this a mistake on the part of the city or the applicant?

It seems that perhaps the EDA wasn’t aware of all of these details, because also at the recent EDA meeting, one member announced his intention to bring this matter back up at the next meeting in September. He stated that there was more information coming to light and that he was planning to make a motion to rescind the EDA’s approval to use their land.

If the EDA rescinds the use of its land for the Riversbend development, based on the Riversbend traffic study, it looks like it might put the developer in a tough spot. An older version of the traffic report, received through a FOIA request, shows that there were issues placing the entrance and exit on various locations on the road front at Main Street. Will Riversbend even be able to pass the design process without this road access?

As a citizen of Suffolk, I have to ask: is this how the city and City Manager usually conduct city business? Are there always these backroom efforts going on between the City Manager and developers? Are the divisions in our local government, like the EDA, just there to rubber-stamp ideas from the City Manager?

The City Manager had months to approach the EDA about this project. There was plenty of time to share the information, give the EDA members a chance to review the application and verify details. There didn’t have to be a push to add it to the EDA meeting without notice and then obtain the EDA’s consent in just an hour’s time. How could any of the EDA members be expected to make a well-informed decision so quickly? Again, I ask, is this how the city always operates: half in confidential communications and then rushed decisions to circumvent proper evaluation?

Why wasn’t the Planning Department itself more involved? The only member of that department on any of these emails is Kevin Wyne, the Director of Planning & Community Development. Aren’t there planning staff who are specifically employed to be the main contacts for individuals or companies looking to rezone? Why has this one been handled from the top? What makes this development or developer so special?

If this is par for the course, are we, as citizens, ok with our government working this way? Why does our City Manager have this much control? If this is such a great use of EDA land, why wasn’t the EDA brought into the process sooner? This was months in the making. And if the City Manager is working for the good of the citizens, why didn’t he negotiate a better deal for us? Why do the citizens of Suffolk lose out millions of dollars on this deal? How is that in our best interest?

If you are concerned about this, I suggest you email City Council and share your thoughts. City Council is the only body that supervises the City Manager. He answers to them, and they answer to us. It is time to get some answers.

Contact information available from City of Suffolk’s website- https://www.suffolkva.us/881/City-Council-Mayor):

This email goes to all City Council Members, including the Mayor:

council@suffolkva.us

Michael D. Duman, Mayor

mayor@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 514-4009

Lue R. Ward, Jr., Vice Mayor

(Nansemond Borough)

nansemond@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 377-6929

Shelley Butler Barlow, Council Member

(Chuckatuck Borough)

chuckatuck@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 346-8355

Leroy Bennett, Council Member

(Cypress Borough)

cypress@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 407-3750

Timothy J. Johnson, Council Member

(Holy Neck Borough)

holyneck@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 407-0556

Ebony Wright, Council Member

(Sleepy Hole Borough)

sleepyhole@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 407-9873

John Rector, Council Member

(Suffolk Borough)

suffolk@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 407-1953

LeOtis Williams, Council Member

(Whaleyville Borough)

whaleyville@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 402-7100