School Board – Care4Suffolk

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

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.