Suffolk – Care4Suffolk

Eagles’ Nest Identified on Development Site

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 23 Feb 2026 21:38:08 +0000

A citizen of Suffolk recently spoke at City Council about bald eagles nesting on the old VDOT campus at 1700 N Main Street. This property is the site of a rezoning application (Riversbend) that City Council will vote on next month (after multiple delays). The developer, Ryan Homes, wants to build 500 homes on that property.

After hearing Erin Clemow speak, I decided to reach out to her to learn more about the eagles and how this development may impact them.

When asked how she first learned about the eagles, Erin responded, “I saw a Facebook post about the eagles in the vicinity of the site. I reached out to a neighbor from the Nansemond Gardens neighborhood on River Road to find out more about the eagles and where their nest is.” (This is the neighborhood across the river from the VDOT property.)

She said she also put up two posts on local Facebook groups, Suffolk 411 and Care4Suffolk, to see if anyone knew anything about these eagles.

“I started researching who I should contact statewide and looking for what I can do if I am able to find their nest, “ Erin stated. She added, “I was specifically looking for the proper protocol to handle that.”

The first person she spoke to was Troy Andersen with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS.gov). He provided her with the link to the nest mapper on the Center for Conservation Biology’s website, part of the College of William and Mary.

The above image shows the eagles’ nest as the yellow dot in the middle of two concentric circles. Those yellow circles are the buffers.

According to the Center for Conservation Biology, there are two buffers:

The smaller 330′ “primary buffer” is where human activities are considered to be detrimental to breeding pairs (e.g. residential/commercial development). The larger 660′ “secondary buffer” is where human activities are considered to impact the integrity of the “primary buffer” (e.g. construction, multi-story buildings, new roadways).

Below is an image of the parcel, for comparison.

You can see that the eagles’ nest with its buffers are within the northern half of the VDOT property.

Erin also spoke with Shaughn Galloway, another representative with U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Region 5. He shared a lot more information with Erin and provided her with the Northeast Bald Eagle Project Screening Form. She asked him what would happen if someone took down the eagles’ tree and he told her that authorities would be sent and someone would be going to jail.

During this time, Erin said that the nearby community pulled together and found the nest. She received photos and videos of the eagles and their nest. One neighbor pinned (or geotagged) the location to provide her with the exact tree.

Erin then got in touch with Bryan Watts with the Center for Conservation Biology at William & Mary. He told her that the geotag is key (meaning the longitude and the latitude of the tree). He also explained that they do flyovers to pinpoint nests.

“This was not an easy journey,” Erin recalls, “I was just a concerned citizen and I was dealing with professionals in the field. They were asking me questions that I didn’t really know the answers to, but they were very patient and worked with me to help me understand, and they clarified the process with me.”

Erin shared with me the type of information and documentation that these agencies were requesting. She said they wanted pictures of the eagles’ nest, although that alone wasn’t enough to show that it was an active nest. They wanted pictures or video of the eagles actually in the nest. One tell-tale sign of an active nest is if the eagle is bobbing its head, which means there could be young in the nest. Erin added that they were looking for other signs too, like whitewash on the tree, which she explained is eagle excrement accumulating on the trunk of the tree. Other indicators could be scattered fish carcasses and turtle shells which indicate the eagles are eating above that area. The most important part was getting the tree pinned.

“It was a crash course in eagles,” Erin said as she gently laughed. She added that she didn’t know much about eagles before all this began, but now she wants to share this with others. It is clear in speaking with Erin that she is very passionate about this and truly cares about the eagles nesting in Suffolk.

Erin continued, “I was just relieved that the nest is mapped and now I know the proper authorities will be involved in this in order to get permits.”

To clarify further, Erin stated:

“This is not about targeting Ryan Homes or any particular developer. It’s about making sure the public understands that these animals are legally protected. If they are living near the river on farmland that is later slated for development, that protection does not disappear. Any future property owner or developer will be required to address and comply with those protections.”

Erin shared that it is up to the developer to reach out to Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR) to get the correct permits in place. “Now that the nest has been formally mapped,” she explained, “there is no question that the nest is there. As I understand it, the nest is naturally protected, and the tree that the nest is in, is protected.”

Erin said that one of the reasons she spoke at City Council, and why she agreed to sit down and talk with me, is because she wants everyone to be aware. She wants to draw attention to the eagles, that they are protected, and to let everyone know (Council Members, Ryan Homes, and the public) that the eagles are nesting on that property and that nothing can happen to them without steep consequences.

Here’s a link to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Bald and Golden Eagle Protect Act. It states:

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), enacted in 1940, and amended several times since, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald or golden eagles, including their parts (including feathers), nests, or eggs.

The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle … [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part (including feathers), nest, or egg thereof.”

The Act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” Regulations further define “disturb” as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior” (50 CFR 22.6).

In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers effects that result from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle’s return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment.

A violation of the Act can result in a fine of $100,000 ($200,000 for organizations), imprisonment for one year, or both, for a first offense. Penalties increase substantially for additional offenses, and a second violation of this Act is a felony.

Erin also shared the email that she sent to City Council. She said it was very important to her that they knew about the nest.

What touched me the most about Erin’s speech to Council is at the end, when she says the following:

“What a profound blessing it is to witness these majestic creatures nesting, hunting, and raising their young among us. They are more than wildlife; they are a reminder of resilience, unity, and the promise of renewal.

Suffolk deserves hope. Our citizens deserve it. And the presence of these eagles feels like a quiet but powerful sign that hope still lives here.”

Attachment:

Erin’s speech to City Council

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.

UPDATE on FOIA Violation

Care4Suffolk — Wed, 11 Feb 2026 15:16:25 +0000

After the last article was published, the city reached out to provide the withheld email.

In the original article, Riversbend FOIA Issue – FOIA Violations Are Piling Up!, we showed that this one email was withheld completely from the FOIA request with the reason given that it is a “working paper” for the City Manager.

Here is the withheld email (It contained the attached slideshow presentation as well):

Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes was just forwarding an email with an attached presentation to Mayor Duman. This definitely does NOT qualify as “working papers” despite the claim made by the City.

We experienced another FOIA violation last year, where an email was withheld under Attorney-Client privilege, only to find out there was no attorney present on the email.

In this FOIA violation, we were told this was working papers, when it clearly isn’t. We may have since received the email requested, but it does NOT un-do the violation of my FOIA rights. Additionally, the City is showing a pattern of withholding public documents under false pretenses.

Another thing to note here is that Mr. Hughes was emailing Mayor Duman at his private email (mike.duman@mikeduman.com) – NOT his official email (mayor@suffolkva.us). Why?

Why is Mr. Hughes sharing this with the Mayor who is barred from being part of the process because of his conflict of interest? Why is he using the Mayor’s personal email instead of the Mayor’s public email? How much other city business is being conducted using communication methods that obfuscate FOIA rules? If I want to see any communication between the Mayor and, say, a developer, how would that work? As a Mayor that could constitute official business. But how would the FOIA office even have access to that information if it is out of the City’s system?

I appreciate the City finally releasing this email as they were legally required, but I now have more questions than answers.

2025 City of Suffolk Annual Comprehensive Financial Report

William Webb — Sun, 25 Jan 2026 15:50:37 +0000

The City of Suffolk’s recently released 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) paints a picture of a municipality in a remarkably strong financial position. While the report was published without a public announcement just before the holidays, its contents are of significant public interest. City finances, with their various funds and activities, can be complex, but this analysis will highlight the key takeaways from the report. Specifically, we will examine the substantial budget surplus the city has accumulated for the second year in a row, how our tax rates and household tax burdens compare to the rest of the Hampton Roads region, the city’s extensive and largely untapped borrowing capacity, and whether our current economic development strategy is truly serving the best interests of Suffolk’s residents.

Some Highlights:

General Government (Police, fire, schools, roads, parks, libraries, etc.; services paid for via taxes): FY25 general revenues: $341.3 million vs. expenses: $212.5 million – net increase $128.7 Million (Surplus)

City’s business-type activities (Water, sewer, airport, refuse, etc.; services paid for via charges/fees): FY25 revenues: $95.8 million vs. expenses: $73.0 million & $1.5 million transfer to general fund – net increase $20.3 Million (Surplus)

“The City’s combined net position (which is the City’s “bottom line”) increased by $149.9 million in fiscal year 2025” (Pg. 8 of ACFR). For FY2024, the City’s “bottom line” increased by $133.8 million.

Over the past two years, the City has increased its “bottom line” by $283.7 Million.

The Mayor doesn’t really like when I talk about the “budget surplus”, so I made sure to double-check the definition. According to Investopedia.com: “a budget surplus occurs when a business or government’s revenue exceeds its expenses during its fiscal year.”

According to the ACFR, page 9, heading “Excess of revenues over expenditures”, the City had a $150 million surplus, with $100,000 being transferred to a different account, for the $149.9 million “Change in net position.” This came from total revenues of $544.5 million vs. total expenses of $394.5 million. If this doesn’t meet the definition of “Budget Surplus”, I am not sure what would.

For context, every 1 cent of the Real Estate tax equates to around $1.66 million ($177,492,532 ÷ 107 = $1,658,809). A 10 cent reduction would cost around $16.6 million, which is barely over 10% of the overall budget surplus from last year. I think it is time that the City lowers our tax rates.

And before anyone tries to claim that Suffolk has the “3rd lowest rate in the area”, Suffolk actually ranks 5th highest for Real Estate Tax Rate out of the 22 areas that make up the Hampton Roads Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which is how the Census defines Hampton Roads.

Furthermore, when you apply the tax rate to the average assessment, the Median Household in Suffolk pays $3,836 per year, which ranks 2nd highest in the MSA. The only locality that pays more per household is Poquoson, which comes in at $4,214.

The regional average real estate tax rate is $0.85 per $100, with the Statewide average being $0.94 per $100. Virginia Beach is at $0.97 per $100, while Chesapeake is $1.01 per $100. Smithfield comes in at $0.935 per $100, while Isle of Wight is $0.775 per $100. With the City running an annual budget surplus over $100 million for each of the past 2 years, it is about time we lower the rate and help out our local residents.

In regards to the City’s debt and borrowing capacity, the state allows a locality to borrow up to 10% of the assessed value of taxable real property within the locality. Suffolk has imposed a lower threshold, allowing borrowing up to 7% of the assessed valuation. The City currently has $768.5 million in available “credit” when looking at the City’s imposed limit and $1.29 billion in available “credit” when comparing to the state threshold. (ACFR Pg. 53)

So what does that mean? We could build 4 new King’s Highway bridges and still have credit left over. We could build a new high school, two new middle schools, and 5 new elementary schools and still have over $250 million in borrowing capacity available before we bumped up against the City’s self-imposed limit. The City has plenty of money and even more “credit” it could put to work. So why do we have kids learning in trailers? Why do we have overcrowded classrooms? We have the money; let’s put it to work.

Looking at Economic Development in the City in FY25, the statistics are interesting. I sit on the City’s Economic Development Authority and I have been advocating for diversifying our economic roadmap and ensure we aren’t putting all of our eggs in one basket. According to the report, a warehouse produces 1 job for every 18,590 sqft of building. For comparison, Medical Offices are coming in at 1 employee per 140 sqft of building, while retail added 1 employee per 270 sqft of retail space. Advanced manufacturing came in at 1 employee per 3,835 sqft of building space. So these warehouses are bringing the traffic and congestion but producing very few jobs for the space.

The Mayor likes to discuss the capital investment of the warehouses. According to the report, Advanced Manufacturing brings in $691 of capital investment per sqft of building, Medical Offices brings in $429 of capital investment per sqft of building, Retail brings in $321 of capital investment per sqft of building, and warehousing only brings in $70 of capital investment per sqft of building. While no one wants to see a loss in farmland and open space, if we are going to have some development, shouldn’t we be focusing on areas that bring the most bang-for-our-buck?

Lastly, as this is something that has stood out to me for a while but I haven’t heard any elected officials discuss, Suffolk has seen a sizeable swing in our median household income over the past decade. We have seen a -$10,955 swing vs. the state median household income over the past 10 years.

According to the City’s budget documents and US Census Bureau, in 2014 Suffolk had a median household income of $66,085 vs. $63,907 for the entire state, resulting in a net of +$2,178 per household. In 2024, Suffolk had a median household income of $81,154 vs. $89,931 for the entire state, resulting in a net of -$8,777 per household.

In short, Suffolk families aren’t keeping pace with our peers across the state and region. While prices have continued to increase, our take-home wages continue to stagnate. We aren’t attracting the employers and industries that will provide a thriving middle-class for our City. We must do more to diversify our economy and attract the careers that will keep pace with the rising costs in our region.

In summary, the data presented in the City of Suffolk’s own financial report reveals a clear and compelling narrative. With a combined surplus of over $283 million in the last two fiscal years, significant untapped borrowing capacity, and real estate tax burdens that are among the highest in the region, the argument that the city cannot afford to provide tax relief or increase investment in critical services like education falls flat. Furthermore, the city’s economic development focus on warehousing appears to yield a low return on investment in terms of both jobs and capital, while household incomes in Suffolk are alarmingly failing to keep pace with the rest of the state. The time has come for a fundamental re-evaluation of our fiscal and economic priorities. We have the financial resources and the borrowing power to lower the tax burden on our residents, invest in our schools, roads, and greenspaces, and strategically attract diversified industries that will build a prosperous future for all of Suffolk. It is not a question of capacity, but of political will.

Cluster Development

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 20 Jan 2026 04:40:31 +0000

The City of Suffolk touts Cluster Developments as a way to conserve environmentally sensitive areas, but is it just a developer give-away in disguise?

The idea behind a Cluster Development is to build homes closer together to free up more land for open space or to preserve wetlands. Normal city codes have regulations on minimum lot sizes and road frontage requirements. However, in a Cluster Development, many of those regulations are waived to allow a developer to build houses closer together.

If a developer has 100 acres and could normally build 300 houses on that land, this allows the developer to condense the housing portion and put those 300 houses on 70 acres and then leave 30 acres undeveloped. That all sounds reasonable and when seen in this light, it does seem to provide more open space.

However, if that same developer has 100 acres, but he would be prohibited from building on 30 of those acres of that land due natural impediments or because of local, state, or federal regulations, he would have to reduce the number of houses he could build. He would have 70 acres and he would have to abide by the city codes that dictate lot size and road frontage. He would not be able to fit those same 300 houses within that 70 acres with those restrictions and he would have to build fewer houses.

Cluster Developments allow the developer to use all the land that is part of the parcel to determine density, even if some of it can’t be built on. The city then waives the normal city regulations for lot size and road frontage. Thus, the cluster development allows the developer to build more houses than he would otherwise be able to build.

This happens a lot in Suffolk. It is happening with this Manning Road rezoning (Public Hearing on Wednesday at 6pm at City Hall). The developer has 113 acres, but that land has a railroad cutting off a huge chunk, it has a perennial stream, open water and wetlands. In all, there are 49 acres that the developer can NOT actually build on.

These are not 49 acres he is choosing to leave open. He has no choice because he can’t build within 100 feet of the water because it is a drinking reservoir and has a required buffer. This 100 foot buffer also follows the stream that bisects his property. In addition, he has no legal right to cross the railroad tracks that divide his property. In reality the developer has 64 acres that he can actually build on.

The city allows the developer to include the non-developable land in the calculation for density. Additionally, the city allows a density of 2.9 houses per acre for the residential zoning of RLM, which the developer is asking for in this rezoning request. The current zoning of A (agriculture) would only allow him to build at most 5 houses on the land. The total maximum number of houses that can be built on 113 acres at a density of 2.9 is 327 houses. He was asking for 300, but has since reduced it to 270 houses. But remember, he can only build on 64 acres. Those 270 houses will be squished onto those 64 acres at an actual density of 3.9 houses per acre!

That 64 acres is about the same size as the neighborhood across the street. That neighborhood was rezoned in the late 1980s back when the city was concerned with large density on parcels that abut drinking reservoirs. That neighborhood has 76 houses with a density of around 1 house per acre. If this Manning Road parcel is rezoned, it would share a zoning category with the other neighborhood of RLM. However, the density differences are 1 house per acre in the old development versus 4 houses per acre in the new proposed development. The old neighborhood is NOT a cluster development. Which development will have more negative impacts on the environmentally sensitive wetlands and drinking reservoir?

The city knows that higher density negatively impacts the water quality of the drinking reservoirs, which in turn can negatively impact the health of the citizens. They know this and used to avoid this type of density. Those days are gone.

Now the city and the developers think they are fooling us by saying cluster developments help preserve environmentally sensitive areas. It isn’t true. It is allowing the developers to put higher density on these parcels adjoining these environmentally sensitive areas that nature and existing regulation would otherwise curtail.

It turns out, cluster developments are just another tactic to help developers at the expense of the environment and safety of the citizens.

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

Port 460 Engineer Giddy Over City Fire Code Amendment

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 04 Aug 2025 06:30:00 +0000

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.

Council Reduces Fire Safety Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fire Marshal’s answer was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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