CLOSE
Authors Posts by Lynn Hallarman

Lynn Hallarman

32 POSTS 0 COMMENTS

by -
0 966
Destruction to Phase 1 work to the East Beach Bluff face as of March 2025. Photo from the Port Jefferson Village website.

By Lynn Hallarman

A community informational forum about Phase 2 of the East Beach Bluff stabilization project was held by village officials at the Port Jefferson Village Center on March 27. 

Audience in attendance at the forum held at the Village Center.  Photo by Lynn Hallarman

The forum aimed to update residents on the current status and finances of the upper wall project, summarize the next steps and review the work of Port Jefferson’s Citizens Commission on Erosion. 

Mayor Lauren Sheprow presided over the meeting. The board of trustees, village attorney David Moran, village treasurer Stephen Gaffga and clerk Sylvia Pirillo were present. 

Project summary

Phases 1 and 2 of the East Beach Bluff stabilization aim to halt bluff erosion and prevent the Village of Port Jefferson-owned country club from collapsing down the slope. 

Phase 1 was completed in August of 2023, with the construction of a 358-foot wall of steel and cement at the base of a steep bluff, about 100-feet-tall, facing north toward the Long Island Sound. Terracing and plantings installed along the western portion of the bluff were destroyed in a series of storms shortly after the project’s completion.  

Phase 2 involves installing a steel barrier driven into the bluff’s crest, just a few feet seaward of the country club. This upper wall is intended to stabilize the area landward of the bluff and reduce the risk of structural failure. 

As part of Phase 2’s preconstruction, GEI Consultants of Huntington Station—the engineers for Phases 1 and 2—will be engaged to update the land survey, analyze drainage options, reevaluate wall design for cost efficiency and monitor construction. Village officials will then prepare requests for proposal documents to solicit bids for the upper wall’s construction. 

Concerns of the Citizens Commission on Erosion

David Knauf, chair of the Citizens Commission on Erosion, speaks at the forum. Photo by Lynn Hallarman

David Knauf, chair of the Citizens Commission on Erosion, presented the benefits and concerns of various approaches to stabilizing the country club at the bluff’s edge.  

The CCE serves as a volunteer advisory group to the village on erosion-related issues.  Members are not required to have specialized expertise.

Among the advantages, Knauf noted that a portion of Phase 2 costs will be covered by a Federal Emergency Management Agency grant, reducing the financial burden on local taxpayers.  However, the committee expressed concerns about the reliability of FEMA funding.

“If they are withdrawn, that is going to put us in a heap of trouble fiscally,” he said. 

Key concerns include the unknown long-term costs of the overall project beyond the Phase 2 wall installation. These include a drainage plan, repairs to damage sustained during Phase 1 and ongoing maintenance expenses.

“All of us on the committee are taxpayers, and we’re concerned about getting value for money spent,” Knauf said. “The bluff wall project is not something that you just do and you’re finished. It’s going to have responsibilities and obligations for the village in perpetuity.”

Knauf outlined alternative approaches to building the upper wall, including: 

●Rebuilding the clubhouse inland in conjunction with bluff restoration and drainage improvements. 

●Implementing a partial wall and drainage plan, followed by the eventual relocation of the clubhouse.

 “It is the opinion of the committee that detailed plans for the whole project — including Phase 1 repairs, drainage and Phase 2 — are completed so an accurate assessment of final costs can be presented to the village taxpayers,” Knauf later told TBR News Media in an email. 

Comments from GEI

Following Knauf’s presentation, GEI licensed professional engineer Adon Austin  explained the steps necessary before construction can begin on the upper wall.

The project is designed as a “two-part system [lower and upper wall] working in combination to control bluff erosion,” Austin said. 

“Once we have the design reconfigured and a drainage plan, all of this will go to the New York State arm of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for review,” he added. “FEMA will then revise the cost estimates, the scope and the grant, to align with what the current scope of the project would be.”  GEI will then issue a final design along with construction documents.

GEI has recommended that the village evaluate the current risk to the building’s foundation in response to written questions from the Citizens Commission on Erosion. 

Laura Schwanof, senior ecologist and landscape architect for GEI, commented on possible contributing factors to the current erosion of the bluff face:

“ We were only allowed [by the state Department of Environmental Conservation] to put terraces up six rows — nothing more.” Schwanof said. “ We were prevented from doing any structural work on the western end beyond the golf course.  As far as failure of the system, we worked within the confines of the regulatory agency requirements.”

Treasurer outlines project costs

Village treasurer Stephen Gaffga presented an overview of the financial history related to the East Beach Bluff stabilization project.  To date, the total amount spent so far for Phases 1 and 2 is approximately $6.02 million. 

Phase 1 was funded through borrowed money as part of a $10 million bond resolution passed by the board of trustees in 2021. The resolution was approved by a permissive referendum, meaning it did not move to a public vote. Of the $10 million, “$5.2 million was spent on Phase 1,” Gaffga said.   

According to a fall 2024 audit by CPA firm, PKF O’Connor Davies — previously reported by TBR News Media — Phase 1 exceeded its original budget by approximately $800,000. This overage was not discussed during the forum. 

“The overage on Phase 1 was paid for in past years with taxpayer funds out of the general fund balance,” Gaffga wrote in an email.. 

Gaffga estimated the combined costs to individual taxpayers for Phases 1 and 2 at approximately $77 per year over a 15-year period. However, he noted this estimate may need to be revised once actual costs for the wall construction and other related projects are known. 

”We don’t know what the costs are going be until we actually go out to bid on the construction of the project, and we’re not there yet,” Gaffga said. 

Additional expenses — including a drainage project, repairs to the bluff face and ongoing maintenance costs to the bluff — were not addressed at the forum.

Community questions focus on costs, property use

Most audience questions centered on the project’s cost to taxpayers, technical aspects of the stabilization effort and how the property is used by residents. The golf membership currently includes  “3 percent of village residents,” according to Moran.   

Moran responded to a question about holding a public referendum on whether to proceed with construction of the upper wall or rebuild the facility inland. 

“During that permissive referendum vote back in 2021, no petition was received [from the public within 30 days] as required for a public vote. Bond counsel to the village advised that there’s only one way to call for another vote— the trustees would have to rescind that initial bond resolution. This would mean the loss of FEMA money.” 

Village resident Myrna Gordon said in a statement to TBR News Media:

“Residents who own the facility should be the ones that determine through a referendum how best to resolve its use, function and future — of both the building and bluff that is so greatly compromised.” 

The meeting closed with comments from members of the board of trustees:

“Phase 2 is a way to ensure that we protect the bluff so that we buy time. To decide how to deal with the building.  Maybe we retrieve the building; maybe it gets moved — who knows?” trustee Xena Ugrinsky said. 

“ If you have strong feelings about this issue, I highly encourage you to email the board,” trustee Kyle Hill said. 

The Citizens Commission on Erosion can be reached at: [email protected].

by -
0 699
Port Jefferson Village Hall. Photo by Heidi Sutton 2023

By Lynn Hallarman

The March 26 meeting of the Incorporated Village of Port Jefferson Board of Trustees was marked by public comments on communication policies, a resident complaint and an emerging capital improvement plan for parking. 

Resident calls for dialogue 

Longtime resident Myrna Gordon called for “improved transparency and communication” from the board of trustees. She expressed concern that the trustees were no longer responding to basic questions during public comment, describing it as a frustrating shift in practice. 

“We used to have a conversation,” Gordon said. “Now we’re told — make an appointment.” 

Mayor Lauren Sheprow responded: 

“Let’s keep that conversation going. Come and visit me any day.” 

Village resident Matthew Franco speaks during public comment. Photo by Lynn Hallarman

Gordon countered: “I’m talking about here at the podium, which is important.” 

Village attorney David Moran clarified that the change in policy was intended to “protect trustees from being put on the spot or answering inaccurately in public without adequate preparation.”

“We have been very polite. We have been very orderly. We ask questions because we want answers now — not silence,” Gordon said. 

Village resident and declared 2025 trustee candidate Matthew Franco alleged that during a meeting held earlier in March in Sheprow’s office, the mayor made “disparaging and false remarks about him [Franco] and his son,” in connection with an unspecified incident involving golf course fees incurred by his son. 

Moran urged Franco to submit a written complaint, noting a more specific and detailed account would allow the board to assess the allegation.

Parking fees 

The meeting shifted to a proposal from the Village Parking Committee, which recommended a three-year freeze on parking fees to provide more consistent rates for visitors. 

“You can’t keep charging our customers more and more money every year and keep raising the rates. I mean, you’re killing businesses down here. You can’t just keep taking and taking and taking,” parking committee chair James Luciano said. 

Trustee Kyle Hill proposed an amendment to omit the rate freeze. 

“Parking revenue is tremendously important for the village’s budget, while we all want stability, we need to leave room to adjust based on performance given the experimental changes to the rates,” Hill said. 

In the final vote, the board retained the committee’s recommendation for a rate freeze. The suggestion will now be considered as part of a parking capital plan being developed by the village treasurer Stephen Gaffga.

Beginning on April 16, a $1.00/ hour parking fee will be enforced from Monday to Thursday and a $3.00/ hour fee from Friday to Sunday. There will be no minimum parking time. 

Two percent tax cap 

Later in the meeting, the board approved a procedural tax cap override. This measure gives the village the option to exceed the 2% New York State tax cap if necessary. 

Gaffga emphasized that adopting the override serves as a financial “insurance policy” in case of unforeseen costs before the next budget cycle starts at the beginning of May 2025. 

Prom dress donation

Anthony Flammia, assistant code enforcement supervisor, announced a community-wide prom dress donation drive organized under the banner of Codes Care. Gently used dresses and accessories will be collected through April 25 at the Port Jefferson Village Center. Free try-on events are scheduled for April 26 and 27. 

Visit the village website for dates of upcoming meetings: www.portjeff.com.

by -
0 1271
We have a special episode of our podcast series: The Pressroom Afterhour,  
 
TBR Reporter Lynn Hallarman brings us to the front lines of the fight to protect the 9/11 health program against recent attempts to slash the program’s funding.

Note to listeners, this episode contains graphic depictions of events on September 11th, 2001, and one offensive word.

by -
0 3243
PJ Country Club prior to collapse of gazebo and edge of tennis courts, undated photograph. Courtesy of PJ Village website

Phase 1 of the East Beach Bluff Stabilization was the first part of a $10 million initiative aimed at arresting bluff erosion and preventing the Village of Port Jefferson-owned country club from sliding down the slope. 

This first phase of the project was completed in June 2023. By any official accounts of the time, Phase 1 was a success. But within months of completion a series of storms in late 2023 and early 2024 damaged the site, undoing costly work, setting back progress and hampering the goals of the project. 

According to the May 2024 Bluff Monitoring Report covering the period from September 2023 to February 2024, conducted by GEI Consultants of Huntington Station (the engineering firm that designed Phase 1), the village had not implemented recommended repairs, increasing the risk of more complicated and expensive upkeep and repair in the future. 

The report stated that “no maintenance or repairs to date were undertaken by the village following the storms,” further suggesting that the village implements “necessary repair to the project as soon as possible.” 

The report’s findings have raised questions among residents and officials about the long-term viability of the stabilization efforts and financial resources needed for continued upkeep and repairs. 

TBR News Media reviewed GEI’s 2024 Bluff Monitoring Report — required under the Department of Environmental Conservation permit for Phase 1 — and spoke to experts, village officials and residents, exploring the report’s recommendations and the obstacles confronting the village in completing its requirements. 

Costs of phases 1 and 2

At the completion of Phase 1, a 358-foot wall of steel and cement was constructed at the base of a steep bluff, about 100-feet-tall, situated on East Beach, facing north toward the Long Island Sound. 

As part of the project, the severely eroded bluff face — scoured and denuded by years of storms — underwent restoration. Native vegetation was planted and secured with eight rows of timber terraces, and coir logs (interwoven coconut fibers) at the lower section and, toward the crest, with burlap netting. 

The total cost of the Phase 1 project according to village treasurer, Stephen Gaffga, is “$6,024,443 million, of which $677,791 is related to design/engineering/permitting/ surveying, and $5,346,652 was spent on construction.”

At the crest of the bluff, approximately 30 feet beyond the precipice, sits the country club. Phase 2 involves the installation of a 545-foot long, 47-foot-deep steel barrier driven into the bluff’s crest, just a few feet seaward of the country club. The barrier is designed to stabilize the area landward of the bluff and prevent erosion, further reducing the risk of the building collapsing. 

The cost of Phase 2 will be partially funded by federal taxpayer dollars as a $3.75 million FEMA grant, the final approval recently completed this past week, allowing for the village to receive bids for the work in the coming months for the construction of the upper wall. Local taxpayer dollars will fund the remaining Phase 2 expenses. 

According to Gaffga, the Phase 2 “complete expenses are yet to be determined,” he explained in an email. The total cost will be better understood once the village receives bids for constructing the upper wall

The stabilization project, since its inception in 2017 has been presented by village officials as an urgent necessity. With this imperative in mind, the trustees approved a $10 million bond resolution, without a community referendum, in 2021 to fund the project’s two phases.

In a January 2023 statement by former Mayor Garant, after permitting and plans had been finalized, she warned, “If immediate measures to combat and stop the erosion are not implemented, the building foundation will get exposed, will lose structural support, and slowly but surely will fail — causing significant structural damage first, followed by complete collapse of the [country club] building.”

2024 GEI report findings

Heavy rainstorms swept across Long Island in the early fall of 2023, beginning with Hurricane Lee on Sept. 12 followed by another severe storm on Sept. 23.

According to the GEI report, these storms caused “post-storm stress” to the new vegetation leading to plant die off, shifting sands and forming a small ravine — also referred to as a gully — past the western edge of the wall at the base of the bluff. 

To prevent further damage, GEI recommended that the village “replant beachgrass in stressed areas of the bluff face and protect the western edge of the wall by adding a filter fabric and stone.” 

Photograph of East Beach Bluff Phase 1 taken as part of the GEI post-storm inspection after Hurricane Lee on Sept. 12, 2023. Courtesy of PJ Village website

However, two additional major storms in December 2023 and February 2024 brought strong winds and heavy rainfall expanding the damage started in September. A GEI post-storm inspection in the days following the storms found that a large ravine had formed on the eastern edge of the bluff face, further damaging the vegetation, matting and terracing within the ravine.

Photograph taken as part of the GEI inspection report Feb. 22, 2024 showing extensive damage to the bluff in the vicinity of stressed growth identified in September 2023. Courtesy of PJ Village website

In total, the May 2024 report outlined detailed recommendations involving improved drainage, repairs to terracing, laying down of erosion control fabric and replacement of beachgrass. The report’s recommendations concluded with concerns about utilizing honeycomb grids by Coastal Technologies Corp. under consideration by village officials, namely: “GEI has expressed concern that such an installation may not be effective at East Beach due to the types of soils present and the steepness of the East Beach Bluff.”

Despite these concerns, the Board of Trustees at the Oct. 23 public meeting approved a resolution to use American Rescue Plan Act funds at the total cost of $33,920 to pilot test Coastal Technologies stabilizing devices, pending a revised permit from the DEC. 

In response to GEI concerns, George Thatos, Coastal Technologies co-founder and head of design, said, “Our Cliff Stabilizer system stabilizes near-vertical slopes with vegetation, unlike terracing which requires major regrading and cliff-top land loss.” He added, “Our solution naturally reforests bluffs.”

According to DEC representative, Jeff Wernick, if a permit holder “cannot follow a report recommendations due to environmental conditions, DEC works with them to modify the permit to correct the issues. If the recommendations are not followed due to negligence, it could result in a violation of the permit and enforcement action.” 

Port Jeff Citizens Commission on Erosion

This reporter attended a recent meeting of the Port Jefferson Citizens Commission on Erosion. Their mission, in summary, is to act as a volunteer resident advisory group to the village on matters of erosion confronting the village. So far, much of the group’s focus, chaired by village resident David Knauf, has been on the East Beach Bluff Stabilization project.

On Jan. 20, the committee submitted detailed written questions to Mayor Lauren Sheprow expressing concerns about the overall status of the stabilization project. It questioned plans to proceed with Phase 2 before implementing drainage recommendations and before updating the land survey of the upper bluff that is about three years old. The commission urged these steps be completed before soliciting bids for the construction of Phase 2. 

 ”There was damage that occurred since the Phase 1 was completed that hasn’t been addressed, meaning that it keeps getting more pronounced. There were ongoing reports that were done during the past year,” Knauf said at the Jan. 23 commission meeting. 

He added that repairs “should have been done up to now so that whatever was occurring [with Phase 1] didn’t get worse.” 

The commission, to date, has not received a comprehensive update on maintenance done on the bluff/wall as recommended in the May 2024 report, according to Knauf. 

According to village trustee Robert Juliano, any maintenance and repair done during the time frame of the 2024 report “was minor, such as grooming the beach by village employees.” 

Other concerns brought up at the meeting included a request to review a retreat plan allegedly completed under former Mayor Garant and actively participating in vetting of contract bids. 

Sheprow, present at the meeting, told TBR News Media her responses to the written questions from the commission, reviewed at the Jan. 23 meeting, would be posted on the village website. 

“The village will look to enlist the Citizens Commission on Erosion to help facilitate an open forum where GEI will present the Phase 2 project design and a path forward for Phase 1 remediation and restoration,” the mayor said in an email to TBR News Media. 

The 2023 Annual Post-Construction Bluff Monitoring Report dated May 2024 and related items can be viewed at the Port Jefferson Village website at: www.portjeff.com/ 206/East-Beach-Bluff.  

For earlier reporting by TBR News Media, visit tbrnewsmedia.com and key in “East Beach Bluff Stabilization project.” 

by -
0 851
Gov. Hochul visits Stony Brook following Aug. 18 storm. File photo

By Lynn Hallarman

The Federal Emergency Management Agency denied requests from Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) on Nov. 14 to provide funding assistance for Suffolk County homeowners impacted by the severe flooding this past August. 

Hochul requested disaster assistance from FEMA’s Public and Individual Assistance programs for Suffolk County in September in the wake of a relentless six-hour downpour in the early hours of Aug. 19. 

Floodwaters from almost 11 inches of rain destroyed roads and damaged numerous residences and businesses across the North Shore of Suffolk County. Multiple swift water rescues occurred in the Town of Brookhaven, and flooding caused a breach of the Mill Pond Dam in Stony Brook Village causing six families to be displaced. 

“Over 2,000 residents and business owners experienced flood damage in some capacity, and Stony Brook University had to relocate and/or shelter hundreds of students,” according to the statement released by the governor’s office shortly after the storm. 

President Joe Biden (D), in October, approved a major disaster declaration for New York State for recovery efforts. The federal funding supports emergency work and repair by local governments and eligible private nonprofit organizations. 

However, this aid funding does not include flood damage repair for individual households. 

The November FEMA declaration denied Hochul’s request for aid to homeowners. 

“It was determined that the damage was not of severity and magnitude to warrant a Federal Declaration for Individual Assistance,” said a statement from FEMA.

Rep. Nick LaLota (R-NY1) sent a letter to the governor on Nov. 20 urging her to appeal the decision to deny Individual Assistance to Suffolk County residents.

“Suffolk County families devastated by the August 18 flooding, cannot be left to shoulder the burden alone,” he said in the letter. 

“While the federal denial [for individual homeowners] was disappointing, we plan to appeal and will continue fighting to ensure storm-impacted residents have access to recovery resources,” said Gordon Tepper, Long Island press secretary for Hochul, in an email statement to TBR.

A local flood ordeal

Kellie Coppi, an East Setauket homeowner, describes a harrowing ordeal when her basement was rapidly flooded with six feet of stormwater the night of the storm. As she tried to soak up the water

Floodwater line in Coppi’s Basement after the night of the Aug. 8 storm. Photo courtesy Kellie Coppi

with towels, a sudden surge trapped her, her father and her dog in the basement. If not for her husband breaking down the basement door, they might have drowned.

Coppi’s father, who lives with her and her family, is recovering from recent cancer chemotherapy. In the flood, he lost his life-long belongings stored in the basement. 

“Everything in the entire finished basement had to go, and everything from my deceased mother, who passed away right before the flood,” she said. 

Coppi thought she would receive funding aid after FEMA officials made a visit to her house, but she has yet to hear back from them. 

“I thought that was a really good sign, because it was a whole team with jackets and everything, wow!” she said. She added, “They took pictures and checked the property. It seemed totally legit and that something was going to happen,” she said to TBR News Media. 

As a backup, Coppi applied for a $ 50,000 grant to the New York State Homes and Community Renewal Agency’s Resilient  & Ready Home Repair Program available to affected homeowners. 

“But that’s been even more challenging than FEMA,” she said. “They asked for every document under the sun.” 

Coppi made it to the second round but still has not heard any news from HCR. She does not know anyone in her community who received this funding, only those who were denied.

The application deadline was Nov. 8.

 According to Shachar Roloson, assistant director of communication for HCR, “a large number of applicants are still gathering documents or working with contractors to get repair estimates” in an email to TBR. 

“Over 600 applications were received on Long Island. Of those, 80 applications have been fully or conditionally approved to date,” said Roloson. 

TBR spoke with Brookhaven Town District 1 Councilmember Jonathan Kornreich (D-Stony Brook) about his efforts to advocate for local homeowners affected by flooding damage.

After speaking with residents, Kornreich estimates that at least 30 households in the Stony Brook area alone have tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage to their homes. 

“There are people in our community who are suffering, and that is what I am focused on,” he said. 

Hochul has 30 days to appeal FEMA’s decision.

by -
0 907
Port Jefferson Village Hall. File photo

By Lynn Hallarman

Village of Port Jefferson officials addressed resident concerns over a new policy suspending village employees from carrying firearms in a statement posted on the village website on Nov. 9. 

Officials also emailed this statement to residents on the village’s contact list. 

The statement, issued by Mayor Lauren Sheprow and the board of trustees, follows an incident Sept. 27 when a firearm was found in a public restroom in the village hall. The firearm belonged to a Code Enforcement employee under their privately obtained concealed carry license. 

In response to this incident, during an emergency meeting called Oct. 25, the board of trustees approved a measure 5-0 suspending firearms carry for all village employees, including Code Enforcement staff with personal concealed carry permits. 

Several Code Enforcement officers resigned recently, presumably related to the firearms ban. The message clarified that the village does not issue firearms to employees, noting that Code Enforcement staff are not considered police. 

“Code Enforcement personnel do not constitute or comprise a police force, nor do they possess police power or authorization to enforce the penal code,” according to the statement.

Village officials aimed to reassure residents that the suspension would not compromise public safety. The statement continues that, “the Suffolk County Police Department has agreed to increase patrols and tours in Port Jefferson to ensure residents feel safe and secure in light of any misrepresentation of intentions otherwise.” 

TBR News Media was unable to confirm with the Suffolk County Police Department this increase in police coverage.  

Code Enforcement

Code enforcement vehicles parked in Port Jefferson Village. Photo by Lynn Hallarman

Code officers’ scope is limited to actions related to the village code. Their duties include issuing tickets for parking violations, managing traffic during events, investigating code-related complaints and alerting Suffolk County police to possible crimes, according to Sheprow. 

Code officers cannot detain or arrest citizens. They cannot issue summonses for moving violations such as speeding and are not authorized to respond to police alerts transmitted over police radios.

However, the 2023 Manual of Code Enforcement Bureau Rules and Procedures for the Village of Port Jefferson outlines a pathway for obtaining authorization to carry a concealed firearm. 

“No employee shall be given such approval [to carry a firearm] unless documentation is provided indicating completion of a proper firearms training course accompanied by a valid NYS Pistol License,” according to the manual. The manual also requires a “village-approved annual firearms training and qualification course.”

According to Sheprow, inconsistencies between language in the procedures manual and the village code remain unresolved and tied to the union contract governing the hiring of code officers. 

Code officer resignations

TBR News Media spoke with Andrew Owen, who recently resigned as chief code enforcement officer in protest of the firearms ban.

According to Owen, before the resignations, the code enforcement team included 38 officers, 20 of whom had concealed carry licenses; all who carry firearms are retired or current police.  The village clerk could not confirm these numbers as accurate to TBR’s New Media by press time.

Owen, a retired New York City police officer, was hired by Code Enforcement about two years ago with 20 years of police experience and 14 years as a sergeant.

“I told the mayor at the meeting that I cannot, in good faith, enforce policies that I don’t agree with,” he said.

Five days after his resignation, Owen was placed on paid administrative leave until his final day of duty on Nov. 18. According to Owen, the mayor gave no reason for the administrative leave.

Owen believes carrying is essential as a safety measure for code officers who work in the community daily. He considers concealed carry a necessary aspect of employing retired or active police officers who bring valuable experience interacting with the public to the job. 

“Everybody that carried [a firearm] had their qualifications. We went to the range once a year. We had the classroom once a year. It wasn’t that we were arbitrarily carrying firearms. We’re all licensed,” he said. 

He believes Code Enforcement officers support the police department by acting as crime deterrents by patrolling village streets and adding to residents’ sense of safety. 

“We would communicate with the 6th Precinct about what to look out for because there are gang elements in this area. Whether people believe it or not, that’s one thing we are on top of,” he said.

Perception vs. reality

According to former village mayor Mike Lee, the Village of Port Jefferson gave up its right to have its own police force when it was incorporated in 1977. The village receives its police protection from the Suffolk County Police Department, District 6. Two cruisers are assigned to patrol the village daily. 

Decisions about the scope of duties for code enforcement occur at the hyperlocal level in Suffolk County. Some municipalities have recently moved to ban firearms, as Patchogue did, according to Sheprow.  Other Suffolk County municipalities outside of the Town of Brookhaven have their own police force. 

The Nov. 9 statement explains the recent firearm carry suspension was prompted primarily by liability concerns. The statement also clarifies misperceptions of the role of Code Enforcement officers, aiming to reinforce their duties as civil servants working to uphold village code.

Public reactions

This reporter spoke to several residents about the recent suspension. Concerns ranged from feeling “less safe” because of the suspension to several villagers expressing surprise that Code Enforcement officers carried concealed weapons and were in favor of the suspension.

Other residents felt the village benefitted overall from having retired police patrolling the streets, regardless of their limited scope of duties as code enforcement. 

“I am 100% OK with having trained former police carry in our village,” said Fred Hoffman, a long-time village resident. 

by -
0 1072
Earl L. Vandermulen High School. File photo

By Lynn Hallarman

The Port Jefferson Board of Education announced approval of a total payout of $16.5 million to resolve lawsuits brought by seven people alleging sexual abuse that occurred years ago. The announcement was made in a statement posted on the district’s website late Friday night, Nov. 1. 

In the statement, the board describes the settlement as the “best outcome for the district taxpayers” by avoiding a prolonged court trial that could result in “significantly greater overall costs.” Payment amounts to individual litigants remain confidential. 

The settlement represents one of numerous lawsuits brought against Long Island schools under the 2019 New York State Child Victims Act, which allows survivors of sexual abuse a longer time frame to file a claim for monetary damages.

Before passing this legislation, survivors had a maximum of five years after turning 18 to file a civil lawsuit. The CVA extended this period to age 55 and included a temporary lookback window for survivors for whom the deadline to file had expired. The lookback window was closed in August of 2021. 

According to its statement, the school board will pay for the settlement using a combination of debt financing and existing reserve funds, underpinning the need to “mitigate the overall financial impact on the community. “ 

The board noted, “Unfortunately, we have not been able to secure any insurance coverage to date for these claims.” 

Superintendent Jessica Schmettan has not provided further comment on request by TBR News Media beyond the announcement issued by the school board. 

A public hearing is scheduled for Nov. 12 at 7:30 p.m. at Earl L. Vandermeulen High School, where district officials will review the implications of the settlement on local taxpayers, according to spokesperson Ron Edelson.

by -
0 772
County legislator and geologist, Steve Englebright, explains bluff erosion at Port Jeff civic meeting. Photo by Lynn Hallarman

By Lynn Hallarman

Whenever Steve Englebright, 5th District county legislator (D-Setauket) and geologist, is asked about the East Beach bluff stabilization project, chances are he will start by explaining the big picture of bluff erosion on the North Shore of Long Island. 

“We [Port Jefferson] are at the doorstep of the greatest amount of erosion of the entirety of the North Shore,” he said to a rapt audience of about 40 people at the Port Jefferson Civic Association meeting Oct. 14.

Englebright spent 40 minutes in an educational deep dive about the shoreline’s composition and history, focusing on how erosion along the 50 miles of the North Shore impacts the village-owned sliver of bluff at the East Beach.

The meeting represents another moment in the ongoing debate among residents and village officials about the project strategies and costs. Mayor Lauren Sheprow, trustee Xena Ugrinsky and several members of the Port Jefferson Citizens Commission on Erosion were present. 

Using a whiteboard and marker, Englebright diagrammed how thousands of years of erosion have shaped and reshaped the shoreline. The audience gasped as he recounted the 1904 Broken Ground Slide, in which almost a mile of land just east of Northport let loose and fell into the Long Island Sound in one day. 

“The reason I want you to get the big picture is that this is a very unstable shoreline. The basic premise of stabilizing it for a given property [the country club] is mission impossible. Because any given little property is part of a larger dynamic,” he said. 

Englebright explained that erosion of the North Shore is accelerating because of our overheating oceans, producing more powerful and frequent tropical storms, further destabilizing the area. “[Bluffs] are not cemented together, so it doesn’t take much to disturb them — like a hurricane. They come apart easily,” he said.

“The county club was unwisely [decades ago] placed too close to the bluff edge,” he said. In the long term, more than just tennis courts will be in harm’s way.” 

“What does this all mean?” 

“We have to ask some serious questions when we get involved in spending millions of dollars,” he said. 

Weighing the pros and cons

Englebright shifted the conversation from a big picture discussion about coastal erosion to a conversation about the project’s immediate and long-term goals.

“I think we’ve already spent something like $5 million in a community of 8,500 people. Do the math: It’s already a significant investment, much of which has already been at least partially compromised in just a couple of seasons,” he said.

He added: “It’s really a cost-benefit analysis that has to be made.” 

Cost update 

Village treasurer, Stephen Gaffga, told TBR News Media in a follow-up phone interview that the costs for Phase 1 of the East Beach Bluff Stabilization project — which included the construction of a large rigid wall already installed at the base and bluff face plantings — have reached $5.3 million. 

Additional costs of $640,000 related to engineering designs and administration bring the total cost to $6 million for Phase 1.

According to the treasurer, the village is currently negotiating with the company that installed the Phase 1 bluff face plantings to determine coverage of the costs for the work destroyed during last winter’s storms. 

Phase 2, the upper wall project — which includes installing a rigid wall with a steel plate at the crest of the bluff — will be partially funded by federal taxpayer dollars as a $3.75 million FEMA grant. Village officials announced final federal approval for this grant money last month. Local taxpayer dollars will fund the remaining Phase 2 expenses. 

According to the treasurer, village officials will better understand the total costs of Phase 2 once the village bids for the work of constructing the upper wall. 

Village trustees approved a $10 million bond resolution in 2021 to fund the project (phases 1 and 2) overall. To date, $5.2 million of the $10 million approved has been borrowed. 

Additional potential costs to date include a possible drainage project at the bluff’s crest, and additional expenses related to repairing recent storm damage to the bluff face. 

Sheprow told TBR that the village is exploring possible additional grant funding to supplement identified additional costs. 

Relocating Port Jeff Country Club

“The bad news is that there’s no single solution,” Englebright said. “The good news is that you [the village] own 178 acres due to the wise investment by the mayor’s father, former mayor Harold Sheprow, made in [1978].” 

“That gives you the ability to relocate the building,” he added, referring to Port Jefferson Country Club.

Englebright suggested that project options be costed out over time and compared before more is done. He would like to see more than engineering expertise weigh into decisions about the project. “Engineers will always tell you they can build anything,” he said. 

He envisions a retreat scenario as done in phases or possibly all at once. “But those decisions have to be costed out,” he said. 

Englebright ended his lecture by commending the current mayor. “I can tell you this, I have met with the mayor and she is doing her homework,” he said.

The next civic association meeting will be held Nov. 11 at 6.30 p.m. at the Port Jefferson Free Library.

by -
0 1390
Capital projects fund review of East Beach bluff stabilization shows an estimated $800,000 budget overspend. Photo by Lynn Hallarman

By Lynn Hallarman

The final report reviewing the capital projects fund was presented to the public by CPA firm, PKF O’Connor Davies of Hauppauge, at the Village of Port Jefferson Board of Trustees Sept. 25 meeting, ending a year of uncertainty over the financial condition of the fund.

The most significant conclusion was an estimated $1.27 million in overspending on capital projects done without an identified funding source. The largest overage was the East Beach bluff stabilization project of about $800,000.

Why the review was done

One year ago, concerns were raised by then newly-appointed village treasurer, Stephen Gaffga, about the bookkeeping practices that track the village’s capital projects fund. This prompted village officials to hire PKF O’Connor Davies to give a full historical accounting of the fund’s financial recordkeeping. The review spanned from May 2016 to May 2023.

“I noticed shortly after starting my position as treasurer in September of 2023 that our capital projects fund looked like every expense account had a negative balance, which immediately raised red flags for me,” Gaffga said in an interview with TBR News Media.

Gaffga noted that best practices recommended by the Office of the New York State Comptroller were not being followed, making it difficult to track how money was being spent on individual projects.

Ideally a capital project fund ledger should give a granular view of how money flows though different projects and meticulously accounts for funding and payments related to each project, according to the OSC.

The village additionally enlisted Charlene Kagel, CPA — former commissioner of finance for the Town of Brookhaven and ex-Southampton village administrator — as an expert municipal finance consultant to assist the village as it corrects bookkeeping practices to comply with state guidelines.

Reports findings

According to PKF O’Connor Davies, the purpose of the capital projects fund review was to identify which projects have been funded, which have been overspent and what grant funds for specific projects have not yet been reimbursed to the village.

The report provided a clearer picture of the capital fund financial state, especially addressing the overall negative balance observed a year ago. PKF detailed 26 projects as having a deficit fund balance.

Reviewers also noted that “recordkeeping varied by project” — or in other words, the bookkeeping lacked a consistent approach across the ledgers.

Overall, the review revealed an $8.1 million total deficit as of May 31, 2023. “Most of this deficit, an estimated $5 million, is due to grants expected but not yet received by the village,” Gaffga said.

The estimated $1.27 million shortfall comes from spending on a few large projects, most of which, $800,000, is attributed to the bluff stabilization project.

Gaffga explained that the additional spending on the bluff project occurred incrementally over several years starting in 2017, with board members approving these expenses without first identifying a funding source.

Recommendations

Recommendations to the village boil down to one improvement: Follow bookkeeping guidance outlined by the OSC.

The report also identifies the absence of a long-term capital projects fund plan for the village.

Kagel told TBR that an excellent capital plan should include a list of proposed projects by department heads and for municipalities to assign each project a “priority ranking” year by year.

“The board ranks what projects are most important and then figures out how they are going to pay for it,” she said.

Gaffga added, “There will need to be an identified funding source to correct that $1.27 million deficit in the capital fund.”

Gaffga pointed out, however, that this amount is an unaudited estimation. The village has hired a new accounting firm, R.S. Abrams & Co. of Islandia, to finalize the numbers cited in the report before village officials will move forward with a financial plan to reimburse the capital projects fund, as required by municipal law.

“Bottom line, it’s just bad bookkeeping. The village didn’t follow the recommended practice and accounting procedures that are set forth by the state and this is what happens when you don’t,” Kagel said.

Moving forward

The treasurer for a municipality is the custodian of all capital funds, responsible for tracking the finances of each project and developing financial reports for the board and the public.

“At the same time, the board is ultimately responsible for the oversight of the village financials,” Kagel said. “It’s pretty clear that municipalities aren’t supposed to overspend their budget, according to general municipal law in New York State.”

“Stephen [Gaffga] has implemented an OSC best practice, tracking each project financial detail to be sent to the board monthly, so the board can say, ‘Hey, how come we’re in the red on this project?’” she said.

“I’m glad we are now through the most difficult part of the capital projects fund review process and we now know exactly where the village stands,” Mayor Lauren Sheprow said in an email statement to TBR News Media.

“Now the village can proceed to develop a truly transparent capital project plan with guidance from our new Budget and Finance Committee and our incredible treasurer, Stephen Gaffga,” she added.

The full report can be viewed on the Village of Port Jefferson website at www.portjeff.com, and the next Board of Trustees meeting will be held on Oct. 9, as a work session.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by -
0 1145
Matt Makarius secures a tag line to Ryan Parmegiani as they prepare to enter the floodwater Aug. 19. Photo courtesy PJFD

By Lynn Hallarman

At 10 p.m. on Sunday, Aug. 18, Christian Neubert, second assistant chief for the Port Jefferson Fire Department, responded to what seemed like a routine call. The skies over Port Jefferson village were clear. But shortly after that, the village was caught unaware by an unrelenting downpour that would last nearly six hours.

“Once the rain started, we had very few moments of it letting up,” Neubert said in a phone interview with TBR News Media. The storm’s intensity caught everyone off guard.

Then, the firehouse started to flood. The station’s dispatchers could see through surveillance cameras that water was collecting in the back parking lot and the storm drains were slowing as water began to flow in reverse. 

Dangerous conditions

Flooding at the Port Jeff fire station in the early morning of Aug. 19. Photo courtesy PJFD

Neubert recalled that at 11:20 p.m., Chief Anthony Barton notified all department members to respond to the firehouse to assist with worsening flood conditions. The fire trucks were moved out of the station, but rapidly rising waters filled with sewage and contaminants prevented members from moving gear and other equipment. 

Soon, the calls for help started to come in. From 11 p.m. until 3 a.m., firefighters responded to 11 urgent water rescues as vehicles became trapped in rising floodwaters. Rescuers worked in pairs tethered by a rope, with one firefighter in the water, the other on solid ground. This strategy ensured that no one was swept away or sucked into an open manhole. 

“The most dangerous aspect of flood rescues is to our team. As the drainage system in the village backs up, the manhole covers will literally blow off. That night, there were open manhole covers throughout the village,” Neubert said. 

No firefighters or rescued members of the public were hurt that night, but people needed to be transported to the Village Grocery’s parking lot, where they could eventually be picked up by someone. The fire station, now flooded with 3 feet of water, could not be used to stage the station’s emergency response or serve as a temporary shelter for flood victims.

Complicating matters, firefighters were dispatched to respond to several fire alarms, which were triggered, it turns out, by floodwaters.

With the fire station out of commission, rescuers were forced to rely on radio communication while sitting in their trucks in torrential rain. The constant pelting on the vehicles made conversations hard to hear over the radio. And it was dark. 

For hours, the fire department battled two emergencies at once: the flooding of their station and responding to calls for help from community members.

Storm surge vs. flash rain 

A flooded vehicle the night of the storm. Photo courtesy PJFD

Neubert recounted the difference in conditions during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 compared to this rain event. He explained that Sandy’s flooding resulted from surging tides in a slow rise. 

“We had time to prepare,” he said. “We took the fire trucks out of the building and staged them throughout various village locations. All the firefighting gear was moved to very high ground, well ahead of time.” 

This time, however, was different — a sudden and unexpected deluge is harder to prepare for. The worst flooding of the fire station in recent years has resulted from heavy rainfall over a short period, as in 2018, 2021 and now 2024. 

This most recent storm was the most damaging. “Our biggest loss was the machine we use to fill our air bottles, with the replacement cost nearing $100,000,” Neubert said. “Our contaminated gear needed professional cleaning.” The entire ground floor of the building required an extensive cleanup, and repairs are still being made to the walls and floors.

The fire department has federal flood insurance to absorb most of the cost of the cleanup. However, what cannot be accounted for are the person-hours devoted to resolving a multitude of logistical complications in the flood’s aftermath. 

“It’s the ripple effect on operations that are most challenging,” Neubert said. While he emphasized that the response to community emergencies is not impacted, they temporarily need to rely on neighboring fire departments to fill their air bottles and host training events. 

“And the community may forget our firefighters, about 100, who are all volunteers, live in the village and work full-time jobs,” he said. 

The fire station sits in a floodplain 

This reporter went on a three-hour tour of the downtown flood basin with former village mayor and longtime firefighter Mike Lee. Many years ago, the salt marsh was slowly filled in to accommodate new construction, disrupting the natural water management between the harbor and the higher ground. Now, much of the runoff flows into an overwhelmed culvert system, worsening flooding and putting additional stress on critical infrastructure such as the firehouse. 

“The town, when first developed, was situated above the salt marsh, not on top of it,” Lee said. “The original Main Street was what is now East Main Street,” he said as we walked downhill toward the Gap parking lot.

The flooding problem is compounded by frequent heavy rainstorms related to climate change. The fire station sits atop a high-water table, once the salt marsh. 

Moving the station? 

“I do know for certainty, there is not another fire department in Suffolk County that floods,” Neubert said. 

But he chuckled when asked about moving the fire station. “We would if it was realistic,” he said. It is not from want of trying, he pointed out. 

“Find me an affordable 2 1/2-acre available piece of flat property within the boundaries of our 3-mile fire district that is not too near residential housing and is close enough so the response time to an emergency is not increased,” he said. 

And this wish doesn’t include the cost of a new building. 

According to Neubert, to preserve an ideal response time, a new firehouse would need to be situated in the fire district’s central geographic location, somewhere in the vicinity of Belle Terre Road and Myrtle Avenue. 

For now, the fire department is doing everything it can to mitigate flood damage. “We are using FEMA money to install flood doors,” he said. “All the radio-server equipment has been moved to the second floor.”

The goal, he reflected, is to make sure the department is not fighting too many battles at once. 

The Port Jefferson Civic Association is actively working to raise community awareness and build local support for the fire department, as the department considers options to address the flooding issue long term. 

“Flooding is our greatest challenge,” Ana Hozyainova, president of the civic, said. “Yet, we’re not making strategic decisions as a community to help safeguard a vital asset — the fire department.” 

“Their job is to protect our property, livelihoods and lives. The danger is that, eventually, their own crisis could grow so large that they won’t be able to respond to ours,” she added. 

123...4Next Page 1 of 4
TBR News Media is your local news and entertainment website.
We provide you with the latest breaking news and information for your community.
Contact us: [email protected]

Most Viewed

©