CLOSE
Tags Posts tagged with "East Beach bluff stabilization project"

East Beach bluff stabilization project

by -
0 969
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 -
0 773
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 1391
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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

©