You May Not Have Noticed - Review of March 27 Community Forum

(A summary article was released today, April 3, Port Times Record )

The forum provided a lot of information about the Phase II Bluff Restoration. However, there were are a few points that were missing or that you might not have picked up on. 

Did The Mayor Examine Any Other Options?

In her almost two years in office, Mayor Sheprow has not demonstrated that she has ever considered any options other than the existing Phase II plans. She knew the people would never get to vote on how they would like their tax dollars spent on the bluff. 

So it’s a done deal. Phase II will proceed to move forward, and we just have to pay our taxes and move on. 

But wait, here is a killer acknowledgment:

Trustee Xena Ugrinsky said. “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?”

So, let's see if I got this right. The taxpayers will foot a 10 million dollar bill (remember, FEMA money is taxpayer money) to “buy time” to figure out what to do with the building. 

I believe that figuring out what to do with the building should have been “figured out” before taking the current path. In addition, keep in mind that Phase II (the wall) is not designed to preserve the bluff. It is designed to protect the clubhouse (the building). The FEMA grant was given to preserve the Club House a Village asset. 

The Mayor has also stated that she is unaware of any plans or information about other options investigated by the former administration. 

This does not make sense since Former Mayor Garant discusses a drainage plan and an architect’s Soft Review (rough cost) of retreating and adding a 6,000 square foot addition to the existing Pro Shop building in a July 18, 2022, video called, “Bluff Restoration Upland Presentation” (you can find this at the 16 minute mark of the video). 

Why wasn’t this plan investigated further and a cost analysis presented to the public. Yes, moving in another direction could jeopardize the FEMA grant, but presenting both plans to the taxpayers along with a cost analysis and letting them decide how they want to invest their money would have been more transparent and inclusive.

Don’t be fooled by the estimated tax increase of $77 per year.

This estimate is based on plans that are years old. Costs have gone up, the scope of work has increased (drainage plans and cost to repair the partial failure of Phase I.), and additional erosion has changed the topography. Where will the money come from if the cost is significantly higher?  Another bond? 

From the past actions of this administration, I don’t believe that if additional money is required and a bond is needed, the taxpayers will get a say via ballot referendum.

What's the story with the new 10-year concession lease at the clubhouse?

It seems odd to me that right before the Village's Community Forum, it is announced that the Board has approved a 10-year lease with a new vendor to run operations at the County Club. Could this have been done so it would be impossible to back out of the lease. This prevents the opportunity of reexamining other options than installing the wall.

Village Board Approves 10 year Concession Lease

If you agree with the path this administration has taken then all is well. If not, you can use your voting power to make changes at the June election.