As a member of the Coalition for a Better Garden City and a seven-year member of the Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's, I am appalled at what passes as a decision making process on the future of St. Paul's. After attending all of the "work sessions," numerous trustee meetings, one CPOA [Central Property Owners Association] meeting and reading every letter/article about St. Paul's in our two local newspapers, it is clear that no single credible group (save the Coalition) has stepped forth to lay out the necessary facts as to alternatives, costs/benefits, timing and an appropriate forum for communicating these facts. Some of these critical issues are as follows:

According to the village consultants, Einhorn, Yaffee & Prescott (EYP), the village can "buy" up to 12 months of time to make a final decision on St. Paul's by spending between $50,000 and $100,000 now for a temporary roof to get us through the coming winter. Without that expenditure, the expected water damage to the interior of the main building would in all likelihood render the building unusable. Fair enough.

However, the centerpiece of the March 2002 Mayor's Committee Report (which I and several others vehemently disagreed with at the time of its formulation) recommended a combination "stabilization/threshold" use in the range of $6 million to $9 million. This included a new permanent roof for $4.5 million and between $1.5-$4.5 million for selective mechanical, electrical and fire protection upgrades. Based on updated consultants' figures this cost estimate would easily exceed $10 million for an upgrade with no specific use in mind.

Now the latest concept being considered in the trustee work sessions is the expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars for working drawings for a permanent roof, which the consultants acknowledge, will cost at least $5 million. Simultaneously, the trustees are seriously entertaining the notion of moving village hall functions to the renovated main building and building a new firehouse along Rockaway Avenue, all for a total cost that now approaches $29 million.

Under this concept, village hall functions would use approximately 45,000 to 50,000 square feet of the main building's 130,000 square feet. This means mothballing the remaining 80,000 to 85,000 square feet for so-called future community uses. According to EYP, the total cost of this program in 2001 dollars (including monies for finishing the mothballed space) was $36 million. Given all the other acknowledged escalations this total can easily exceed $40 million.

Neither EYP nor the Mayor's Committee identified any specific future uses other than in vague generalities and yet our trustees are seriously exploring this program. Why when the alternative of expanding and renovating the existing village hall to meet contemporary standards can be accomplished for $6 to $7 million, according to information from the village administration.

In other words, preserving St. Paul's for municipal use can only be justified if a) one believes that it is appropriate for the village to incur a cost of at least double the amount necessary to fix and expand the existing village hall and b) one buys into the argument that so-called community needs will emerge and the extra $15 to $20 million to accommodate them is justified.

Even the residual value of the village hall property (post demolition costs), either under the current single-family zoning or a more intense multi-family zoning, will not materially offset this ridiculous extra expenditure.

As far as moving the library to St. Paul's, this is a "make work" project that makes no economic sense. And lastly, the notion that the school board might relocate to St. Paul's defies all sound economic rationale unless, of course, the village wants to subsidize this move given the extraordinary per square foot costs needed to create this internal space. Furthermore, the idea of selling and reusing the administration building site and applying the net proceeds fails the "lack of middle school parking" test.

Why haven't we heard more about viable alternatives for preserving St. Paul's? Aside from the assisted living concept and perhaps the market rate, multi-family condominium use, both of which would require a passage of appropriate enabling legislation by the state, there aren't any. A number of experienced resident professionals looked at this issue for more than nine years.

It's now time to get realistic about our choices. One of them that none of the trustees have publicly acknowledged is to demolish the main building for approximately $3 million. This is not a choice that neither I nor any other member of the Mayor's Committee wanted to consider since our charge was to preserve the building, if possible. After more than nine years of fact finding the time has come to seriously consider this alternative.

Barring the realization of previously mentioned enabling legislation, I offer the following in support of the demolition project: Since its acquisition, Garden City residents have not yet enjoyed the use of the 10-acre parcel supporting the three building campus (Main Building, Ellis Hall and the cottages) with the minor exception of the tiny playground.

Based on the current R-20 residential zoning this property has a market value of at least $1 million per acre or a total of $10 million. We can effectively "acquire" these 10 acres for creative public use for a maximum demolition cost of $4.1 million for all three buildings, an amount less than 50 percent of its real value. Keep in mind that under any scenario the cottages and Ellis Hall will be demolished.

Approximately $1.8 million of the initial $8 million acquisition bond financing is still available to mitigate this cost. In effect we would be land banking one of the most high profile community assets for $2.3 million until such time as a rational community supported use emerges.

Now contrast this to the previously advanced concept of "banking" 80,000 to 85,000 square feet of St. Paul's space for undefined community uses at a cost of $15 to $20 million. Let's save the cost difference and spend it on a use that the whole community could use.

As to the recently discussed "lease" of the St. Paul's cottages to the Cathedral Nursery School for the next two to three years, I suggest that the village offer the cottages to the Cathedral for a nominal consideration. Let the school, at its own expense, move the buildings to an appropriate portion of their own campus and let the school make their stated $150,000 in capital improvements to their own property without fear of an early lease termination (due to construction or demolition) prior to the negotiated termination date.

Think about all of the above in the context of escalating county, town, village and school board budgets, not to mention the recently mandated county-wide reassessment and the school board's need to acquire the middle school fields from the Cathedral, its current landlord. And the residents think their taxes are high now.

Robert Davis