Although each member of the Trustees Committee on St. Paul's is "unequivocal" in his desire to find a suitable, cost-effective solution to preserving and restoring the Main Building, trustees John Mauk (chair), Peter Bee and Peter Negri did not recommend one of the three options they took months exploring, citing it would be difficult to do in any event since there is as much diversity of opinion on the committee as there apparently is in the community at large.

Former Mayor Robert Lewis, in late 2002, appointed the committee, and after much research and anticipation, Mauk, Negri and Bee presented on May 30 scenarios in a report the full board of trustees will consider.

Although its initial charge was somewhat vague, the committee researched three specific options, namely (1) public sector development as a library/community center, (2) private sector development and (3) demolition, a final resort. Since each of the three trustees on the committee had, at various times, viewed each of these alternatives as "preferred," or the "best option realistically available to the village," each trustee investigated the single option they deemed most viable.

Negri advocates relocating the library and related community functions to St. Paul's and considers this option the most desirable and advantageous - an approach that would be economically acceptable for most residents and produce a modern library facility for the village. The library's board of trustees has shown interest in Negri's idea.

There are four civic, four cultural, three fraternal, four service and five hobby groups currently in the village. Moreover, there are various business, political, religious, veterans and youth services organizations that meet on a regular basis, along with four property owners associations, with their various sub-committees.

"Although the village continues to meet or exceed the athletic and recreational needs of residents, attention to the cultural and educational needs, particularly those of our seniors, has lagged considerably," Negri admitted.

Since the cost of moving the library was and still is significant, the committee employed the services of Einhorn Yaffee Prescott (EYP) and Beatty Harvey & Associates to assist in refining a cost analysis. Architects, three months ago, issued a budget cost estimate, listing the total project cost at $26.5 million. Another site inspection was performed to review cost estimates. On March 31, the committee reviewed the cost estimate, noting a desire for additional details and clarification. Almost a month later on April 25, architects issued a second report, citing the total project cost at $26.6 million.

A conventional 15-year bond, at 4 percent, would cost the average homeowner $257 a year, on average, over the life of the bond. Demolishing Ellis Hall and the cottages at $1.15 million would be met by the St. Paul's existing fund ($1.8 million). Increased operating costs are also an issue.

With 50 percent of increased floor area and a true "community center" space for various civic and recreational clubs for all ages, Negri said the "synergies" of a common gathering and meeting area for residents of diverse ages and interests would "add to the quality of life in the village."

As a next step, Negri suggests the board tour a nearby library, particularly the Port Washington Library since it recently underwent renovations, to see how an enhanced facility compares to Garden City's. The board is slated to tour the facility on Saturday, June 28. The library's director, a Garden City resident, could be of assistance during the tour, which could also include input from the Garden City Library board and its director, the community and any outside expertise.

If the village re-zoned a portion of the 48.6 acre St. Paul's property to erect residential condominiums, a developer would have to restore and maintain a major portion of the Main Building shell, Mauk explained, including the historic front façade.

The developer would also pay a purchase price to the village to acquire a portion of the property needed to undertake the development or make regular lease payments to the village if residential development could be undertaken on leased property. The developer would bear the full cost of demolition, restoration, development and future maintenance. No public sector monies and related taxpayer expense are anticipated.

Although revenues are subject to negotiation with a prospective developer, Garden City could see an estimated $5 to $10 million financial return for the property sale. The village could also expect to realize additional revenue through taxes or payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTS). Taxes, if collected, are expected to be in excess of $1 million annually, with such revenues distributed between the village at approximately $300,000 and the school district at approximately $750,000.

Geared toward a high-end market comparable to the Wyndham, development would likely require selling eight to 10 acres of the property, including the Main Building and adjacent area on the eastern side. The developer would be responsible for demolishing Ellis Hall and the cottages, along with the likely demolition of the center wing containing the chapel, because it does not lend itself to condominium development. The village would retain the Cluett Hall gym and field house and the approximate 38.6 to 40.6 acres of remaining property for community use.

Approximately 222,000 square feet of space would be developed, consisting of approximately 120 condo units. Approximately 25 on-site parking spaces and 180 below-grade spaces would also be developed. Condos, however, could result in increased village traffic and remove the buildings and whatever other properties from the village's control forever.

"Residential condominium development on the property would enable a major portion of the Main Building to be preserved, restored and maintained for the future at no expense to village taxpayers," Mauk said.

"Private sector development, in general, may be the only alternative for preserving the Main Building and avoiding complete demolition."

Favored by the majority of experts on the Mayor's Committee, which concluded that private sector development, in general, is the only viable option for the long-term preservation and restoration of the Main Building, committee members said this use would provide a greater return to the village than other forms of private sector use.

If the village permitted the development of an assisted living facility on aportion of the 48.6-acre site, a developer would have to restore and maintain a major portion of the Main Building shell, including the historic front façade. Further, the developer would have to make payment to the village for a long-term lease of the land needed to undertake the project.

As with the development of condos, the developer would bear the full cost of demolition, restoration, development and future maintenance. No public sector monies and related taxpayer expense are anticipated. This option could provide lease payments or a one-time, up-front payment to the village. Mauk notes that at the conclusion of negotiations with Care Matrix, their proposal called for a prepaid base rent to the village of approximately $2.3 million plus an additional $1.5 million in rent paid over 40 years.

The village could also expect to realize additional revenue through taxes or payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTS). The Care Matrix proposal estimated an annual payment beginning at approximately $600,000 at full development. The village and school district would share taxes at an approximate 3:7 ratio. Any PILOTS would be paid directly to the village.

Also geared toward a high-end market, development is likely to require leasing eight to 10 acres of the property, including the Main Building and adjacent area on the eastern side. The developer again would be responsible for demolishing Ellis Hall and the cottages, along with the likely demolition of the center wing, because it does not lend itself to assisted living development. The developer would also be responsible for investing the funds needed to restore and expand the facility (estimated in 1997 at between $30 and $40 million). The village would retain the Cluett Hall gym and field house and the approximate 38.6 to 40.6 acres of remaining property for community use.

When Care Matrix concluded its negotiations, the proposal envisioned 197 units on the property in approximately 200,000 square feet of space. Mauk notes that these numbers are based on the revised proposal from Care Matrix, dated Oct. 5, 1998. Further research is required to verify the extent and full impact of the proposed development at the conclusion of negotiations, he said.

"The assisted living facility initially proposed by Care Matrix would have been smaller [by 50,000 square feet] than the development required for residential condos," Mauk said. "An assisted living facility may also be expected to have a lesser impact on the school district, on village traffic and on other village services." This option would provide a significant ongoing return to the village.

The Mayor's Committee concluded that erecting an assisted living facility on the property would have a minimal negative affect on the village while providing a number of benefits with no cost to village taxpayers. Further, the village would continue to own the property.

Mauk notes that there are disadvantages connected with converting St. Paul's into any kind of private sector use, in addition to an "enormous legal hurdle that now has to be overcome just to entertain the option in any form." However, he thinks that private sector investment might be the only acceptable way of financing the costly preservation and restoration of the Main Building. Developing an assisted living facility on the site could still be the best alternative with the least detrimental effect, he said.

Quite important to note, however, is that home rule legislation is required in order for any private sector development to occur. The NY State Senate and Assembly must approve the legislation, which Mauk notes, could prove difficult and is unlikely to be initiated by elected officials unless village residents provide an overwhelming show of support.

Bee, although not all that committed to demolition and would rather find an acceptable way of preserving and restoring St. Paul's, realizes that the village may have no alternative except to demolish the buildings because of costs and other factors.

"The preparation of this summary should not be mistaken for a recommendation; it is simply that prudence dictates the village prepare for the possibility that the 'last resort' may materialize if other options are deemed unacceptable," he explained.

With that said, he adopted the following assumptions: (1) demolishing the cottages is not a cost unique to the demolition option inasmuch as it has generally been assumed the cottages would be demolished under any option being discussed; (2) demolition necessarily means more than simple destruction. It presumes asbestos removal, demolition, debris removal and modest landscaping (at a minimum); and (3) no "receivable" has been assumed with respect to the possibility that third parties might pay the village to take ownership of some "debris" material (e.g. steel, etc) and this is likely a conservative approach.

Using EYP's cost estimates, dated in early 2002, demolishing the Main Building would cost the village $3,067,177; demolishing Ellis Hall and the cottages (with markups) would cost the village $953,797; and demolishing, landscaping and modifying Cluett Hall to restore the façade would cost the village (with markups) $27,830. Total demolition costs would reach $4,048,804.

Bee notes that the foregoing cost estimates are approximate and over a year old. "However, from a 'macro' point of view, they indicate the 'order of magnitude' involved in the demolition option," he said. "I hope the foregoing are not implemented; however, if other choices are even more unacceptable, we will at least be somewhat prepared."

In addition to the aforementioned options, the committee acknowledged other options that the board hasn't fully considered. These primarily involve the postponement of a final decision regarding the property by taking interim action to stabilize the Main Building or by making more extensive repairs to restore the building for threshold use. These options were considered by the second Mayor's Committee, which recommended in its March 1, 2002 report to the board, "implementation, at earliest date, of combined stabilization and threshold use."

Once board members have had an opportunity to review this report, the committee recommends that they discuss principal options available and decide on the next steps. However, just as the members of the St. Paul's Committee have different opinions regarding the best option, there is also no clear consensus regarding the course of action the board should now follow to reach a definitive resolution.

The committee suggests as a possible "next action" that the board establish basic criteria for measuring any of the alternatives under consideration. For example, what is the threshold cost acceptable to the taxpayers to preserve and restore the Main Building? Then the board could use such criteria to compare and evaluate the options. Further, Mayor Barbara Miller said she'd like the Public Information Committee to prepare a Village Facts based on this report to be sent out by the end of this month for residents to peruse.