Village would undertake roof replacement, some exterior masonry repairs and window and door replacements and repairs as necessary to secure the Main Building and prevent further deterioration that would preclude later development and reuse.

Assumptions

• All of the approximately 100,000 sq. ft. Main Building would be retained.

• Ellis Hall and the cottages would be demolished.

• Base building system improvements needed to comply with Building Code would not be made.

• No interior restorations or improvements would be made.

• Preliminary cost estimate is $6 to $7 million, most of which is for roof replacement.

Financial Sources/Tax Implications

• Re-roofing and other costs of stabilization would be financed by public funds, and at taxpayer expense.

• Would require a tax increase in excess of 1.5 percent to 1.8 percent; an addition in taxes of $64 to $75 (approx.) for the average household, continuing over the 15-year bond period.

Revenues to the Village

• None

Advantages

• Most easily affordable option for preservation, and much less expensive than options for extensive restoration and development using public funds.

• Would represent a significant commitment to keeping and preserving the Main Building.

• Would keep all of the property under village control for the present.

• Could be accomplished without Home Rule legislation.

• Postpones decision on development and long-term use of the Main Building to a time when the economy may be improved and other potential uses and users can be identified.

• Maintenance costs to the village may be expected to stabilize following basic improvements.

• Would increase the amount of open space through the demolition of Ellis Hall and the cottages.

• Would have limited effect on surrounding neighborhood and use of village services and resources.

Disadvantages

• Postpones making a firm decision regarding the future use and development of the Main Building.

• Without code improvements and other expensive modifications, the Main Building would still be unavailable for public use.

• Would require an increase in village taxes over several years to finance.

• Expensive improvements with no immediate return on use may be unacceptable to many taxpayers, especially on top of recent significant increases in state, county and school taxes.

• Cost estimates may increase once detailed design drawings are developed.

• Unused and unoccupied Main Building would continue to be a fire safety and security concern, and could contribute to some further building deterioration.

• Fire safety problems could result from postponement of code improvements (e.g., electrical, heating systems, etc.)

• Village would continue to be responsible for the cost of future maintenance.

• If the building were to be used for public purposes in the future, this would require costly renovation (increased by inflation) and would require future tax increases.

In addition to stabilization improvements, involves upgrading mechanical, electrical and fire protection systems and making other improvements to comply with building code and make the Main Building available for limited public use.

Assumptions

• All of the Main Building would be retained.

• Ellis Hall and the cottages would be demolished.

• Following code improvements, the large rooms located on the first floor could be used for meetings and other village purposes.

• All of the improvements required to stabilize the building, including major roof repairs, would be made.

• Would entail only minimal interior restoration and improvement other than those required to meet code.

• May require additional on-site parking spaced of unknown number.

• Preliminary cost estimate is $10 to $12 million, depending on whether new roofing is temporary or permanent.

Financial Sources/Tax Implications

• Cost of demolition, stabilization, bringing the Main Building up to code, and future maintenance would be financed by public funds, and at taxpayer expense.

• Would require tax increases in excess of 2.5 percent to 3.0 percent, an annual addition of $107 to $128 (approx.) for the average household, continuing over the 15-year bond period.

Revenues to the Village

• Little to none anticipated. Maybe some minimal revenues in the form of user fees.

Advantages

• More easily affordable to taxpayers than options for more extensive restoration and development with public funds.

• Would represent a commitment to keeping and preserving the Main Building.

• Would return a limited portion of the Main Building to public use, primarily as meeting and gathering space for village organizations.

• Could be accomplished without Home Rule legislation.

• Postpones the ultimate decision on use and development of Main Building to a time when the economy may be improved and other potential uses and users can be identified.

• Village costs for maintenance may be expected to stabilize following improvements.

• Would increase the amount of open space through the demolition of Ellis Hall and the cottages.

• Would keep all of the property under village control for the present.

• Would have limited effect on surrounding neighborhood and use of village resources.

Disadvantages

• A partial solution that would still leave most the Main Building in its unrestored and unoccupied condition, and with no prospects for future use.

• Financing would require an increase in village taxes over several years.

• Would produce only limited public use of the Main Building for the foreseeable future.

• Expensive improvements with limited immediate return on use may be unacceptable to many taxpayers, especially on top of recent significant increases in state, county and school taxes.

• Cost estimates are likely to increase once detailed design drawings are developed.

• Need for additional public meeting space could be addressed much less expensively by constructing such spaces at other locations (such as the library).

• Postpones making a firm decision regarding the future preservation and use of the Main Building.

• Unused and unoccupied Main Building could present fire safety and security problems and contribute to further building deterioration.

• Village would continue to be responsible for future maintenance costs.

• If additional space in the building was needed for public purposes in the future, this would require costly renovation (increased by inflation) and would require future tax increases.

In this variation of threshold use, part of the Main Building would be converted by the village into a new, modern public library, and into meeting rooms for the use of community business, civic, social and service organizations.

Assumptions

• Would retain nearly all of the Main Building shell and much of the interior.

• Ellis Hall and the cottages would be demolished.

• Development would primarily occur in 50,000 sq. ft. (approx.) of the Main Building.

• Remaining space (approx. 50,000 sq. ft.) would be made code compliant and "moth-balled" for potential future use.

• Would require additional on-site parking spaces.

• Preliminary cost estimate for development is $26.6 million.

Financial Sources/Tax Implications

• Demolition, restoration, development, operation and future maintenance would all be financed primarily by public funds, and at taxpayer expense.

• Development costs of $25 to $30 million would require tax increases in excess of 6 percent to 7.5 percent, an addition of $266 to $319 (approx.) for the average household, continuing over the 15-year bond period.

• Some costs may be offset by private fundraising.

• Some costs may be offset by the sale of existing library property for development.

Revenues to the Village

• May provide some minimal increase in village revenues in the form of new user fees.

Advantages

• Would enable a significant portion of the Main Building to be restored and returned to public use.

• Could be accomplished without Home Rule legislation.

• Would provide space for the operation of a new, more spacious, modern library.

• Would provide a "true" community center for meetings and gatherings of village organizations.

• Would keep the Main Building and all of the property within village control.

• Would preserve virtually all of the Main Building, possibly including the Center Wing.

• Would increase the amount of open space through the demolition of Ellis Hall and the cottages.

• Would have minimal effect on surrounding neighborhood and use of village resources.

• Cost of development may be affordable to the many affluent village residents.

Disadvantages

• A partial solution that would leave nearly half of the Main Building vacant and undeveloped, and with no prospects for future use.

• Additional space requirements of the existing library could be addressed with less expensive additions to the existing facility.

• Would require annual 6 percent to 7 percent increases in village taxes over several years to finance.

• Financing may be unacceptable to many taxpayers on top of recent significant increases in state, county and school taxes.

• Cost estimates are preliminary and likely to increase once detailed design drawings are developed.

• Private fund-raising sources are unlikely to provide much of an offset to the large development costs.

• Cost offsets from the sale or lease of the existing library property are unknown. Uses of that property may be limited due to its location.

• Village would continue to be responsible for the cost of future maintenance, which is likely to increase.

• Would not generate tax revenues or PILOTS that would result from private sector development.

• Unused portion of the Main Building could present fire safety and security problems.

• With most of the prime space used for this development, prospects for future development of the unused space are likely to be diminished.

• Village would bear the cost of any future restoration and development of unused building spaces.

A developer would be required to restore and maintain most of the Main Building shell, including the historic front façade, in exchange for being allowed to develop residential condominiums on a portion of the property.

Assumptions

• Development would be geared to a high-end market (comparable to the Wyndham).

• Would probably require an outright sale of up to 10 acres of the property, including the Main Building and adjacent area.

• Developer would be responsible for demolishing Ellis Hall and the cottages.

• Center Wing, containing the Chapel, would probably also be demolished.

• Developer would be required to invest funds needed - in excess of $40 million - to restore Main Building façade and incorporate it into condominium development.

• New addition would be required to be compatible with Main Building in scale, height, and character.

• Cluett Hall, the field house and the remaining property (approximately 38.6 acres) would be retained for village use.

• Under One Possible Scenario: Approximately 222,000 sq. ft. of space would be developed, including 42,000 sq. ft. of common area and 180,000 sq. ft. of condominiums (120 units, averaging 1,500 sq. ft. each). Approximately 90 percent (90,000 gross sq. ft.) of the Main Building would be restored and used in the development, and 130,000 sq. ft. of new space would be developed. Additional above and below-ground parking spaces would also be required. (All numbers approximate.)

Financial Sources/Tax Implications

• Developer would be responsible for the cost of demolition, restoration, development operation and future maintenance.

• No public sector financing or taxpayer expense is anticipated.

Revenues to the Village

• Subject to negotiation, but expected to generate revenue of $5 to $10 million for the sale of property required for development.

• Village and school district would also share (approx. 3:7 ratio) in tax revenues from the development, anticipated to be in excess of $1 million annually.

• May also include other provisions for revenue based on condo sales, etc.

Advantages

• Would enable most of the Main Building to be preserved, restored, operated and maintained at no expense to village taxpayers.

• Unlike public sector restoration, provides an alternative for preserving the Main Building without significant, long-term taxpayer expense.

• Would provide a cash return for the sale of property needed for development.

• Would provide ongoing tax revenues or PILOTS from the developed property.

• May generate other revenues based on condo sales or other provisions.

• Would provide another form of high quality housing for village residents.

• Would likely provide a greater financial return to the village than other forms of private sector development.

• Private sector development, in general, is favored by a majority of the experts on the Mayor's Committee.

Disadvantages

• Would require Home Rule legislation to permit private sector development, a potentially difficult hurdle.

• Would probably necessitate removal of Center Wing and Chapel.

• Net additional development would reduce total open space on the 48-acre property by approx. 1/4-acre. (Assumes equivalent replacement of Ellis Hall, the cottages and the Center Wing following demolition.)

• Would result in additional large, multi-story buildings on the property, which is likely to be objectionable to some residents.

• Would result in some increase in village traffic and use of village resources and services.

• Sale would probably forever remove the conveyed property from village control.

A developer would be required to restore and maintain most of the Main Building shell, including the historic front façade, in exchange for being allowed to develop an assisted living facility on a portion of the property.

Assumptions

• Development would be geared to a high-end market.

• Would require leasing the Main Building and up to 10 acres of adjacent property.

• Developer would be responsible for demolishing Ellis Hall and the cottages.

• Center Wing containing the Chapel, would probably also be demolished.

• Developer would be required to invest the funds needed - in excess of $40 million - to restore and expand the Main Building.

• New addition would be required to be compatible with Main Building in scale, height, and character.

• Cluett Hall, the field house and the remaining property (approximately 38.6 acres) would be retained for village use.

• The CareMatrix Proposal (which may not apply to any new development scenario) called for developing a total of 165,000 sq. ft. of space on the property, incorporating 148 units. Nearly all of the Main Building (approx. 98,000 gross sq. ft.) was to be retained and restored, and 67,000 sq. ft. of new space was to be added. Additional on-site parking (approx. 90 spaces) was also required. (All numbers approximate.)

Financial Sources/Tax Implications

• Developer would be responsible for the cost of demolition, restoration, development, operation and future maintenance.

• No public sector financing or taxpayer expense is anticipated.

Revenues to the Village

• Subject to negotiation, but expected to generate revenue of $1 million or more for property lease, or an equivalent up-front payment for development rights.

• Village and school district would also share (approx. 3:7 ratio) in tax revenues from the development, anticipated to be in excess of $1 million annually.

• May also include other negotiated provisions for revenue based on developer profits, etc.

Advantages

• Would enable most of the Main Building to be preserved, restored and maintained at no expense to village taxpayers.

• Unlike public sector restoration, provides an alternative for preserving the Main Building without significant, long-term taxpayer expense.

• Would provide a cash return for long-term lease of property needed for development.

• Would provide ongoing tax revenues.

• Would provide high quality, senior adult housing, requested by many village residents.

• Would likely be smaller in scale and size (by approx. 50,000 sq. ft., based on CareMatrix) than residential condominium development.

• Ownership of the property would remain with the village.

• Would result in minimal increase in traffic volume, and minimal effect on school district and village services and resources.

• Mayor's Committee concluded that an assisted living facility would have a minimal negative effect on the village while providing a number of benefits, and at no cost to village taxpayers.

• Private sector development, in general, is favored by a majority of the experts on the Mayor's Committee.

Disadvantages

• Would require Home Rule legislation; a potentially difficult hurdle.

• Would probably necessitate removal of Center Wing and Chapel.

• Net additional development would reduce total open space on the 48-acre property by approx. 1/4-acre. (Assumes equivalent replacement of Ellis Hall, the cottages and the Center Wing after demolition.)

• Market for assisted living facilities on Long Island may be saturated.

• Would result in additional large, multi-story buildings on the property, which is likely to be objectionable to some residents.

• Objectionable to residents who instituted legal action to block previous proposal for assisted living development.

• Would likely provide less financial return to the village than other forms of private sector involvement.

Complete demolition, to be undertaken by the village, includes the abatement of asbestos in Ellis Hall, demolition of the Main Building, Ellis Hall and the cottages, removal of unneeded paths and roadways, debris removal, necessary restoration of Cluett Hall façade, grading and basic landscaping of cleared property.

Assumptions

• Would retain Cluett Hall and the field house for village use.

• Preliminary estimated cost for demolition and restoration is $4 million.

Financial Sources/Tax Implications

• Demolition and restoration would be financed by public funds and at taxpayers' expense.

• Financing via a bond would require tax increases in excess of 1.35 percent, a $58 addition (approx.) for the average household, continuing over the 10-year bond period.

Revenues to the Village

• None

Advantages

• Would eliminate ongoing and increasing cost to village taxpayers for maintaining buildings in their unused and vacant condition.

• Least expensive to village taxpayers of any scenario requiring the investment of public funds.

• Would settle, once and for all, the nagging issue of what to do with the buildings.

• Could be accomplished without Home Rule legislation.

• Would free-up additional space for a larger park, for recreation or other public use.

• Would enable any future proposals for private development on the property to be implemented more easily and less expensively without concern for historic preservation.

• Removes concerns about continuing deterioration, fire safety and security from allowing the Main Building to remain in its vacant and unused condition, and that would likely continue under any plans for partial development and moth-balling of unused space.

• Avoids additional building massing and potential conflict with single family, residential character of the village that would result from any private development scenario.

• Continues to keep all 48 acres of the property within village control.

* Would have minimal impact on surrounding neighborhood.

• Creates no new burdens for village resources and services.

• Is favored by residents who object to continuing cost of maintaining the Main Building, and to substantial cost of restoration projected under any scenario.

Disadvantages

• Would forever remove a significant landmark building that is an essential part of the history, landscape and character of Garden City.

• Forgoes the possibility of finding potential future uses and users that would preserve the historic architecture and essential character of the Main Building.

• Would require an increase in village taxes over several years to finance.

• Cost estimates are likely to increase some once detailed demolition documents are prepared.

• Any private sector development on the property would still require Home Rule legislation.