Now that the village board has completed its review of a possible private use of St. Paul's, it seems clear that the private use option makes little sense for our community. The consultants reported that most of the board's parameters for a private use option could not be met: no public use would be practical and no public access would be permitted. Although the outside façade could probably be saved, the chapel and other historical features would be lost. The wings of the building would not be suitable for high-end condominium use so they would have to be modified and the village could not maintain ownership of the building or the 6 2/3 acres surrounding it, thus losing control of the property and, in essence, giving it away at no cost to the developer.

At the Dec. 15 meeting some village trustees suggested that they would consider moving forward on getting proposals for private use, even though most of the village goals could not be met by such use. I believe this is a waste of time and money. The only value of having private use is that it would result in no tax cost to the taxpayer. However, the real cost is the permanent loss of 6 2/3 acres of public land-forever.

At the Dec. 15 meeting, Trustee Mauk called for other proposals for St Paul's. Therefore, I propose that village residents consider two public options for the property.

Option 1-demolition of the Main Building and Ellis Hall. This preserves the land for future public use either as a park, a community center, an expanded athletic facility or any other public alternatives that might arise in the future. The big negative with this proposal is that we lose the historical treasure that sits in the middle of our village. Although demolition has a cost, it is far less than the value of the property that remains.

Option 2-restore the St Paul's Main Building without the east and west wings. The rationale of taking down the wings is that it eliminates about 50,000 square feet of the 130,000 square foot building. This dramatically reduces the cost of renovation. It would preserve the entire structure that faces Stewart Avenue and would preserve the chapel and the main lobby of the building.

Trustees continue to ask for what purpose such a building would be used. There are a number of possibilities. To keep it simple:

* The top two floors would house the Garden City School Administration. Currently the school administration building is in need of substantial renovation. By vacating the school administration building, it would not need renovation, and it could be sold, having a positive tax impact.

* The bottom two floors would be a community center. The building would be managed by the Garden City Recreation Department, that would have space on the first floor. The recreation department currently has insufficient space at village hall and by moving it to St Paul's it would be located at the village's largest recreational complex.

* The chapel would be used as a theatre for music and dance recitals. This space could also be used by the village library for its many movie and literature presentations. This would free up space at the library, which needs additional room for computers and expansion of the teen section.

* The cafeteria would be leased as a café and catering operation. The café would provide refreshments for users of the building, Cluett Hall, the field house and the fields.

* The remaining rooms would be available for use by seniors, who are now limited in activity space; a teen center; rooms for large group meetings; for exercise classes; for art music and dance classes etc.

Those opposed to this idea will probably say that the cost would be too much for taxpayers. But this too can be controlled. We have waited over 10 years to make a decision. The key to preserving the building is to fix the roof and secure the façade from water infiltration. That is the first step. It may take a number of years to complete the project and it will require a bond issue. The village board has to seriously consider what the costs of this project would be and how they would fit it into the budget. It is time to make tough decisions.

The village board is now at a crossroad. The residents now have to be heard. Trustee Mauk has said that the residents have already been heard. At the Dec 15 meeting, Trustee Mauk quoted the Property Owners' Association St Paul's Resident Survey results and said his reading of the results suggests the majority of residents wanted private use and would not support any effort to restore St Paul's if it requires an increase in taxes. I read the results differently. I see that the majority of residents want public use and although most residents want close control of village taxes, they are willing to pay a small increase to keep St Paul's public.

On Tuesday, Jan. 17, every property owners' association will meet at their electors meeting. It is a great opportunity for residents to come out and express their opinions. Do you want condos at St. Paul's? Do you want to save the building for public use at some cost to the taxpayer? Do you want to take down the building? Now is your opportunity to be heard.

Jonathan Schwieger