Disappointing Report

To the Editor:

A couple of days ago, at the Library, I picked up a copy of The Report of The Mayor's Committee On St. Paul's and frankly, I am quite disappointed with its contents and recommendation. It took almost five-ten years of discussions with a very heavy dose of recriminations, animosity, accusations and game playing to at last, after such an almost obscene delay, make public a report with a long list of hypothetical possibilities and options and only a single recommendation in favor of a single developer, Avalon Bay, which happens to be the same and only developer that submitted a bid. I was expecting much more 'substance', ideas and options from other bidders. I just don't see any benefits at all for the Village and its residents. I am now leaning, very heavily, toward demolition. Instead of over 108 apartments and 272 parking spaces, let's have an open space and keep it that way for future generations. Less pollution, more green ! Option 1 'No public Space in St. Paul's' and which our Committee recommends, also mentions that Avalon Bay has agreed to make the chapel available to the Village at no cost for public use one day a week and will also host an on-site annual event to allow additional public access to the Main Building. Such great magnanimity and generosity is truly breathtaking ! To that, I say, let's enjoy a walk and a breeze of fresh air any time we want. After all, it is our Village!

Antonio Moreno

Web Site On AvalonBay

To the Editor:

We are pleased that the Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's has submitted its report analyzing AvalonBay's proposed development plan for the Main Building at St. Paul's to the Village Board, and that the report has recommended that the proposed plan be presented to Garden City residents for review, comment and a vote.

After several months of detailed discussions on a number of development options, the report marks the completion of a lengthy and comprehensive process designed to refine AvalonBay's preservation plan for St. Paul's.

We are also pleased that AvalonBay has been able to offer a plan to save St. Paul's that contains a proposed financial deal for the Village that has been determined to be 'fair and equitable' by the Village's independent financial advisor.

As the public review process moves forward, AvalonBay will be reaching out to Village residents to discuss the plan to save and preserve St. Paul's, which will include Open House Information Forums in September. The forums will provide an opportunity for residents to meet directly with AvalonBay and its consultants to discuss all of the elements of the preservation plan in detail.

In the meantime, residents can find out more about AvalonBay's preservation plan for St. Paul's by going to a special Web site,www.AvalonAtStPauls.com, that provides a wide range of information and background material on the plan.

We look forward to discussing AvalonBay's plan to save St. Paul's, a unique and historic treasure, with Village residents in the months ahead.

Matthew Whalen,

Vice President for

Development,

AvalonBay Communities

A Better Proposal

To the Editor:

As the architect for a rejected applicant for the development of St Paul's School, I hereby repeat my previous offer to eat my hat in Macy's window if one, just one, fair-minded resident of Garden City thinks the Avalon Bay scheme is better for the Village than ours. In fact, having read the Committee report, I really believe we should be awarded the project by acclaim and given a tickertape parade.

Summary Of January 2007 Proposal By Eskar International LTD:

Our proposal, summarized as follows, has not been changed since its original submission in January 2007. All of the attributes of our proposal have not been negotiated, but have been offered as shown. Nobody on the Committee has spoken to us about any aspect of our proposal other than to inform us that we did not have the local experience required.

1. Not having had local experience, we didn't know enough to NOT pay taxes. We have always expected to pay taxes, not PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) but actual taxes. After speaking to the Village Tax Assessor we estimated our taxes to be as follows:

Luxury Apartments:

67,495 X $5/SF = $337,475

Townhouse Taxes:

$11,200,000 x 0.02 x0.37 = $ 82,880

Total Annual Taxes - $420,255

We also offered the following ground lease payment:

Ground Lease: - $250,000.

Therefore our total annual payment to the village is: - $670,255

We naturally expect that taxes go up through the years, but have no preconditions about the success of our investment. We will simply owe the Village the legal taxes each year.

2. We do not require and have not asked for any subsidy from the Village.

3. The important spaces of the South Wing on the first floor and the chapel are to be renovated and designated for Community use.

4. We will renovate St Paul's School in accordance with the Federal Tax Incentive Program. Willingness to use the program assures a superior quality of completion.

5. We have offered a ground lease that will pay the Village $250,000 per year. We have asked for the right to buy the ground lease after five years for $5,000,000. This figure is based on the reasonable and ordinary value of a ground lease. We thought it would appeal to the town, but if not, we are content to keep paying the annual rent and allow ownership to rest with the Village.

6. We plan to build 46 luxury rental apartments and 8 middle-income apartments within the existing space of St Paul's School. No expansion of the building itself is planned, but our proposal does include ten new townhouses in the rear of the property. The new townhouses will total 16,000 SF, the same area of Ellis Hall, which will be demolished. The middle-income apartments (for Village employees) were planned as an inducement for the Village; a Senior Center or Village administrative offices can easily be substituted if the Village prefers that use.

7. 75% of the rental apartments will be marketed for people over 55 without school-age children.

8. All the required parking is underground, except for Townhouse parking, which will be enclosed within the individual townhouses.

9. We have paid particular attention to handicapped accessibility and the Americans with Disability Act. Our fourth floor spaces will to be reached by private elevators within the apartments. Any attempt to use these spaces without elevators is doomed because the fourth floor is approximately twenty feet over the third floor. These elevators also serve third story Mezzanine spaces suitable for home theaters or offices. All of the spaces within St Paul's are accessible in all weather from our underground garage by underground ramp.

10. We plan to use geo-thermal energy instead of fossil fuel to save annual costs and limit pollution. A well-known Mechanical Engineer has been engaged for this work.

11. We have engaged one of the world's leading lighting consultants to assure a creative and tasteful interior and exterior lighting plan.

12. We have engaged an imaginative Landscape Architect to assure creative site planning.

Bernard Marson,

Architect

Report Should Be Mailed

To the Editor:

After the Village has spent all this money on studies and more studies, you would think they could at least mail a copy of the Avalon Bay proposal to every resident, instead of forcing everyone to travel down to the Library to read it. My suspicion is they don't want anyone to read it. And correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't rental units put an increased tax burden on the Village via schools, police, sanitation, recreation, etc.

Tom Suozzi is looking for a tax relief cap in Nassau County. What are our trustees looking for?

Robert Reid

PS - I loved Jon Schwieger's letter last week. Couldn't agree more. Why do we have to rebuild the entire structure all at once? If we had just put a roof on it when we bought it, the building wouldn't be in such bad shape. Either that, or turn it into a Splish Splash waterpark like they have in Riverhead.

St. Paul's $100 Million

To the Editor:

The report of the Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's is a must-read for all residents. I am sure that everyone will find it to be as disappointing as I have. The report evaluates only three alternatives for the structure: demolition, mothballing, and construction of rental apartments by AvalonBay. The Committee recommends development by AvalonBay, whereby the tax burden will be greatest for residents.

Under the recommendation, AvalonBay will provide no upfront payment to the Village and will not pay taxes for 20 years. In other words, the property would be given away. Only in the event that financial returns exceed certain hurdle rates would the developer make small payments to the Village starting many years down the road. Lastly, public use of the property would be extremely limited. All of these flies in the face of why we bought St. Paul's in 1993. It is hard to believe that we waited 15 years for this.

The cost of the plan to the Village is estimated at $17.5 million. This is the Committee's estimate of lost tax revenues over 20 years less an assumed profit payment from AvalonBay in today's money. I believe this cost is a low-ball number and grossly misrepresents the actual cost of St. Paul's to Village residents. First, we have to remember that the property was purchased 15 years ago. I estimate the purchase and accrued interest in today's money at just under $47 million; lost tax revenues over the past 15 years (structure only): $17 million; lost tax revenues net of estimated payments from AvalonBay over the next 20 years: $24 million (the Committee's estimate assumes that school and property taxes rise by 5% annually, I think 8% is more realistic); operating costs to maintain the structure in the past 15 years: $7 million. This totals $95 million. We need to add the millions of dollars paid to various consultants and lawyers in the past 15 years plus the future cost of burdening our school, fire, police, and other Village services as the new apartments are inhabited. The total cost far exceeds $100 million and this figure likely will continue to climb. This is absurd.

For 15 years, the Trustees have not listened to their constituents. In all the surveys and polls taken on what to do with St. Paul's no resident replied: rental apartments or assisted living facility or condos. Face it, we need another apartment building like a hole in the head. The majority of resident survey responses have fallen into only a few categories: essentially a recreation/indoor sports center, cultural center, or new high school. Yet, Trustees have spent little time on these choices. The reason: the precondition to any development has been that the building must be saved. Given that constraint, nothing makes economic sense. Preservation has scared away developers and rendered good ideas infeasible. The Committee's report contains an independent appraisal of the structure and seven acres of land under and adjacent to it at a negative $11-$14 million. This destruction of value is attributable to our Trustees' insistence that the building be preserved. If public opinion has not dissuaded them from their stubborn crusade, I think the appraisal should.

The Trustee's approach to St. Paul's has been backward. Rather than figure out what residents want and then provide it in the most economical way, the Trustees have labored over what might fit into the existing building, no matter what the cost and no matter what the project. They make the building dictate the use when they should do the opposite.

I believe that people can have whatever they want as long as they pay for it. Personally, I like the building, but I don't want to pay any more for it. I think we have paid too much already and our taxes are way too high. I would like to see something built that our residents want and have been asking for. And, it should be something that will generate immediate revenues for our Village so as to lower taxes.

It is easy for the Trustees to say they want to save the building, no matter how much it costs or how bad an economic decision it is, if it is paid for with other people's money (taxes). But this is irresponsible. I believe the obvious solution is to demolish the building and build something in its place -- a recreation center makes sense. However, if the Trustees are hung up on keeping the building, there is another way -- private contributions. The cost to save the building is estimated at well under $50 million. Raising this amount should not be a problem as we are fortunate to have many wealthy residents who say they support preservation. If our Trustees and some residents really want to save St. Paul's then they should put the money up out of their own pockets. Afterwards, construction of something useful to all residents could be affordable. Our Trustees can show their leadership by making the first pledges. It would be interesting to see who really wants to save the building and who just likes to talk about it.

Frederick Leuffer