Dismissed

To the Editor:

At the November 20th Board Meeting, Mayor Bee removed me, as Chair of the Mayor's Committee for St Paul's, from my responsibility of approving Avalon Bay's communications to the residents.

For the past several months I have reviewed the Avalon Bay's ads for their factual accuracy. Avalon Bay has never complained that I was unfair or biased to the corrections that I made to their ads.

Therefore, it came as a surprise that at the end of the meeting the Mayor acted as he did without any discussion with me. He claimed that he did this after talking with a "couple of Trustees"(unnamed) because I opposed the Avalon Bay proposal and had expressed "discomfiture at Mr. Whalen, the Avalon Bay representative, his candor".

Mayor's Committee for St Paul's

I had expressed dismay and disappointment that Avalon Bay's new proposal which was presented at the November 6th meeting of the Board had not been presented to the Mayor's Committee for review. After all it was the Mayor's charge that the Committee "get the best possible project options for consideration by the Garden City's public..." We had worked long and hard at our task. Each member of the Committee, Trustee Lundquist, Bob Davis, Cosmo Veneziale, Jim Carney and I thought that the Committee should have had the opportunity to review the new proposal.

Parking at St Paul's

Mr. Whalen's new proposal proclaimed "Reconfigured Parking for Village Residents outside the RFP Boundary 120 New Parking Spaces that will not disturb the ballfields". Village staff examined his proposal and found it not to be true. 30 of these spaces the Village presently uses and most of the other spaces cannot be used as they are located on the interior roads creating a safety hazard. The only area for additional parking is behind the Gym which is used as a la-crosse field. Mr. Whalen was invited to participate in the Village's staff study, but refused. So much for his candor.

Zoning Requirements

Mr. Whalen new proposal adds 5,000 sq ft of public space in St. Paul's. He did not provide any parking for this use as required by the zoning ordinance. Every developer was required to provide on site parking for residential and public use of St Paul's. Mr. Whalen knew that, as it had been required for his prior proposals (See Report of the Mayor's Committee page 11). When I challenged him on this omission, he said that the public space would be provided only if the Board of Trustees waived the zoning requirements for parking. The Board had not done that for any other developer.

I then asked the Board if it would waive the zoning requirements for parking as the proposed public space was conditioned on this waiver. The Mayor and a majority of the Board declined to waive these requirements. So how do the residents know on what new proposal they are voting?

Conclusion

The Mayor's message is clear---- dissent, oppose and you will be dismissed.

Thomas M Lamberti

Vote Against Avalonbay

To the Editor:

Garden City residents are finally being given the opportunity to vote on the St. Paul's/AvalonBay proposal and make their opinion known to our Trustees. Please consider carefully how detrimental the development of these seven acres of Village property will be-- financially and environmentally. The changes are irreversible and will provide benefits to AvalonBay that FAR outweigh the benefits to our Village.

Please vote "NO" to the AvalonBay Development Agreement by choosing either the "Demolition" or "Mothballing" option. All Garden City residents are eligible to vote in this opinion poll, even Central section residents who have already cast a "mail-in" ballot. Voting will take place at the St. Paul's Fieldhouse on December 2, 2008 from 1pm until 9pm.

Sonja and William Slattery

An Apology

Printed By Request:

Mayor Peter Bee

Village of Garden City

Dear Mr. Mayor,

I apologize to you and your family for the insults and the personal attacks that you have been subjected to at the Board of Trustees meetings, especially at the last one.

Unfortunately we have witnessed these attacks on other Trustees by people whose arguments cannot be supported on their own merits, and who therefore turn to personal attacks in order to distract the public.

In a course that I took in college, I remember that one of the rules in debating was to make sure to stay with the issue and try to rely on facts to support your argument. Resorting to personal attacks only underlines the weakness of your argument.

It is obvious that people who are guilty of that kind of behavior are looking to discredit their opponent personally and gain the sympathy of their own fans. For the rest of us it is a disgraceful show that wastes time and fails to clarify or resolve the issue.

Whether as a Mayor or a Trustee you have been a model of a gentleman. You have always acted with integrity, honesty, fairness and respect for all, board members as well as the citizens in the audience. As a true leader, you strongly uphold the laws and policies of governance, and yet bend over backwards to allow equal time to all.

Thank you for your patience and your leadership.

Mathilde Bellmer

No Change

To the Editor:

Approximately 15 years ago I wrote a letter convincing St. Paul's and stated that we were putting the cart before the horse without having obtained a "home rule" action from State Senator Kemp Hannon. I reiterate the same comments today! The only thing that changed in these 15 years is the fact that we tax payers have paid over 3 million dollars for the upkeep of those promises. It is my understanding that our Village was seeking bids from someone who wanted to erect facilities on St. Paul's acreage and who would assume all costs of reconstructing, repairing or altering the St. Paul's facilities without any concessions, 'give backs', or handouts. In addition, the Village would receive a stipulated fixed tax revenue in accordance with the Village tax codes. What has changed in these precepts?

As a Village homeowner for more than forty years, I have been paying my taxes based on the assessment of my home and I do not get any concessions from the Village. I do think that AvalonBay should not be treated more favorably than homeowners. I question the integrity of AvalonBay for submitting its recent modification to its original bid. Could a second or third modification be forthcoming?

In my aforementioned letter, I also stated that St. Paul's should be demolished and I reiterate that statement today! Say "No" to AvalonBay and vote "Yes" to demolition! By the way, whatever happened to the poll that was taken a few years ago that was detailed and quantitative that indicated that the majority of the tax payers did not want to preserve St. Paul's building?

Respectfully,

Joseph H. Hayes

Approve AvalonBay

To the Editor:

With the upcoming vote on December 2, 2008 with regard to St. Paul's, although village residents are given three choices, there is only one choice that makes sense. That choice is to approve the AvalonBay proposal.

While I would have preferred the Mayor's Committee proposal of over a decade ago to have the building used for assisted living or even the proposal to put condominiums on the building footprint, the AvalonBay proposal preserves the building, at great expense to AvalonBay, and at the same time produces substantial income to the village. Isn't that a win/win situation?

What are the alternatives? While some people want to "preserve" the building, no one has ever come up with a practical working proposal. So far the village has "preserved" the building for more than a decade, while it falls apart, at a total cost of over $1,000,000. To spend another $13,000,000 plus $200,000 a year of upkeep is absurd. Perhaps the committee to save St. Paul's can post a bond for $30,000,000 to cover future costs. Mothballing makes absolutely no sense and is ridiculously costly.

The third alternative, to demolish that building entirely, while growing in support by many residents disgusted with the Committee to Save St. Paul's, would unfortunately destroy a village landmark at great cost and would not produce any future revenue for the village.

The AvalonBay proposal far outweighs the negatives associated with mothballing and demolition. Not only will the building be preserved at great cost to AvalonBay and AvalonBay will be paying money to the village, ultimately the building will be returned to the Village.

When making a choice on Tuesday, hopefully village residents will see that the absolute best choice for the village is the AvalonBay proposal.

Very Truly yours,

M. John Pittoni, Esq.

Consider The Facts

To the Editor:

Garden City residents should consider the following facts before voting next week.

1. It is unlikely that real estate prices will return to their recent levels for at least 10 years, if ever--the evidence is that it took over 10 years for them to recover after the 1987 market crash.

2. Avalon Bay's stock price has, in recent weeks, declined almost 50%.

3. As housing prices and assessments decline, tax revenues to the Village will decrease.

4. As the economy continues to deteriorate, we will see revenues to Village businesses decline and more vacant stores and offices.

5. Avalon Bay resident's spending will create an economic multiplier of as much as 8 times--much of that to be spent in the Village at stores, restaurants, etc. This is a basic economic principle that has been overlooked in all previous discussions. Furthermore, these direct and indirect economic benefits far outweigh any of the incremental costs.

These facts and a bleak financial outlook make a compelling case that those participating in the opinion poll should select the Avalon proposal now because a) it generates direct and indirect revenue for the Village; c) at the present time, Avalon appears to be committed to developing the property and might back out if the economy continues to deteriorate; b) It's unlikely that in the near- to medium-term future another proposal will materialize to generate any revenues for the Village.

James Bauer.

Refuting

Some Myths

To the Editor:

Before Village residents vote on December 2nd, it's important to address some myths circulating about AvalonBay's proposal to save and preserve the 125 year old Main Building.

Myth #1: AvalonBay will not pay the Village for the ground lease on the 7-acre site.

Not true. As announced in the Mayor's Committee report issued in July, AvalonBay will pay the Village a share of the rental profits. In fact, the independent financial advisor, Greenwich Group International, that reviewed the project's financials called the agreement "fair and equitable," since the Village could receive millions of dollars in profit sharing revenue in the years to come.

Let's also not lose sight of the fact that AvalonBay's investment of approximately $54 million will create an extraordinary value for the Village, since the Main Building and surrounding property currently have a negative value of $14 million because of the age and condition of the building itself.

Myth #2: AvalonBay's proposal will cost the Village lost property tax revenue.

The St. Paul's property and Main Building have never been on the tax rolls during its 125 year history.

AvalonBay will pay some $59 million in PILOTS and property taxes on St. Paul's during the first 35 years of the lease alone. And those payments are in addition to any share of the profits paid to the Village.

Of that $59 million amount, during the first 20 years PILOT payments will total $6.3 million. In year 21, with the PILOT schedule finished, the property will be fully taxed. It's expected to generate $53 million in tax revenue over the next 15 years, and will continue to yield substantial property tax revenues for the balance of the lease.

The CANUS/CSSP proposal called for PILOTS during the first 21 years, but also required that the Village pay $962,000 annually for 99 years for the use of public space within the building. The CANUS/CSSP plan also required a $2.5 million grant and called for new construction as well. The proposed rent payment from the Village was deemed to be more than twice the current rate for such space and would have remained above the market rate, based on a 3% annual rent escalation, for 27 years. Perhaps that's why the proposal was withdrawn at the last minute from public scrutiny last year since the PILOTS were no more than lip service.

Myth #3: The influx of school-aged children living in St. Paul's will swamp the school district and overcrowd the schools.

While an official projection by the school board has not been made, an unofficial review of the existing data on school-aged children living in existing multifamily dwellings in Garden City does not substantiate that claim.

Based on the latest data available, 30 school-aged children reside in some 900 existing units of multifamily dwellings in Garden City. That equals .03 school-aged children per unit. Using that statistic, 3 to 4 school-aged children could reside in St. Paul's 108 units. Even if we used AvalonBay's per-unit average of .16 for school-aged children residing in AvalonBay communities around the Island, some 17 school-aged children could reside at St. Paul's. Splitting the difference, the number could be 8 or 9.

Plus, who can guarantee that all of the school-aged children will attend Garden City schools? Since there are a number of fine private schools near Garden City, it can also be assumed that some of the school-aged children may, in fact, attend those schools.

But to help address that concern, we have increased the number of one bedroom units at St. Paul's and reduced the number of two and three bedroom units to help minimize the possible number of school-aged children who may reside there.

We have also set aside 20% of the total number of units, or 21 units, for persons 55 years of age and older. Preference will be given to Garden City residents for the set-aside units. That too will reduce the number of potential school-aged children.

Myth #4: Developing St. Paul's will destroy the ball fields.

The ball fields are not part of the 7-acre Main Building site. The 41 acres of ball fields will be controlled by the Village as they are now.

As part our enhancements to the proposal, we offered to do $1 million worth of improvements to Cluett Hall and/or the Feringa Field House, as directed by the Village, as part of the St. Paul's project.

We have also offered our assistance in formalizing the scattered parking that currently occurs at the site on busy spring and fall weekends when the fields are in use. We are even willing to pay for the cost of constructing the formalized parking as directed by the Village.

Myth #5: AvalonBay will construct a huge, 4-story building behind St. Paul's.

New construction is needed to help subsidize the high cost for saving and preserving the Main Building. The new construction, however, will not be as tall as the fourth story on the existing building, and will be set apart from the Main Building, as per the Mayor's Committee, to avoid conflicting with the Main Building. The fourth floor on St. Paul's measures 54 feet. The fourth floor on the proposed new construction reaches 47 feet. One must also consider that a portion of the existing St. Paul's is actually five stories high, or 80 feet, and the clock tower reaches 145 feet. A design has already received a preliminary review and approval by the Village's Architectural Design Review Board.

Myth #6: AvalonBay's proposal will cause traffic congestion.

Total peak hour traffic at St. Paul's will be lower than the total peak hour traffic generated by St. Paul's when it operated as a school. During the three peak hour periods throughout the day, St. Paul's produced some 550 vehicle movements. It's anticipated that some 135 total peak hour trips will be generated by St. Paul's residents.

Myth #7: A developed St. Paul's will cost the Village more for municipal services.

Trustee Tom Lamberti's letter to the Eastern Property Owners Association indicated that there would be no increase in costs to the Village for municipal services such as police, fire and general Village administrative costs. And, we have stated publicly that we will pay for sanitation services and water.

Myth #9: AvalonBay is offering token public space.

AvalonBay has offered the use of the restored Chapel at no cost to the Village. This is consistent with the negotiations with the Mayor's Committee to keep costs to the Village down and minimize the number of units required to make the project financially viable.

We have also offered to make the West Parlor on the first floor available free for public use at the Village's discretion if an accommodation can be made on the parking that would be required for the public's use of the space.

This option has been offered at no cost to the Village.

Myth #10: AvalonBay will sell its lease once the building is completed.

No one can predict the future with 100% certainty, but if the time ever comes that AvalonBay decides to sell its lease agreement and developed asset on the property, the Village will share in the profit of any such sale. The Village will also have other protections - like the ones provided to St. John the Divine in New York City - that will ensure its rights and to make sure it is treated fairly.

Myth #11: AvalonBay has over estimated its construction costs.

This is a new one and it comes by way of the "I know somebody who has a friend who knows someone in construction" kind of comparison.

We've inspected the Main Building and have calculated our estimate carefully. While some costs have come down in recent months due to the national economic crisis, our estimates remain fairly conservative since the age and condition of the Main Building present quite a challenge.

Our financials for the project have been reviewed by the Village's independent advisor, Greenwich Group International, and have been found to be "fair and equitable." Unless any "friend of a friend" estimates - which were made without even inspecting the condition of St. Paul's - undergo a similar review, they are useless since they have no basis in fact.

Myth #12: AvalonBay's enhancements were a "last minute attempt" to sway public opinion.

We were asked to keep an open mind. We held Open House sessions in September and listened to comments from the public and the Trustees and Village Board meetings during the fall. We listened. And as the nation's economic crisis began to change some of the construction cost figures, we voluntarily made adjustments to the PILOT schedule to get more money to the Village sooner and in total, and to add other benefits where we could. And, Greenwich Group International submitted a letter to the Village last week indicating that enhanced PILOT schedule does provide the Village with additional benefits.

NOT a Myth: St. Paul's is an iconic and unique building. It speaks volumes about Garden City and the Village's exceptional history.

The Village has spent 15 years - more than 10% of the building's existence - and millions of dollars either seeking a solution to the question of how to utilize St. Paul's or on stabilization and annual maintenance. How much longer can this go on, especially with new pressures being placed on the Village due to the economic downturn? How long can we wait while water seepage and the elements cause more and more damage to the interior and exterior integrity of St. Paul's with each passing year?

We hope that those who truly care about preserving St. Paul's for generations to come will see the significant value of our proposal and will vote to go forward with our plan. It's the only viable, self-financed plan available for saving St. Paul's.

Sincerely,

Matthew B. Whalen

Vice President, Develoment

AvalonBay Communities,Inc.

Say No To Avalon Bay

To the Editor:

My name is Cathy Wood and my friends know that I am a very involved parent of five children, ages 11 and under. I feel passionate about this town and it's future. Prior to living in the Estates section for the last 3 years, my family lived in the East on Wyatt Rd. for 4 years. My husband and I were not raised here, so we are not here by "default". We actually "chose" to move to Garden City after owning homes in other very nice towns. However, in a previous town that did not have village ordinances as we do in GC, we lived next to a home whose owners kept a 25 ft. boat in their driveway(on a trailer w/ a huge outboard engine) and put out garbage on Monday for a Friday pickup. By moving to Garden City, we accepted the fact that it would mean paying more money for a smaller house with less property and following some village rules. For us, the compromise was well worth it. We are pleased to have chosen Garden City because of the wonderful families that live here, its excellent schools, and the opportunities the village offers to our five children. We enjoy a higher quality of life, as well as the tradition and history that are integral to Garden City. Additionally, as a resident of a highly educated and affluent village, we expect our government to protect our family's fiduciary interests.

I have been involved in the St. Paul's process for over three years and firmly believe that implementing the Avalon Bay Development Agreement will have a terrible impact on Garden City. I am extremely concerned about the lack of transparency and the blatant disregard for the entire truth that has plagued our Village Trustee and POA meetings. Several instances that have recently occurred that have eroded my trust and confidence in several of our elected Village officials.

1. First and foremost is the fact that I have spoken to the BOT numerous times about the importance of mailing a copy of the "Mayor's Report on St. Paul's" to every household in this Village, so that when asked to vote, the residents can make an informed decision. The answer was "NO, we have no intention on doing that." Why not? It is shocking to me when I hear residents say that they have never seen or heard of this report and are not prepared to vote on December 2nd. These very same residents paid for this report with their tax dollars and are entitled to have a copy arrive at their home without having to call Village Hall and ask for it or going to the library, into the adult reference section and requesting one from the reference librarian, who must retrieve it from the glass enclosed reference room, and then look for it on a shelf--ONLY to find it in a box in the corner! Very forthcoming and easy to acquire, huh?

2. Minimizing the impact the potential AVB project will have on the parking needs of the GC community is a gross misrepresentation to the residents of the true and current parking situation. St. Paul's is packed every Saturday and Sunday in the Fall and Spring, which results in residents not having enough "paved" parking. As a direct result of a current lack of adequate parking, we residents who utilize the GC Recreation Programs, DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH PARKING NOW!!! We are forced to park on the grass in front of St. Paul's because we certainly can't park on the fields NOR can we park on Stewart Avenue, as suggested by an AVB supporter. (Please read the Mayor's Rpt.)

3. The constant bullying fear tactic that we must allow AVB to preserve St. Paul's because nobody else is able/willing to take on this project. I don't understand the logic. Why allow the addition of a four story rental apartment complex, with the potential to provide affordable housing as per new NYS Legislation. Why would we taxpayers subsidize this Mega-developer, which will make tremendous profit ( typically 100-125% of initial investment) to preserve IT--and then not Allow GC Residents in to use the it? To help AVB? Just because it's beautiful ? Sorry, those reasons just doesn't cut it! The well-oiled marketing machine that churns out AVB ads simply doesn't sway me or my friends! I would much rather demolish the building than lose control of the property to a private developer for its private use and incredible financial gain! However, the fact of the matter is that almost everyone I speak to wants St. Paul's to be used by OUR OWN residents (whether the entire building is used or just the main building).

4. Unfortunately, despite the fact that so many people at the BOT meetings wanted the vote to simply be AvalonBay "yes" or "no", we now have a confusing and complicated ballot. The three choices do not represent the true and current costs to village residents. Furthermore, since I do not want AVB, I believe I am being forced to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. My opinion is not able to be expressed by the demolition( which as per Mayor Bee, does not guarantee it will remain a park) or the mothballing options. I believe we should be able to maintain the status quo and pursue a true community use for the St. Paul's property. While I realize some people would like a final resolution, I believe we should not just "make a decision", rather, we should "make the RIGHT decision" that is the appropriate fit for our community.

In closing I would like to reiterate my commitment to Garden City. It is worth every sacrifice to live here and see our children grow up in this wonderful community. Let us preserve this legacy and pass it on to our children, so that they may have the opportunity to raise their own children here. Please vote on December 2nd and cast a "NO" vote against the AvalonBay Development Agreement. Vote for "MOTHBALLING" Or "DEMOLITION".

Cathy Wood

Frustration

To the Editor:

The "opinion poll" will be this Tuesday, December 2nd. AVB's last minute desperate ploy to salvage their lucrative deal was truly insulting. We all know the project will only cost them about half of what they've "over-estimated" thereby building an immediate profit of over 25 million dollars for their shareholders. This resident research came directly from AVB's 2008 3rd quarter earnings report! It still makes me wonder what drives certain Trustees and our Mayor to keep pushing this misguided project...very troubling indeed.

Without question, the St. Paul's saga has traveled a very long road from beginning to end. Our Village consultant Karen Backus said the property was best suited for condos, but surely this high priced "expert" knew that condos could not be built on land lease property. Does this not invalidate the RFP process? I think so. Our Village Trustee, John Mauk, consistently played the role of AVB's over zealous sales agent (who to date has still not answered my questions nor those of any other residents). Sadly we hear him state and restate his opinions over and over at every BOT meeting. Mr. Mauk uses every opportunity to verbally abuse Trustee Lamberti who heroically exposes the many inconsistencies in the AVB project. We will be forever indebted to Trustees Brudie and Watras who consistently point out the shortcomings of the AVB proposal. There are so many more GC development projects on the horizon such as the Assisted Living Facility/ Condos for the Bookspan/ Doubleday property, possible housing at the County owned 100 Ring Road property, townhouses at 550 Stewart Ave, undisclosed development at the P Zone...will all our green space disappear? Hundreds of residents have packed the BOT meetings and have attempted to voice their opinions only to be buzzed by an egg timer when their 3 minutes were up. Absolute frustration...

It is with great trepidation that we go to the voting booths eager for our voice to be heard. There is hope that the Mayor and all of the Trustees will do the honorable thing and think of the residents and Village first when they vote. Let's hope cooler heads prevail and we stop the overdevelopment of Garden City. Thankfully, Trustees Brudie, Watras, Lamberti and Lundquist have shown that they are listening to the residents. A vote for demolition or mothballing is a vote against the AvalonBay development agreement.

Betsy Andromidas

Real Costs Of AB

To the Editor:

Lets Talk Turkey! Understanding the VERY REAL AVB COSTS.

Now more then ever I feel it is critical, as we get down to the final vote, that correct information be properly disseminated with respect to costs. I state this because based on the letters, discussions and representations made by some residents and some officials it appears many residents still simply do not understand the economics and factual financial ramifications associated with these choices. Thus some residents may ultimately make a choice/vote based on a flawed or incorrectly represented financial numbers. So lets talk TURKEY!

Mothballing Option: Using the Committee's own financials the estimated associated cost to the residents via bond financing is $1,200,000 per year for 15 years.

Demolition Option: Using the Committee's own financials the estimated associated cost to the residents via bond financing is $700,000 per year for 10 years.

AVB Option: Many residents incorrectly believe there is no real out of pocket costs associated with this option. Actual costs attributed to demolition or mothballing are more concrete and exact BUT these options are also significantly LESS EXPENSIVE to your own wallet then AVB. I will attempt to provide some clarity to aid in comparing economic costs for those voting with their wallets. For simplicity sake I will use averages over the first 20 years.

AVB as a going concern will pay some taxes. In fact they will pay $6,000,000 in taxes over the first 20 years. AVB will proudly tell you this and yes technically (as our Mayor pointed out in his very carefully worded GC news letter this week) any money including ONE DOLLAR is more then our village receives now. At first glance this sounds good_ hey we get something we never got before, how can that be bad? How can that cost me money, they are paying six million right? But the devil is in the details and the wonderful tangled web of our taxation system. It is my understanding that the tax law requires that once a property goes onto the tax roles that the full tax value of that property must be collected. The full value in the AVB case would be roughly $30,600,000 over the first 20 years but with the PILOTS reducing the AVB portion to roughly $6,000,000 the balance must then be paid by the remaining existing taxpayers (US)! Sounds crazy but it is TRUE. Ask Nassau County Department of Assessment if you do not believe this. So for every dollar AVB pays we personally pay much more then they do. We not only match them we pay 4X what they pay!. Put another way we pay over 80 cents of every tax dollar from our own wallets so they can run their business. I agree that is sounds totally illogical but that is the financial reality and the direct personal ramifications to your wallet with deals that involve PILOTS. AVB on the tax roles with these PILOT programs/payments cost residents significant money, so much so that you could argue that the AVB proposal would seemingly violate the RFP which called for minimal or no cost to residents.

So in calculating the AVB costs, we the residents will actually absorb and PAY an average cost of $1,200,000 per year in additional total taxes. Furthermore, we can also debate the exact amount of the incremental cost per student and the potential number of students that AVB may have; but all parties agree that any additional students in an AVB project will cause a direct increase in school taxes at some level. The cost estimates related to this range between $300,000 and $1,000,000+ per year depending upon whose numbers you believe (AVB, concerned residents or the school board). So in a nutshell before even addressing any other potential issues, the AVB proposal includes actual costs to residents that will cost us an average of a low of $1,500,000 per year upward to $2,200,000 or more per year in additional school and property taxes. And this BURDEN LAST FOR AT LEAST 20 YEARS which is 5 or 10 years beyond the costs associated with the other 2 alternatives.

So if you are voting with your wallet be aware that AVB will likely cost you much more then the other options. How much more over the 20 years_ based on projections: at least 12 million more then mothballing and 23 million more then demolition - this is real money out of our own personal pockets! Worse yet, costs could escalate as high as a total of $37,000,000 that we pay out of our pocket. Yet these costs mysteriously do not appear on the supposed "IMPARTIAL" ballot.

I ask HOW DID WE GET HERE when other options that residents truly desired were not fully evaluated because of the so called cost associated to the residents. But yet here we are today paying and paying dearly for AVB. Mr. Mayor and Trustees _Please help me understand this??? How did we get this far away from the RFP without any significant benefits to the residents.

As an aside here are some ballpark figures on the costs on completed projects in other communities on a few things that residents do seem to want.

$18,000,000 for an 80,000 square foot aquatic complex with an indoor aquatic area/ ,swimming pool, water slide and leisure pool. The complex included a state of the art weight room, aerobics room, cardio fitness area, a full gymnasium, multi-purpose sports rooms, craft rooms with kitchen area, an indoor running track, climbing wall, locker rooms, children's programs, seniors center, meeting rooms and administrative offices.

$4,200,000 for an upscale brick constructed indoor Ice Hockey Arena with a 1000 seat capacity with full concession areas, lockers rooms, etc.

$4,800,000 for 96,000 sq foot multi-sport fully enclosed turf facility with locker rooms and concession areas.

Whether you want rec facilities or other choices, my point is the community can get so much more for the same money AVB wants us to pay from our own hard earned personal wallets just so AVB can run there business. In closing I just to reiterate when reading the poll choices... remember the AVB choice is the most expensive option to each resident on a personal cash out of pocket basis even though no dollar amount appears in the AVB polling option.

Scott Kiley