Tap New Energy And Talent

To the Editor:

In last week's editorial, the publisher of this newspaper chose to quote one phrase from The Committee to Save St. Paul's recent letter without presenting the context of our thoughts. We would certainly not suggest the village should proceed with mothballing, on the cheap, and not properly protect the historic building. CSSP also understands that, during the current economic downturn, moving ahead with a major cost project could place a burden on some residents. Perhaps an interim measure would be wiser. In our November 28 Garden City News ad, we suggested: "keep St. Paul's as is, and take time to study options." In our December 5 letter, we also called for the trustees to begin a "dialogue with the community" and "harness the energy" of the residents who have become involved to "find a real permanent solution that the entire community can embrace."

The December 2 poll clearly showed that over 80% of the residents coming out that day wanted to keep the property in some fashion for the community. CSSP believes the Board of Trustees should terminate AvalonBay, tap into the energies and talents of residents who are ready to step up, set a timetable for discussion and development of a community-based alternative. Most importantly, The Committee to Save St. Paul's urges the trustees to take the first, positive step forward: access the grant funds awarded to the Village under the County Environmental Bond Act and demolish Ellis Hall as soon as possible.

Peter Negri, Ed Keating, Michael Ciaffa,

Frank McDonough and Maureen Traxler

The Executive Committee of The Committee to

Save St. Paul's

Lite Mothballing

To the Editor:

The people have spoken-- loudly and decisively-- and they have rejected Avalon Bay which received only 17% of the 5,002 total votes cast.

Now Garden City residents have to vote again, this time to choose between mothballing and demolition.

In the December 2 village-wide poll, votes for demolition (2,272) exceeded mothballing (1,857) by a modest 415 votes. I believe one reason for the difference could be the cost estimates printed on the ballot--$5.8 million for demolition and a whopping $13.9 million for mothballing (formerly called stabilization by our trustees). Thus, by my analysis, the cost to village taxpayers may have been a primary reason for the demolition victory.

My thesis is that mothballing doesn't have to cost almost $14 million. This is about 25%-30% of the cost to completely redevelop the building. I would imagine that the degree of construction in mothballing St. Paul's is a very subjective process that has a wide degree of estimates--even by the experts. For example, over what time frame would the repairs take place and what assumptions are in the plan re how long the building would be idle? Etc.,etc.

In sum, I believe the mothballing estimate was overstated in order to intimidate voters and guide them towards the Avalon Bay choice. If mothballing and demolition had cost estimates closer to each other, then the people could choose based on factors other than cost, and the "playing field" would be more level.

Thus, just as we have lite beer, lite cheese and lite salad dressing, I am asking for "lite mothballing" at an amount well below $14 million.

George M. Salem

AVB Repudiated

To the residents of Garden City:

Thank you for voting on December 2nd and sending AvalonBay a clear message that they are not wanted in Garden City! Over 5000 residents voted in this election, and more than 83% repudiated AVB and the privatization of the St. Paul's property. This turnout would not have been possible without the countless number of volunteers who helped raise awareness of this issue by contributing towards ads, distributing flyers and "spreading the word"! It is time for the Board of Trustees to stop wasting taxpayer money on high priced, ineffective consultants and start listening to the taxpayers of this Village. Kemp Hannon's response prior to the 12/4 BOT meeting, stating, "the AvalonBay proposal is not a possible nor viable option" was significant and comforting. (You can check out Senator Hannon's full statement on his website: http://www.senatorhannon.com) Thankfully Senator Hannon is listening to his fellow residents!

It is now up the Trustees and Mayor act "honorably" and end their relationship with AvalonBay! They must remember their fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers. It is time we take our Village back and think of Garden City's future.

The Board of Trustees will cast the final and deciding vote on the St. Paul's issue on Thursday, December 18th. To accommodate more residents, the BOT meeting has been moved to the Middle School auditorium at 8pm. Please come and remind the Trustees that we do not want private development at St. Paul's!

Betsy Andromidas

Can't Ignore Vote

To The Editor:

I am puzzled by last week's Letters to the Editor. Virtually all of them interpret the St. Paul's vote as a rejection of the AvalonBay proposal, but they ignore the very substantial plurality in favor of demolishing the building. While I voted for the AvalonBay proposal, primarily because it seemed to offer a reasonable alternative for those who felt the structure was worth preserving, I do not think the vote in favor of demolition can be ignored.

In fairness, while the building may have some redeeming features, it certainly does not merit the same place in the list of attractive Village landmarks as, say, the Cathedral of the Incarnation. The photographs on the web-site of the Committee to Save St. Paul's do nothing to dispel the impression and, if anything, reinforce it.

There being no plan to make the structure useful, and the voters, having clearly expressed a preference for ending what has at best been an exasperating process, the building should be demolished and we should all move on.

Edward A McCoyd

St. Paul's

In Wonderland

To the Editor:

A majority of the voters last week made it clear they do not want a redevelopment of St. Paul's as proposed by AvalonBay. A sizable plurality - nearly a majority - selected demolition over the other two options. RIP AvalonBay. Unfortunately, the vote also signaled that time has probably run out for the St. Paul's Main Building.

At the Board of Trustees meeting following the vote, it was hard to tell by listening to the speakers that demolition was even a possibility. If the vote had been between AVB and demolition, which were characterized by the Mayor's Committee as the only two realistic options, I suspect the choice of demolition would have been even more overwhelming. But, never mind; the proceedings a week ago Thursday took on an Alice-in-Wonderland character as speaker after speaker got up to tell us that the vote meant whatever they said it did; and often something entirely different from what the rest of us may have thought.

Any statistician worth the name will tell you it is not valid to extrapolate results from a vote or poll to reach a conclusion that was never really tested. Yet several speakers told us the vote indicates that a majority of residents really want to save the building. This was evident, the speakers said, because the number of residents voting either for mothballing or AVB totaled a majority. Really? Most of those I know who voted for AVB, look on demolition as the only feasible alternative. It's comforting to think most residents still think the building is worth saving. But the results of the vote tell us nothing of that sort.

Another speaker drew an even stranger conclusion. Based on the number of voters willing to spend $14 million to mothball the building, and the number ready to spend $6 million for demolition, he concluded that most people have no problem spending the money necessary to save the building!!! I'm still struggling to understand this interpretation, which cannot be inferred at all from the results.

Another person encouraged the Board to "harness the energy" of those outspoken critics who have been mobilized by their opposition to AVB, to have them now come-up with a solution for the building. The Mayor gently reminded him, and other speakers with the same view, that the search for a solution has been going on now for 15 years. Many different people, most of them with background and experience suited for the task, have tried for years to find a solution that is affordable and acceptable to the residents. The Mayor's Committee was right in concluding that mothballing now in the hope that something better will appear on the horizon, is simply a waste of time and money. There is nothing at all in the history of this long, unfortunate saga to suggest that a white knight will ride to our rescue, or that more study by a new group is going to produce a more acceptable and affordable result.

Before the vote, the same person who expects a new, more energized, group of residents to now find the elusive "solution," wrote a letter to this newspaper explaining in detail why the AVB proposal would mean higher taxes for the residents. Village taxpayers, he asserted, would have to pay the difference between the assessed taxes on the property and the lesser PILOTS paid by AVB. That maxim was widely circulated, and used as a primary club to ward off the big, bad developer.

As with so much of the other conventional wisdom circulated about the ills of an AVB redevelopment, however, the claim of higher resident taxes is totally false, beginning with its initial premise. While PILOTS are being paid, a property is never separately assessed for tax purposes. There would never even be a number to identify the amount of unpaid taxes the rest of us would allegedly have to make-up. On the contrary, the AVB proposal would have generated much needed new income for the Village to offset the taxes the rest of us will otherwise have to pay; not the other way around. In the end, so much misinformation and half-truths were circulated about the AVB proposal, that it is surprising any of the frightened residents could see any benefit from the AVB proposal. But that's just another example of the aura of unreality that has characterized this issue for years.

It has never been a lack of vision (as some have suggested), that has prevented us from finding and implementing another, "better," alternative. The primary concern has always been about the money, and about who is going to pay the tremendous cost of restoration. The speakers, who were united on Thursday in their opposition to AVB, have much less unanimity when they discuss their individual plans for the building away from the podium. That's one of the many ironies affecting this issue. It has always been easy to expose the weaknesses of any specific redevelopment proposal, and to shoot it down. Anyone who has tried to get agreement on a detailed affordable option for saving the building, however, knows that is much more difficult to accomplish. This inability to achieve a consensus is precisely what has kept the building in limbo for so many years, and that has now led to its impending destruction.

Although the AVB proposal may not have been the "most desirable" option, I have no doubt time will demonstrate that it was the best option for saving the building in a manner that would be affordable to the residents. And, despite the doom and gloom predictions, an AVB development would have produced a restored building that most of us - over time- would have been proud of, and an enduring asset to the Village.

The air of unreality that has plagued this issue for so long finally led many residents to conclude that the only real solution is to take the building down. When I drive past that magnificent structure now, I am appalled to imagine just another open recreation field in its place; just like so many of the converted potato fields found in so many other undistinguished communities on Long Island. Unfortunately, it appears demolition is the only dose of reality a majority of the community will accept. RIP St. Paul's.

John Mauk

Intimidation?

To the Editor:

It is unfortunate that we could not obtain a consensus to be able to help us remove the parkland designation from the St. Paul's building property.

However, from many conversations with different citizens of our village, it appears that many were intimidated by the looming of litigation that would purportedly follow a majority approval of AvalonBay's proposal. Therefore, the majority voted for the demolition of this historic building because they had had enough of the bickering that has cost the Village so much money and time and they wish to see an end to this unpleasant situation.

It is very disheartening that many people were also swayed by all the misinformation that was disseminated in the newspapers claiming to present the "facts", while all others, i.e.: the Mayor's Committee, the Board of Trustees, the Public Information Committee of the Board of Trustees, as well as all the experts and agencies who evaluated the AvalonBay proposal were presumed to not know what they were talking about.

This small but powerful and wealthy group did not care about anything except to defeat AvalonBay, and they succeeded by discrediting all those people who worked so hard to find a logical, fair, and timely solution to the problem of the St. Paul's building.

Personally I voted for AvalonBay because I wanted the building preserved but without money out of my pocket. We are already overwhelmed by increased taxes and the uncertain future that we face due to the poor global economy. The Village should not spend additional tax money on the building; let the people who want to keep it in its present condition put their own money into a fund established by the Village for this purpose.

Mathilde Bellmer

Representative Government?

To the Editor:

Does GC have a True Representative Government?

To quote Abraham Lincoln, a true representative government is "of the people, by the people and for the people". The people of Garden City have spoken out - and are overwhelmingly opposed to the AvalonBay development proposal for the St. Paul's property. Sen. Kemp Hannon obviously heard the people. Will our Board of Trustees?

Joseph J. Ferrara

Watch What

They Do

To the Editor:

Please attend the next Board of Trustees meeting on December 18 at 8:00 pm at the Middle School Auditorium to witness whether our Trustees will:

1. Vote against the Avalonbay development of our property and listen to the overwhelming majority of residents (83%) who repudiated AvalonBay and demanded this property be used for community use in perpetuity. Stop wasting taxpayer money on these over-priced consultants who have been retained to rubber-stamp this development. Set up a village-wide binding referendum by the end of next year with options of demolition, mothballing or community use (for all or part) of the building.

2. Completely disregard the mandate of the residents and their fiduciary responsibility and arrogantly vote to approve the AvalonBay development that would give away our property rent-free for 99 years, over-crowd our schools, urbanize our village, threaten our fields/green space and saddle us with increased taxes for generations while they make tens of millions of dollars (or more!) off our backs.

3. Employ some delaying tactic to allow AvalonBay to concoct another public relations scheme to diffuse the tide of opposition by pitting residents against each other. Get there early because parking is tight.

Evelyn Vouyiouklakis

No Private Development

To the Editor:

Thank you to the Estates and Eastern POA's for conducting the recent eagerly anticipated Village-wide opinion poll. Designed to provide our BOT with a means to gauge resident sentiment for the eventual disposition of the historic St. Paul's and seven surrounding acres, the result has provided our Trustees with irrefutable evidence that Garden City does not want to privately develop the property.

The poll was run extremely professionally and the sheer volume of the voter turnout is proof that our village is comprised of informed and concerned residents. It is also noteworthy to mention that the results of the surveys by the other two POA's were consistent outcome of the village-wide poll, because they affirmed the residents' desire not to choose the AvalonBay development proposal.

Ultimately, in accordance with our Community Agreement, our Trustees have the final authority and responsibility to vote on whether to move forward with the AvalonBay proposal or to pursue a different course of action. Their vote is also a highly-anticipated event, and is scheduled for the next public BOT meeting next Thursday, December 18. To accommodate all attending residents, the meeting has been moved to the Middle School and is at 8pm. As we move forward, we believe we should work together to determine a best-fit community solution.

Cathy and Kevin Wood

Increased Taxes

To the Editor:

Now that the citizens of Garden City have backed demolition of St Paul's in last week's referendum, they should closely examine the sunk and future costs of such an action and the fact that demolition will inevitably result in increased taxes.

It is proposed that demolition will be financed through issuance of a municipal bond estimated at $5.8 million plus 4% annual interest. Conservative and prudent fiscal policy would argue that any borrowing be used for financially productive assets that will generate income, provide a social benefit or appreciate in value. Long term municipal bonds can be used for such infrastructure improvements as roads, bridges, water or waste treatment facilities, public housing, school facilities, etc. Other uses include revenue anticipation bonds or notes that are to be repaid with future tax revenues. With no future planned for St Paul's beyond demolition, there is no anticipated revenue or social benefit for the community.

Garden City residents will have (after the proposed bond issuance) in excess of $15 million in sunk costs in St Paul's. This includes the initial purchase price of the property plus the proposed bond and interest expense. A proper and comprehensive financial analysis would also factor in the lost value of the property to the community over the past 15 years while the community dithered.

Separately from the St Paul's situation, future tax revenues are likely to decline as the value of real estate in the Village continues to decline. Recall that after the 1987 stock market crash, it took over 10 years for real estate to recover in value to the 1987 levels.

The bottom line is that:

1. Demolition of St Paul's will result in higher taxes to the citizens of Garden City as a result of the bond issuance plus declining real estate taxes as a result of reduced property values.

2. Inevitable inflationary pressures will increase the Village's expenses (labor, health care, fuel, electricity, etc).

3. There will be no economic and only minimal social benefit to the community from demolition.

4. There are no plans at this time for future use of the property (either revenue-generating or socially beneficial).

At this point, the Village Government, before proceeding with demolition, needs to provide a full financial projection to the community of all of the hard costs (sunk plus future) associated with demolition. This projection also needs to project the anticipated increases in taxes that will result from demolition.

It is unfortunate that the voters were not provided with this information before the referendum.

James Bauer

Not Me

To The Editor:

There are to my knowledge at least three James Bauers in this village. To my friends who take exception to "my" views on St. Paul's, I would simply like to say I might or might not agree with recent letters attributed to "James Bauer" in your paper. I would appreciate in the future that as editor you consider that when a correspondent signs his name, thought be given to include the street of residence as well.

The number of times I have been called, stopped as I walked my dog or shop in the village, asking for a clarification on my thoughts is somewhat disturbing and confirms for me that the St. Paul's issue should have been resolved much sooner.

I also request that when an Executive Committee signs a letter, it should also include the members of that committee and the geographical street spread.

Basically, and for now in somewhat good humor, I am saying that I am James R. Bauer, resident since 1977, but I am not James Bauer.

James R. Bauer

Wyatt Road

Don't Listen

To The Spin

To the Editor:

First, I would like to thank all of those who helped out with the recent survey undertaken by the Property Owners Associations of the Estates and the Eastern sections of the Village. My counterpart in the Eastern POA Dennis Donnelly, the members in the two POAs who worked on the survey, our 2 co-chairs Kathy Auro and Walter McKenna, Kevin Ocker and the Recreation Department, the Police Department, Brian Ridgeway and Bob Schoelle - thank all of you for helping. We even had a few Adelphi students come over and help out. Thank you Adelphi University.

We ran a great poll. We opened it up to everyone in the Village. Not just those in the East or Estates. I even saw the Presidents of the Central and West come and vote. How great is that?

We answered the question Avalon Bay - yes or no. So those critics who said we were doing the wrong poll, made personal attacks on caring volunteers, made claims that we were violating the Community Agreement, spent months trying to stop the poll from occurring, were themselves shown to be completely wrong. We got the information that the Trustees requested. Over 5000 residents came and expressed an opinion.

Approximately 37% said mothball the building. They understood the words in the choice they picked. They understood that there is an expense involved with keeping the building standing and are willing to incur that expense. Nothing wrong with that.

However, approximately 45% - the largest percent - want the building torn down. Despite the spin now being played - I believe that the residents in this village understand the meaning of the word "demolish". The 45% knew what they were voting for. They could have picked keep status quo and mothball.

Remember, every notice, every ad, every mailing that was put out by the Survey Committee included the following phrase: "The Questions are designed to be independent of each of other and the results should not, in our opinion, be construed to mean more than the plain language of the particular Question."

Why did we include that language? Because our critics kept complaining that the Avalon Bay choice could lose but the Trustees would ignore that and combine those votes with the mothball choice and say that residents wanted to keep the building and the Avalon Bay choice is the only way to do it. Go ahead - go look at the notices and mailings and emails sent out by our critics.

Now the spinners are trying to say "the 873 votes for Avalon Bay were a vote to save the building". Or "the votes for demolition prove that residents are willing to spend money on the building so let's keep it up".

Interesting that now the same group of people who complained over and over before we did the poll that the poll questions cannot and should not be combined - now want to combine choices to get what they want. How many times did the critics stand up at various meetings and put in their ads and notices and emails - saying over and over - don't combine results from the 3 choices. Now they want to combine the choices they like for their result.

Don't listen to the spin.

Incredible how the group that wanted only a vote on Avalon Bay yes or no and was positive that Avalon Bay would lose - which it clearly did - now want to use the votes for Avalon Bay in their favor for their choice. They claim that the 873 only voted for Avalon Bay because they wanted to save the building. Maybe at least some of the 873 voted for Avalon Bay because they liked the plan and in their view there was no cost to taxpayers to keep the building standing?

If you take the same percentage as the demolish and mothball choices received and apply it to the 873 votes, demolish the building still comes out on top. If you are generous, and split the 873 votes on a 50% to 50% basis, demolition still won.

Don't listen to the spin.

Let's not forget that about five years ago in the Adelphi survey for the future of the St. Paul's building there was one question that was asked - would you be willing to accept an increase in your taxes - and 38% - the largest single response to a very simple and unambiguous question - responded that 0 dollars should be incurred. The survey also posed to residents a second question - if forced to choose one option for the building - what would that choice be? The second most popular response was demolition (25%) (the first choice was private development). The spinners - which group includes several people who actually wrote the survey and then sent it out for you and I to respond to - have now been saying for five years that the Adelphi survey should not count. Does this sound familiar? Do you think residents want five more years of delay before a decision is made? Another survey?

Don't listen to the spin.

Now we hear a new one from the spinners: "since the Avalon Bay proposal was defeated and there will not be private development, let's set up a citizens committee to come up with a plan for the building. Let's have a dialogue". Who would be on that committee? How many people and who will pick them? Would any of the 45% who voted to demolish be on that committee? What is the time frame for that committee to make a recommendation? Six months? A year? Two years? Even if this committee could come up with an idea - who would finance this new proposal? Would this citizens committee need to hire some consultants (architects, engineers, etc) to help out (and we all know how the critics of the recent process complained about every expense incurred) and who would pay for them? Then another vote or survey? Will the opponents of the new plan (and there will be, you and I know it) make personal attacks on the members of that committee? And what if the roof on the place caves in during this time - are we supposed to spend $1,000,000, $2,000,000 or more to fix it while this new committee is trying to come up with a plan?

Does this sound like another delay tactic to you? It does to me.

Let me again state my position - which no one will hear or remember because they want to paint people into a particular corner to get what they want. I will repeat it again - I do not have a strong preference either way for whether the building stands or comes down. What I have cared about, and our main goal in conducting the survey, was that the three main options receive a valid and fair presentation to the residents and let them express their opinion. Five Thousand residents came out and did so. I think that says a lot and we don't need more delay and more surveys and more committees before a decision is made.

At the end of the day the exact percentages and the numbers that voted for each choice do not matter. It does not matter if it is 45% one way and 55% the other or 51% to 49%. There are 2 choices. Keep the building standing or take it down. Each choice has a solid number of village residents behind it. Trustees Brudie and Lamberti have already stated they would rather take the building down. The Mayor's Committee consisting of Trustees Lundquist and Lamberti concluded that mothball was not an option that made sense for the Village. So I guess it is up to the other 4 Trustees and the Mayor.

Maybe the poor economy will make the decision anyway and the building will slowly grind into the ground. But please - Don't listen to the spin.

Brian C. Daughney

Respect Life

Baby Shower

To the Editor:

We cordially invite our fellow village residents to help spread the joy of Christmas by participating in this year's Annual Baby Shower which will be held on Saturday and Sunday, December 13th and 14th, following all Masses at St. Joseph's Church and Auditorium.

This will be the 18th consecutive year that the parish has hosted the Baby Shower, and the generosity of Garden City residents in the past has been overwhelming. Caring neighbors have donated home-made and new baby items that have been distributed to Long Island's crisis pregnancy centers in time for Christmas.

This year, the maternity centers are especially seeking Newborn Baby Items such as: layettes, baby blankets and towels, crib sheets, diapers (new born through toddler), wipes, formula (Enfamil), pacifiers, digital thermometers, humidifiers, nose aspirators, diaper cream, shampoo, baby wash, and gift certificates to Target, Kaybees, Toys "R" Us, and CVS.

There is also a need for Toddler Items such as: clothes, pajamas, underwear and socks.

And finally, Christmas Gifts for Moms such as: sweatpants and jackets, pajamas, toiletries, robes, slippers, umbrellas, watches, Metro and Phone Cards, and gift cards to Kohl's, Wal-Mart, and McDonald's.

The centers are always most grateful to those who lovingly make home-made knitted caps, sweaters, booties and blankets. All will be distributed to organizations that directly assist unwed or needy mothers who are experiencing difficult pregnancies.

The Baby Shower culminates a nine-month prayer program which began last March when parishioners and area-residents pledged to pray daily for babies in danger of abortion and to pray for the mothers and fathers of those babies.

You may place your Baby Shower gifts in designated Christmas boxes at the doors of St. Joseph's Church and Auditorium following all Masses on Saturday and Sunday, December 13th and 14th.

Garden City residents in need of Crisis Pregnancy Information may call the following confidential pregnancy centers: Life Center - 631-243-2373, Birthright - 516-741-4030, and MOMMA's House - 516-781-8637. Also, for anyone who has been a victim of abortion, confidential post-abortion counseling for women and men is available at the Life Center - 631-243-2373.

Thank you and God Bless You.

St. Joseph's

Respect Life Society

Thanks For Contributions

To the Editor:

Thank you to everyone who contributed in some way to our project of delivering meals to homebound senior citizens and people in need on Thanksgiving afternoon. Through the generosity of so many, 260 complete dinners were delivered throughout Nassau County, to 39 different towns, each accompanied by a visit!

We are grateful to everyone who contributed in some way - by donating food, beverages, or money, roasting a turkey, making a dessert or bread. We are grateful to the Cathedral Nursery School for their collection, the Garden City Community Church for their support, and to all the children who made cards and letters in their CCD class, Girl Scout Troop, or classroom. We are grateful to Mrs. White's art Classes at Stewart School for, once again, decorating the bags in which the meals were delivered in. We are grateful to all those who helped us pack up the meals on Thanksgiving morning and those who helped us deliver them that afternoon.

We are appreciative of the generous support from the following organizations: Woman's Club of Garden City, Kiwanis of County Seat, Garden City Special Police, Rotary Club of Williston Park, Friends at the St. James Restaurant, Mineola-Garden City Rotary, Restaurant Depot, Garden City Homemakers Council, St. Joseph's Human Services, and the Garden City Chamber of Commerce Foundation.

We were overwhelmed by everyone's generosity this year, in gifts of time as well as money. We were able to pass on that generosity, by providing the Mary Brennan Inn with our extra food donations, and bringing the extra money we had collected to Waldbaums for their "Feed a Family" program. How fortunate we are to live in an area that thinks of others, often before themselves.

We are honored to coordinate this program, which only continues because of your generosity. We wish you all a blessed holiday season!

Melinda and John Alford

Overtime Being Abused?

To The Editor:

At the last Trustees meeting on Thursday evening, December 4, the principal topic for discussion was again St. Paul's and the recent Village opinion polls. I feel that for too long now other matters have been overlooked, such as the increasing amount of overtime that is running well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars and far above last year's cost. Mayor Bee in the past had directed the trustees to oversee each department and to report on a monthly basis to the public, not only the amount of overtime incurred but the reasons for the overtime. That evening Trustee Brudie reported that the Police Department's overtime, which has increased by 40% during the first quarter of this year, was due to injuries, illnesses and vacancies. Trustee Rothchild reported that the overtime incurred by the Department of Education was in budget. I'm sorry but just to state that the school district is within budget limits is not an answer for this overtime. If anyone had bothered to read the latest external school budget audit report, they would have found under the heading, status of prior year recommendations: "Recommendation - We recommended that all overtime be pre-approved by the appropriate management, and such approval be documented in writing. Status - We noted that this recommendation was not implemented."

It should be noted that this lack of oversight and accountability within our school system has been the status quo for years. I do believe that overtime has its place for unforeseen emergencies but it should not be abused and used to pad salaries or add to pension payouts.

I and the other taxpaying residents who attended that Thursday night meeting are the only residents who heard the reports from our two Trustees representing two departments, only one of which provided any analysis for the overtime. There is still Administration, Recreation, Public Works, Building, Fire and the Library to be heard from. I strongly believe that these monthly reports should be made public through the Village web site and or the local papers in the Mayor's column. I not only want to be informed about overtime and the reasons for it but I also want to hear from our officials as to how they propose to reduce these expenditures. Especially during these troubling financial times, we can no longer afford this veil of secrecy about how taxpayer money is being spent. What do you think?

Bob Orosz

Great Stores

To the Editor:

On a topic entirely unrelated to the St. Paul's debate, and I think more in keeping with the spirit of our warm and caring community, there are two new and wonderful business on Seventh Street deserving of our patronage. If you remember the days when excellent service and quality were the hallmarks of local businesses, and if you have missed these attributes when shopping in "big box" stores, you will love the new Natural Market and the new Gourmet Deli.

Each time I have shopped in these stores I have been greeted with warm hellos by more than one employee. I have also been asked if I needed help finding anything. My children have been offered a slice of what mom was buying at the deli counter. I have even received a piece of complimentary fruit at checkout- it was like being in a time warp. In both stores, this service and quality are offered in an enviroment that is impressively clean and orderly, and at competitive prices.

We are fortunate to have several specialty shops on our main stree that remind us that shopping locally has benefits beyond proximity (consider our wonderful Meat Market, Riesterer's Bakery and the Wine Shop, to name just a few.) They earn our business by providing excellent products with truly personal service, and they help us maintain a strong local economy. In the current economic climate it may be tempting to go with the retail giants, but in the end they are not as good a deal as our town's own stores.

Best wishes in the New Year,

Cecilia Sanossian