Council Minutes

September 19 and 20, 2005 Meeting Minutes

BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 19, 2005 - Special Meeting – 5:30 PM – Broughal Middle School –
125 West Packer Avenue, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - Continued City Council Meeting - 7:30 PM –
Town Hall, 10 East Church Street, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

ROLL CALL

President J. Michael Schweder called the meeting to order. Present were Ismael Arcelay, Jean Belinski, Robert J. Donchez, Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., Gordon B. Mowrer, Magdalena F. Szabo, and J. Michael Schweder, 7.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

President Schweder advised that, prior to the consideration of the regular Agenda items, City Council will conduct three Public Hearings. The subject of the first Public Hearing is the proposal of Mr. Leeson and Mr. Mower as it relates to three zoning areas within the City, IR Industrial Redevelopment District, IR-F Industrial Redevelopment Flexible District, and HI Heavy Industrial District, that would prohibit a gambling casino as had been proposed by owners of property referred to as Beth Works located in South Bethlehem in the vicinity of Third Street at a site of the former Bethlehem Steel Corporation operations; the subject of the second Public Hearing is a liquor license transfer request from Bath, Pennsylvania to 217 Broadway, Bethlehem; and the subject of the third Public Hearing addresses a request from Lehigh Valley Industrial Park (LVIP) to rezone from HI Heavy Industrial District to IR – Industrial Redevelopment District two tracts of land in the vicinity of East Fourth Street and Route 412, and Zoning Text Amendments to allow certain uses permitted by right in the HI Heavy Industrial District and IR Industrial Redevelopment District. President Schweder called the first public hearing to order as follows.

PUBLIC HEARING - Zoning Text Amendments - Prohibiting slot machines and/or gambling casinos, and/or gambling of any kind or nature in the following Zoning Districts: IR Industrial Redevelopment District, IR-F Industrial Redevelopment Flexible District, and HI Heavy Industrial District

7. COMMUNICATIONS

A. Director of Planning and Zoning – Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to Prohibit Gambling in IR Industrial Redevelopment District, IR-F Industrial Redevelopment Flexible District, and HI Heavy Industrial District

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 12, 2005 from Darlene Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, in which it was advised that at the August 24, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to prohibit gambling in the IR Industrial Redevelopment District, IR-F Industrial Redevelopment Flexible District, and HI Heavy Industrial District. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend that the Amendment not be acted upon favorably by City Council. The Planning Commission members also voted 5 to 0 to forward a recommendation that it is important that the City begin to do a more complete review of where and how gambling should be addressed in the City, along with a review of land use impacts of gambling. The Planning Commission recommended that an independent, expert consultant should be engaged and should commence work on a study of these issues no later than December 31, 2005.

B. Lehigh Valley Planning Commission – Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Prohibiting Gambling in IR Industrial Redevelopment District, IR-F Industrial Redevelopment Flexible District, and HI Heavy Industrial District

The Clerk read a letter dated July 29, 2005 from Frederic H. Brock, Assistant Director of the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission (LVPC), in which it was advised that the LVPC reviewed the referenced amendment to the Bethlehem City Zoning Ordinance at its meeting on July 28, 2005. The Commission considers the amendment to be a matter of local concern and voted to offer no comment.

Planning and Zoning Director Comments

Ms. Heller, acknowledging that City Council is familiar with the site, explained that the Planning and Zoning office, in reviewing the proposal, looked first at the Comprehensive Plan. Confirming that the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1991, Ms. Heller highlighted the fact that it does not address gaming, specifically. Ms. Heller affirmed it was not a legal use at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Ms. Heller, observing there are common themes throughout the Comprehensive Plan document, advised one is the need for redevelopment of the former Bethlehem Steel Corporation land. She enumerated that it calls for diversification of industries, and replacement of heavy industrial uses with other alternative uses. Ms. Heller stated that the executive summary reads that “new industries will have to be attracted from outside the area, sold on the skills of the City’s labor force, its central location, and its overall quality of life. Commercial development, in order to best serve its customers, must concentrate on reinforcing traditional markets with new and original enterprises.” Ms. Heller affirmed that at the time the Comprehensive Plan was created, the entire Bethlehem Steel land was zoned HI – Heavy Industrial. The Comprehensive Plan was very insightful at that time to recognize that the City will need to provide great flexibility in this area of the City to encourage development. Ms. Heller, continuing on to advise that the current Zoning Ordinance was reviewed, stated that specifically the Bureau looked at the IR Industrial Redevelopment District. She further explained that, when the Bureau looks at Zoning Ordinance Amendments, the Bureau looks at the Zoning Ordinance as a whole to see how the proposed amendment fits into the overall goals and objectives of the Ordinance. The Bureau reviews the purpose and the permitted use of all the Zoning Districts in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Heller read the purpose of the IR Industrial Redevelopment District, as follows: “The purpose of this District is to promote the economic revitalization of underutilized heavy industrial properties. In order to accomplish this purpose a variety of land uses will be permitted within this District and flexible design standards will be applied during the site plan approval process.” Ms. Heller said, “in our estimation, the District was created in response to conceptual plans proposed by Bethlehem Steel at the time…The uses that are permitted there are so flexible that pretty much those uses dance all around the additional uses that are proposed right now for the BethWorks Now site, although they don’t specifically include a casino. Those permitted uses include commercial, recreation facilities, hotels, retail uses, theater, auditorium, museum, civic and cultural facilities, amusement and recreational facilities, and any facility whose purpose is dedicated to historic preservation which tells us…that historic preservation was important to the City of Bethlehem.” Enumerating other permitted uses including a visitors center, bank, conference center, convention center, Ms. Heller said there also is a provision that any additional uses that are compatible with uses that are permitted by right might be permitted as special exception uses. Ms. Heller stated, “it is clear that the intention was to be as flexible as possible. And, the IR zone was created in 1996 when the 160 acres known as BethWorks was proposed. Those uses included an industrial history museum, I-Max theater, retail, commercial, hotel, conference center, multi-purpose outdoor arena…Bethlehem Steel land planners requested that the City create a zoning district that would provide the greatest flexibility in development because of the redevelopment strength and challenge…[of] the site. The City Administration and Council agreed and created the IR Zoning District. The proposed amendment does seem to work at cross purposes with the intent and the purpose of both the IR zone and the Comprehensive Plan as you look at them today.

The other thing we look at…is land use impact of any potential use. We looked at the land use impact that could be associated with gambling, [and] considered what area of the City could best absorb those impacts. Generally, the land use, environmental, and social impacts related to gambling are not particular to gaming industries. They could be found in many sectors of the tourism industry that would draw large crowds. Those might include theme parks, ski resorts, heavily visited museums. The most prominent land issues that we look at for any particular use might be parking, traffic congestion, housing impacts, and emergency services. The Route 412 proposal was created in response to the significant projections for reuse of the Steel land. The $60 million project includes five lanes for traffic leading from the I-78 interchange to the heart of the Bethlehem Steel land. And the City, in conjunction with PennDot, has already begun to look at the traffic and transportation impacts that will occur at the BethWorks site. Parking, of course, is always a concern with new uses. The vast open areas of Bethlehem Steel land provide areas where parking can be provided without impacting other areas that are already constrained by minimum parking such as downtown or nearby residential areas. Again, prohibiting gaming in that IR zone would exclude gambling from the exact zoning district where you would have the least amount of impact to the zoning area.

The amendment before you prohibits gambling but it does not specifically address where gambling might be the most appropriate in the City. There’s been much discussion about whether each municipality must provide for every use somewhere in the City…I want to be clear, I’m not an attorney, and so there are many legal issues associated with exclusionary zoning, but I am a professional planner. I’ve been certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners for 15 years. I’ve been working with local government in the professional planning area for 20 years. Through all of my experience as a professional planner, it’s been understood that each municipality must allow for all uses within their borders. It’s also understood that if a municipality does not provide for each use within its borders the municipality opens itself up to legal challenge and possibly a curative amendment challenge.” Ms. Heller, explaining it has been a basic premise in professional planning in Pennsylvania as she is familiar with it, noted the requirement that every use shall be met in the municipality is one of the reasons why multi-municipal planning has been so well received by many municipalities. If a few or several municipalities partner in a multi-municipal plan, then more dense or intense uses can be clustered, and agricultural uses and open space can be protected in the more rural or suburban communities. The multi-municipal plan removes the requirement that each new use must be permitted in every municipality. Ms. Heller explained if the basic idea that every municipality must provide for every use was not so universally accepted in Pennsylvania planning, then multi-municipal planning would not have been so well received. The requirement that all uses must be allowed for in the City must be addressed, and this begs the question if gambling is not allowed in the IR zone where the Planning Office believes it is the most appropriate then where would it be allowed. Ms. Heller explained that of alternative sites in the City none of them in the Bureau’s estimation are nearly as appropriate. Some of the RR Residential zones contain large, undeveloped parcels of land, and parcels along Schoenersville Road at the interchange were recently rezoned from Planned Industrial to Commercial Shopping Center. There are some sites in the City that are developed but are clearly underutilized such as Westgate Mall. However, the Bureau does not feel these sites are appropriate for a casino or for gambling. There are incompatible abutting, surrounding uses, they would develop or redevelop on their own, they lack the economic development opportunities that are seen in the IR zone, they lack the benefit for historic preservation, they lack the conservation of the City’s industrial history, and they provide no opportunity for further adaptive reuse of vacant or abandoned structures.

The Planning Bureau’s recommendation to the Planning Commission was that a more extensive review should be undertaken of the current Ordinance provisions to determine how this Ordinance and other City Ordinances could be altered to best prepare for the possibility of gaming in the City. Ms. Heller, pointing out that when gaming was first created it did not allow municipalities to address gaming in a Zoning Ordinance, affirmed that provision was recently changed, and that change was immediately followed by the proposed Zoning Amendment. Ms. Heller advised that the Bureau’s recommendation to the Planning Commission was that the proposed Zoning Amendment should not be approved for the following reasons. First, the proposed Amendment does not take into consideration how to address gaming in the City of Bethlehem. Second, it is not proactive and does not look at the City as a whole. Third, the proposed Amendment intentionally opens the City up to claims of exclusionary zoning. Finally, the proposed Amendment disregards the goals and objectives for the Bethlehem Steel land as set forth in both the Comprehensive Plan and the IR Zoning District in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Heller confirmed that the Planning Commission concurred with the Bureau’s recommendation, and voted unanimously to recommend that the proposed Amendment should not be acted upon favorably. She continued on to affirm the Commission recommended that the City should begin a complete review of how gambling should be addressed within the City including the current Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent Ordinances in the City, along with the review of the land use impacts of gambling.

Comments By Representative of Valley Citizens for Casino Free Development and Citizens For A Better Bethlehem

David Freeman, 525 Spring Street, stated that he represents the Valley Citizens for Casino Free Development and Citizens For A Better Bethlehem, two groups that are opposed to gaming use on the Bethlehem Works site. Mr. Freeman noted that after he graduated from Bethlehem schools, he moved to the Poconos, was a member of Borough Council, served on their Municipal Authority, as well as the comprehensive and regional planning committees. Mr. Freeman, commenting that people have been the recipients of a campaign for the last several weeks which has not cleared up what is really true and what is not true, remarked he finds it ironic that the orange or brown paper going around from the Sands is also completely not correct. Mr. Freeman said there are no laws that guarantee a category one, two, or three license will be awarded to Bethlehem or any other location in the Lehigh Valley. Mr. Freeman stated there are two available category two licenses, and the other three are located in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Mr. Freeman continued on to say although a category two license will not be accepted by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board until November 1, 2005, there are already more than two other stated applicants in the Commonwealth, the majority of which of those applicants presently known are not eligible for a category one or category three licenses. Mr. Freeman advised that the BethWorks site is not eligible for a category three license, as there is no well-established resort hotels currently on the site.

Turning to history preservation, Mr. Freeman related that Bethlehem Steel Corporation subdivided the BethWorks site away from the present Lehigh Valley Industrial Park (LVIP) VII in order to preserve the buildings for a National Steel Museum. Mr. Freeman, remarking that not only was a major retail destination never envisioned, said he would like to believe if they had to do it all over again they would never have subdivided the property. He recounted that local investors attempted to purchase the site from ISG, intending to build a museum and an arts center, but local officials, including Senator Lisa Boscola, objected to that purchase of the site by the present owners, believing they would favor commercial and retail development over preservation. Although initially stating that they would develop the site as envisioned by Bethlehem Steel, the present owners immediately marketed the site to gambling and retail destination partners upon purchase. Mr. Freeman informed the assembly there are no legal means to require the owners to preserve the buildings, nor has the City of Bethlehem enacted any legislation to do so. He said the owners are under no legal obligation to abide by any written contract or covenant to preserve the buildings. Mr. Freeman noted that case law supports the right to develop the property as seen fit, overriding any contract or covenant, and that also includes the ability to sell the property tomorrow to someone else who could tear all of it down. Turning to the power point presentation, Mr. Freeman explained the picture is of the comprehensive plan in the Lehigh Valley. Noting that on the upper right-hand corner is a picture of something that says "community renewal", Mr. Freeman said that is the rest of the former Bethlehem Steel property. Mr. Freeman observed another fact that people are forgetting is that the BethWorks site is 15% of the entire Bethlehem Steel property. Mr. Freeman remarked that the other 85% very silently has been moving along, as City Council and the Mayor saw during a tour they attended last week, and added there are over 1,000 acres of development of industrial uses very similar to what Bethlehem Steel provided to Bethlehem years ago. Pointing out ”there are many people…throughout the Commonwealth who are watching us to see what we’re going to do,” Mr. Freeman queried “why in the world would we give away this great opportunity to develop an industrial use and build an industrial area, and jeopardize it for one particular person or one particular use which is 15% of their total property. The Mayor was going to talk to you about something that I had not read. There are many newspapers, many TV stations, and many internet sites, and lots and lots of places you can get information. But until Darlene [Heller] mentioned briefly in her discussion, I have yet to hear a plan of drafted concerns.

Again, being a former [municipal] official in Mount Pocono and Monroe County, traffic is an issue for us, as well as the rest, for a very long time, and I’m very concerned that no one is addressing the issue…Late in 1990, the City of Bethlehem met with the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission to address East Third Street. They were anticipating development and the flows through Bethlehem's Business District on the South Side, they viewed preliminary design reports for projected land use of LVIP VII, and they viewed those same references for projected use of the BethWorks site which at the time was a National Steel Museum, a performance center possibly, and…industrial use.” Focusing on his slide presentation, Mr. Freeman observed the picture is a “horrible piece of our past back in urban renewal which was when we were going to pave down all of South Bethlehem, and turn it into [a project] called South Side ’76 project. Back in the ‘60’s for those that don’t know our forefathers decided that we needed to have a connection between 378 as an interstate connecting the Hill to Hill Bridge all the way to the proposed I-78. And back in the 90’s your predecessor dusted off those reports, and looked again and said that we need to do this now for what we expect on the property. Luckily, they didn’t do that. What they did do is that, as Darlene [Heller] spoke about, they divided the area into two areas: area 27 if you look at an old screen which is from the Minsi Trail Bridge down to I-78, and area 28 which is the area from the Hill to Hill Bridge to the Minsi Trail Bridge. And this is the plan in place…from I-78 to the Minsi Trail Bridge, and the next slide shows you the PennDot form…But what was determined at the time was the majority of the traffic was going to be traveling from the LVIP VII site. It was not going to be impacted on Third Street, up to the Minsi Trail Bridge, so all the traffic was designed to be pushed from the Minsi Trail Bridge down. In conjunction with that plan, you’re looking at a picture from the Lehigh Valley transportation site done by the Planning Commission in 2002 which identifies area 15 as the area between the Hill to Hill Bridge and the Minsi Trail Bridge as being one of the top 15 congested corridors by 2020. It does not mention that the Route 412 project will be congested because we’ve already addressed that with a five lane highway. The…plan for the other area from the Hill to Hill Bridge to the Minsi Trail Bridge would [be] installing a few traffic signals, lighting a few roads. There is no major change and nor would it be expected that the road can handle any more traffic than it does presently. So, moving on in the future’s adjusted corridor update, in 2003 the plan had just updated an original traffic model, and they identified 13 new areas that would be at a deficient level of service in 2030. They identified Fourth Street as being one of the top 13. Third Street was not. Now, just hold here for a minute, this is the part that I am not able to understand and why is that. And I found coming out of the Planning Commission because the data that is used to determine this is not generated by what a slots parlor or retail destination might be. It’s never been updated since the 90’s. They didn’t think there was going to be a Steel Museum or people going to [I-]78. There is no model for what you are talking about today, and every traffic report that you look at does not include the proper model. They indicated that 75% of trip generation to and from the site would travel south on 412 to I-78, and less than 25% would travel north on Third Street to Route 378, with spikes in usage during Musikfest and other concert-type events. And my favorite, although there is a transportation impact fee allowed in the Municipalities Planning Code, Bethlehem doesn’t have it so we can’t force BethWorks to…improve all these things. We’re going to have to pay for it and find out ourselves. Now, one of the things that really concerns me and got me very interested in this was the Mills Corporation. We’re talking about a serious, serious retail entity in the world. They have 51 million square feet of retail space, 94% occupancy rate, 42 properties in the United States, Canada, and Europe, and most…are located in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Glen Burnie, Maryland, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and Dover race track. This is a picture of their new site that they’re proposing in the Meadowlands which is called the Xanadu project, 4.8 million square feet of retail space. You gotta believe they’re expecting a lot of people to go there and they are. And if you look in the far left corner you’ll see that their projected area for Xanadu is Allentown-Bethlehem, [an] area of 35 million within a 4 hour drive. This is going to be one of the biggest things that has ever made it to the East Coast of the United States…I just continue to pray for a little common sense. If we have the biggest retail establishment in the Lehigh Valley…they’re not interested in people from New York and New Jersey because they’ve already got them going to Xanadu. Who is coming to this thing. People from Allentown, people from all of our areas. So we’re getting these people and they take 78, and we might get the Hellertown people and they’ll take 412. Everybody else in the Lehigh Valley is coming out 378, Third Street. So, again, I don’t have any letters by my last name. I just have common sense from what I learned from my education here in Bethlehem. The primary market for a slots parlor is going to be Lehigh Valley consumers…It is possible that a 75% trip generation will proceed through 412 in South Bethlehem, with 25% going the other way. It’s possible that the level of traffic are going to exponentially surpass the plan’s estimates. So here are the conclusions. The current Lehigh Valley traffic model does not account for traffic that a slots parlor or a major [retail] destination would bring to BethWorks. The City of Bethlehem and the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission did not account for construction traffic in the years since the project on Route 412 was being developed…Recomputing the regional traffic model would not occur until after BethWorks receives their approvals from City and from the [Pennsylvania] Gaming Control Board. This is the piece that disturbs me most. You are not going to know this is a problem until it’s too late. You will not be able to require the applicant to give you money to fix this. You are not going to be able to do anything to regulate it except have to start over from scratch…If the amendments are not adopted today, a traffic study containing possible scenarios must immediately be undertaken by the City of Bethlehem, and it should also include the impact of the Stefko Boulevard corridor because once you put all this construction traffic, and all this retail traffic from north of Bethlehem you’re going to turn that entire area into a parking lot which I don’t think is what the plan for the Stefko Boulevard corridor is. The updated Regional Traffic Model that identified this congested corridor scenario would take 15 years before a plan could be implemented to alleviate the situation. So for 15 years, people that live at Riverport, people that live in South Bethlehem, that work elsewhere, are going to be spending their traffic time hours every day in and out of Bethlehem. I for one do not believe that it is worth sacrificing $10 million a year…to displace all [the local] residents that will be in traffic here, [and] all the other [travelers], telling these people well it used to be 2 hours to New York. If you leave at 3:00 a.m. you probably can still make it in 2 hours. In the interim, South Bethlehem will be paralyzed, unless you have [emergency measures that would be implemented.] I assume that would be making 378 one way in the morning one way and 378 one way the other way at night. I don’t know, but if there is no plan in place, that there is no where to go, and no more room for traffic, I don’t know what we’ll do.”

Turning to his last point, Mr. Freeman said “I really didn’t want to talk about but I think it’s very important to this. The biggest piece of [the] session here is our trust that we have in BethWorks preserving our buildings, preserving our legacy, and I don’t believe that there is anyone in Bethlehem that doesn’t want that to happen. I intended personally that people would think this is an issue about that but it truly isn’t. In fact, I would like to thank the BethWorks people for bringing it to the attention of everybody…However, one of the partners that BethWorks people have identified, again, the Mills Corporation, I have two examples of their friendly attitude toward…preservation and abiding by their covenants. I mentioned this at the Planning Commission meeting, and although this isn’t on Reuters and the New York Daily News and the New York Times, it somehow did make it to our local papers. I don’t know how it happened. But, in February 2003, the Mills Corporation won a right to develop the Meadowlands Sports Complex, the Xanadu, and the main reason that was attributed to this was that the National Football League, the New York Giants… well they stood in for the Mills Corporation and said this is the best plan, and because of their political pressure, they [won] over their competitors. In exchange for their endorsement, the Mills Corporation agreed to written covenants with the Giants. But, guess what, they broke ground and they told the Giants go sue us. We’re not going to keep our word, we don’t care, and you’re welcome to sue us if you wish. In fact, the Giants tried to, and…their injunction was…stopped. They are now currently filing a lawsuit…However, Dave Douglass, a spokesman for the Mills Corporation commented, ‘today's ruling demonstrates the thoroughness of the planning for the sports complex redevelopment for withstanding such challenges.’ He’s complimenting himself on beating up the municipality. That’s what that says. Our second example comes from San Francisco where in April of 2001 the San Francisco Port Commission voted to put out for bid three [historic] piers and convert them into a mixed-use recreational complex. Two groups responded, Chelsea Piers which you may know from New York City,…and the Mills Corporation [that] said they wanted to destroy the 1,000 foot long [pier], maybe [similar to Bethlehem Steel's No. 2 Machine Shop.] Meanwhile, Chelsea wanted to convert all three piers into a recreational complex. Everybody wanted Chelsea’s bid, but at the last minute the swing votes changes his mind, and since then in 2001 the City of San Francisco does not have its piers open because it entered into a contract with the Mills Corporation that they will not honor and they will not build.

But…I ask you, the City…to consider the response, to consider that Bethlehem is not prepared for the traffic and crime, we’re not prepared to become part of this when multi-million dollar people who have a lot more money than we do, have a lot more time to make this happen, and I urge you to consider voting yes for the Leeson-Mowrer amendments.

President Schweder asked the name of Mr. Freeman’s organization.

Mr. Freeman replied it is two groups, Valley Citizens for a Casino Free Development and Citizens for a Better Bethlehem.

President Schweder, observing the first group would be Valley-wide, wondered how long the group has been in existence and queried whether it has been several months. Mr. Freeman indicated yes. President Schweder inquired what other municipalities Mr. Freeman or members of his organization have appeared before. Mr. Freeman replied “we’ve appeared before none so far because the Citizens for a Better Bethlehem are specifically opposed to gaming on that site and that is their primary goal. There are no alternate proposals in the Lehigh Valley that have come to this point yet…”. President Schweder noted that the group has not appeared before City Council in Allentown. Mr. Freeman responded “we have not.” President Schweder, commenting that Allentown is zoned currently to allow gambling almost anywhere in the commercial parts of the City, asked if Mr. Freeman is preparing to go before them and ask for the same prohibitions that he is asking the City of Bethlehem. Mr. Freeman thought it was partly interpretation, and expressed his understanding that in other municipalities throughout the Commonwealth they have viewed this as a conditional use. He added they have not tried to go and legislate it out. Mr. Freeman continued on to communicate that Bethlehem is going to be the beginning in the State. He explained that, depending upon development the group would go before Allentown, as it would in Bethlehem Township, or Hanover Township or anywhere else. President Schweder stated it is known for a fact that there are projects which have been hidden from the public until the Morning Call exposed them within the last ten to twelve days in Allentown and in Bethlehem Township. President Schweder, noting the proposal in Bethlehem has been out in the open, asked if Mr. Freeman has plans within the next several weeks to appear at least in those two municipalities or others to make a formal presentation and seek support for bans. Mr. Freeman responded there is nothing in front of the other municipalities, and there is another one the group is preparing to go to but it is not Allentown. Mr. Freeman explained that the group cannot just show up and say “hey, we think you’re going to do this.” Mr. Freeman, advising has attended the hearings in the Poconos that have dealt with this, commented the group is not sure of what is going on. President Schweder observed the answer is no, Mr. Freeman does not have any intentions to do that at present. Mr. Freeman stated “we will have intentions when the need arises, yes.”

Mrs. Belinski pointed out that last Thursday morning at 8:00 a.m. a group of Council Members, the Mayor, members of the Department of Community and Economic Development, and reporters toured the Bethlehem Commerce Center on the South Side and other areas, and affirmed that Mr. Freeman was there sitting next to Mr. Mowrer. Mrs. Belinski, noting she had asked why Mr. Freeman was along on the tour since it was a tour for the Members of Council, advised Mr. Freeman said that Mr. Mowrer had said he could come along. Mrs. Belinski, commenting she did not know what Mr. Freeman’s purpose was in coming along, confirmed that the group did tour the eastern-most Commerce Center Boulevard area. Mrs. Belinski continued on to say, what Mr. Freeman did not know but the Members of Council know, all that tax money is not coming for a long time.

Mr. Freeman interjected he did not say those words and advised what he did say was “that eventually that will be a very big project for us and I was told from people outside the area they are looking to see what we do.”

Mrs. Belinski pointed out there are two companies in the Bethlehem Commerce Center which are Foulk Lumber and U. S. Cold Storage. She highlighted the fact that there are huge piles of slag that must still be leveled to prepare that land. Noting once that is done, then other buildings will be built, Mrs. Belinski stated only then will the businesses go on the City’s tax rolls. But, she observed, it is an Enterprise Zone called LERTA that means Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance and which means the City will not get the full amount of taxes for ten years, since the taxes are in 10% increments over ten years. Mrs. Belinski stressed “so, it’s a long way in the future before we will realize the full tax potential of the Commerce [Center] Boulevard.

Mr. Freeman said he agrees.

Michael Perrucci, an owner of the BethWorks property, explained, in regards to the traffic matter raised by Mr. Freeman, that as all know Route 412 will be dualized and will be a four lane road that comes and stops at the Minsi Trail and Route 78. Mr. Perrucci advised “we’ve been led to believe that the use of Federal money…announced is $60 million for that project, and we further anticipate that has a chance of breaking ground next year. So, we fully intend to respond to the traffic. Secondly, statute and law regarding the casino control regulations…in Pennsylvania requires us by law to have a major impact statement presented to the City Council before our application is submitted. So, therefore, since the application has now been announced about two or three weeks ago that they’ll be taking around November 1, 2005, we will be submitting to you a major impact statement that you will have an opportunity to comment on, and that goes through all the various criteria that you would expect including traffic. The third thing is that Mr. Freeman, I didn’t hear his position on the Pocono casinos but it is suspected there will be one there, but let me just respond in regards to the Lehigh Valley. The Lehigh Valley is the third largest population base in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. There are going to be fourteen licenses issued. And the one thing we all know standing here tonight is that in several years there will be fourteen slot parlors in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The legislature passed it, the Governor signed it, and the Supreme Court has approved it. With that in mind, all of our information from Harrisburg has indicated that there will be one slot parlor in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that is located in the Lehigh Valley. Because of your population base, and because of your proximity on [Interstate] 78 as well as your proximity to northern New Jersey which, when they presented the Bill, Chris Cray who wrote the Bill who has been quoted in the Morning Call over the past year it’s indicated that all of the [models] required one location in the Lehigh Valley. So, I think the facts, although the law doesn’t specifically say whether any of those are at the race tracks, it’s very clear that one of them is coming in the Lehigh Valley, and I’ll address that later but I wanted to present that…

I have spent a lot of time trying to understand City Council’s concerns. I know that some of the Council are just dead set against this and we met with you and we respect your position, and obviously based on that position we haven’t spent a lot of time with you because publicly you’re opposed to it. But, in regard to the Council people that are undecided, I’d like to address this to you more so and that is as I have listened to a number of you, Councilwoman Belinski, Councilman Donchez, Council President Schweder, Councilwoman Maggie Szabo, as I have listened to you at various functions, speaking to the business community, meetings…in the past,…South Side Bethlehem meetings, or historical meetings, I brought my own discussions with you. It appeared to me that one of your concerns was that you liked a lot of the things that we were saying but you were very concerned, perhaps this was from past experience in dealing with other developers, that you wanted to see things in writing, and you want me to lock up with specificity the best we could at this juncture even though we’re still at a very relatively preliminary stage. In that regard, I spent a lot of time listening to your concerns and we are now prepared, and I think we’ve passed around to the audience…a letter that we addressed to the residents of Bethlehem, and I would say that we’ve tried to answer all of your questions. If I may, Council President, we intend to go through that very briefly. Unfortunately, it’s not able to be read [on the screen]. I think all of you have a copy of it, and hopefully it goes through the audience as well. In regard to the licensing itself, the law basically, in regards to this category of licensing, will allow two of them to go to Philadelphia, one to go to Pittsburgh, and the other two are basically up for grabs in the Lehigh Valley and the rest of the Commonwealth. That law says that only one license can be allowed per applicant. So we represent to you in writing here that we would only apply for one license, and only ever, ever seek one license on the BethWorks property. And, I would further point out to you that the law as written on the books in Pennsylvania is that the next license could not be within 20 miles of this particular facility. So, I think the City of Bethlehem can rest assured if you deem this project appropriate you will only have one license. This will not be Las Vegas. This will not be Atlantic City. Secondly, site preservation. One of the things that all of you four Councilmembers have indicated to me is the great history of Bethlehem Steel and how Bethlehem Steel not only built this wonderful City but how it built the nation, and protected the world during World War I and World War II. And taking that into consideration, I spent a lot of time with my partners,…our extremely reputable partners. I would say that the Venetian as Fred Krauss, general counsel, is here, and Barry Gosin, the principal of Newmark Realty is here, we have spent a great deal of time with a lot of our…planners trying to fulfill that wish of yours, trying to preserve the legacy of the Steelworkers of the City of Bethlehem as well as the history of Bethlehem Steel. And, as you can see on the board, it’s been in the paper recently the last day or so, the red is the preservation of buildings. And, again we attached this to the letter…and this is in writing and we are prepared to stand by this that approximately 23 of the 33 buildings will be preserved, and that was no small feat. With the five or six architectural firms that we have designing everything from Yankee Stadium down to…a number of major projects in the Lehigh Valley, our architects and planners worked extremely hard to make sure that we preserve the legacy of Bethlehem Steel. We think that this does that, and we’re prepared, and it is in writing, for you to consider that tonight. The third thing that we found is that a number of you, as well as a number of citizens, particularly Save Our Steel and other groups, were very concerned about design of the gaming piece. And, as you know, this gaming piece will be on the eastern side of the Minsi Trail Bridge underneath the ore yard crane there, the Lehigh-Hellertown side of the Minsi Trail Bridge. That’s the design that we expect and are willing to live by and work with the City on. We think it blends in with the historical nature of the buildings. Newmark is particularly expert in preservation. They’ve done a number of major projects in New York City. Barry [Gosin] made a speech to the Lehigh Valley Economic Development Corporation that showed all the wonderful buildings that they’ve preserved including the Flatiron building in New York City which is one that they’re very proud of and that they own and preserve. The Venetian has done the same with a number of sites. The fourth thing is jobs for local residents. In that letter you will find that we’ve tried to identify thousands of jobs that will be created here. One of the [businesses] I spoke to was the owners of Loopers restaurant in South Side Bethlehem. Last month they put an ad in the paper for a dishwashing job for $6.50. They got over 220 people that physically went into their restaurant and filled out a written application for that job. So, there is an immediate need for job creation. We will create thousands of temporary jobs in regard to the construction workers that will build what we hope will be a magnificent site, as well as the thousands of permanent jobs, and we’ve listed some of those. Those jobs will be in compliance with the Venetian high standards of their employees which they call team members in terms of health care, dental, day care, food, what have you. And, they’ve been voted three times in the last three years the best employer in southern Nevada which includes the entire Las Vegas area. Diversity – one of the things that we will do, and it’s required by law, and we’ve already started working on it, is our diversity program. You have a number of many different cultures in your fine City, and in our minds the best thing that we can do is to create a really dynamic diversity program. And, if we can do that, we will spend a lot of time with the Community Development Corporation building that, and working with the local people to make sure that we hire the people from the City of Bethlehem. Training – we are working with Northampton County Community College. We have created a program where these people will be taken right to our site at the Community College, properly trained, [and will have the opportunity of] obtaining these jobs…Project Labor Agreement – we’ve entered into a letter of intent with the construction building trades council and they are here in force tonight because this means a lot of jobs to them, and it’s very important to them. And we are prepared to build that site with this great local labor force…Local purchasing – we will be working with all the local merchants in the City of Bethlehem and in the Lehigh Valley to prepare not only a minority business purchasing plan but a local purchasing plan as well. ArtsQuest – we have provided them with various facilities on the site, and the National Industrial Museum we’ll also work with them. The Steelworkers Archives – we plan to have sites for them. And I’d like to turn it over to Fred to talk about some of the issues that he has. I think they’re also addressed in the letter.”

Fred Krauss, President and General Counsel of the Venetian in Las Vegas, noting a lot has been heard about Atlantic City, said “but I wanted to lay out and talk to you about Atlantic City. Atlantic City is nothing like Bethlehem. It was a blighted and impoverished area. And everybody quotes crimes statistics about Atlantic City…This is a chart that shows the crime on the bottom line graph, but the real crime rate in Atlantic City is a chart published by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission and the South Jersey Transportation Authority, a couple of State agencies. And it more accurately describes what is really the reality is that casinos don’t bring in any more crime than any other economic development, whether it’s economic development that brings people and there’s some impact on the property. People say that nothing happened in Atlantic City as a result of casino gaming…[but]…as the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority [will also tell you]…they have through taxes on slots in the City invested $835 million in Atlantic City redevelopment projects…”.

President Schweder, communicating that he and Mr. Perrucci have had discussions ongoing for the last several years, said one of the biggest concerns he has had is that almost all developers within the City for the last eight years have at best been non-Union, and any number of them anti-Union. President Schweder expressed what he would like to have stated again, because it is significant to him, is that there will be a project labor agreement and all the work that is done and the construction that will be done is going to be done by Union companies and Union workers.

Mr. Perrucci said “we guarantee it and we’re prepared to have it in this letter in writing…”, and added that Bill Newhart, head of the labor council, requested that there be an agreement in writing.

President Schweder pointed out another item he has discussed in great detail is that regarding the design of the casino the significance of historic preservation is understood. In addition, President Schweder recounted he has discussed with Mr. Perrucci the significance of the Historic Officer of the City of Bethlehem and the belief that if the project is going to go forward that she must play a role as the project moves forward. President Schweder said he is asking if that is also a commitment.

Mr. Perrucci replied “yes, we’ve reviewed that, and again we are preparing for that.”

Mr. Donchez said he is pleased to see there are some points that have been addressed. Going back five or six weeks ago, Mr. Donchez recalled he stated publicly at town meetings that he believed Mr. Perrucci and his partners from the Sands need to address certain concerns and issues that he, Members of Council, and members of the community presented over the last year. Mr. Donchez confirmed he is fully aware that there cannot be contract zoning, and is fully aware that a developer’s agreement would come hypothetically down the road if this were to be approved and the applicants would get the license and send in official plans to the City, then the City would hold the developers to what is called the developer’s agreement. Mr. Donchez continued on to say “so everything that has been presented in this document, what I try to call a document of good faith, because I felt very strongly that even though we don’t have a developer’s agreement, even though we can’t have contract zoning because it’s unconstitutional, you needed to go past the line as far as I was concerned as a Member of Council to present a comfort zone for myself and calling this a document of good faith which is basically what we have here. But, again, this is a document that’s not binding and I think that’s a very important point.”

Mr. Donchez asked when does Mr. Perrucci foresee the State granting a license.

Mr. Perrucci replied “we’re led to believe that we will be filing the application itself in November so…literally it [will] take weeks to fill that out, [and] the impact statement. And, we’ve been told that thereafter we can expect, if we’re fortunate enough to get it, a May-June tentative approval. So, we’re looking at May or June 2006…”.

Mr. Donchez inquired, if the gaming license were to be issued, is the license issued for one year, three years, subject to review, and subject to renewal.

Mr. Perrucci responded “they have talked about a temporary license, but it is always subject to review and renewal by them. It’s a one year license.”

Mr. Donchez asked has there ever been a casino in New Jersey or Nevada where the license has been revoked.

Mr. Krauss said he believes that the license of the Atlantis in Atlantic City was revoked when they went into Chapter 11 and went out of business, and believes it has happened in Las Vegas, as well. Mr. Krauss added that the Casino Control Commission also denied a license in 1984 to Hilton Hotels because it was determined that Hilton Hotels had an unsavory relationship with an attorney from Chicago.

Mr. Donchez pointed out the license is basically one year, subject to yearly renewal. Mr. Donchez noted the developers have addressed his concern that there would be only one casino built on the property. Mr. Donchez queried is there “any guarantee that the Sands, if this were to be approved and you were to be granted a license, would not sell its interest to another casino company or would not buy you and your partners out so then they would control all the 150 acres.”

Mr. Perrucci responded “we have a pretty significant contract. I can tell you that Mr. Gosin and I are not in any way interested in being bought out. Other than the gaming corner, we are 50% owners, our group, of this property…”.

Mr. Donchez, remarking he has heard so many numbers, asked for clarification on what is the percentage of ownership, as far as what can be put on the record.

Mr. Krauss replied “we’re a public company…I believe there is a provision in the gaming control [aspect] that…if one license would go out of business that would put another license up but the license is not transferable…As part of our application, we have to expose everybody who has an interest in the casino, and everybody has a file…”.

Mr. Perrucci added that will be available November 1.

Mr. Donchez commented he is sure that information will be provided to City Council. Mr. Perrucci said absolutely.

Mr. Donchez, stating that he would like to see balanced economic development with historic preservation, asked how many buildings would be demolished and how many buildings would be renovated. Turning to the former Bethlehem Steel Corporation Main Office building, and pointing out it does not have heat or air conditioning, and there is a mold problem, Mr. Donchez asked how much would it cost in rough figures to renovate it.

Mr. Perrucci responded he thought the renovations would be about $40 million.

Mr. Gosin said he thinks the renovations would be approximately $130-$140 a foot or about $35-$40 million, not taking into consideration any environmental costs.

Mr. Donchez, asking when does it get to the point where it is not financially sound, observed that the developers are in the business to make money and to make a profit.

Mr. Gosin, observing that is a fair statement, noted “we are a real estate company…Our business is primarily focused on preservation. Most of the buildings that we’ve done are old buildings…All of our work is done taking old buildings, trying to make them into economically viable, and [well] located properties…When we walked this property, and looked at this property, we bought it because we fell in love with the bricks and mortar. And, we said that it’s got to have some economic justification to do that. We’ve taken steps…and we think that with gaming…the project that will allow us that incremental extra cost to make it economically viable. And now with respect to some of the buildings, I think it’s just very close and very hard to do unless we can have a traffic generator of some sort.”

Mr. Donchez questioned whether what may happen three years down the road, for example, is being taken into consideration in design of the buildings.

Mr. Gosin replied no.

Mr. Donchez asked what is the average pay scale of the permanent jobs at the casino.

Mr. Krauss explained he does not have those numbers compiled to give to Mr. Donchez. Mr. Krauss added that the Venetian was voted three times as the best place to work in southern Nevada, and pays a competitive wage and benefits.

Mr. Donchez queried as of tonight is there a written agreement with ArtsQuest so that they will have plans to build a performing arts center, and if not what is the time frame.

Mr. Gosin advised “we have an agreement in principle with Jeff Parks…It is not signed or the final dot of the i or crossing the t’s. But we are certainly interested…[in having that further developed].”

Mr. Donchez questioned whether as of tonight there is a written agreement with representatives of the National Industrial Museum.

Mr. Gosin informed Mr. Donchez “we have an agreement, again, in principle…”.

Mr. Donchez, highlighting the fact that much has been heard over the last five or six months about “life style malls” from Lehigh Valley Mall, to Route 33, to Route 378, and BethWorks, asked if there are any verbal or written commitments from retailers that they will definitely come and locate there if a casino license is approved.

Mr. Perrucci responded “we have not announced our retail partner yet. We…are in serious discussions with that and hope that we would be in a position to announce that in the near future. However,…I will say that in our discussions with the retail partners, one, we will control the site… We’re representing to you [that] the Venetian, Newmark, myself, we’re the people that are in control of the site and we will continue to control [it]. Number two, what retail partners told us is that if the Venetian comes they will drive in a sufficient number of people to the site to make the retail economically feasible. If you don’t have the Venetian, you don’t have enough traffic for retail people to compete with Bethlehem Township and Saucon Valley’s Stabler site. So, it’s really a function of almost an unfortunate domino effect. We need the gaming piece to have the retail partner. We think the retail partner helps the gaming piece as well. And, once you look at those two pieces in our plans, you’ve got about 65%-70% because the retail could be as high as 800,000 square feet, a significant build-out at that point. So, even though the slot parlor is on the other side of the Minsi Trail [Bridge], a lot of the main structure buildings that we’re able to preserve are going to be the retail component of this.”

Mr. Krauss said he does not think it is surprising that the sections with the retail partner are obviously affected by what City Council does in Bethlehem. Mr. Krauss continued on to say one thing that has been made clear by the retail partners who have contacted the developers is that they need gaming as a driver. Commenting “we’re here tonight,” and noting City Council will pursue this, Mr. Krauss pointed out that obviously more serious discussions with a retail partner would depend on whether or not the gaming is on the site.

Mr. Gosin communicated that a mall or lifestyle center is not a characterization of what the developers are trying to accomplish at the site. Mr. Gosin, observing this is an unusual opportunity to take the inside of the City, and reintroduce it to the grid, said “it’s not our goal to create a so-called lifestyle center on a gritty field, or to create a fortress like the Lehigh Valley Mall. That’s not what this is about. This is about taking a project, preserving the buildings, fully integrating this into a street system and the street grid so that people will be welcomed and they’ll be able to walk along the streets and have retail shops there. We’re not going to loop the traffic inside of it, they’ll be cars going through so that it doesn’t feel like the mall…We did talk with several retail partners and there were several retail partners who in the event that this went forward were very interested. We had boiled a choice down to two, and the person that we are most interested in is the person that walked through the site, looked at the Machine Shop Two, looked up, looked around, and said this is incredible. We’d like to be part of this, and the preservation aspect. They looked at it as part of the experience.”

Mr. Donchez asked, if the developers are successful in obtaining a license, what would be the time frame for construction of the casino, etc.

Mr. Perrucci explained the developers were always under the belief that almost immediately upon being fortunate enough to obtain the slot license that construction could start on the slot parlor and construction on the site of the Minsi Trail. Mr. Perrucci continued on to say “in our discussions with the potential retail partners, clearly once they’ve recognized the Venetian is coming it’s in their best interests to want to start as quickly as possible…”. Advising he is just guessing at this point because he has not been given a definitive answer, Mr. Perrucci observed “we all don’t know the answer to that question.” Mr. Perrucci suspected that within a short time thereafter the retail component would start. Mr. Perrucci advised that Jeff Parks, of ArtsQuest, indicated to the developers that he thought the organization would put out requests for proposals, and that he would be interested in moving forward with the performing arts center. Mr. Perrucci added it is also proposed to have Channel 39 consider coming to the site and have a live audience studio. In addition, there were discussions with Hank Barnette and Steve Donches about the Industrial Museum regarding the number of buildings they want. Mr. Perrucci noted he would think they would be driven by the fund-raising capabilities to start, and added they believe that once this plan is in place they will have a lot better opportunity to get that. Mr. Perrucci, referring to Newmark, said the sweet spot is residential conversion, and commented they would be very interested in starting at the same time. Mr. Perrucci stated “but once we know the Venetian is coming, we know this project is going to be successful.”

Mr. Donchez queried whether it would be fair to say from 18 months to 5 years.

Mr. Krauss, commenting that is probably fair, pointed out one would have to add a dose of reality onto the schedule that would involve the development of the casino, and the implementation of design, the zoning and planning commission approval process, and going in front of the gaming control board. He also pointed out that people make suggestions, plans change, and only after final design would the developers start bidding it out for construction. Mr. Krauss, while confirming the developers would want to move forward with the process as soon as they can, acknowledged there are realities in the zoning and planning process, and consideration by the gaming control board.

Mr. Donchez observed if the project is approved and a casino license is received the casino will become a corporate citizen of Bethlehem. Mr. Donchez affirmed he has read about what the Venetian has done in the Las Vegas community, and the amount of money given to the schools which he thought was very important. Mr. Donchez pointed out there are many excellent corporate citizens in the community that give money to schools, non-profits, charities, and are below the radar screen such as Just Born, and the Laros Foundation, for example, that do not want any publicity but really believe in serving community non-profit organizations whether it is New Bethany Ministries, South Bethlehem Neighborhood Center, or Community Action Committee. Mr. Donchez stated he would hope that is something that would be very important to the casino since it would be a very important duty in carrying on what it has been doing in Las Vegas. Mr. Donchez asked if the developers would be willing to add to the memorandum of understanding an additional point and provide a revised letter prior to the City Council Meeting tomorrow that this would become an addendum to the application that the developers would submit to the Pennsylvania Gaming Commission so the Gaming Commission could see what their commitment is to the City of Bethlehem. Restating that the memorandum of understanding is not legally binding, there cannot be contract zoning, and there is not a developer’s agreement, Mr. Donchez repeated his question is “would you make that part of this agreement that you would submit this to Harrisburg, the Gaming Commission, as your commitment to this City what you’re willing to do, the memorandum of understanding, in good faith to the citizens of Bethlehem, and have this to us tomorrow.”

Mr. Krauss advised one of the provisions in the Gaming Control application to determine whether or not a license is given is scrutiny of the applicant with respect to commitments made to local agencies, and community-based organizations. Mr. Krauss, stating this was discussed beforehand, said “we would be happy to include a lot of that in our discussion of business plan, and would also be happy to include it in that section of the license application…”.

Mr. Donchez commented he would appreciate that being forwarded to City Council so all the Members have the opportunity to review it, City Council’s Solicitor would have the opportunity to review it, and the Administration would have the opportunity to review it.

Mrs. Belinski, advising that she has personally visited the Venetian Casino in Las Vegas, said it is beautiful and elegant. She added it is the number one casino in Las Vegas, and it does have an excellent reputation. Mrs. Belinski informed the assembly she has been in Atlantic City three times in the last month. Mrs. Belinski continued on to note that she went to the Chamber of Commerce in Atlantic City to inquire, and was given a Rutgers University study that was written by the Dean of the School of Business. Mrs. Belinski related that the report tells that gambling in Atlantic City has far exceeded the expectations, created more jobs in Atlantic City, and paid much higher in the pay scale than had been hoped. In addition, Mrs. Belinski enumerated that in Atlantic City there is a new convention hall, new fire station, new medical building, new bus terminal, and a new train station. Mrs. Belinski continued on to say she was amazed at all the new stores, and new paving over many blocks. Mrs. Belinski stressed that she has done her homework, and she does not foresee problems.

Ms. Szabo asked who among the project representatives from Las Vegas is the senior spokesman tonight.

Mr. Krauss responded it is expected that the Chief Operating Officer will be at the meeting tomorrow. Mr. Krauss stated that he is Vice President and General Counsel.

Ms. Szabo requested that Bethlehem City Council be members at the table for discussions through Council President Schweder or his designee and sit down at the same time as the Administration to hear what is going on now and not read it in the newspaper. Ms. Szabo asked if Mr. Krauss would agree.

Mr. Krauss replied “we would happy to do that for you to improve our communication policy, yes.”

Ms. Szabo, turning to Mayor Callahan, said “you heard the answer…about the Council President representing City Council at the table as discussions are going on,” and asked “will you agree to that also.”

Mayor John B. Callahan responded he would anticipate as the planning process would proceed that the Administration would lay out a time line, and the developers would sit down with the Administration and the Planning Bureau, and move forward with developing a grid, similar to other development projects in the City. Mayor Callahan continued on to note that the Third Class City Charter spells out the roles and responsibilities of Council and the Administration, and he would not see the casino development project as being different, and it would proceed as any other development.

Ms. Szabo, querying whether the answer is yes or no, repeated her question whether City Council represented by the City Council President can sit at the table for discussions.

Mayor Callahan explained he is simply saying that this development will proceed in the City of Bethlehem like any other development has before, with working with the Administration, the developers, and the planning staff. Mayor Callahan, restating that is by the Municipalities Planning Code and Third Class City Charter law, emphasized that is the way the process is laid out. Mayor Callahan stressed the Administration has never denied City Council an opportunity for information, and he does not see that changing.

Ms. Szabo asked the Mayor to put all of that in writing before tomorrow night’s meeting.

Mayor Callahan advised he is not exactly sure what it is that Ms. Szabo is requesting be put in writing such as “a seat at the table” and said he does not know exactly what that means.

President Schweder entered the conversation to say he thinks what Ms. Szabo is asking for in writing is what the Mayor just said. President Schweder continued on to say he thinks what Ms. Szabo is asking the Mayor to do is that Attorney Kelly or Attorney Spirk write in a memorandum to Ms. Szabo explaining the basis for what the Mayor just said.

Ms. Szabo explained what she means by sitting at the table is so that Council knows before they read it in the newspaper as to what is going on. Ms. Szabo added she has no political motives.

Mr. Mowrer, noting he thinks Mr. Gosin has done a great job of putting plans together, said even though he is opposed he will do everything he can to support it once it approved. However, Mr. Mowrer asked “if it’s not a slam-dunk and it goes to some other part of the Lehigh Valley, what happens to you folks.”

Mr. Perrucci responded “because if we think that we don’t get it, it goes to the Agere site [with] the Tropicana. It’s only going to be one of us successful. So, assuming it goes to the Agere site [with] the Tropicana, the Venetian would leave because their only business is the gaming piece. So they have been very clear with us up front that if we’re not successful they’ll leave.” Focusing on development of the property, Mr. Perrucci continued on to say “…the numbers keep spiraling out of control because every winter with no roofs on those buildings, the damage gets significantly more and more, and from the time that we first started with these buildings to now it’s clear to us that the retail part would not be there without the gaming so we would simply be left to our own devices. We do not believe, and we tried to not really discuss this one because we don’t think we’re not going to be successful, two we never wanted the community to feel like…we’d put up a WalMart. That was never our intention, so we’ve never had that discussion. But, I will say this, since we own the property, obviously we’re here, and I live in the community. I’m not going anywhere. The problem is there’s just no other source of revenue to preserve that legacy without the gaming piece and then the retail comes with it. So we would really start at ground zero. We would probably come back to the City at some point in the future and tell you that the buildings have got to be knocked down. But I would suspect that pretty much the site would have to be cleared for a…life center, something along those lines, like you see on the interchange of [Route] 33 and Freemansburg. In fact, we could even drive enough people to a…mall situation. I have to be honest with you, I don’t think we thought through any further than that because we’ve kind of kept our eye on the ball to get this accomplished.”

Public Comments

The following citizens spoke in favor of Bills 41, 42, and 43, the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to prohibit gambling in the IR, IR-F, and HI Zoning Districts:

Kelley Dando, 422 Fifth Avenue
Marilyn Hartman, 931 High Street
Allee Magee, 809 Blair Road
Larry Burd, 3659 Michigan Court
Dixie White, 529 Ontario Street
Gary Toth, 427 East Union Boulevard
Cleveland McCray, 219 Tenth Avenue
Anne Reese, 2005 Hopewell Road
Eddie Rodriguez, 436 Pawnee Street
James North, 4352 Primrose Court
Mrs. William Hemmerly, 329 Spring Street
Bruce Fralick, 2263 Rodgers Street
Eamon Cunningham, 416 East Market Street
Jane Gaughran, 517 Carlton Avenue
Joris Rosse, 1366 Creek Road
Ted Morgan, 925 Prospect Avenue
Bruce Sinclair, 404 High Street
Charlie Tommor, 505 Sixteenth Avenue
Al Siess, 6460 Blue Church Road, Coopersburg
Gary Corbett, 1100 Third Street, Catasauqua
Jama Abdulhakim, 1322 Hottle Avenue
Corinne Hertzog, 1322 Hottle Avenue
Nancy Wescoe, 4105 Juniper Lane
Ronald Schantz, 2034 Country Place
Joseph Trovato, 2641 Madison Avenue
Stephanie Trovato, 2641 Madison Avenue
Tina Moyer, 2415 Linden Street
Ed Lamb, 1534 Chelsea Avenue
Roy Gruver, 415 North New Street
Ziona Brotleit, 408 Second Avenue
Diane Keller, 1626 East Sixth Street
Joseph Yukich, 520 Barclay Drive
Kurtis Freimuth, 1240 East Fourth Street
Mihael Prughimer, 714 High Street
Karen Trionfo, 124 Independence Court
Ken Trionfo, 124 Independence Court
David Emery, 190 Kiefer Street, Easton
Nick Hess, 1504 Butztown Road
Santiago Rivera, 1349 Lynn Avenue
Bill George, 925 Penn Dixie Road, Nazareth
Scott Frey, 916 Williams Street
Bob Rentler, 1721 Elm Street
Dan Sobrinski, 622 Bishopthorpe Street
Billy Givens, 200 Parker Avenue, Easton
Kristin Carson, 3920 Peacock Drive
Al Wurth, 525 Sixth Avenue
Resident of 575 Shady Lane, Bath
Jeffrey Schantz, 1550 Bonnie Drive
Abe Barrows, 620 Fifth Avenue
Bridget George, 925 Penn Dixie Road, Nazareth
Margarita Rivera, 1349 Lynn Avenue
William Scheirer, 1890 Eaton Avenue

The following citizens spoke in opposition to Bills 41, 42, and 43, the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to prohibit gambling in the IR, IR-F, and HI Zoning Districts:

Roger Hudak, 1256 East Fifth Street
Bill Newhart, 140 Chestnut Hill Road, Emmaus
Robert Burkey, 1136 West Fourth Street
Joe Colucci, 1733 Falcon Drive
Wilbur Freitas, 3628 Searfoss Street
Ken Kraft, 2337 East Boulevard
Mary Pongracz, 321 West Fourth Street
Carmelo Huertas, 1307 East Fourth Street
Elias Beauchamp, 423 Wyandotte Street
Kathy Zavala, 1352 East Fifth Street
Alan Gordon, 2014 Thirteenth Street
Bob Palik, 2335 Apple Street
Mark Snyder
Tom Petro, 7560 Freefranks Drive, Bath
John Saraceno, 2113 Henderson Street
Terry Meixell, 56 East Goepp Street
Bernie Barkowski, 1903 Hilltop Terrace
Loretta Cerchiaro-Valentin, 2621 East Boulevard

The following individuals also spoke about various matters surrounding the issue:

Rudy Savelli, 1446 Englewood Street
Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street
Mike Kramer, 1288 Roundhouse Road, Quakertown
Bob Riggs, 1113 Prospect Avenue

The meeting on September 19, 2005 was recessed at 11:55 p.m.

President J. Michael Schweder called the continued meeting on September 20, 2005 to order.

Reverend Richard Collins of First Church of the Nazarene offered the invocation which was followed by the pledge to the flag.

PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED

President Schweder called the next public hearing to order as follows.

Zoning Map and Text Amendments – Lehigh Valley Industrial Park (LVIP)

a. Zoning Map Amendments – LVIP: Rezone from HI – Heavy Industrial District to
IR – Industrial Redevelopment District two tracts of land in the vicinity of East
Fourth Street and Route 412 in the City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, Pennsylvania in the 17th Ward, situated in the Subdivision known as LVIP VII – Saucon Tract

b. Zoning Text Amendment – LVIP: Add the following uses permitted by right in the
HI – Heavy Industrial District: railroads, railyards and intermodal rail/truck facilities; and lumber yard/ outdoor storage; and to add the following uses permitted by right in the IR – Industrial Redevelopment District: service station.

Communications:

7 C. Director of Planning and Zoning:

Zoning Text Amendment - HI Heavy Industrial District and IR Industrial Redevelopment District

Zoning Map Amendment – East 4th Street/Route 412 Vicinity - HI Heavy
Industrial District and IR Industrial Redevelopment District

A memorandum dated August 29, 2005 from Darlene Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, was read into the record as follows: “The…referenced zoning amendments were considered at the August 18 Planning Commission meeting. At the meeting, LVIP, the applicant for the amendments, requested that Area 2 B be withdrawn from their proposal at this time. Therefore, the Planning Commission only acted on Area 1 and Area 2 A of the proposal. The Planning Commission voted unanimously, 4 to 0, to recommend approval of the rezoning of Area 1 and Area 2 A from HI to IR.

The Planning Commission voted 3 to 1 to recommend approval of the text amendments as proposed.”

7 D. Lehigh Valley Planning Commission:

Zoning Text Amendment - HI Heavy Industrial District and IR Industrial
Redevelopment District

Zoning Map Amendment – East 4th Street/Route 412 Vicinity - HI Heavy
Industrial District and IR Industrial Redevelopment District

A letter dated August 26, 2005 from Frederic Brock, Assistant Director of the Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, was read into the record as follows: “The Lehigh Valley Planning Commission reviewed the…referenced amendments to the Bethlehem Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map at its meeting on August 25, 2005. The Commission considered the text amendments to the ordinance to be a matter of local concern. The selection of zoning districts is considered to be a matter of local choice.”

Planning Director Comments

Ms. Heller, focusing on maps of the area, explained that the first map given to the Members of Council is the area known as LVIP VII that is Area 1 in the proposal to be rezoned. Turning to the second map in the area known as Commerce Center, Ms. Heller advised what is highlighted is the area that is referred to as Area 2 A. Looking at the board, Ms. Heller noted it gives an overview of where those areas are on the former Bethlehem Steel Corporation land. Ms. Heller affirmed the recommendation from the Planning Commission is that each of the aspects of the petition forwarded by LVIP should be approved. Ms. Heller explained that all of the land requested to be rezoned is now zoned HI – Heavy Industrial and all of the LVIP land is now zoned HI – Heavy Industrial. Ms. Heller pointed out that the proposed Route 412 improvements and the nearly completed Commerce Center Boulevard greatly improve access to the site. Ms. Heller notified the Members that the City does want to retain some Heavy Industrial land. Referencing the tour taken by several Members of Council last week, Ms. Heller observed it is clear that there are still some industrial uses of the site. However, Ms. Heller noted that the improvements to Route 412 significantly increase the market value of the properties that front on Route 412. The Bethlehem Steel lands are essentially the only remaining HI zoned land in the City and the area continues to improve the City’s greatest concentration of industrial uses. Affirming the City does want to retain that there, Ms. Heller continued on to explain the purpose of the IR – Industrial Redevelopment zone is to promote the economic revitalization of underutilized heavy industrial properties. In order to accomplish this, a variety of land uses are permitted in that zone. Ms. Heller commented it is believed that along the frontage parcels the rezoning to IR and the increased flexibility are very important. Ms. Heller denoted that several subdivisions and land developments have already been submitted and/or approved for the LVIP owned land. These developments are interior to the site and continue to include the Heavy Industrial use. Ms. Heller continued on to say it will be important to retain portions in HI; however, much of the land fronting on the major transportation corridors are really more appropriate for flex office and retail uses. Ms. Heller, highlighting the fact that Route 412 is a significant gateway to South Bethlehem, stated that the proposed Route 412 improvements create an attractive entrance to the City from the South, and the map revisions show those areas proposed to be rezoned. Ms. Heller confirmed there are representatives from LVIP at this evening’s meeting to answer any questions. Ms. Heller notified the Members that the areas are proposed to be retail, flex office, and some light industrial uses. Ms. Heller informed the Members that Area 2 A extends from Shimersville Road down to the newly constructed Commerce Center Boulevard on the east side of Route 412. Area 1 is basically the lands that front on Route 412 along the LVIP area and go back to the Lehigh Heavy Forge property.

Turning to the proposed Text Amendments, Ms. Heller advised in the HI zone it is proposed to add uses for railroads, rail yards, and intermodal rail-truck facilities, along with lumber yard and outdoor storage. Ms. Heller noted those uses exist there now, and the addition of those uses as permitted uses clears up the fact that they do exist there now, they would no longer be non-conforming uses, and there would no longer be any question about whether or not they should be permitted there. In the IR zone, the proposed Text Amendment request is to include service station as a permitted use. Ms. Heller pointed out that a service station use does not include any auto repair or anything along those lines. Rather, it is strictly retail and a retail use is already permitted in IR. Accordingly, Ms. Heller stated it is felt that is clearly an appropriate change as well.

Public Comment

Cecilio Gonzalez, 1181 East Fourth Street, referring to Ms. Heller’s comments that property values of land on the South Side might be increasing because of the proposal, asked “why can’t they grandfather the land to the people that live there or as long as they live there they never have to worry about their taxes going up. Once they sell their property, then the taxes could go up. Because yesterday I was hearing a lot of people talking about that if gambling comes through the value of the property is going to go up, and a lot of people are not going to be able to afford to pay for their taxes. They give a lot of tax breaks to companies that come in there, and they don’t have to pay taxes for five or ten years so they can bring the business in. [For] a homeowner that lives on the South Side all their life why can’t we get grandfathered so we don’t have to worry about our taxes going up…Couldn’t that be done?”

President Schweder explained that a specific area cannot be singled out to do so since under the State constitution there is a uniformity clause that requires that all municipalities have to uniformly administer all taxes. President Schweder, in further response to Mr. Gonzalez, commented it is something that could be looked into.

President Schweder stated that the appropriate Ordinances will be placed on the October 4, 2005 Agenda for First Reading.

The Public Hearing was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

Public Hearing: Intermunicipal Liquor License Transfer - Bath, Pennsylvania to 217 Broadway

President Schweder advised that the Public Hearing on the Intermunicipal Transfer of Restaurant Liquor License Number R-18827 from K & R Burns, Inc., 658 Point Phillips Road, Bath PA 18014 to Lehigh No. 1 LLC, Firehouse Bar and Grill, 217 Broadway, Northampton County, Bethlehem PA 18015 has been postponed to the October 4, 2005 City Council Meeting.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

President Schweder advised that the minutes of September 6, 2005 will be listed for approval on the October 4, 2005 Agenda.

5. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR (for public comment on ordinances and resolutions to be voted on by Council this evening)

President Schweder notified the assembly this Courtesy of the Floor will be made available to any individual who would like to comment on any Ordinances or Resolutions to be voted on by Council this evening that were not covered by last night or this evening’s Public Hearings.

There was no Public comment under the first Courtesy of the Floor.

6. OLD BUSINESS

None.

7. COMMUNICATIONS

E. Lutheran Manor and Gateway Professional Associates – Street Vacation – Service Road #2

The Clerk read a Petition dated July 19, 2005 from Paul A. Florenz, Attorney for Lutheran Manor of the Lehigh Valley and Gateway Professional Associates, to vacate Service Road #2, a street that has not been opened to traffic for a period of over twenty-one years. Also attached was a letter dated April 25, 2005 from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDot), the only property owner abutting the subject portion of the road other than Petitioners, stating that PennDot has no interest in acquiring any portion of Service Road #2.

President Schweder referred the matter to the Planning Commission.

F. LVIP – Street Vacation – Deschler Street

The Clerk read a letter dated September 8, 2005 from Justin C. Ryan, Business Development Manager of Lehigh Valley Industrial Park, Inc. (LVIP), to which was attached a petition for the vacation of Deschler Street, located within the LVIP VII Saucon Tract, noting it has not been open for many years. LVIP is the sole owner of the property bounding Deschler Street.

President Schweder referred the request to the Planning Commission.

G. Business Administrator – 2006 Preliminary Budget Estimate – Pension Plans

The Clerk read a memorandum dated September 9, 2005 from Dennis W. Reichard, Business Administrator, listing estimates of the financial requirements of the Police, Fire, Officers and Employees, and PMRS pension plans, and minimum municipal contribution to the plans for 2006 budget purposes, as required under Act 205.

President Schweder stated the item is for information only at this time and no Council action is required.

8 . REPORTS

A. President of Council

1. Councilmanic Appointment – John DeStasio, Recreation Commission

President Schweder appointed John DeStasio, Jr. to membership on the Recreation Commission effective until August 2010. Mr. Donchez and Ms. Szabo sponsored Resolution 14,689 to confirm the appointment.

Voting AYE: Mr. Arcelay, Mrs. Belinski, Mr. Donchez, Mr. Leeson, Mr. Mowrer, Ms. Szabo, and Mr. Schweder, 7. The Resolution passed.

B. Mayor

Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Prohibiting Gambling in IR Industrial Redevelopment District, IR-F Industrial Redevelopment Flexible District, and HI Heavy Industrial District

Mayor John B. Callahan presented his comments on the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Prohibit Gambling in IR Industrial Redevelopment District, IR-F Industrial Redevelopment Flexible District, and HI Heavy Industrial District. Mayor Callahan said while “I certainly speak to all of you as the proud Mayor of a great City, I also want to speak as a citizen and as a resident, one who like many of you here in the City, and in this room, and like City Council have very deep roots in this community. We had an opportunity to hear many stories from many individuals about their unique Bethlehem story, and we all have that story. I grew up in Bethlehem. I went to Buchanan Elementary School, and Nitschmann Middle School, and Liberty High School, and Moravian College. My wife, who by the way is my high school sweetheart that I met in Liberty, went to Thomas Jefferson, and Northeast Middle School, Liberty High School, and Lehigh University. So we are both, [and] I am a very proud product of the City of Bethlehem. I am a better person for having grown up in this great City. It’s been said we are all products of our environment and I am greatful that I grew up in Bethlehem…I have three children who attend Spring Garden, a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 6 year old, and I want my children to have the very same experiences that I did when I grew up. I could never do anything that I thought would jeopardize this great City and the quality of life here, and the sense of community that we have all come to appreciate in Bethlehem.”

Referring to last evening’s Public Hearing, Mayor Callahan recalled that a young man whose last name was Hess said last night that he has traveled all over the country and there is no place that he would rather live than Bethlehem, and expressed his agreement. Mayor Callahan further recalled that Mr. Hess said that 15 years from now he would want his kids to feel the same way. Mayor Callahan said “I want my kids and my grandkids to feel the same way.”

Mayor Callahan stated “tonight, all the Members of Council, you have an important decision on the future of one of the country’s largest brownfields. The choice you make tonight will affect not only the 124 acres of the BethWorks site, but it will affect the whole South Side of Bethlehem, and in some ways the economic fortunes of our entire City. Our commun