08-05-85 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING _ AUGUS.T.S, 1985- BILL NO. 94 -85 A BILL APPROPRIATING MONIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE EXPENSES OF SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1986, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1986, INCLUDING ALL OUTSTANDING CLAIMS AND OBLIGATIONS AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL TAKE EFFECT. This bill had first reading. Council Member Taylor made a motion to set this bill for public hearing August 19, seconded by Council Member Zakrzewski. The motion carried. BILL NO. 95 -85 A BILL LEVYING TAXES AND FIXING THE RATE OF TAXATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING REVENUE TO MEET THE NECESSARY EXPENSES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1986. This bill had first reading. Council Member Serge made a motion to set this bill for public hearing August 19, seconded by Council Member Taylor. The motion carried. BILL NO. 96 -85 A BILL AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE SOUTH BEND MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING AN ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TARGET AREA TO ARTICLE 13, 328 N. MICHIGAN. This bill had first reading. Council for second reading and public hearing Committee, seconded by Council Member UNFINISHED BUSINESS { Council President Beck asked Carolyn parking garage for city and /or county PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Member Puzzello made a motion to set this bill August 19 and refer it to the Human Resources Taylor. The motion carried. Pfotenhauer to look into reduced rates in the employees. Philip Kline, A &D Discount Drugs, reading the following into the record: Mayor Roger Parent South Bend Common Council County -City Building South Bend, IN 46601 Dear Mayor Parent and Council Members: As a business manager in downtown South Bend I deplore the policy that allows for the city of subsidize a retail giant over an extended length of time as an enticement to keep them in the downtown business district. Specifically, the property at 128 S. Michigan is currently owned by city redevelopment and they are leasing the property to a large drugstore chain at a grossly substandard rate. This situation has existed since 1979 when redevelopment assumed control of the property, and the financial favors the city has given them amounts to about 24- 40,000 yearly. The leased property has an annual market rental value of $6 -10 per sq. foot, and has been and is being leased for roughly $1 -2 per sq. foot of retail space, not including warehouse space in the basement and an office situated overhead. I have no problem competing with other stores for the consumers' dollar, and we have been successful doing so since our existance. But, who would want to do business in a city which stacks the deck by subsidizing a multi - million dollar drug chain at the expense of local merchants engaged in the same business, selling the same merchandise, as well as the taxpayers. This financial gratitude creates potential for pricing advantages of 305% for select departments of merchandise. During initial inquiries to the monthly lease amount was initia However, investigation into the And, conversation with a member that they had "worked something property and existing leases. redevelopment department it was implied that the low ted by the previous land owners with the drug chain. history of the property proved this to be false. of the drug chain's real estate department revealed out with the city" after the city had purchased the With a recently negotiated lease the city has left the door open for the situation to persist during the next 5 years. How can this be justified ?? And if it is allowed to persist, is it because the present administration is content to allow the retail base of the city to continue its erosion? It behooves the mayor and city council to determine a solution that would bring the city appropriate revenue from the property whether it be rent, taxes or contributions. Sincerely, Philip R. Kline Douglas Kline, 63551 Miami, Power Discount Drugs, spoke regarding the problem with Osco Drugs.