Bemidji City Council to hear municipal liquor store report, host 3 public hearings
May 5—BEMIDJI — The
Bemidji City Council
will host three public hearings and hear a report from Financial Director Donna Coe regarding the 2023 municipal liquor store report during tonight's regular meeting.
Public hearings will be held for a stormwater pollution prevention program, a liquor license for outdoor dining and a permit for a street/sidewalk cafe at Keg N'Cork, and the second reading of an ordinance amending the zoning map adopted in Chapter 28 of the Bemidji City Code, entitled "Development Code."
The city does not have any new or old business on the agenda and will likely spend a bulk of its time discussing the municipal liquor store report.
Bemidji ranked eighth out of 176 cities in highest operating revenues per amount of sales, seventh in highest gross profit and ninth in highest operating income.
Coe lists that the city ranked 59th out of 176 in highest net profit as a percent of revenue, 7.6%, as one spot Bemidji could improve upon.
The meeting will take place at 6 p.m. tonight, May 5, at City Hall. The meeting can also be viewed at
ci.bemidji.mn.us.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Will audit report serve as 'road map' for City of Lodi?
Jun. 12—Lodi City Councilwoman Lisa Craig-Hensley said a lot of the issues presented in a recent internal review report relate to best practices. The council on Tuesday received the presentation from Moss Adams, LLP during a special meeting. The report, which was completed in January, focused on assessing key controls for protecting city assets and resources, as well as timely processing and reporting of financial information. "There are a number of instances that truly reflect our continuing concern for lack of staffing to do some of the work (described in the report)," Craig-Hensley said. "There were certain sections that said 'get caught up, bring in some temp staff.' If we need temp staff to work 200 hours to do some of this, we need to get that done." Some of the firm's recommendations include implementing a fraud, waste and abuse hotline; establishing an internal audit function; assessing staffing levels; assessing the necessity of fleet vehicles and dispose of vehicles that are no longer needed; and strengthening the CAL-Card use and review process, among others. Craig said she favored the implementation of an investment committee or finance committee to oversee investment strategies and decisions, as suggested in the report. Currently, the city's investments are overseen by one employee, which Moss Adams said can pose several risks, including lack of diversification, limited perspective and reliance on individual judgment. An investment committee would be comprised of individuals with diverse expertise, including finance, risk management, and relevant industry knowledge, the firm said. If the city does not have sufficient knowledge to self-manage its investments, the firm suggested that it should consider contracting with a third-party fiduciary. Craig also said the city needs to comply with city ordinance 3.20, which states a purchasing officer be appointed by the city manager and have general oversight of purchasing functions. Lodi Chamber of Commerce president and CEO JP Doucette said the report was an important step in tackling the challenges facing the city's financial operations. He said Moss Adams not only delivered confirmation that there were financial issues at City Hall, but a "road map" of steps to correct weaknesses in the organization's structure. "This is the kind of transparency and accountability we expect from the city," he said. "It's the implementation that matters now. These (recommendations) aren't optional. These are critical controls that any business or nonprofit operating in Lodi would be expected to have in place." In its report, Moss Adams also found that the city does not have a mechanism in place for reporting potential fraud, waste or abuse, which creates the risk that potentially suspicious activities may not be investigated or resolved. This may lead to potential misappropriation of assets, fraudulent financial reporting, or other related activities, the firm said. A hotline would offer employees, residents and vendors a confidential avenue to report suspicious activities or concerns in a timely manner, which would allow the city to respond and address the concerns, the firm said. In addition, the firm said a hotline would enhance transparency, encourage accountability and foster a culture of integrity in the city. Moss Adams added the lack of an internal audit function can result in less oversight, which can lead to undetected errors, mismanagement or fraudulent activities within departments. The firm suggested the city outline the scope and objectives of an internal audit function, and create a comprehensive plan that prioritizes high-risk areas and establishes a schedule for regular internal audits of various departments and functions. The city should also identify qualified resources to carry out the internal audit function, either through recruitment or outsourcing to a qualified firm, and regularly assess its effectiveness and make adjustments as necessary to improve its impact on departmental and operations, the firm said. To view the entire document, visit The council also approved an amendment to a contract with Meyers Nave of Sacramento for legal services related to employment matters and investigations. According to Tuesday's agenda, the council approved allocating $50,000 to make the total contract $260,000. Craig-Hensley said the additional funding was related to work involving public records requests due the the city's lack of staffing and ability to fulfill requests from the community.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Mayor Lurie made ‘painful' cuts in his S.F. budget proposal. The hurt is far from over
San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie said he made 'painful decisions' when assembling his recent budget proposal that would slash nonprofit contracts and shrink the City Hall workforce. But the hurt is far from over. Lurie recently told the Chronicle that he is still eyeing a more ambitious overhaul next year as he tries to erase a deficit that's projected to reach as much as $700 million in the 2028 fiscal year. Complicating Lurie's plans to rein in city spending is the fact that the Trump administration has already moved to claw back federal funds from San Francisco and could try to take more money away. And a Tuesday report from the city controller's office warned that proposed Medicaid cuts advanced by Congressional Republicans could further hurt city revenue — as could a potential recession. Lurie's city spending plan would eliminate about $185 million in grants and contracts over two years and cut about 100 filled jobs from the government payroll. The proposal would help Lurie close a massive budget shortfall, but unions and nonprofits quickly decried what they view as an unwarranted assault on community groups that provide crucial services to residents and businesses. Despite the early resistance, however, Lurie's inaugural budget blueprint does not represent a massive reorganization of the San Francisco bureaucracy, nor does it compare to the layoffs the city last experienced during the Great Recession. Next year could be a different story. In an interview with the Chronicle last week, Lurie indicated that he sees the current budget negotiations as a prelude to his plans for 2026. This year, his budget proposal was all about 'right-sizing,' he said. For next year, he has a different word in mind: 'restructuring.' 'This was a really focused budget on delivering core services (and) right-sizing our government,' Lurie said. 'And it does not mean the work is over. It was never going to be that way. … We have a lot of work to do ahead of us.' It's not yet clear what Lurie's promised restructuring will look like. The mayor's budget plan this year already proposed combining two city departments beset by scandals into one agency. And a February executive directive that Lurie issued on permitting reform said the city should explore how it might merge 'key permitting functions' into one department. Just how difficult Lurie's budget calculus will be in the coming year depends heavily on what happens at the national level. San Francisco's nearly $16 billion budget relies on more than $2 billion in operating revenue from the federal government, the vast majority of which comes in the form of Medicaid reimbursements. Funding changes under consideration in Congress could hurt the city, but it's how much it might lose. The controller's Tuesday report said the proposed federal budget bill 'represents the biggest set of cuts to Medicaid since inception and could result in thousands of San Francisco residents disenrolling from the Medi-Cal program and reduced funding for the Department of Public Health.' Lurie has proposed setting up a $400 million reserve that the city could tap into to offset any major funding cuts from President Trump or Congress. The controller found that the reserve amount was 'commensurate to risk.' Another unknown is the extent to which any national economic downturn could harm San Francisco's budget, and Lurie's ability to bring city spending in line with revenue. The controller's report noted that, while unemployment in the city is stable and office attendance has risen, technology and hospitality companies continue to lay people off. Trump's tariffs and immigration crackdowns could further strain the economy. Regardless of what happens nationally, Lurie has said he is already trying to end 'the era of soaring city budgets' and wants city officials to 'start living within our means.' His proposed cuts represent a reckoning for nonprofits after years of flush city budgets that saw millions flow to third parties in exchange for providing crucial social services. Now, many of those organizations are reeling from deep cuts that could force layoffs and the shuttering of programs. Some San Francisco legal aid organizations are facing deep cuts that they say could lead to more homelessness and less access to legal services for the needy. One legal aid organization's director is going on a hunger strike to protest the cuts. The Latino Task Force, Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco, the Chinatown Community Development Center and dozens of others are facing cuts that will impact services. The People's Budget, a coalition of city advocacy groups that every year proposes changes to the mayor's budget, has a 'walkthrough' of all the groups they have heard from that are losing funding. Anya Worley-Ziegmann, lead coordinator for the San Francisco People's Budget Coalition that advocates for nonprofits facing cuts, said in a statement that Lurie's budget proposal threatens 'essential services for food security, workforce development, legal aid, and children and families facing homelessness.' 'We cannot balance the budget on the backs of working class and marginalized communities while at the same time claiming to be a city that cares for all its residents,' Worley-Ziegmann said. Lurie also is being slammed by fiscal conservatives who believe he should have made deeper cuts to the city's 33,000-person workforce and take on the city's 'nonprofit industrial complex,' a moniker critics have given to the large contractors that do work on behalf of the city. A previous Chronicle analysis found that San Francisco has an unusually high amount of public sector workers per capita, especially among public health and library employees. Marie Hurabiell, founder of the neighborhood advocacy group Connected SF, praised Lurie for taking on the city's nonprofits and contractors as well as his effort to 'right-size' the budget after years of what she said was 'overspending' related to the pandemic. But she said those changes will only get San Francisco to the level of spending it had before COVID, and there are many more cuts to be made to downsize the government so it better reflects the city's relatively small population. One way to do that is by doubling down on accountability, she said. 'For years there's been a lot of money flowing and our services have not been great,' she said. '(Lurie) is probably trying to be very thoughtful and methodical (about future cuts), but I'm hoping he will be more impactful.' The existing job cuts in Lurie's proposed budget also drew some criticism from the executive committee of the San Francisco Democratic Party, which is controlled by moderates who generally share Lurie's politics. Committee members said in a statement that Lurie's budget overall 'demonstrates bold leadership during a time of unprecedented fiscal challenge.' But party leaders said they were 'very concerned about the proposed reduction of city jobs currently held by San Francisco employees.' 'Cutting these roles not only disrupts lives and livelihoods but also risks weakening the long-term capacity of government to meet the needs of its residents,' the statement read. Party chair Nancy Tung said the committee doesn't have a position on where budget cuts should come from if those 100 jobs were preserved. But she said the committee hoped Lurie and supervisors would be able to find a way to prevent any city employees from being laid off. She also acknowledged that the city's financial condition had put Lurie in a tough spot and praised him for issuing a hiring slowdown on his first day in office. 'I don't envy where the mayor is in terms of having to do this,' Tung said. 'I also know that this is very hard for him, too. He is trying to do it as humanely as possible.' Tom Li contributed reporting.
New York Post
2 days ago
- New York Post
Michael Goodwin: Dems agree NYC is too expensive — and voters can't afford them being in charge
If there is a single point of agreement among all the Democrats running for mayor, it's that New York is too damn expensive. They uniformly call it an 'affordability crisis' and pledge to do something about it if elected. They are largely correct — the cost of living in New York has become absurdly high. Advertisement Although part of the trend grew out of the inflation sparked by massive spending by federal, state and local governments during the COVID era, there is also a long history of Gotham being one of most expensive places in the nation to live. A study shows that, in comparison to the national average, food prices in the five boroughs are about 22% higher, while housing is 278% more expensive. Making ends meet The United Way finds that basic costs for city households have risen twice as fast as the median income and estimates that about half of them need help from the government, friends or family just to make ends meet. Advertisement As Queens Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani recently told The New York Times, 'There are far too many New Yorkers who do not know if they will be able to call themselves that next year, who do not know if they will be able to afford their rent, or their child care, their groceries, or even their MetroCard.' True to his socialist affiliations, Mamdani is promising the longest list of freebies, but his rivals have all joined the spree. Even Andrew Cuomo, often regarded as the most centrist of the bunch and the leader according to polls, is no shrinking violet in the giveaway games. The candidates' promises to address the problem sound very nice — until you realize that nearly everything they are offering would ultimately drive the sky-high cost of living even higher. Advertisement Already that burden is one of the top reasons why New York City and state lead America in losing residents to lower-cost jurisdictions. Congestion pricing is the latest example of how and why the cost of living here keeps rising. If the candidates all want to raise prices even higher, they should support a joint slogan: 'Dear Voters, If you're not broke yet, just wait.' The problem is that government compassion doesn't come cheap. Advertisement In fact, it's outrageously expensive. That's certainly true in the case at hand. The candidates' 'solutions' are just promises to give away more stuff to more people, such as free bus service, free child care, free this and free that. It's all wrapped in the language of compassion for the poor and working class. But what the lefty Dems leave out of the conversation is an honest explanation about where the money would come from to pay for all their added goodies, and what the impact would be of an expanded redistribution scheme to deliver them. Don't be fooled by the lack of details. That's intentional because the numbers would be frightening. Take away to give away But hiding the truth doesn't change the fact that because City Hall can't print money, it will first have to take more from residents and businesses if it is going to give away more. Advertisement Consider the obvious impact on businesses. If they are taxed more, most will make up for it by raising prices on their customers, cut the pay of their workers or reduce the number of workers. When a business goes broke, the city gets no taxes and the workers have no income. Because higher taxes always impose a trickle-down cost on some people, a similar outcome is true if the government raises income taxes on individuals, sales taxes or property taxes. Advertisement Somebody somewhere along the line is going to feel the pinch of every added dollar the city takes to give away to someone it declares more deserving. For those forced to pay more, the 'solution' to the problem means their cost of living is going to get even higher. That's why the candidates' plans need to be seen in light of the current budget. As it stands, City Hall will raise and spend a whopping $112.4 billion this year — nearly as much as the entire state of Florida. Advertisement New York state, meanwhile, will raise and spend $255 billion, with much of that money coming to the city. Additional agencies, such as the MTA, have their own budgets, which spend tens of billions more. Clearly the problem isn't a shortage of money to spend. Advertisement The problem is a shortage of responsible spending. Thus raising spending for 'new needs,' as the politicians call their freebies, by hiking taxes and fees at this point is almost certain to create as many problems as it solves. There is still time for the Dems to lay out a plan to actually reduce government costs. The first debate was little more than a bidding game to see who could promise more new giveaways and most vehemently denounce Donald Trump while pledging to 'resist' his presidency. The second and final mayoral debate, required by the NYC Campaign Finance Board, will take place Thursday, with primary day falling on June 24. It's incumbent on the moderators to demand that Mamdani and all the others explain, with specifics, where they would get added funds and who would pay them. Glib lines like taxing the 'top 1%' mean nothing because those families already pay inordinate amounts of the city's personal income tax. According to a city comptroller report, in 2021 the top 1% — about 6,000 families who reported incomes of $1 million or more — paid a whopping 48% of the city's total income tax haul. It's neither fair nor sensible to demand they pay more, when packing up and leaving altogether is proving to be so popular. Leftward lurch Unfortunately, we haven't heard much of a different message from other candidates in the race, including Mayor Adams, who is running as an independent. With GOP candidate Curtis Sliwa widely considered not viable, there is so far no check and balance on the Dems' leftward lurch. The vast majority of their spendthrift City Council candidates and those seeking other offices on the ballot are proving to be automatic supporters of larger and more expensive programs. National conversations about cutting taxes and reducing government waste, fraud and abuse have yet to find meaningful support in New York. That must start to change this week. Libs' stupidity taking a toll There they go again: Another major media outlet is confusing victimhood with the consequences of wrongdoing. The bleeding heart Boston Globe writes, 'Unpaid fees jeopardize thousands of Mass. driver's licenses,' saying, 'Thousands of Massachusetts drivers each year face the possibility of losing their legal authority to drive unless debts unrelated to road safety are paid in full.' Among the debts it cites are tolls the drivers evaded. Here's a crazy idea: The drivers could pay the tolls and keep their licenses. Why is that so hard?
