a discussion emerged concerning the PUC, sparked by a council member raising concerns over legal fees associated with research into possibly dissolving the commission. The member questioned whether approving the bills would obligate the PUC to pay half of these legal services, with particular focus on whether the commission had been informed or had consented. A city staff member clarified that the approval of bills did not dictate how costs would be allocated across departments, but the council member remained concerned about fairness and transparency.

A motion was made to prevent the PUC from sharing the legal costs, arguing that the commission should not bear costs for research that could lead to its own dissolution. This sparked a debate among council members, revealing differing perspectives on fiscal responsibility and the council’s oversight role. Some agreed with the motion, emphasizing the need for fairness, while others argued that the motion was redundant, as the approval was strictly about bill payment. Ultimately, the motion failed, and the council approved the bills as presented.

The council’s attention then shifted to budgetary matters. The finance director presented a resolution to set the final levy for Brainerd and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, with discussions focusing on a proposed 2% increase. Concerns arose about the implications of this increase, particularly regarding employee costs shared with the Utility Commission. Some council members expressed dissatisfaction with the airport’s proposed $1,000 funding allocation, considering it insufficient. Despite these concerns, the council approved a motion to set the levy amount at $7,981,160.

Accessibility in Brainerd was another focal point, highlighted during the public forum. A resident urged the council to improve the condition of sidewalks and pathways for individuals using mobility aids. They highlighted fines issued for unmaintained walkways and called for more accessible play areas, emphasizing the need for inclusive infrastructure that benefits all residents. These concerns shed light on ongoing challenges faced by individuals with disabilities and the city’s responsibility to address these issues.

The council also deliberated on several infrastructure projects. A shared service agreement with the Economic Development Authority was approved, alongside multiple resolutions for grant applications. These included a $1 million carbon reduction program grant, an active transportation grant, and a transportation alternatives grant, each requiring substantial matching funds. Additionally, the council approved a $1.25 million surface transportation block grant for an Oak Street reconstruction project.

In other business, the council discussed the trunk highway project, with coordination efforts underway with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The project aims to secure Right-of-Way approvals, with construction set to begin in 2025. The council emphasized the importance of the eminent domain process for unresponsive property owners.

Conversations also covered staff reports, including an update from the Housing Redevelopment Authority on asbestos abatement and demolition plans for a local property. The Police Department announced the cancellation of an event, while the City Attorney and Administrator shared procedural updates and expressed gratitude to outgoing council members for their service.