Brainerd City Charter Commission keeps primary language, votes to send draft charter to city council for review

The Brainerd City Charter Commission continued its review of a proposed revised charter and voted to keep existing primary-election language and to forward the draft to the Brainerd City Council for additional review and feedback.

Staff summarized prior work on the draft and noted commissioners had submitted comments collected in the packet. “We didn't have a traditional red line version, but we kinda highlighted, just in a brief narrative what the substantial differences were,” staff member Nick said, urging commissioners to flag any items that need more work before referral to council.

Why it matters: The draft affects how several local functions are governed — from how commissions are appointed and how ownership conflicts are handled, to whether certain zoning map changes require two readings. Commissioners debated several points that could change governance and operational control if the council accepts the commission's recommendations.

On election primaries, Commissioner Jan Lambert said she had voted for and supports the primary provision and urged the commission to honor the voter referendum that approved primaries. “I I I voted for the primary and I feel it's important that we have a, sense that we'd...like to see the person that wins has got the majority of the votes,” Lambert said. Opposing views were raised about whether primaries lengthen the local campaign period and reduce access for some local candidates, but the commission voted to retain the current primary language.

Commissioners also discussed what would happen if the City Council declined to approve a board or commission budget. Several members noted the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) provides mission-essential public-safety services and would need mechanisms to maintain operations, while the park board might lack similar statutory imperative. City attorney Joe Langel cautioned that drafting every possible contingency into the charter could create complexities and recommended handling rare impasses when they arise: “I don't think so... this could get very messy, very quickly,” he told the commission.

The packet contained a version-control issue on rate-setting language in section 44; staff clarified their intent that the Public Utilities Commission would set rates for enterprise funds and said they would correct the version and clean up the wording before sending materials to council.

On zoning, staff explained that proposed language would rely on the planning commission's public hearing plus a single council reading, noting that property owners within 350 feet of a rezoning would still receive notice. Planning and commission members differing on the potential for spot zoning agreed to keep the single-reading approach with the option to revisit it if problems emerge.

After discussing edits staff would make to sections 7, 19 and 44, Commissioner Jan Lambert moved to forward the revised draft to the city council; the motion was seconded and approved by roll call. Earlier in the meeting Lambert had also moved to retain the primary-election language; that motion similarly passed by recorded affirmative votes.

The commission asked staff to include the more readable version of the packet used in the prior meeting when sending materials to council, and to expressly fix the section-44 wording before distribution. The referral sends the charter draft to the next step in the process: city council review and possible revision.

The commission closed with brief member reports and adjourned.