Residents urge delay as Brainerd council stalls Riverside Drive annexation

Brainerd’s City Council declined on Feb. 17 to adopt a joint orderly annexation resolution for the Riverside Drive area after a packed public hearing in which many nearby property owners urged delay.

The council considered a joint resolution with Crowing County that would designate areas for “orderly annexation” and create a framework for future municipal hookups, but would not automatically annex properties. James Cranbeck, city staff, told the council the agreement allows annexation later by resolution based on owner petitions, certain city‑initiated criteria, or island annexations where municipal utilities can be provided within two years.

The public hearing that followed drew more than a dozen residents from River Arches, Ashman Road and Riverside Drive. Rachel Khan, who lives on Riverside Drive, asked for clear answers before any action: "Will our property be reassessed? What will our projected annual property taxes be, and what utility‑connection costs will apply?" She said she and her neighbors object to moving forward until those questions—and zoning and eminent‑domain risks—are clarified.

Several speakers cited potential costs of sewer connections and lift stations and said they had made expensive recent investments in septic and well systems. Richard Schmidt, speaking for neighbors on River Arches and Car Drive, cited Minnesota Statute 414.0325 and urged the council not to proceed without a comprehensive fiscal impact study and demonstrable resident support: "Annexation is not just a boundary change. It is a permanent shift in governance, taxation, infrastructure and community identity."

City staff and public‑works staff answered technical questions about how the city typically extends service lines—saying mains are generally stubbed to the right‑of‑way or property line and that property owners are usually responsible for the laterals from the property line to the structure. Officials also said onsite septic systems that are re‑certified every three years would not, under the draft agreement, be forced to hook up until a system failed.

Councilmember Gabe Johnson moved to adopt the joint resolution. The motion failed on a roll‑call vote (Erikson: no; Bevans/Beans: no; Chzach: yes; Johnson: yes; Stunn: no; Jagger: no; OD: yes). After the failed vote, Councilmember OD moved to direct staff to provide more detailed fiscal and engineering analysis and return in a couple of weeks; that motion passed on a voice vote.

Mayor Bedau and several councilmembers told residents they appreciated the turnout and the detailed questions. Officials and staff repeatedly stressed that adopting the joint resolution would not immediately annex properties; instead, it would establish an agreed process with the county that could be used later if conditions and policy judgments supported annexation.

What happens next: The council directed staff to prepare additional information—rough cost estimates for utility hookups, likely lift‑station needs, staging options between Area 1 and Area 2 shown on the map, and projected tax impacts—before taking a subsequent vote. The city will also notify county staff of the council’s request for more analysis. No properties were annexed at the Feb. 17 meeting.