Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council agrees to include Gustoson Park’s future in 2026 budget talks after heated debate

Brainerd City Council · November 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After residents and council members debated whether Gustoson Park should remain parkland or be developed, Brainerd City Council voted 3–2 to include consideration of the park’s future in the 2026 budget process rather than convey or sell it immediately.

Brainerd City Council voted Wednesday to place consideration of Gustoson Park’s future into the 2026 budget process after residents and council members raised competing views about park use and city maintenance costs.

Community Development Director James Cranvic told the council Gustoson Park is roughly 1.2 acres bisected by an alley and has historically supported youth programming, though usage has declined recently; staff presented three options: convey the parcel to the housing authority for a purchase-and-develop agreement, subdivide and sell parcels at market rate through the EDA, or retain the site as parkland.

Several residents and council members defended the park. Kathy Dul, who lives on Norwood Street, said she worried about detours and access during reconstruction projects and urged the council to consider neighborhood impacts. Another resident said the site is used daily. Councilmember Beavens said the park is a neighborhood fixture and asked whether selling it made sense in light of other vacant lots.

Supporters of studying redevelopment said the park is small and lies two blocks from larger regional parks that the city maintains; selling or developing it could add tax base and generate funds for other parks. “If a sale occurs, proceeds should go to our parks,” one council speaker suggested.

Council discussion centered on process: whether the park board or EDA should lead study and whether any conveyance should be market-rate or HRA-driven. Several council members said the park board had expressed willingness to explore options but had not demanded removal. Councilmember Bevans moved to fold consideration of Gustoson Park into the 2026 budget discussion; the motion passed 3–2.

No conveyance, sale or formal transfer was authorized. The action directs staff and council leadership to include Gustoson Park in upcoming budget deliberations, and any future sale or conveyance would require separate council action.