Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter And Personnel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brainerd City Council asks staff for resolution to clarify utility‑hiring language in city charter
Summary
At a July 28 joint workshop, the Brainerd City Council and Public Utilities Commission debated who hires and supervises utility staff. The council voted to ask staff to draft a resolution clarifying section 5, paragraph 4 of the charter about ‘‘employ[ing] all necessary help.’'
At a joint Brainerd City Council and Brainerd Public Utilities Commission workshop on July 28, council members and commissioners spent the bulk of the meeting debating who has hiring authority and operational control over the public utilities department.
City Administrator Nick Broyals opened the item, saying the discussion grew out of the recent resignation of the public utilities director and “potential ambiguity in roles and responsibilities” that staff hoped the joint meeting would resolve. “Staff is here,” he said, and asked the bodies to explain what clarity they wanted going forward.
Council member Jeff Chzach said he sided with an interpretation that limits the administrator’s operational role but preserves the commission’s authority to decide utility operations; he said the commission had voted previously to hire a public utilities director and noted that interim staff were “working out okay.” “Whether that’s permanent or not, I guess is up to us and the commission,” Chzach said.
Council member Gabe Johnson and other council members described the city’s intended structure differently: commissions should make operational decisions for utilities (plants, pipes, wires), but employees are city employees who report through the city administrator. Johnson urged clearer, top‑down communication and an interpretive resolution rather than a charter amendment to remove ambiguity.
Mr. Higgins, speaking for the commission perspective on infrastructure control, argued the commission should control underground systems and warned of large capital needs at the wastewater plant. “We have to put $100 million into our wastewater treatment plant in the next 10 years,” he said, and expressed concern that the commission lacks control over what is discharged into the sanitary sewers — a factor that affects treatment costs.
City Attorney Joe summarized the charter history: earlier language gave the commission hiring power; a 2021 amendment substituted the city council as the entity that “shall employ all necessary help” for the commission. Joe said the intent of the amendment was to make utility staff city employees subject to the city’s personnel policies.
After extended discussion about whether the phrase “employ all necessary help” is ambiguous — a point some council members said could be litigated — Council member Jeff Chzach moved and Gabe Johnson seconded a motion directing staff to return, as soon as practicable (the council suggested the Aug. 4 meeting), with a resolution that would record the council’s interpretation of item four of section five of the charter. The council approved the motion by voice vote.
The resolution request does not itself change the charter language; instead, it seeks a formal, on‑the‑record interpretation for council direction to staff. Several council members said an interpretive resolution is faster and clearer than pursuing a charter amendment, which would require a longer legal and procedural process.
What happens next: staff will draft a resolution reflecting the council’s interpretation of section 5, paragraph 4 and present it at a forthcoming council meeting for possible adoption and to provide guidance to future administrators and commissioners.
