Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Parks topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Brainerd council directs staff to pursue replat for Gustoson Park, splits on final outcome

Brainerd City Council · December 9, 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

Council voted to direct staff to bring a preliminary plan and a survey quote to the park board to replat the Gustoson Park parcel; the motion passed on a 5–1 roll call with one councilmember opposed.

The Brainerd City Council voted Dec. 8 to direct staff to prepare a preliminary plan for replatting the Gustoson Park parcel and to obtain a survey quote, keeping open the option of later selling individually platted lots or otherwise deciding the site’s future.

The motion, made by Councilmember Johnson and seconded by Councilmember Ericson, passed on a roll call vote (Jagger yes; Ericson yes; Beavens yes; Chzach no; Johnson yes; Stunic OD yes). Councilmembers discussed three staff‑presented options: (1) allow the housing authority to engage developers (no guaranteed revenue to the city), (2) have staff and the park board pursue replatting and market sales (staff estimated about seven lots and possible revenues in the range of $120,000–$155,000, a rough, preliminary figure), or (3) end development discussions and retain the parcel as a park.

Staff described the park board as split on the parcel and said the park’s current maintenance consumes modest staff time — roughly three hours per week in summer, with equipment and staff costs estimated $8,000–$12,000 annually depending on weather. Supporters of the motion said option two is a low‑risk way to test market interest and could quickly add housing units; opponents cautioned that nearby residents value the green space and that once sold it cannot easily be reclaimed.

“Doing nothing is fine, too. But I prefer option two — let’s look into it and see what happens,” Councilmember Johnson said during debate. Councilmember Beavens urged caution but supported the motion to gather more information, saying the park board’s financial constraints make a deeper review appropriate.

What’s next: Staff will bring a preliminary plan to the park board and return a survey quote to the council; the council retains final authority on any sale or replat action.