Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council denies proposed stormwater fixes for Southwest Brainerd and takes no action

Brainerd City Council · May 4, 2026
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 an HR Green presentation, the council voted 6–1 to deny three engineering options to address ponding at a low point near Annabec Street and Highland Scenic Avenue, citing design, property-acquisition and cost constraints.

The Brainerd City Council voted 6–1 on May 4 to deny the three options presented in the Southwest Brainerd stormwater study and to take no immediate action.

Connor Dunteman of HR Green described the drainage area—about 65 acres draining to a low point that discharges through a 36-inch pipe off County Road 48—and showed that a 100-year storm could inundate two homes and a garage inside the drainage easement. The study evaluated three approaches: (1A) regrade only inside the existing easement (would reduce impacts but violates city and state design rules because ponding would be too deep and freeboard standards are not met); (1B) expand grading into an adjacent parcel (meets design criteria but requires property acquisition and other unknowns); and (2) redirect runoff west into Baxter (constructible but very large, costly and environmentally impactful).

Dunteman said option 1A would likely leave ponding exceeding the easement; option 1B could comply with design limits but raises acquisition questions; option 2 would create a very large pond and regulatory hurdles. Staff and committee members reiterated that while option 1B meets design criteria, the unknowns on property acquisition and costs make it impractical at this time.

After discussion, the council accepted the committee motion (Erickson/Chesak) to deny options 1A, 1B and option 2 and to take no action, with one councilmember dissenting. Staff noted the city or county could revisit other interventions in the future but the committee judged none of the three proposals suitable to implement now.