Council approves stormwater master plan, sanitary force‑main contract and MPCA grant; pool study and outside counsel authorized; at‑large appointment fails

The Crookston City Council acted on multiple items after presentations, approving a stormwater resilience and master plan task order, awarding a sanitary force‑main replacement contract, accepting a MPCA planning grant, authorizing a pool feasibility RFP and retaining outside employment‑law counsel; attempts to appoint an at‑large council member failed to reach the five‑vote threshold.

Stormwater master plan (Item 8.01): Council approved a resolution to authorize AE2S task order No. 18 to produce a stormwater resilience and master plan that will model the city’s stormwater infrastructure, evaluate pump‑station capacities, consider Red Lake River interactions and inform future CIP work. The council voted in favor by roll call (motion carried).

Lift Station 5 force‑main replacement (Item 8.02): Council awarded the contract for the Lift Station 5 sanitary force‑main replacement to Spruce Valley Corporation (apparent low bid $145,295) for a trenchless upsizing using directional drilling intended to reduce basement backups during rainfall. The council approved the award (motion carried).

MPCA planning grant (Item 8.03): Council authorized entering into a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency small communities planning grant (roughly $209,000 requested) to support the stormwater master plan; total project cost was cited as about $239,000 with a modest local cash match and in‑kind staff contributions. The resolution passed by roll call.

Pool feasibility RFP (Item 8.04): The council authorized an RFP for a pool feasibility study to produce detailed repair recommendations, phasing and cost estimates to extend the life of the existing pool (the RFP does not fund or design a new pool). The measure passed.

Outside counsel for employment complaint (Item 8.05): The council approved retaining an employment‑law investigator/attorney recommended by the League of Minnesota Cities (the attorney named in discussion was Mr. Jacobson) to conduct an independent investigation of a personnel complaint; the matter contains private personnel data and an independent investigator was requested.

At‑large council appointment (Item 8.06): The council considered three finalists for an at‑large seat (Joseph, Gina and Wendy). Multiple motions to appoint Wendy and then Gina failed to achieve the five‑vote threshold; both attempts failed 4–3 and no candidate was appointed. Councilmembers discussed alternatives including a special election, leaving the seat vacant until the next election, or using a community selection committee to recommend a nominee; staff will return with options and cost estimates.

How the votes were taken: Most routine resolutions passed by roll call without detailed tallies recorded in the discussion transcript; the at‑large appointment attempts both failed 4–3. The council did not adopt a final process to fill the vacancy at this meeting and asked staff to return with options.

Next steps: staff will continue work on the stormwater master plan deliverables, coordinate force‑main construction timing, complete MPCA grant paperwork, issue the pool feasibility RFP, and provide the council with options and costs for filling the at‑large vacancy (special election, appointment process, committee recommendation).