Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sewer Regionalization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears options, unknown local costs tied to $23.6 million regional sewer grant
Summary
Councilmembers discussed a $23.6 million regional sewer grant that requires a local match and raises questions about pipeline jurisdiction, upfront engineering and legal costs, and which nearby towns would contribute.
Get email alerts on the Sewer Regionalization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Crooks City Council spent a substantial portion of its meeting discussing a $23,600,000 regional sewer grant and the many unanswered questions it creates for the city. Council members and staff said the grant must be used within 10 years and likely requires a 20% local match, but the size of Crooks’ share and the allocation of upfront engineering and legal costs have not been determined.
“$23,600,000. We have 10 years to use it,” the Chair said, summarizing the known terms and prompting discussion of options. Councilmember (speaker 4) warned that “some money spent” will be needed to reach a decision, naming engineering and legal review as likely early costs that are not covered by the grant. Staff noted the major open questions: jurisdiction and oversight of the conveyance pipeline, whether Colton, Hartford and Crooks will each contribute, and how previously completed projects might count toward the match.
Councilmembers emphasized that the grant does not eliminate local costs. One councillor said the grant would look “really bad” if partners backed out at the last minute and stressed that the city must evaluate alternatives such as routing to Sioux Falls versus Hartford. Staff said a formal study (to be requested from DGR) is likely to be needed to compare costs and feasibility between the viable conveyance options.
No formal action was taken on the grant at this meeting. Councilmembers directed staff to continue conversations with regional partners and to anticipate requests for limited up‑front funding for studies and legal review before a final decision could be brought forward.

