This is the next well in the city’s well system to keep up with our water system demand.”

Public Works Director Ryan Stempski

Water infrastructure is rarely a neighborhood conversation, at least until a city proposes placing a new well house in the middle of a neighborhood park. That was the collision at Hastings City Hall, where a room full of residents gathered to question plans for Well No. 9, a new municipal well expected to be constructed in Wallin Park. The meeting was intended to explain why the well is needed, show early building concepts and collect feedback from people living near the park.
Instead, it became a sometimes tense, occasionally frustrating and ultimately important conversation about water capacity, green space, public trust and whether a project planned more than a decade ago still makes sense in the same location today. The city’s basic position is that Hastings needs another well, Wallin Park contains a test well that has already demonstrated favorable geology and starting over somewhere else could require approximately two years of additional study, drilling and testing. Residents did not spend much time
disputing the need for clean, dependable water. Their questions focused on why the well house has to be placed in one of the park’s most visible open areas, why the proposed building became larger than residents were previously led to expect and why public discussion did not happen earlier.
Public Works Director Ryan Stempski opened the meeting by explaining that Well No. 9 is the next planned addition to the municipal system.
“This is the next well in the city’s well system to keep up with our water system demand,” Stempski said.
City staff members and consultants presented information about the water system, preliminary building plans,
PFAS treatment, construction activity and possible exterior designs. Stempski said the city wanted comments
from the neighborhood and had already heard concerns about the building’s size.
“We want to get feedback from folks in and around the neighborhood,” he said. That feedback came quickly and, at times, forcefully. Residents questioned nearly every part of the proposal, including the location, size, noise, construction area, generator, traffic, potential effect on property values and the loss of recreational space. Some questioned whether city officials had already made their decision and were simply asking residents what color brick they preferred. The meeting was informal, and questions were allowed throughout much of the presentation. That made thediscussion more open, but it also made it more difficult for presenters to finish explaining some of thetechnical information before another concern was raised. At several points, residents and city representatives appeared to talk past one another. Some questions were repeated after staff had attempted to answer them, while officials occasionally appeared frustrated or uncertain when asked about details that have not yet beendetermined. It was not always a comfortable meeting, but it clearly showed how far apart the two sides werewhen the evening began.Why another well is neededJohn Christensen, a project manager and professional engineer with WSB, explained that the city uses what isknown as firm pumping capacity to determine when another well is needed. Firm capacity is the amount ofwater the system can provide with its largest well out of service. That calculation is intended to ensure the citycan meet maximum daily water demand even if a well is unavailable because of maintenance, equipmentfailure or another problem.Hastings currently has six active municipal wells. Three serve the city’s lower pressure zone, while three serve the main pressure zone covering much of the western and southern portions of the city. Much of the city’srecent growth has occurred in the main pressure zone. According to Christensen, maximum daily demand in that zone is approaching its firm pumping capacity. In practical terms, the system can currently meet demand,but its safety margin is narrowing. If the largest well in that zone were taken out of service during a period of high demand, the remaining wells could be pushed near or beyond the capacity the city has established for dependable service. Well No. 9 has appeared in the last two versions of the city’s comprehensive plan and planning for the site began long before the current controversy. The city installed a test well in Wallin Park around 2011 after studying possible locations. Other test sites were considered, including locations near Pleasant Drive and in theGeneral Sieben Drive area, but those locations did not produce the desired results.Wallin Park offered several advantages. The test well showed that the location could produce the necessary amount of water, the site is near an existing trunk water main along Northridge Drive, and it is located within the main pressure zone where the additional capacity is needed. The site is also east of a geological faultrunning near the western edge of Hastings. City engineers said moving closer to that fault could create uncertainty involving the aquifer and water quality. Although the test well was installed approximately 15years ago, Stempski said the city has continued monitoring it and reporting information to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. One resident questioned whether information collected in 2011 should still guide a major decision in 2026, especially since the neighborhood and use of the park have changed considerably. Stempski responded that the geology, confining layers, fractures and location of the fault havenot changed. He said the city has also invested tens of thousands of dollars in testing and monitoring since theoriginal study. That distinction became one of the central   disagreements of the night. To city engineers, the existing test well represents years of reliable information, reduced risk and money already invested. To residents, it represents an old decision made before Wallin Park became the busy neighborhood gathering place it is today.

Concerns about the park 

Wallin Park includes a playground, softball fields, a multipurpose field and an enclosed shelter that also serves as a winter warming house. On busy summer evenings, residents said the park can be filled with youth teams,families, parked vehicles and children using the open grass. Several residents said the aerial photograph usedduring the presentation showed an empty street and empty park that did not accurately represent normal activity. One resident said the proposed location would interfere with an area used for football practices, remote-controlled vehicles and general play.
“This will completely change the character of the park,” the resident said.
Another resident repeatedly returned to the idea that the city could meet its infrastructure needs without sacrificing the park’s most visible green space.
“I just feel like we can do better,” the resident said.
Residents asked whether the well could be moved farther south, closer to the ballfields or nearer the existing
warming house. Others suggested moving it farther west, outside the developed neighborhood or onto property
that could eventually become part of Hastings. Engineers said moving the production well too far from the test
well would increase the risk of encountering different geology. The production well must also be separated
from the test well so the two do not interfere with each other during drilling and development.
There is no exact distance at which the city would automatically need another test well, but Christensen said
moving more than 100 or 200 feet away would likely require additional discussion with a hydrogeologist.
Stempski agreed that staff could investigate whether the building and well could be moved farther into the park
while remaining close enough to the tested location. When a resident asked whether he was committing to explore a greater setback and consult with the appropriate agencies, Stempski answered, “Absolutely.”
The city did not promise that the well could be relocated outside Wallin Park. Officials did, however, agree to
study whether it could be moved within the park to reduce its effect on nearby homes and open space. City
representatives also agreed there should be another opportunity for public engagement after more of the design
work is completed.
A building that grew
The proposed size of the well house was another major source of concern. Residents said earlier discussions
had led them to expect a building closer to 15 feet by 22 feet. The meeting notice and preliminary plans referenced a possible 40-foot-by-40-foot building. City representatives emphasized that 40 feet by 40 feet was a conservative starting point, not a final design. They said they expect the building to become smaller as the equipment, piping and interior layout are refined. Existing Hastings well houses vary in size, with dimensions generally ranging from approximately 20 to 40 feet. Their heights range from roughly 15 to 21 feet.
The preliminary Well No. 9 concepts showed a building approximately 15 to 18 feet tall, depending on the
final roof design. For comparison, the existing Wallin Park pavilion is approximately 47 feet by 30 feet and about 20 feet tall.
A major reason for the new well house’s footprint is an indoor emergency generator. Newer design requirements call for separation between the generator and wellhead. Engineers said they are working to reduce that separation to the minimum allowed distance of 20 feet. Doing so requires additional safeguards, including a double-walled fuel tank, leak detection, a separate generator room and limits on the amount of fuel stored inside. The generator would allow the well to continue operating during a power failure. Without emergency power, a prolonged outage could eventually drain a water tower below safe operating levels and contribute to a boil-water advisory. The generator would not operate continuously. It would run during power failures and for periodic testing and maintenance. Presenters estimated it would be off approximately 95% of the time.
Public Works Superintendent Joe Spagnoletti said keeping the generator inside the building would be preferable to bringing a portable generator to the site during an outage and operating it outdoors. With sound- control equipment, it could produce up to 75 decibels when measured approximately 20 feet away, which presenters compared to a vacuum cleaner. Residents living closest to the proposed site were not entirely comforted by that comparison. A vacuum cleaner may not be alarming for a few minutes inside a house, but they noted that it sounds different when discussed as emergency equipment near a park and residential street.
The well pump itself would operate as water tower levels required, generally for several hours per day, and
would be quieter than the generator. The facility would also receive a daily visit from a public works vehicle.
Larger maintenance equipment would visit approximately once a year to remove or service the well motor and
pump.

PFAS treatment will be elsewhere
The Well No. 9 test water contains PFAS, which means water from the future production well will require
treatment before being distributed to customers. The well would be connected by a raw water main to the city’s
future western water treatment plant. That raw water main has not been designed or constructed. The city could
use directional drilling for portions of the line or open part of the road, depending on engineering and
construction conditions. If an open cut is required along Northridge Drive, the city said nearby property
owners would not be assessed for that work.
City representatives made one point particularly clear, the large western PFAS treatment plant will not be
constructed in Wallin Park. When residents pressed for an unequivocal answer, Community Development
Director John Hinzman said, “We will not put it in the park.”
The well house could temporarily include a small, locked outdoor cabinet for chlorine treatment until the
western plant becomes operational. Officials said the temporary system would likely remain for one or two
years. The city has applied for permission not to add fluoride at the well during that temporary period. Once
the western plant is operating, chemical treatment would occur there and the temporary chlorine equipment at
Wallin Park could be removed. The chlorine system would operate under a vacuum, include automatic
shutdown protections and vent above the well house roof.

Why parks are used for infrastructure
City officials pointed to several examples of Hastings utility infrastructure located in parks. Well No. 3 is in
Lions Park, Well No. 7 is in Roadside Park and Well No. 8 is in Vermillion Falls Park. The city also has a water tower at Veterans Park and a sanitary sewer lift station in Westwood Park. The city’s first two wells were located at Levee Park and Wilson Park, although both were later capped after contamination problems. Stempski said parks are often located near the neighborhoods served by water and sewer systems. Using city- owned land can also avoid the cost of purchasing private property and prevent a utility project from removing taxable land from future residential or commercial development. Residents countered that the other well
houses do not necessarily have the same effect on surrounding homes. Some are screened, tucked behind other. facilities or located farther from residential properties. They also questioned why the developer responsible for the surrounding subdivision was not required to pay directly for the well.
Hinzman said major municipal infrastructure serves the broader city, not only the nearby development.
Developers and individual lots pay water and sewer availability charges that help fund trunk lines, wells, water
towers and other system improvements. Because the Wallin subdivision has already been developed, the city has no mechanism to return years later and require the original developer to directly construct the facility. That explanation addressed how the system is financed, but it did not settle the emotional question raised by residents, whether parkland dedicated as part of a residential development should later be used for municipal infrastructure.

Questions about communication
The meeting also exposed concerns that had little to do with pumps, generators or groundwater. Notices were
mailed to homes within approximately 350 feet of the park. Depending on whether that measurement is based
on the entire park property, including drainage areas, or primarily the developed recreational space, the mailing
may have reached approximately 50 to 100 homes.
Information about the meeting received limited broader distribution, and local media were not actively
contacted in advance. The meeting was also scheduled on the opening night of Rivertown Days, during a free
community event. For residents already suspicious of the process, that timing did little to build confidence.
Those questions became more pointed when Hinzman told the audience the city was considering an ordinance
amendment to clarify that well houses could be located in parks. The amendment was expected to be
considered by the Planning Commission before going to the City Council. Residents immediately interpreted
the announcement as an attempt to change the rules while the Wallin Park proposal was moving forward.
One resident summarized the concern by asking whether the city was creating a law to make the proposed well
house legal. Hinzman said the city already has a history of placing well houses and other infrastructure in
parks. He said the intent was not to suggest existing facilities were illegal, but to make the ordinance language
clearer for future decisions.
City Administrator Dan Wietecha said in a conversation the following day that the announcement was intended
to tell residents about the proposed code change before it appeared on a public agenda, not to dismiss their
concerns. The city has been reviewing and updating numerous ordinances over several years, and the well
house language was part of that broader effort. Still, the timing created a poor appearance. Residents had come
to discuss a proposed building in their park, only to learn the city was also preparing language specifically
allowing well houses in parks.
Following the meeting and additional conversations, the city removed the proposed ordinance change from the
upcoming agenda for further review. That decision does not end the Well No. 9 proposal, but it indicates city
officials understood how the ordinance discussion was received and were willing to slow that part of the
process.
Starting over would take time
Residents repeatedly asked whether the city would search for an entirely different location if cost were not the
deciding factor. City representatives said another suitable site may exist, but finding it would not be simple. A
new location would require a siting study, hydrogeological review, construction of another test well, pumping
tests, water-quality testing, monitoring and design. Christensen estimated the entire process would take
approximately two years if it began immediately.
That delay matters because the city is already approaching its firm capacity target in the main pressure zone. It
is also coordinating the new well with the future western treatment plant and federal PFAS requirements.
Officials said delaying the well could eventually lead to broader water restrictions if demand rises faster than
capacity. In an extreme situation, the city could prioritize drinking water over lawn irrigation and impose
watering bans while waiting for new infrastructure.
Under the most accelerated schedule presented at the meeting, design of the production well would take place
this fall, bidding would occur in late fall and drilling would begin next spring. The well house design could be
completed by the end of the year, followed by winter bidding and construction during the second half of next
summer. Drilling would take approximately three months, while well house construction would require another
three to four months. The entire park would not be closed, but a fenced construction area would be needed
around the project.
Well drillers generally need an area of approximately 50 feet by 100 feet for equipment, drilling and test
pumping. Those dates could change if the city studies another location or significantly moves the planned well
within the park.

What comes next
By the end of the meeting, the underlying conflict remained, but the discussion had produced several possible
changes. The city agreed to investigate whether the well and building could be moved farther from Northridge
Drive or deeper into the park without losing the geological certainty provided by the test well. Staff members
said they would continue trying to reduce the building below the initial 40-foot-by-40-foot concept.
Residents suggested designing the structure to look more like a park facility instead of a house, possibly
incorporating shade, a pavilion or another public use to replace some of the space taken by the well house.
Mayor Mary Fasbender said the city was listening and would consider the comments.
“We want to be as transparent as possible to you,” Fasbender said. “We are listening.”

The city also agreed to hold another public engagement opportunity when the design is further developed.
None of that guarantees residents will support the final proposal. Many left the meeting believing the city had
waited too long to involve them and had already traveled too far down the Wallin Park path.
The city, meanwhile, faces a practical problem. Its water demand is approaching a defined system limit, a
successful test well is already in place, the geology is known, the site is near needed infrastructure and
beginning again elsewhere could consume two years without producing a better result. That combination
makes Wallin Park the city’s preferred location, even if it does not make it a popular one. The next stage will
test whether the city can turn the meeting’s sharp questions into meaningful design changes, and whether those
changes are enough to convince residents that the project is more than a building placed in their view.
For the neighborhood, this is a fight over a park, and the character of the place residents chose to call home.
For the city, it is a race to make sure water continues coming from the tap, even when one of its largest wells
does not. Both concerns are real, and after a tense evening at City Hall, neither side can reasonably say it did not hear the other.