The Public Works Committee voted Wednesday to recommend $420,000 for interior and exterior painting and maintenance of a 400,000‑gallon water tower, but declined to recommend Council funding next year for construction of a proposed production well in Waterman Way Park, commonly referred to in the meeting as “Well 4.” The committee's action follows more than two hours of public comment, most of it opposing siting the new well in the park and pressing for more public engagement and additional environmental testing.

Residents and local property owners told the committee they had not received adequate notice about the project and raised health, process and financial concerns. "There is no need to construct Well Number 4 in Waterman Way Park," said Andrew (registered at 600 Blue Stripe), who argued staff and state records indicate Well 1 remains functional. "We don't need Well Number 4 if Well Number 1 functions perfectly well," he said. Julie Anderson (identified in the transcript as a speaker opposing the funding) told the committee the project had proceeded "under the radar" and that there had been "no public forum to discuss this project."

The public commenters pressed several specific items: a court‑filed legal letter questioning whether the city can use the donated park land for a well; requests for additional groundwater monitoring and deeper hydrogeologic study because of nearby PCE/PFAS contamination concerns; requests for clearer documentation of the budget and justification for building a new well while Well 1 remains operational; and complaints about long delays obtaining public records. Nick Monnielo, who identified himself as a lawyer and long‑time resident, pointed to the city zoning ordinance's public‑facilities landscaping and neighborhood‑character requirements and said the proposed use could conflict with those rules.

During the committee's discussion, city staff reiterated that the committee's vote is advisory and would go to the mayor and City Council for final action. Dan (staff member) summarized technical and budget items, including that the cost estimate for construction and testing of Well 4 was $2,886,000. Dan said Well 1 currently meets DNR and EPA water‑quality standards and that routine maintenance for Well 1 — including aquifer pump work — remains an outstanding item but that the well continues to meet regulatory limits.

Committee members expressed concern about process and legal questions, and some members said they had not seen (or had not had time to review) certain consultant reports that residents referenced in public comment. One committee member said the group could approve funding subject to the city attorney confirming the legal ability to use the park parcel; others said they wanted fuller answers on groundwater contamination risk before advancing construction funding.

The committee ultimately approved a motion to recommend the water tower painting and maintenance funding and to withhold recommendation of the Well 4 construction request pending further work. The motion was made by Committee member Moyer and seconded; the body voted in favor of the motion. Committee staff noted that any recommendation from the committee will be transmitted to the mayor and City Council and that Council could re‑insert funding or alter the mayor's proposal during its budget process.

Why it matters: the project blends public‑health, environmental and land‑use questions and would use a publicly owned park parcel for a municipal utility. Opponents argued the well would risk contamination and destroy parkland; proponents (staff) stress planning and backup capacity reasons. The committee's action means the decision will move next to the mayor and City Council with explicit requests for additional legal and technical review and more public engagement.

What’s next: the capital budget recommendation and any requested follow‑up analysis will be included in materials sent to the mayor and City Council. Residents asked the committee and staff to host a public forum and to release outstanding records and consultant reports; the committee indicated it wants additional legal and hydrogeologic information before forwarding a favorable funding recommendation for construction.