Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pfas Water Hastings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hastings seeks $16.6M in bonding for PFAS treatment; mayor warns of steep local rate increases without aid
Summary
Hastings leaders asked the committee for $16.6 million to fund one phase of a multi‑phase PFAS treatment and interconnection project; the city says total need is roughly $68.9 million and has already raised rates for residents.
Representative Tom DePel and Hastings Mayor Mary Fassbender asked the Capital Investment Committee on Feb. 27 to consider a $16.6 million bonding appropriation to address PFAS contamination in Hastings’ municipal wells and to interconnect the State Veterans Home.
DePel said the request is not the full cost of the city’s plan—he noted Hastings still needs roughly $45.7 million more beyond the bond ask to complete the work—and that local leaders have pursued other funding sources. Mayor Fassbender said all six of the city’s wells are affected and that the lower campus and the State Veterans Home have PFAS‑impacted water; she said Hastings is “shovel ready.”
Nut graf: Speakers told members that without outside funding the city faces steep rate increases; Mayor Fassbender and Representative DePel described prior and pending rate hikes and warned the project would otherwise be a major hardship for seniors and low‑income residents.
Fassbender said the total project need is about $68.9 million and that the city plans operations and maintenance costs of roughly $1 million per year. She said Hastings raised water rates by 10% in January and plans another 10% increase in July, and estimated household bills could rise from about $80 to $205 over four years without state support.
Members discussed related litigation and settlement funding. Representative Hansen noted Hastings did not opt into a national class‑action settlement discussed later in the hearing but has received funding for one well from a TFSI‑related settlement tied to contamination from an upstream manufacturer; members agreed to work with the attorney general’s office to request a briefing to the committee on settlement details.
Ending: Members encouraged further coordination with state agencies and the attorney general’s office; no bonding decision was taken at the hearing.
