Dunn County approves joint development agreement with Muddy Creek Solar after vendor briefing

The Dunn County Board of Supervisors approved a joint development agreement with Muddy Creek Solar at its meeting after county supervisors and company representatives answered questions about revenue estimates, road repairs and environmental safeguards.

The vote followed a presentation by Alex Peterson, an attorney with the law firm Michael Best & Friedrich, and remarks from a company representative who described the solar panels and the project’s decommissioning and recycling process. The board moved to approve the version of the agreement containing updated payment estimates and directed staff to finalize the contract language.

Why it matters: the project will produce state utility shared-revenue payments that are estimated to flow to both the town of Springbrook and Dunn County; the agreement also addresses obligations for preconstruction road assessments and repairs and establishes a community fund intended to offset school-district revenue impacts.

Peterson told supervisors that the payments shown in the packet are estimates intended to provide transparency and that the payments themselves are made by the state under the utility shared revenue payment program. He cautioned the packet contained a slightly dated draft and provided updated estimates during the meeting: approximately $695,500 annually for Springbrook and $909,500 annually for the county based on the project’s current design. "The payments are made by the state, to the town and county through the utility shared revenue payment program," Peterson said. He described the updated numbers as a "non‑substantive change" tied to the state formula and to the project's evolving design.

Supervisors raised concerns about local impacts. Supervisor Larry Bjork asked whether the county could rate tonnage on county and township roads and be compensated for additional wear during construction. A Muddy Creek representative replied that the agreement specifically addresses road repair and preconstruction condition documentation in section 2 (packet language), and that most heavy wear would be limited to the construction phase. The company representative said the agreement includes obligations to repair roads and restore preconstruction conditions.

Supervisor Thomas asked about environmental risks after an exchange about a recent solar project in Nebraska; she asked whether panel failure could contaminate soil or water. The company representative responded, "if any damage were to happen to these panels, nothing would leak, nothing would come out of it. It would just go back there, and we'd put up new panels," and described recycling procedures that use an acid process handled by specialized recyclers.

Supervisors also heard that the developer plans to set up a community fund to compensate school districts for reduced property tax receipts; the representative said the county already has community payment agreements in place with the Menominee area and Elkmont school districts for those community payments.

The motion to approve the agreement was made by Supervisor Morehouse and seconded by Supervisor Bachand. The board approved the measure in a voice vote. The agreement approved at the meeting reflects the updated estimates discussed on the record, but the company noted the design — and therefore the estimated payments — could be tweaked later and that the state formula controls the payment calculation.

The board discussion and the company comments focused on three practical points: (1) the shared‑revenue payment estimates are state‑calculated and presented for transparency, (2) the contract includes provisions for preconstruction road condition documentation and repairs (identified in the agreement as section 2/2f), and (3) the developer described its panel recycling/decommissioning process and asserted no hazardous leakage from cracked panels. The agreement as approved will be finalized with the updated figures and standard contract language.