Board approves intent to award performance contract for county solar and geothermal to single bidder amid debate

The Dunn County Board of Supervisors voted on Jan. 15 to approve an intent to award a performance contract to Verigee for a county solar and geothermal project after committee review and extended floor debate. The vote authorizes staff to proceed with detailed contract development; the board will see the final contract for approval before work begins.

Assistant County Manager Dan Dunbar told supervisors the procurement followed a state performance‑contract statute that requires the governing body to review and authorize work with the selected vendor. He said Verigee was the only bidder and that the Facilities Committee recommended proceeding to a final contract that will be returned to the board in March for approval.

Supervisor Larry Bjork spoke at length against moving forward, saying the county has a history of doing business with other local utilities and raising concerns about reliability, land costs, ongoing maintenance of solar arrays and whether federal funding originally anticipated was still available. "If you can't ask for competitive bids for conventional system, I think we're cheating the taxpayer at Dunn County," he said, arguing the project could impose long‑term debt service costs on the county.

Supervisor Story and others asked whether other firms had been contacted and how the procurement notice was posted; Dunbar responded that the county posted the request for bids on the public state procurement site used for government solicitations and followed the statute’s process. He said some firms (for example, local electric utilities) generally do not bid on projects that reduce external energy purchases because the proposal aims to have the county produce lower energy purchases.

Dunbar and Supervisor Vogel emphasized that the vote at this meeting authorized an intent to award; the final, detailed contract and exact location of panels will return to the board for a March review and vote and must show how projected energy savings would cover borrowing costs.

The debate included questions about site selection, potential effects on demonstration farmland and whether the county would retain eligibility for federal funds cited by staff. Dunbar said parts of the project rely on federal funding (discussed as Inflation Reduction Act monies) and that without that support the project would not proceed. He also said precise panel acreage and whether the arrays would occupy the full five acres north of the jail are not yet finalized.

The motion to award the intent to contract was made by Supervisor Wilsey and seconded by Supervisor Vogel. After a motion to close debate carried, the board conducted a roll‑call and the intent to award passed; the meeting record notes the final contract will be returned to the full board before execution.

The Facilities Committee packet and staff memo explain the procurement requirements under the performance‑contract statute, summarize the single proposal received and outline next steps for contract negotiation, final site selection and bonding or borrowing arrangements.