Chair Birning opened public comment at the St. Croix County Administration Committee and called a series of residents who urged the county either to invest in negotiations with Xcel Energy or to fund a legal intervention against the utility’s proposed solar project. The county’s budget packet included a $75,000 placeholder to begin work; speakers and supervisors debated raising that amount to several hundred thousand dollars or more.

Why it matters: The committee and county board must decide whether to allocate taxpayer funds for legal intervention or to focus limited resources on negotiating an agreement with Xcel Energy that could shape project terms. Speakers repeatedly said state law and Public Service Commission (PSC) processes will strongly influence the county’s options and likely timeline.

Public commenters offered sharply different views. Joyce Santo of Hudson Township told the committee she supported continued negotiation with Xcel as "clean energy" and urged the county not to spend large sums fighting the project. Celeste Cobrell said the county "has the most leverage and the most ability to shape any potential solar farm project proposed by Xcel Energy" and recommended keeping the recommended $75,000 budget figure to fund counsel through the application review process: "That should be sufficient to get the County through the application review process." John Gostovich, who described experience as an expert witness before a utility commission, warned the county it would likely lose if it tries to prove a cheaper or environmentally superior alternative to Xcel and urged the county instead to obtain a strong operating (joint development) agreement.

Opponents of using county tax dollars to support the project negotiation or to refrain from intervention also spoke. Roxanne Jorsted said, "I do not consent to the 10 mile Solar Creek project." Other residents, including Matt Bachland, Sherry Croft and Laura Conard, asked the committee to allocate larger sums—ranging in public remarks from several hundred thousand dollars to more than $1 million—if the county is to intervene effectively. Bud Fuchs opposed using tax dollars to fund an intervention and urged spending on negotiated protections instead: "Please do not waste my tax money." David Kramer and others asked for clear billing and accountability from retained counsel.

County staff and members discussed next steps and costs. County Administrator Ken Witt told the committee counsel had already been retained and that invoices can show detailed time entries. Corporation counsel Rebecca Roker had provided a short review of the joint development agreement and flagged issues; the county plans to have Roker appear at the county board meeting on Nov. 4 to review "red flags" in the draft JDA and to explain negotiation options. Roker told the committee that some costs can be estimated only after the utility’s formal application is filed; supervisors noted Xcel had indicated a pre-filing and that the full application would come later, after which counsel could recommend whether to intervene and what that would cost.

Speakers gave different cost estimates during the meeting. Administrator Witt described the $75,000 figure in the budget as a placeholder to begin work on a JDA and application review. Attorney Roker’s guidance to the committee referenced approximate ranges: $45,000–$75,000 to negotiate a JDA and substantially larger amounts to undertake a full intervenor strategy and potential litigation — public discussion cited figures from about $350,000 up to $750,000 for significant intervention and litigation, and speakers referenced even higher midrange estimates (500,000 to $1,500,000) depending on litigation scope and experts retained. Committee members said a more precise cost estimate should be available after counsel reviews Xcel’s formal PSC application.

During the budget discussion the committee also noted related timeline and procedural points: the PSC application process often spans 12–14 months, the county could negotiate a JDA before or after PSC action in some cases, and Barron County’s recent experience (discussed in public remarks) involved the developer agreeing to pay some county legal fees as part of a JDA. Supervisor Long urged the committee to discuss compromise figures before forwarding a recommendation to the full board; Supervisor Fiedler and others emphasized waiting for counsel’s application review to set a final funding level.

Where it stands: The committee debated whether to keep the $75,000 placeholder, increase it, or defer a final decision until counsel provides a detailed scope and cost estimate after reviewing Xcel’s formal application. The county planned to hear Roker’s fuller review at the Nov. 4 county board meeting; the full board will decide whether to fund an intervener effort, expand negotiation funding, or take other action.

Ending: Public comment reflected deep division in the community about the project and about using county tax dollars either to negotiate terms with Xcel Energy or to fund legal opposition. The committee left the matter for further review and additional counsel input at the county board meeting on Nov. 4; no final county decision to intervene was recorded in this meeting.