Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Xcel Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee adopts 2026 budget but removes legal‑services line tied to possible Xcel Energy action
Summary
After extended public comment and debate about intervening in an Xcel Energy solar project, the St. Croix County Administration Committee approved the 2026 budget and tax levy but voted to exclude a legal‑services line (52‑11‑7) reserved for potential intervention or JDA negotiation; the committee discussed placeholder amounts ranging from $75,000 to several hundred thousand dollars.
The St. Croix County Administration Committee approved a resolution adopting the 2026 budget and setting the county tax levy while excluding a line item in the corporation counsel budget that had been identified as a placeholder for legal work related to the proposed Xcel Energy 10 Mile Creek solar project.
Administrator Ken Witt presented the budget and highlighted only minor numeric adjustments from prior drafts; he also noted a late request to restore travel funding for Conservation Congress delegates. Much of the meeting’s discussion, however, focused on whether the committee should recommend a specific amount for legal services tied to negotiating a joint‑development/operating agreement with Xcel Energy or pursuing intervention before the state Public Service Commission.
Public commenters and several supervisors urged robust funding for legal and technical review. Residents cited wide ranges of potential costs: several speakers referenced $75,000 as a placeholder; others said moderate intervention could cost "300 to 500" thousand dollars or more, and corporation counsel and retained attorneys warned full intervention and potential litigation could range much higher. Attorney Rebecca Roker (county‑retained counsel) told the committee that negotiating a JDA would likely cost in the range of $45,000 to $75,000, while broader intervention and litigation could reach "350,000 to $750,000" or more depending on the scope.
Supervisor Shirley moved to send the budget forward to the full county board without a committee recommendation so the full board could weigh the solar‑related funding question; that motion was defeated. Shirley then moved, and Supervisor Fiedler seconded, to approve the budget while excluding budget item 52‑11‑7 (legal services in corporation counsel). The committee voted to approve that motion unanimously.
Supervisor Long framed the procedural choice as a need for the five‑member committee to seek compromise before sending a single recommendation to the full board. Supervisor Fiedler and others said the major decision about intervening would follow review of Xcel Energy’s formal application at the Public Service Commission, expected roughly 60 days after the company’s pre‑filing; counsel said the county’s retained attorneys would review the full application (often thousands of pages) before recommending whether to intervene and at what cost.
The committee’s action advances the budget to the full county board with the legal‑services line removed; the board may consider amendments or restore funding when it reviews the budget at the November 4 county board meeting (retained counsel is scheduled to appear then to explain identified “red flags” in the proposed JDA).
