All right, we're going to move on to public comment. And first of all, I'd like to thank everyone from the public that is here tonight.
We do really appreciate your interest. We appreciate your participation in this process.
And we value your feedback. So thank you. And thank you to all of those who have sent us messages and emails and phone calls.
So we do appreciate your feedback.
back. We will be limiting, we have quite a few people that want to speak, so we will
be limiting you to two minutes. I'm also limiting to make sure that you are a resident, a current
resident of St. Croix County. And please remember to speak your name and your address
and be as specific and concise as you possibly can. I will also let the next
person know who's up next so we can keep the process moving along. Okay we're
going to start out with Scott Miller and then Scott he will be followed by
is Celeste Corboral.
Thanks everybody for your time. Stand before you to bring the, in
regards to the solar farm that's being pushed upon the people from our bad policies both
in our state and our federal government. It is your guys' jobs as a county board. If
anybody's in this room that's from municipalities, we need to stand in front of this. We need
to send a message to our state and federal government that we have to stop all these
poor policies where we are basically paying these companies to go around and there was
a policy that was going to go in this area that was under 100 meg that they obviously
couldn't get through the local government so then they brought it through XL who's
now going to ram it through because they're going to use the state.
So, I gave you guys a document and there's a bunch of areas in there that we need to
research, you know, who's funding this and the stuff.
Ask questions of Excel today.
All the kickbacks are getting from state, local government, tax benefits.
That's what we, the people, want to know.
They bragged on their crap meeting about being the cheapest energy, but I bet if
we put all of our costs together as a taxpayer, it wouldn't be that cheapest.
Okay.
Celeste, the next will be Christy Rora.
Good evening. My name is Celeste Cobrell. I live on like Malalu in the town of Hudson,
Wisconsin. We've been there for 31 years. I did send in written public comments regarding the
manure storage facilities ordinance and also dropped off some highlights of our photos
regarding water quality in St. Croix County. I am speaking to you tonight because you're
to be making decisions about the proposed minority storage facilities ordinance and
I hope that you will carefully listen and consider with both your heads and your hearts.
The public comments that people are making about the need to better protect our water
quality in St. Croix County.
As we have presented facts, we have shown you that already 13% of the private water
wells in St. Croix County or about 2,000 water wells are drawing from groundwater
water that already exceeds the safe drinking water standard for nitrate
contamination.
And unfortunately both the number of contaminated wells and the
contamination level with nitrates is increasing annually in St. Craig County.
It is not decreasing. Please remember that drinking water with excessive
nitrates is a serious health hazard. It affects our blood pressure, our heart
rates, our digestive systems and it causes blue baby syndrome which can
sick and and kill infants. It also reduces the values of homes by about 15% and it is
very expensive to remedy through the installation of private reverse osmosis systems or replacing
your private drinking well. One of the causes of high nitrate contamination is when manure
and or biosolids are spread into farm fields at a rate higher than what the crops grown
on those fields need. In addition, already our St. Croix County surface waters are impaired.
Reduced water quality in algae blooms hurts St. Croix County's visitors economy, which is already
about $219 million of total economic impact in 2023. It reduces the values of homes along
water bodies by about 11%. Again, a source of the impairments in our surface waters is runoff
from fields where manure is improperly applied or too much is applied because that carries
sediments, phosphorus, and nitrogen into our lakes, our rivers, it clouds the water,
it feeds the algae blooms.
The manure storage facilities ordinance is a very reasonable ask.
It doesn't ban anything.
It doesn't say you can't have a manure storage facility.
It doesn't say you can't have a CAFO.
It doesn't say you can't have a manure digester.
It just says, if you put in a new one or expand an existing one, please don't make our water
quality worse.
Please support it.
Thank you.
A Christy in following her will be Elizabeth Wood.
Christy Raritt of 1657 150th Avenue in Hammond, and I'm here to address the proposed solar
farm in that area.
Well, there are numerous concerns about Excel's proposed massive industrial solar farms such
as environmental health, water quality, noise pollution as well and the well-being of surrounding
residents.
I would like to speak to Excel's misrepresentation of the impact that the industrial solar farms
have on property values.
Excel continues to claim that there is no impact on property values near solar farms.
This is simply not true.
numerous scientific studies that I have found have shown that property values
do decrease by an average of three to nine percent when utility-scaled farms
are near homes or neighborhoods. For example, a study out of New York found
property values declined by 8.7 percent within one mile of a solar array. Now
while there are studies that show no impact, it's important to consider who
funds these who funds these studies. Many of them are sponsored by solar
industries who which stand to benefit from skewed results. The board and the
public need to be aware that Excel is not being fully transparent as they claim
to be with the information they provide on their website in medium
statements and their informational meetings like the one they had like the
one they're gonna have tonight and the one they've had in previous
on previous occasions.
For many homeowners, property values represent the future that they are building for their
families while a large corporation like Excel, 9 to 7 percent might not seem significant,
but to my family and many of you who are in this room, that's a substantial amount.
Living this project decreases values, it results in financial loss, mental health
strain and concerns about long-term invested. It's critical as a county we
consider these impacts when planning solar installations to work with local
communities so they are not unfairly burned in. Thank you.
Okay Elizabeth Wood
and who will be followed by Thomas Brunchettle.
Good evening. My name is Beth
Wood. My husband Warren and I live on Cedar Lake in St. Croix County. The lake
Lake is located in both Polk and St. Croix counties.
The water flows into Cedar Lake from Horse Creek in Polk County.
It flows through the lake and the water does not care about the county line.
The water flows out into Cedar Creek, into the Apple River and onto the St. Croix River.
My point is, it matters what protections we take in St. Croix County to the people
living downriver, and to the people that share our watershed.
We have a responsibility and an opportunity to do what we can to minimize harm.
I think that we can all agree that the most valuable natural resource we have in St. Croix
County is our water.
Regardless of our proximity to a CAFO, the entire watershed, once it has been compromised,
can, will, and has contaminated our groundwater. We have taxpayers in this
county that cannot use their well water safely to great personal expense. We have
town hall buildings in this county that cannot safely use the water that comes
out of their faucets. Taxpayers going to vote cannot safely have a drink of
water. We are barely staying ahead of what could be a serious devastating
problem. Not only to the safety of our families and communities, but to our
property values. This St. Croix County Board has an opportunity to take
preventative action now by adopting the manure storage facilities
ordinance. We want this ordinance to protect our groundwater and our surface
waters. This is the water source that we all use. Ultimately we are all
drinking the same water and let's make sure we do everything we can to keep it
clean and safe. Thank you very much.
After Thomas will be Jason Haas. Hello I'm
Tom Brunch out of 1738 30th Avenue Cam in Wisconsin. I'd like to address the
solar farm. Good evening to the board and thank you for this
opportunity to provide comment on the Ten Mile Creek solar project that is
being proposed in St. Craig County.
We need to look back at some recent history
for us to understand what the people that live
and work in these towns would like to see
as the towns continue to grow.
The state of Wisconsin has in place
comprehensive planning legislation.
This legislation only project.
The county used a grant from the state of Wisconsin
for the planning process to meet the extensive
requirements of this legislation.
Five towns worked with county consultants
on writing the 2006 Heartlink Cooperative Plan.
I personally was involved in this planning process.
We had two years of planning committee meetings,
multiple public surveys, and three public meetings
where residents could share their opinions,
not only on the day-to-day business
of running local government,
but also the long-range view
of what they wanted, the place where they live,
and their children go to school to look like.
specific sections of the plan called out land use, residential development and
acceptable commercial uses. All residents came to consensus that they wanted to
live and raise their children in a rural environment that allowed for controlled
growth of both residential developments and commercial businesses. This
philosophy we believe would best serve the people of the towns. In all the
towns a statement was made that there needs to be a balance between
residents and the need for incremental development of businesses and the need to preserve farmland
and farming that should not be impeded by local ordinances.
We believe that existing and new residential developments and farming operations can coexist.
One of the main goals of this long-range plan is to keep farming as a lifestyle and
as an important economic contributor to these towns.
Ten Mile Creek Solar Project, as you will hear in a few minutes,
will cover approximately eight sections of farmland,
with solar panels and industrial infrastructure.
The cost of the project is between two and two-and-a-half billion dollars.
It will be given $250 million of taxpayer money
in the form of subsidies and future tax incentives. These monies will be siphoned through the
Inflation Reduction Act and other federal and state programs. This is money taken from
the taxpayers and then a small amount of it is being used as shared revenue to the towns
and county. It will be very enticing for you as the board to just say, this is
a matter for the Public Service Commission to decide. The county can take the annual
shared revenue payment and duck any responsibility for this project. Please do not do that. Please
do not allow the state to write conflicting legislation that both asks for public input
on the future development and then disregards that input by moving the decisions to a bureaucratic
state commission. Thank you.
Jason. It will be followed by Steve Schaller.
Hello,
I'm Jason Haas. I'm from Somerset, Wisconsin. I am a fifth-generation farmer in Somerset.
I'm here to talk on the Miner Storage Ordinance. You did some great work ahead of time with the
Community Development Committee there. Had a lot of productive meetings there. The thing that I
had to talk about tonight was in the ordinance on Section D2, Operating Permit A3, and there
the Nutrient Management Plan shall be prepared for a landowner in SNAP Plus by a Nutrient
Management Planner and the plan files submitted electronically and includes the SNAP Plus database.
So the problem that I or the question I would have or ask you to do is the SNAP Plus database
is basically my six-year business plan. It doesn't include financials, but it does
include my farming operations for the next six years. It goes to the county in a
form that's not protected. The county employees that see this plan have the
ability to change it.
Now, I have the original copy, but they can do what they want with it. My concern is we
know who's in that position now. In the future, we don't know who's going to be there.
My information
there is prepared by somebody that I paid that the county requires them to be certified
to do this, so they're qualified.
But to have somebody in the county be able to change
my information is a concern. I don't know any other business that submits six years of plans
and then can have it changed and then not protected. So I would like to see it amended
and just have it some form. We can file it electronically yet so they can use it,
but I would prefer my data be protected. Thank you.
Okay, Steve, and we'll be followed by Kathy Streets. Hope I'm pronouncing that correctly.
Hello. My name is Steven Shala. I live in Derry Farm in Pleasant Valley Township. You
may remember me as the guy who comes in June Derry Month and brings cheese and invites
you to the county fair and Farm City Day. Tonight I'm here to comment on the Chapter
11 Ordinance. Our understanding is that the ordinance was selected for review and
response to a proposed chicken litter digester project. However, it directly impacts resident
farmers and future farmers in our county. In November, a group of about 50 farmers gathered
to review the proposal at our farm. We had an excellent representation of active farmers,
dairy farms, CAFOs, non-CAFOs, beef farmers big and small and grain farmers. We agreed on a list
of changes we felt were fair, productive, and maintain the spirit of continual improvement.
We brought these items to the December 12 public hearing and we appreciate that the
committee incorporated most of these suggestions.
Tonight I continue to represent the group that met before,
and we are asking for two more small amendments
to proposed ordinance and then your support
of the ordinance for approval.
The amendment I would highlight is in regards
to a farm field that appears
in two nutrient management plans.
We are asking that the language disallowing this
to be stricken from the ordinance.
Fields may appear in two plans for multiple reasons.
three examples, but not limited to would include farmland preservation,
economical logistics, and crop rotations.
In addition, at the public hearing,
Tom's Wald presented in his handout about nutrient management plans,
identifying specific sources of the miner,
and clearly identifies the quantities produced and the quantities applied
to demonstrate that a farm has adequate acres for all their miner.
If following the SNAP-plus program or equivalent, you can't double-dip on these acres without
raising flags that the regulators will easily see.
So your farmers have been working on continual improvement and sustainability practices for
generations.
In closing, I ask that you would help us in that cause by supporting the two more
updates for the Chapter 11's language, the other being the database file, and support
its approval.
Thank you for your time and effort on this.
As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please contact a farmer and visit a farm.
Your agriculture community is happy to talk to you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Kathy, and after Kathy will be Dan Wetherly.
Hi.
Thanks for the chance to share opinions and feelings.
I'm Kathy Streit.
I live in the town of Hudson for five years.
I don't have a big statement prepared, but I do have strong feelings about water.
We have a well that we take our water from.
And I feel like we have the right to have clean water in our well.
I think it's 33% to 37% of people in the state have well water that we live on.
I believe that this chapter 11 proposal is a small way that you all have the
duty to keep our water clean. I'm aghast that we have giant manure dumping
facilities already in our county and I would hope that this board would take
very seriously your duty to keep our water clean from here on out so my
understanding is that if we support the manure storage facilities ordinance as a
board and as a community that will do a little bit more to keep our water clean
thank you
Dan and after Dan will be Steve Mueller all right good evening I'm
Dan Weatherly, resident Hammond Township, St. Croix County.
Earlier today, I emailed to Jason Kay,
I can't pronounce his last name,
forgive me your community development director,
a copy of our petition which contains,
I think as of this morning, 4,445 signatures
primarily St. Croix County residents,
all of which are opposed to this XL Energy solar farm
for multiple reasons.
You also have a paper copy of this,
the electronic copy will get you links
to the studies and articles that we cite in here.
So I encourage you to get that from Jason if he hasn't already provided it
But you know this petition has all the details. I can't cover much in the time allotted, but I can cover the high-level issues
I think you know one of the issues is in the petition. You'll see a a map of
Hammond Township and
There's four residential large residential subdivisions and Hammond Township that Excel energy for reasons
I can't understand and no one can understand is seeking to surround on all four sides
with this industrial solar farm complex,
complete with millions of solar arrays,
service roads, inverter buildings,
sub-barbed wire, as we understand it.
There's other places,
we don't like the solar farm, we want it stopped.
But if it is allowed to proceed,
there's other places that put this industrial complex,
there's no reason why they need to be abutting
these residential subdivisions, zero.
There's thousands of acres of farmland
where no one is living,
that they can lease from farmers and place the solar arrays and accomplish their goals
if they're allowed to proceed. We hope they aren't, but if they are, there's other options.
And so this presents a number of health and safety and economic risks to the residents of this subdivision
and other places where they're seeking to do this.
In terms of health and safety, in the petition, we've included studies and articles
that outline the enhanced and elevated fire risk that solar farms present.
And the studies, if you go in and read it, they show that it's an elevated risk.
The solar farms have a propensity to start fires.
Okay.
This is the 5,000 acre tract of land where it starts here.
This is pretty much where it starts around the subdivision, the four subdivisions.
If there's a fire, there's no municipal fire department around anywhere in the proposed
solar farm area much less near these rural subdivisions in Hammond Township.
There's no municipal water source to put out a fire control of fire. They're
gonna have to you know bring water in to control it which is which is not gonna
be a good way to contain a fire of this size. There's also an article from CBS
News that covers an event in New York where the governor of New York had to
order a shelter-in-place order for all residential units within a mile
of the solar farm that caught on fire and burned for days, sent toxic smoke billowing
into these residential subdivisions for days.
And so the families in those subdivisions essentially were prisoners in their own home
because of this fire risk that came to fruition and required the governor to make formal
orders to protect the people.
So that's an example of the fire risk.
The other issue that you'll see in the petition, there are multiple seven studies
in this petition that we hope you'll read that clearly show there's up to a 9% reduction
in property values for homes within one mile of these solar farms. So that's what we don't
want that, okay? Excel will tell you there is no property value reduction. That's nonsense.
There's seven studies in here that clearly show that. And so we're asking St. Croix County
to attempt to regulate this pursuant to 66.0401. We understand there's some limitations,
but the law doesn't say you can't regulate it.
It says you have to satisfy three criteria in there,
and you can't preclude the solar farm,
and you can't inhibit it.
But there's some room to regulate it.
We want a one-mile buffer between the solar farm
and the residential subdivisions.
We want you to formally intervene
at the PSC application review process,
and we want you to appeal any detrimental rulings
that are handed down by the PSC itself.
Thank you for your time.
Okay, Steve will be followed by Linda Carlson.
Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the board.
My name is Steve Mueller, resident of Warren Township and president of the St. Card County Farm Bureau.
I'd like to personally thank the Community Development Committee for their willingness to listen to the community these last few months
and modify the amendments to the Chapter 11 Minor Storage Ordinance.
The committee in the agriculture business is affected by this ordinance,
have come to some sensible common ground in several areas.
For example, 11.2.8.2 in regards to rainwater and normal products that enter the storage
area.
There's inherently going to be products like Teat Dip and Foot Bath Solutions that end
up in storage systems with no other practical ending spot.
These are costly value pieces by producers that protect animal health and product quality.
They're not manure but they end up there and we're glad that that was incorporated
Under other revision, it was important to maintain is the daily versus annual recording
of manure components added to pits.
Daily records are not necessary.
They can be highly inaccurate when you consider rainwater and stuff like that.
And the important numbers at the end of the day are the manure analyzation at time
of application in terms of nitrate quality and the volume.
And that's where your most accurate numbers come from.
Furthermore, section 11.3.d.2.a.5, in regards to sign agreements between landowners and dairy
farmers, that was just simply, those are proprietary information and that was just unacceptable.
We appreciate that.
And finally, incorporating, and this also goes along with one of the gentlemen talking
about acknowledging that land may now come available to producers and that these previous
records from frills may not be available to be provided in an accurate recording in regards
to previous history. We're glad that that was upheld. The St. Craig County Farm Bureau,
our board of directors, sent an email to supervisors yesterday in support of a couple
of their visions. You've heard about SNAP Plus and utilizing farmland in several plans.
We'd like to consider those potential future amendments that are needed for producers to
efficiently manage farms.
And a couple months ago, I came and asked you guys to listen to the farmers, and I sincerely
appreciate the committee to listen to the agriculture community so that the producers,
the community in our environment would thrive.
Thank you.
Good.
Linda will be followed by Erin Tomsick.
Thank you for listening to our comments.
Linda Carlson in Pleasant Valley and I'm here to speak against the solar, the
solar farm.
It took me about 10 minutes on different websites which I don't have
them all written down but I do have them if anybody's interested I can share
them with you. One of them talked about burnt insects and birds wings. This may
need, this may seem insignificant in rural areas when you're driving and an
insect goes on your windshield, but for the large-scale they're talking about
building, it could have a regional and global effect. Secondly, the World
Health Organization, many of you know it as the who, talked about electromagnetic radiation
known as EMF, which I'll refer to. The EMF fields cause headaches, fatigue, skin
rash, and sleep disorders to people who live near them. There has been studies
that it could cause cancer, more research to be determined. A study in Australia
says the same thing. They have had people get the same symptoms and there is
more studies needed to determine if it causes cancer. At the Zoom meeting it was
talked about they were going to do proper disposal so that when they were
disposed of the chemicals would not leak.
I don't believe it was brought up
about batteries possibly leaking to to our harsh weather and the long-term
wear and tear. So what if the batteries leak into the soil with those chemicals?
And there was one more thing the gentleman before me talked about fire
hazards. There aren't that many older homes out in the rural area but
there are some with no AC if you shelter in place with no AC your windows are
going to be open that's it thank you
Aaron and we'll be followed by Nate
Zemtars I got that right Aaron yeah
we are limiting comments to residents of
St. Croix County but thank you for letting us know Nate then I get Nate
Wait, shall I get you?
The same is true for me.
I'm sorry?
Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Tom's wall, Tom.
Thank you guys for being
with us. Tom's wall, Pleasant Valley Township, 609 County Road, Z. I'd like to talk about
Chapter 11, the Miner storage ordinance. You guys have heard a couple of amendments. I
won't go through the literature again in the section numbers. Keep it brief. But I asked
that you support removing the database file, not only because it should not be edited.
It's our plan that we work off with our agronomist to make a finalized plan and submit it for
approval for compliance checks, not to be, well, it could be better if you do this, that
or the other thing.
But also, the language is going to be outdated in the next year.
I was very disappointed community development department never saw that.
When the new version rolls out, that lingo will be impossible for us to follow because there's going to be no such thing.
They're moving to cloud hosting, and so therefore it won't even be possible because they're changing the language.
So I'd ask you guys to change that as well as two plans.
Our farm, we've had a couple of fields in two plans for the last 13 years.
we own the field or we rent the fields, we harvest the crops, we do the tillage,
we are responsible for the soil loss, but we don't have enough manure at our farm
to apply our own manure on those fields. So we rely on a neighbor who has
enough manure and is willing to sell it to us as our source of commercial
fertilizer. So we're doing this as a benefit to the soil for the health
of the soil for the soil helps fix more carbon and such.
The other thing I would point out on that is that St. Croix County, I was on the Water
Quality Study Committee years ago, I think back in 2018, and we asked for an isotope
study.
I know that Tim Steiber completed that isotope study and did not find animal manure as
the cause of the nitrates.
Thank you.
Okay, I'm also Joshua Weinbein. Joshua,
might be Joshua. Okay, you're up.
Alright, fantastic. Good evening. I'm Joshua Weinbein. I am a resident of the
Hammond of Township. I've been there for 11 years. I've been a resident of St.
Craig County for over 40 years. I'm here to speak my opposition to the
Excel Ten Mile Creek Solar Project, particularly due to its men's size and
also the proximity to individual homes.
In November, Excel presented a map
indicating the location of the project with my home and my neighbor's home
surrounded by the project. There were some studies mentioned earlier and you
can find lots of studies online talking about what the impact this could
have a property value.
However, there's no doubt surrounding a home with a solar power
plant will have a significant impact on property values, my family's financial well-being,
and impacting my children's future. Further, the size of the project. Sorry, I was scrambling
with my notes as I'm staying in the hallway. So, you know, based on my research, so the
the scale of this project. This will be the largest, based on my research, this will be
the largest industrial solar project in the United States. This is not a solar array.
It's called a solar farm. In my opinion, this is a solar power plant, and I really think
it has no business being built around people's homes and in residential areas. Thank you
for those comments.
That concludes the cards that I got. Is there anyone else that would like to address
the board in public comment. Yes, sir, Mr. Wisconsin.
Yes, my name is Everett
Fuchs. Most people call me Bud. I live at 1724 Loyal Avenue in Hudson. I'm here to
speak about, you know, the manure storage facility ordinance. I think that
There's a lot of good things in that, but I also have some concerns.
I worked for a long time as a fisheries and water quality biologist, been to court a number
of times over water quality issues.
We won every court case, I'll say.
When it comes to protecting water quality, especially if you're going to go to court,
nothing is so important as having complete clear and defendable regulations
and ordinances that are not only easily understood but cannot be misunderstood.
Now, while I think some good changes have been made to this ordinance from the
original draft, I'm concerned that some of the changes have also introduced
some clarity problems and some confusion and maybe have gone just a bit too far.
So basically, as I have suggested in an email to all of you with some attachments for areas
where I think maybe they need to be looked at again, maybe especially with the advice
from your staff. You're very competent county staff. So I would ask you to do
that.
Let's remember what this ordinance is all about. This ordinance
basically gives the county the ability to manage in the future any large-scale
manure storage facilities. I think that's really important and it also is
going to be efficient for your county staff and make a couple of other
statements here as I see I'm clicking down on time it's kind of like a shot
clock on a basketball game. Pollution of our water by industrial agriculture
amounts to a de facto tax and those citizens who must buy bottled water
install reverse osmosis water treatment systems in their homes dig far deeper
wells and see their real estate values declined because of increased
pollution caused expenses and health hazards. Thus I pray I pray that you will
adopt the four simple modifications to the manure storage facilities ordinance
in the best interest of our county residents as an important step in the
direction in protecting our water, and as a clear statement that the Board of
Stuprovisers stands tall in support of clean water. I think we all know that our
water quality based on the present practices has been going downhill for a
long, long time. We know that the state of Wisconsin is not going to ride in on
a white horse to save us. This is one instance where the county does have jurisdiction and
you can do something to make a difference. So please consider that carefully. Thank you.
Anyone else care to make public comment? Former Supervisor Berkey.
Thank you, Chair Long, and thank you, County Board members. My name is Jill Berkey.
I
the town of Troy. I wanted to thank you for addressing this important issue of
clean water, groundwater, and drinking water. I also want to thank the Community
Development Committee for listening to a lot of public comment at your last
meeting and also to dedicated staff in the Community Development Department for
talking to citizens and farm groups. It is imperative that we protect clean
drinking water for human and wildlife populations.
Manure and or biosolids spread onto farm fields are a source of nitrates that may leach down
to contaminate our groundwater when greater quantities of nutrients than crops can use
are applied to the fields.
We concern ourselves with those sources of sediments and biosolids that reduce the
clarity in our rivers and lakes and the source of excess phosphorus and nitrogen that feed
the algae blooms in our rivers and lakes. As many of you know, I chair the park board
in the town of Troy for many years. I've been concerned about the algae blooms not
only in the St. Croix River, but also includes Troy Beach, our county operated park, Pembles
access which is operated by my township, Kenneconic State Park, and a lot of other bodies of water
in St. Croix County and into our neighboring county of Pierce.
The manure storage facilities ordinance would require the operation of new expanded manure
storage facilities to not make the water quality in our rivers and lakes worse.
This ordinance is necessary and reasonable measure to protect the water
quality of our groundwater, lakes, rivers, impacting sound health for
residents, visitors, livestock, and wildlife. It does not prohibit newer
expanded manure storage facilities, CAFOs, or manure digesters. It would
apply to a very small subset of St. Croix County farming operations and
would only to apply to new or expanded manure storage facilities.
Again, thank you for looking at all aspects and listening to those comments by citizens
this evening and for adopting a reasonable manure storage facility ordinance.
public comment back in the corner there sorry I don't have a name so I'll just
try to point you out my name is Sherry Walker I live at one on 2051 130th
Avenue and Aaron Prairie I'm here to speak against the 10-mile solar
the project. For decades, Aaron Prairie has chosen to have our township be an ag township.
We have cherished that and this 10-mile project is going to turn 5,000-plus acres into an
industrial parking lot. 5,000-plus acres is a distance that would be from, if they
covered it would be from County Road G down to Baldwin. It would be from Highway
63 all the way to Highway 65. That would be their 5,000 acres and I believe
there's chances for acreage beyond that. I would ask that this County Board
consider those aspects of turning us into just an industrial wasteland. We've
had a lot of comments about water quality. Where I have a cabin, the DNR
regulates whether you even put up a shed because the roof surface and the runoff
off of a roof changes what the flow that goes into the water system. And
And we're going to have 5,000 acres of solid surfaces and say that that's not going to affect
the water quality.
We have the Kinney-Connick water flowage that needs to be considered.
I think that the impact of this solar farm is just horrendous on our community.
And I'd ask you to take that into consideration.
Other comments?
I think I saw a hand over here.
Yes, sir?
Matt Bocklin, 573 Oma Road, town of Troy.
I just couldn't stay quiet any longer. This isn't a new issue to St. Croix County.
Matter of fact this came to us in town of Ceylon. We heard the exact same
conversations in town of Ceylon in regard to the solar panel. I went to the
presentation, basically phoned four or five farmers basically who wanted to sell
and that's what they were going to do. So this isn't new. We've heard a lot of
the same things. The difference that we're seeing today is the IRA. That's
That's why we're here.
It is basically the Northern Prairie Solar Project before.
Today we're talking about the Inflation Reduction Act that was signed in by Joe Biden back in
2022.
That is what this is.
This is a land grab by corporations and they want to change our farmland and they
want to supply the power to Minnesota.
Before they want to send the power to Apple Valley, Minnesota.
That was where all the power was going to go.
The one thing that nobody's talking about today is solar panels, solar farms use a transfer system to move the power from one place to the other.
A lot of those have problems as well and aren't conducive to our area.
But again, my biggest concern is that solar farms typically last for 25 years. That's about it.
It takes about 10 years to recoup your costs. It's about it.
But when the IRA runs out, who is stuck paying for all this waste?
And we also know that Donald Trump, President Trump coming in, said he's going to try to
claw back as much of the IRA money as he possibly can.
Again, this is the federal government basically subsidizing something for short-term gains for
the energy industry to make out with our money and leave us holding the bag. They got it right
in town of Cylon with when they fought there. Let's stop this whole solar farm fiasco because
eventually this is going to become an unfunded mandate. And for those who might be Democrats
on this board the Republicans are really pushing for this as well in certain
areas because they have chosen to pick low-hanging fruit which is Republican
red states the reason being is they have less regulation that is a letter that's
gone to honorable Mike Johnson as well saying please don't kill the IRA so
that's what I have to say about it thank you for listening any other public
comment. Yes, sir.
My name is William Drinken. I live in the town of Hammond. I've been there
for about 30 years. I've got a lot of things that have crossed my mind. A lot of them have been
covered by the people here, you know, EMF. The one thing I haven't heard much about is energy
efficiency. These solar panels decrease in efficiency as time goes on. As we're going
through the process here you know certain parts of the year are not very efficient for solar farms
and that for the solar you know southern california does great i got an ant out there
they've got one on their house and they're doing great i've got relation down in florida
you would think florida does well guess what they aren't even producing enough to cover the
costs of the the equipment that they put on the house and that these are not the greatest
than most sufficient things to be using here in that.
And so we're going to take a large chunk of land.
We're going to remove all the wildlife from it because they can't have wildlife in there
because it's going to damage their equipment.
They've tried that with domesticated animals and had to do things.
And that you're going to take and push all that wildlife out of there in that.
I think that's a major mistake to put this in in that.
It's going to affect all of the homes that are in the vicinity there, and that's a lot
of them there.
I was surprised at how many developments in Hammond Township are close to this facility.
I really think we need to get some hard answers from the XL people to address our concerns
in that.
We can't have them just say, oh yeah, well, that's an important thing to think about
and not answer the questions you know they're not giving us answers they're
just trying to push it through and I would like this board to help the
community out there that supports this board thank you.
I would ask if there's
any other comments if you have anything new to offer or if you can keep your
comments short and specific sir.
Good evening everybody my name is Steve
Brock Pollard. I live in the middle of this solar project if you will in the
center of the county. These people ahead of me have done a great job talking
about all of the other aspects of and the down side of all of this. I as a
farmer have land that can be eligible for this but refuse to put anything on
it, such as this. I was the town chairman of Erinn Prairie from 87 to 97. We were strong
on agland preservation. We were strong on keeping farm preserved and whatnot. And this
is going to be a huge, huge scab in the center of St. Craig County. Just the array itself
and the size of the project, but the implementation of this, there's one going on right now north
of us just south of Highway 8. And if any of you people have ever seen any of the videos
on it, the construction on it, it looks worse than I was in the Army. It looks worse
than a war zone. It is a nasty procedure. It is an unnecessary procedure. I have nothing
against solar energy. I have nothing against new energy. It's got to stand alone. It can't
be the subsidized money thrown out that we're all going to go zero carbon tomorrow and damn
the torpedoes, whatever happens happens.
Erin Prairie is too valuable. St. Craig County is too valuable to do an experiment like this
and leave a huge scab and a lot of hardship
for the residents of Erinn and the county.
Thank you.
Any other comments?
Make them, and I'm just gonna allow
about an extra few minutes here
because we're running a little long.
We have a lot to cover tonight,
so if you do have a couple of comments you wanna make,
please step up to the podium,
but we do wanna try to keep this short and concise, please.
Hello, my name is Diane Barfels and I live in the township of Richmond.
The reason my husband and I moved out of the Twin Cities four years ago
is because we wanted to get back to the country.
Now you're proposing to surround us with solar panels, solar panels that are going to affect
the wildlife. Just a week ago we had thousands of Canadian geese land in the farm field
behind our house so that they could feed for the night.
This affects the water. The panels
are made from plastic. Well, what's in plastic? Pifos. I think we all know well about Pifos
and what they do to the soil, to the water, and to the air. I just hope you understand
And all the people's lives that you're affecting with this possible decision.
People live out in the country for a reason.
They want to see the farm fields.
They want to see the sunsets.
They don't want to be surrounded by solar panels that are not proven that they're really
that effective, especially up here in Minnesota and Wisconsin, who have cloudy weather most
of the time.
It seemed like at least lately it does.
So, I just want you to take into consideration what all the true impact you're going to be.
Really look at the studies at what these things do to the soil, the water, and to the people
that live in those areas.
Thank you.
A final comment.
Go right ahead.
Yes.
Linda, by VOTA, today I'm at 583 Windgate Drive, River Falls.
I'm in favor of the board adopting the manure storage facility ordinance because all of us,
no matter who we are, how much money we make or where we live, we all want and deserve clean
and healthy water. I do have a few concerns. I emailed the board about some of the language
and that that could be restored. And then I just also want to say at our house, we're
fortunate to have clean and healthy water and I really hope it stays that way. But I'm
concerned when I read things like this, the 2024 report of
the St. Croix County citizen groundwater program found that
nitrate nitrogen was a prevalent and increasing
health related contaminant in our groundwater. Approximately
2000 private wells in St. Croix County or 12% of private
wells now exceed the safe drinking water standard for
nitrate nitrogen and the percentage of wells exceeding
that standard is climbing. Another thing is my husband and children liked to fish
and most recently they were ice fishing and so luckily they caught fish and we
had a great dinner but I do wonder sometimes when I hear about the lakes
and rivers being impaired if the fish is safe to eat. I also wonder sometimes
with family members that have some immunocompromised health concerns is it
safe to feed them the fish. And so I think of those things and I'm really appreciative
that you're putting this ordinance in place. I also appreciate the landowner's agreement
for spreading manure. I think of it like a rental agreement and just like any rental
agreement, the renter is responsible and can be held liable if there are any damages.
That makes sense to me and I appreciate that accountability piece. These are my main
concerns overall. I think this is a large improvement and I urge the Board to
adopt the manure storage facility ordinance. Thank you for listening.
Thank
you and again I just want to express our thanks to everyone that's here tonight.
We really do appreciate your interest. We appreciate all your comments and your
feedback. It really is important in the process so thank you. We're going to
on to our consent agenda. Do we have a motion on the consent agenda? That motion to approve
the consent agenda by Supervisor Berning and second by Supervisor Rice. And I believe we
can vote on that shortly.
Okay, that motion passes unanimously. We're still a little
new at this. So hang with us.
Okay, so we're going to move on to two presentations. So the
first will be Cell Energy Presentation on the Solar Power Project by Brian Ellwood, I
believe. And I just want to remind everybody this is an informational presentation. Okay,
there's nothing on our agenda that will really give us any opportunity to discuss this project.
So this is just for us to listen and learn.
I'm hoping we'll have an opportunity for a little Q&A afterwards.
Absolutely.
Okay, that's great.
So I'll turn it over to Brian.
Thank you for joining us.
Great.
Thank you, Chair Long, and thank you, Board, for inviting us this evening.
It's a great opportunity.
We appreciate the opportunity to talk about this project as well.
And clearly, there's a lot of interest, and we certainly understand that.
We understand that you're being in lots of questions from the community as well.
appreciate the opportunity, appreciate the invitation and looking forward to answering
questions as we get through the presentation. Tonight I want to cover
three things. First I want to talk a little bit about our company and the
project and why it's being proposed. Next we want to talk a little bit about
the utility shared revenue program in the state of Wisconsin and the benefits
that brings to communities as well. I know there's a lot of questions
regarding that. And the third thing we'll talk about is the Public Service
Commission of Wisconsin process. So we are a regulated public utility and the
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin regulates everything we do, our rates, our programs,
services we provide, the projects that we build and things like that.
So projects such as this go forward to the Public Service Commission to evaluate them,
to make sure that they're in the public interest and the public need.
And that we'll talk a little bit about that process and how that works.
And certainly key components of that is having public comment and public input.
So I encourage everyone here tonight and everyone watching online and to participate
in that public process, it's critically important.
And State of Wisconsin has one of the most robust commissions in the United States.
They value public input.
Certainly throughout this project and throughout the process, there will be public input sessions
right here in St. Croix County, and we encourage everyone to participate in that as we move
forward.
That first slide, I'll go back real quick, Ken.
We're getting, you got the clicker, right?
Okay.
Next slide.
There you go.
So, since we held our public open house in November, we started getting lots of questions
from our community members, customers regarding the project.
And we understood that we needed to have more information out there about the project.
We had a great open house, a lot of interest at the open house, but we needed to provide
more information.
So, what I'm showing tonight is something we announced a few weeks ago, and that includes
a project, a dedicated project website with frequently asked questions.
I heard other folks mention that tonight.
We're continually updating those frequently asked questions.
Encourage people to go right off our website,
excelenergy.com, forward slash 10 mile.
We've also established for this project
a dedicated phone number.
So I'd encourage anyone to write this phone number down.
If you have a question about the project,
something that comes to mind late at night,
early in the morning,
if you have a question about the project
or impacts it might have,
call that project phone number.
We have a great project team
that represents lots of different aspects
of this project at our company, we'll direct that voicemail to the right person and get you
an answer real quickly. And also we have a dedicated project email, so 10milecreeksolar.com.
Write that down. That also goes to our project management team. We'll route that.
Make sure it gets to the right person. We're answering lots of questions this way.
We found that these tools have been very helpful in answering questions that are out in the
community right now. So let's talk a little bit about Excel. I know there might be some
folks in the room who might be new to St. Croix County. Certainly, we're not. Our
company can actually trace its roots back to the Willow River Power Company back
of the turn of the 20th century. The Willow River Power Company was actually one of
the very first companies in the nation to provide electric power via hydroelectric
power on the Willow River. That company eventually became Northern States power, which eventually
became XL Energy. So we've been serving St. Croix County for over 125 years. I'm very proud
of the service that we have in St. Croix County. XL Energy serves eight states. We'll talk
a little bit about that. But here in Wisconsin, on this slide, you can see in the blue
service area, that's our service territory. So we serve about 271,000 customers in
in Northwestern Wisconsin that represents 26 counties.
So as a utility, we're a large geographic utility,
but we have about 270,000 customers in that area.
We serve over 500 communities in that area.
So all the way from Abbotsford to the East
to Hudson to the West,
Ashland to the North, down to Baroque to the South.
So that's our service area in Northwestern Wisconsin.
We've got a thousand employees
that live in the state of Wisconsin.
So notably in St. Croix County,
it's the third largest county we serve in Wisconsin.
and so behind old Claire and La Crosse, St. Croix County, we have the most customers
in 25,000 customers. Customers for us, of course, are homes and businesses, not people,
but we're talking homes and businesses, so that's the 25,000 customers. 35 communities
we serve in St. Croix County, so we're the biggest utility provider in St. Croix
County. And we have 200 employees who are property tax payers and live in these communities
that we call home in St. Croix County as well. But unique to St. Croix County
is, you know, most of the energy that is served to our customers here in St. Croix
County is imported. At XL Energy, we have less than three megawatts of generation actually
located in St. Croix County. We have two hydroelectric plants on the Apple River that I'm sure folks
are familiar with. But other than that, we don't have any local generation in St. Croix County.
We'll go to the next slide. The reason why that's important is because when you look at
our upper Midwest service area, we really think of this area. We own and operate,
transmit and generate electricity for our upper Midwest system as one system regardless
list of state boundaries. So, we serve 1.8 million customers in five upper Midwest states,
Wisconsin and Michigan, Minnesota, and North and South Dakota. 85% of electricity used
by our customers here in Wisconsin comes from Minnesota and the Dakotas. Only about
15% of it's actually produced in the state of Wisconsin. Why that's important is because
it is a great way to keep our costs low. So, our rates are 16% below the national
average. They're considerably lower than many of our peer utilities in the state
Wisconsin as well. So we're very proud of that fact and we're able to do that because we have a
large generation fleet. So we own and operate over 150 different generators, right? Everything
from nuclear power plants, coal plants, natural gas plants, hydroelectric wind, solar, biomass,
kind of an all the above type of thing is that of energy that we have on our system today.
And our customers across those five states benefit from all that energy on our system
as well. Here in northwestern Wisconsin, we've got 19 hydroelectric plants. We've got the two
in St. Croix County. We have 17 other hydroelectric plants. We have biomass plants up in Ashland,
Wisconsin, and biomass plant down in La Crosse, Wisconsin as well. And we have a natural gas
plant over in the town of Wheaton just outside of Eau Claire. So that's kind of our generation
fleet in Wisconsin as we see it today. So, important to note here again, about 85% of
the electricity used by our customers in Wisconsin actually comes from Minnesota and the
Dakotas is not generated here in Wisconsin.
Okay, gotcha.
Thanks, Ken.
So let's talk a little bit about this project.
So when we plan our system, we really look forward 30 years.
Literally, we look at how are we able
to provide electric service to all of our customers
safely, affordably, reliably, every minute of the day.
We look at every hour of every day for 30 years
and how are we gonna be able to supply electricity?
because the last thing our customers want is to not have the lights come on when they
turn on the switch. And we certainly understand that. And we want to do it safely and affordably
for our customers. In 2019, we announced plans to retire the King Power Plant. So we're
all very familiar with the King Power Plant on the St. Croix River in the town of Oak
Park Heights. It's a wonderful plant. It's been operating since the mid-1960s. It'll
be about 60 years old when we retire it in 2028. It's a great plant for us,
about 80 employees work there, and we're transitioning that plant and doing it responsibly.
So all those employees that work at that plant will have opportunities at the company
going forward.
But as we retire that plant, it's got very important regional energy grid connections
at that plant.
So what that means is it's a large substation at that plant.
That area is used to having about 600 megawatts coming into it.
That's a large plant, it's a 600 megawatt plant.
Those regional grid connections are critically important to our region and critically important
to the upper Midwest. So we have reviewed numerous options of how to best utilize those interconnection
rights. How can we best use that location to reliably and affordably serve our customers?
And we looked at lots of different things. We looked at natural gas, and it's not feasible
there for anything more than 100 megawatts. That solar and wind on that site is not
feasible, and obviously it's now part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. So it's
very unlikely that you would build another location on that site.
So we looked in the vicinity what would make sense to
reutilize those interconnection rights that we have in that area.
Installing solar in a close proximity to the King Power plant
was identified as the least cost option to reuse those grid connections.
That's really important.
So we want to make sure that we can safely,
affordably serve our customers at the lowest cost.
and we identified that doing King or solar within close proximity to that King plant
site was the best option.
There is an existing transmission line in place that crosses the same square river that
comes through in the same square county along Highway or County E. So there's already existing
transmission in place which makes it even a more suitable connection for us.
We'll go to the next slide.
So the 10 mile creek solar project, here's an overview of what we're proposing.
So phase one of the project will be up to 350 megawatts, representing about 2,500 acres.
All phases, if proposed, would be up to 650 megawatts, representing about 5,000 acres.
Important to note that the discussions we're having right now are all with private landowners in a very large geographic area.
There was discussions from folks that attended our open house in November at the FIPS.
maps. The map was shown and it kind of showed this general project area. That shows the
general project area that we're talking to private landowners about leasing their private
property for this project. And that's about a 30,000 to 40,000 acre area. The area that
represents the solar farm will be about 5,000 acres of that. As with this project, we've
discussed before, those private landowners are being offered lease payments. And approximately
two-thirds of the land is already under lease with those private landowners.
In talking to those landowners, we know that they're looking at this for different options.
Certainly these are summer farmers that have been farming on this land for many years
and want to find a way to diversify their income.
Some farmers might be leasing it to others as well
and see this as an opportunity, again, to lease it for a different purpose.
In addition to the solar plant, and I mentioned the transmission line,
line. We will also provide two different route options, and that's part of the commission
process to provide two route options for the transmission line that currently exists to
raise that to add a 230 kilovolt line to connect the solar array back to the King power plant
location.
So this slide right here kind of shows the proposed general area on the west of
the slide. You can see the King power plant and the solar location in the central
to the eastern part of St. Croix County.
Important to note with a lot of solar projects,
and certainly with this one, land use will be very important,
and it will include things such as pollinator habitat,
plant or prairie plantings,
and different opportunities to evaluate things
like agrivoltaics and things in the future
will certainly be a part of this project as we move forward.
Go to the next slide.
So I know there's a lot of questions
about the Wisconsin Utility Shared Revenue Program.
It's probably, I'm not sure if it's something that's been addressed by this board in the past.
The Wisconsin shared utility revenue program provides municipalities and counties with
payments from the program.
How that's allocated is the county receives two-thirds of the payment and then municipalities
where these projects are located receive a third of that payment.
Because we don't have the exact locations of this project until we file that with
of the Public Service Commission,
we can't really identify what those municipalities would be.
Excel Energy and other utilities
that have these types of projects
contribute funds to that program.
And those funds are sent back to each counties
or each community's annual operating income to be used.
However, local officials choose to use that.
For this project, we've calculated
for the first phase of the project,
this would represent about a million dollars annually
to the county and the municipalities
where the project would be located in.
So that's about $60 million over the life of the project, and then if all phases are
approved and complete, represents about $3 million annually or about $100 million over
the life of the project.
Next slide.
Next we'll talk on the Public Service Commission's process.
So the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, a three-member agency, Deliberative Body
in Madison, is the state regulatory agency that has oversight for utility projects.
Large projects like this require a certificate of public convenience and necessity, also known
as a CPCN.
The PSE has a very deliberative process when they're evaluating projects like this.
They identify, look at things like the public need, what are the economics of it?
Will it be safe for the environment?
What's the reliability look like?
Will it impact the reliability of the grid and is it safe?
We'll go to the next slide.
This kind of outlines what that review process looks like.
So what we're planning to do, Excel Energy, is mid-2025.
We will file a very detailed application, hundreds and hundreds of pages along with
maps and locations that will show the design, location, address environmental and economic
issues that have been put forward to us.
And then, as I mentioned earlier, the PSC will host public hearings to gather input.
And they do that in lots of different ways.
I suspect they will hold public hearings here in St. Croix County. They obviously will
have technical hearings in Madison. They provide opportunities for the public to comment
online and in person as well. So there's really a lot of opportunities and important
opportunities for the public to get involved in this process.
And then it goes to the PSC staff. And the PSC has a very deliberative, thoughtful
staff that looks at these very in-depth process. They will conduct their own investigations.
They will engage other state departments such as the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
for any environmental or wildlife concerns.
They'll talk to DATCAP and other agencies in Madison to provide input into the process
as well.
And then finally at the end of the day, the final decision will go or the final
decision will go to the three commissioners in Madison to make a decision.
If they issue a decision, they can issue that with conditions as well.
So, there might be conditions regarding the environment or setbacks or screening or other
types of things that can be incorporated into the design of these projects.
And again, the Public Service Commission is a very deliberative body, much as yourself.
And they will look at all those characteristics and ensure that the project is in the public
interest.
So, as we're looking forward, as I indicated, we'll file mid-2025.
That PSE process takes about 12 to 18 months, so it's not quick, but it's deliberative,
and it's important, and it's thorough, and it involves input from the community, and
it involves input from all the state agencies as well.
Their environmental analysis to also cover the things such as construction will include
operation that will include post-operation, so when the solar arrays and solar garden
is no longer in use of what the post operation looks like as well.
We'll go to the next slide.
We showed this slide a couple weeks ago during the online meeting with the town of Aaron
Prairie.
This was from a different solar array, lots of different pictures out there.
Important to note this was taken in the spring, trees were just planted, but these
are types of screening, types of things that happen that we work with landowners
are to ensure that they're set back, there can be screening that's put in place.
A typical solar panel, just to give you an idea is about the size of a sheet of plywood,
about four by eight.
When they've got solar panels on the front and back, so they're called bifacial, they
track with the sun, so they tip with the sun as the sun moves through the sky.
And when they're on their total slanted access, they're about 10 feet high off the ground.
So that gives you some sort of visual sense of what they look like from the roadside.
So again, this is the contact information from us, our website, our phone number.
Again, I strongly encourage you to write that phone number down, please share that phone
number with your constituents if you're getting questions from folks in your community
as well or use that email address.
We will get back to folks real quickly with the right person who can answer their questions.
So I think with that, Ken, we did it.
Could you share that presentation with everyone on the board?
Absolutely.
That would be acceptable, so we'd all get a copy.
We have those numbers.
So you're okay with a couple of questions?
Absolutely.
I'm going to go ahead and start out.
Can you talk two things?
Talk a little bit about the ability or lack thereof to recycle solar panels.
And then also, what's your plan B or C or D or whatever, should you have some sort
of an incident where maybe there's a tornado or a hail
Thank you for watching.
Or something that wipes out substantial numbers of these panels.
What happens at that point?
Thanks, Chairman.
So to your first question, about 90% of the solar panel could be recycled.
We want to take all the steps we can.
I think like any business, we try to recycle as many materials as we can.
I think as we think towards the future too,
We're not sure what types of materials can be recycled well into the future when the solar
array is no longer operational.
So we'll take all the steps we can to recycle as much of those materials that we can, and
then safely and responsibly dispose of what's not able to do.
I think all of us in business, we do that every day in our jobs, and we certainly
do that at Excel when we take our impact on the environment very seriously.
Your question about storms, I think, is very pertinent as well, and it's a question
that we get a lot.
I would tell you we're in the utility business. We're used to storms. We're used to the power
going out. We're used to responding late at night, early in the morning. When it's cold
it's out. When it's most treacherous out, our crews are out there making sure that
the power gets back on for people. So we have lots of contingency plans in place.
Not only if the solar is not operating, but if we have another plant that goes down.
If one of our nuclear plants goes down for some unexpected reason. As I indicated,
we have 150 generating units on our system serving those 1.8 million customers across five states.
I can guarantee you there's things that happen probably every day. A lot of things I probably
don't know about. But our job is to make sure that we can have safe, reliable, affordable power
for our customers. And I'm proud of the work that our teams do. And I think we do that very
well. So if a storm came through, I'm confident we'd have power to replace it,
because it's part of what we do each and every day at our company.
Thank you.
Other questions?
Supervisor Heads.
How are you?
Good, Dan.
It's nice to see you.
Good to see you.
It has been a while.
I'm a strong proponent in county zoning, and I believe that a property owner is right to enjoy their property the way they understood that they could when they purchased the property is something that we need to protect.
Having said that, and I respect that you're paying a very fair price to the people whose property you're renting.
Is there any compensation for the people who simply don't want to be near this?
Is there anything that you're doing for people who'd like to get away from the solar array?
So I appreciate that question.
You know, two ways I'd respond to that.
The Utility Shared Revenue Program that I touched on is a way to, you know,
provide compensation back to municipalities as well, right?
So municipalities can choose to use those dollars however they see fit in their communities.
the county can as well. As it relates to landowners who are adjacent, we try to be good
neighbors and we've always been good neighbors in the communities that we serve. We want
to work with those landowners to provide screening opportunities and other types of things,
but to a specific question, there isn't financial payments to those living near it
other than the lease payments to those that are leasing their private property for this
project.
Supervisor Shirley? Yeah, a couple questions. The first one would be battery storage. What kind of
battery storage do we expect on a site of this size? And I'm assuming they would be on this site
rather than on a different site off of where the solar panels are, but if you get interested.
So the first phase of the project does not involve any battery storage.
So the first 350 megawatts we talked about does not involve any battery storage.
Future phases may involve battery storage.
Don't have any information about what that might look like at this time.
Okay.
Second question is additional needs for St. Craig County.
as we see the the initial application would be 350 megawatts the king power
plant is 650 so we're we're netting negative on the first go around I know
that the the event eventually we will get up to the 650 again but as we're
trending down in a constant on a king power plant versus maybe not a constant
with solar and how are we going to or how is Excel proposing to the increased
power needs of St. Craig County as we see the need for more industry or
commercial, we've even talked about data centers in the area that we're not able to say yes
to these projects because we don't have enough power in the county.
So how are we going to, or how does Excel think that they're going to power our county
long term when we can't get the projects done that we necessarily need to now?
Yeah. We check our responsibility to provide safe, reliable electricity very seriously and we do a very good job with that.
As I indicated before, we're looking out, we're making investments today for things that will be used 30 years from now.
So we're looking at what those power demands will be 30 years from now,
ensuring that we have all the resources on our system to safely and reliably serve our customers.
That's something we do each and every day.
We have a fantastic team in Excel that's looking at all those resources.
How do we do that?
Last week, we just received approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to extend
the life of our nuclear power plant in Monticello for another 20 years.
That's going to be another important, so I'll get us to 2050 for the Monticello nuclear
plant.
We're doing that with all the generation in our system, so when we can't think
of a one or kind of a one-to-one type of thing, we look at our entire system.
We look at how we're serving all of our customers throughout the upper Midwest
with all those sources of generation.
And I'm confident we'll be able to do that.
St. Croix County is one of, I don't have to tell you guys,
it's obviously one of the fastest growing counties
in the state of Wisconsin,
if not the fastest growing in the state of Wisconsin.
What some folks might not know
is that Xcel Energy was the company
that helped start the St. Croix Business Park
back in the 1990s, so we provided a loan
to City of Hudson, which created
the St. Croix Business Park,
which is a very important economic resource
So we're very keen on the economic vitality of this region and ensuring that we have enough
power to serve the needs into the future.
So I'm confident we'll be able to get there.
We're definitely going through transitions.
We make lots of decisions when it comes to energy infrastructure and how we serve
our customers.
We work through the state process.
We work with stakeholders such as yourself, community members as well.
So it's a very important process that we work through and I'm confident that
we'll be able to do that well into the future.
Sure.
Supervisor Van Summeren.
Again, I have a couple of questions.
The first one, why you're in Prairie?
Why on the finest farmland we probably have
in St. Croix County instead of some land
that is not as fine, not as productive, not as level.
However, solar arrays don't need level lands.
So why, first of all, why you're in Prairie?
So I remind you that we're working
with private landowners in St. Croix County.
I mean, we're trying to be within a certain distance
from that King Power Plant interconnection.
15 to 20 miles is really a good distance
to make it cost effective to reuse those grid interconnections
for us.
We've got an existing transmission line in place
across county E. Again, we'll propose two different routes
for an upgraded transmission line, a 230 kilovolt line.
When we file the application, we
will see the scope of what those 350 megawatts will
look like the 2,500 acres for that first phase of the project.
So it's proximity, it's location, it's working with those private landowners who are making
that decision on how they want to use their private property.
Okay, let me follow up on that.
You talked about 10 to 15 miles is the finest, but earlier in your presentation
you said that part of our energy in Wisconsin comes from South Dakota, which is farther
than 15 miles away.
Yep.
Wouldn't the same thing apply?
I mean, again, the power line that goes along E goes along double D all the way to Highway 128
and beyond. I think it ends up in going through Eau Claire. So, you know, there's plenty,
plenty of other space where we don't have housing developments. If you've been in the audience,
you've heard we don't have to uproot some very productive farmland. It would just make
sense to me to move that to an area farther east, farther west, where it's rocky and wet
crummy, because you don't need much good soil to plant i-beams in the ground.
So a key point of this project is having those regional grid interconnections that are located
at the King Power Plant site.
There's a very large substation right there that is used to having a 600 megawatt plant
right there.
So being in proximity to that and having generation that could feed into that grid connection
is critically important to make this project affordable and cost effective.
It does also have a rather large connection on WD just east of Highway 63 also.
So I mean, there are other places.
Question number two, where are the panels made?
So with our project, we seek the source from domestic providers for this project.
As we file the application with the commission and go through the supply chain process,
our goals work with domestic providers.
Okay, I'm happy to hear that because I'm just thinking that we're facing perhaps
That's a 25% tariff and suddenly that 350
would be 100 with the same dollar.
So thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Supervisor Ramberg.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, chair.
I have two questions.
One, during the public input process,
is there opportunity for your plan
before you submit the application
to be modified to accommodate?
Some of these are as many of these concerns as possible.
You know, with modifications or conditions, i.e., like reflections on cars for traffic
accidents?
Yeah, so I'm sorry, Mr. Question.
Reflections for how, like the safety of reflections onto neighbors and to the cars for traffic
accidents and dumping more animals on highways and different things like that for safety.
Yeah, so the Public Service Commission has a very thorough and comprehensive process
process that involves not only public input but input from the state agencies that oversee
things like consumer protection, the environment, and other types of things.
So having been through that process many times, I can tell you it's very thoughtful.
It's a sound process.
In fact, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin was the very first public utilities
commission in the United States.
It's got a very long history, very proud history of serving the state of Wisconsin.
And so, as we file this application, there will be plenty of opportunities for that public
input.
And that will be up to the public service commission staff to take all that input through
their investigations, through their common periods, through their discussions with other
state agencies, and develop a record that the commissioners can review and vote on.
Thank you.
And number two is not knowing the future, of course, and with efficiencies of electricity
manufacturing in the future that we don't even know about today like hydrogen and
nuclear and all that if that were to come to us faster or come to you faster
than your 60-year plan or whatever you have in there could that tip over when
you're removing the I-beams you know how do you do that and could that tip it
over and reduce the acreage being consumed while you consume these
smaller area, energy efficient issues?
Yeah, no, I think it's a good question.
There's unquestionably a lot of people
looking at energy issues right now in our country.
I mean, energy is a big issue in our country,
not just electricity, but just energy in general.
And there's all sorts of advancements always be made.
Our wheat and power plant is outside of Eau Claire.
We're actually pre-fitting that for hydrogen.
We don't know if hydrogen is gonna be a thing,
but we're pre-fitting it for hydrogen.
And some day, maybe it's going to be a thing.
Maybe it'll be cost effective.
Maybe we can use hydrogen at that plant.
We don't know.
But as we're upgrading that plant,
we're actually doing that work right now, just outside
the city of Eau Claire, is to be ready for the future
when it happens.
Other questions?
Suburbanist of Barclow.
Thank you for coming and presenting to us.
A couple of questions I'm looking at is just
peak efficiency for a solar farm.
looking at average days of sunny weather in Wisconsin,
just a Google search this afternoon is 89 days of clear skies
and 176 days of cloudy skies.
So that's a pretty low average of good generation, I would imagine.
I see solar farms showing up at 24, 25% efficiency.
Is that accurate?
I don't know the percentage efficiency.
What I can tell you is that as we look at providing service to our customers,
we're looking at all types of energy sources, right?
So it's not just the solar and the wind that we offer, the hydroelectricity,
our natural gas plants and our nuclear plants, right?
They all operate as a system. They all have benefits in different ways, right?
They're different energy sources.
We utilize a variety of energy sources in order to be reliable, safe and affordable for our customers.
So this is a key component of that. The other key component of this is obviously its proximity to that King interconnection site, too,
and being able to reliably and affordably use that site in the future.
So my follow-up question is, using 5,000 acres seems like a massive waste on our scenery
and the use of those public lands for ag and potential homes in a county that is
continuing to grow. Why not just keep the King Power Plant active? So we made the
decision in 2019 to retire the King Power Plant in 20
It's literally at the end of its useful life. It's a 60-year-old plant that it's not cost-effective
to operate into the future. But we wanted to make that decision a very responsible manner.
We didn't just shut down the power plant in 2019, decided to shut it down in 2020. We're
doing that over a period of time to make the most responsible decision we can for our
customers.
The 5,000 acres is, again, a note that we're working only with private land
owners on this. Those private landowners are being provided lease payments to
provide their land for this project.
Supervisor Rice. Yes my question Brian has
to do with plans for the 25 to 30 year lifespan of any solar farm. How you go
about the retiring process financially to afford making sure
that it's safely taken down?
Yeah, that's a really good question.
So part of starting a project is,
how are you going to end a project responsibly as well?
And that certainly will be part of our application process
that we file with the Public Service Commission.
How do we decommission that?
How do we work with landowners in the future?
I don't have those details right now,
but that's certainly part of the plan
that we'll file with the Public Service Commission
in mid-2025.
Supervisor Adams, again, we appreciate you coming.
In St. Paul, they had a coal-fired plant
along the Mississippi River.
Typeridge.
And I worked at St. Paul Public Schools,
and I watched them decommission it, slice it apart,
bring it down to ground level,
and put up a natural gas facility there.
Why can't we do that at the King location
and use natural gas, which gives us
baseload energy and we don't have to worry about trying to wicker solar power
into the grid that then requires transformers and you know magic dust to
make it come out of our wall. So you know I'll answer that in a couple
different ways it's a great question it's a question we've we've gotten a
lot right if you're not familiar with the energy infrastructure you might not
be familiar what we can and can't do at other sites so not only in St. Paul
that we convert that coal plant to natural gas. We also did that in Minneapolis as well.
We converted a coal plant from at the Riverside plant in Minneapolis to natural gas. We looked
at all the different options for the King plant. We could only get enough gas to that
site to power about 100 megawatts. And remember, too, it's part of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act as well. It would be very unlikely that you would be able to
site a new power plant along the Sinclair River. But we did look at it. So we looked
at that. We could only get about 100 megawatts of natural gas generation if we were to propose
a site there. So we looked at other options, right? We looked at wind. We looked at all
the different options on the table because reusing those interconnection grid location
is really critically important to us. And doing that within a geographic area that
makes sense is what makes this project feasible and affordable going forward.
So, I'm looking at the Apple River plant Hydro, outstanding, everybody loves Hydro.
Only two megawatts, and the plant was built according to this interactive map here in
1901.
So, here we are using that place for a century, but the King plant is too old, it's 60.
Here, I guess, I don't know, within the last 10 years, we've only been using it
for six months out of the year.
So, is it really 60 years old or something less?
So, you know, I agree that, you know, we're just seemingly ramming this project down our throat.
I'm looking at the public utilities omission site.
Please don't, please.
And they have not, they have not cancelled or turned down any applications.
I mean, our chances of getting this thing turned down are like a snowball's chance and you know where.
So anyway, I'm not, I'm not ragging on you, but, you know, this stinks, so.
Okay, that's pleased.
Please hold your colleagues.
Supervisor Berning.
Hey, Brian.
Thanks for, thanks for coming tonight, man.
It's always great to see you.
So you said something about the King power plant being decommissioned and then putting
one in its place there that it would be almost impossible to do so, but there's
one there right now.
So the King plant was built before the Wild and Seedy
Careers Act was put in place?
Yeah, no, no, I realized that because that was late 70s,
early 80s, somewhere in there.
But isn't there something like grandfathering that site in?
I mean, isn't there anything in there
that you could preserve so that you could rebuild it
or rebuild something like Supervisor Adams was
saying regarding natural gas?
I mean, we're going through all the rigmarole of getting
something brand new over a very large space approved when you have space already and you
guys have done a great job of cleaning it up and making it so that we have Paul Deagles
on the river again.
That was wonderful, but I mean, could you guys do that?
Could you guys push to do something there again?
So Paul, answer the question the same way I did before and sorry if this is redundant.
We looked at all the options for the key plant site.
We looked at natural gas.
We looked at other options for the key plant site.
The best option to re-utilize those interconnection grid is to build a solar array and central
in the eastern St. Croix County.
So if this fails, like if you don't pass the PSE, which there is a chance that it may
not, although, you know, Supervisor Adams made an indication that there hasn't been
one that's failed, what is your plan B?
Because there always is a chance that someone looks at a petition of 4,000, some citizens
of residents of St. Croix County and goes,
man, I don't think that this is what this area wants
to have inside of it.
What is your guys' plan B?
Do you guys have a plan B if this doesn't go through?
So I would say our plan B is always
to make sure we're providing reliable service
to our customers.
And we'll do that.
Not sure what that might look like,
but our plan is to make sure that every time our customers
customers want to turn on the lights, cool their homes, that they have electricity to
do that.
So we take planning our system very important.
As I indicated, we are looking out 30 years into the future on how to safely and responsibly
serve our customers.
If the plant or the project doesn't go through, we will have plans in place to make sure
our customers have uninterrupted service just like they do today.
And then as regarding nuclear power and expanding that with some of the advances
that have happened in France and how clean that they, I mean, it's amazing what they've
done over there.
Nuclear is pretty much, for the most part, carbon-free.
It utilizes nuclear energy.
My friend works there at the one in Monticello and it's very efficient.
Why have we not looked at doing that adjacent over here instead of 5,000 acres of, you
know, spread out over 40,000?
I mean I mean let me ask this so why is nuclear not been pursued so and it has
been pursued I mentioned that earlier so that we operate three nuclear units on
the Excel energy system in the upper Midwest we have two units in Red Wing
Minnesota and we have the one unit up in Monticello those plants have been
operating since the 1970s I believe and we have plans in place to keep them
operating like I said Monticello just received approval to operate to 2050
So reinvesting in those existing nuclear units has been incredibly important to us.
It's an important base load fuel source for us.
It keeps our rates really low for our customers, and it's very reliable.
So we support nuclear.
We're investing in our nuclear plants where they're an important part of our fleet.
And those plants, while they're located in Minnesota, provide electricity to our customers here in Wisconsin.
So that didn't really answer what I was asking.
I guess what I'm asking is if this board and local municipalities, past resolutions
and passed it on to our state representatives, asking them to work hand in hand with you
to provide the funding needed to build a nuclear facility rather than a large,
sprawled out solar facility, would you guys be willing to consider that again
and work with the legislature and our local municipalities to make that happen, because
I think we could lead the effort on that here with our residents and our neighbors from
this board.
I think so.
I know I speak from everyone.
There's 19 of us total, but I'm saying from my perspective, I think we could lead the
charge on that and get buy-in for that rather than this particular project being
sprawled out and only having a lifespan of 20 to 30 years.
What do you say to that?
Well, I would say I think nuclear is a really important part of the future of energy in our
country.
At Excel Energy, we've made nuclear a very important part of our portfolio in the upper
Midwest, too.
So expanding that in the future, not sure what that would look like, but we'd certainly
be able to any discussions that the board might want to have with state legislators
and others in the future.
Okay.
And then I think you've answered a couple of these other ones.
Let me just make sure I got Supervisor Rice.
nice job on the retirement.
Oh, on the retirement, I did have a follow-up question on that. Retirement
of the solar facility once it's done. So are there contingencies in place? Do you guys put
those anything in place like a bond or some sort of insurance? Like if Excel energy happens
to file bankruptcy or the landowners are default and now of the sudden who's responsible
for that? Is there a bond? Is there insurance policy or something that's in place? I believe
One of the supervisors in the admin committee brought that up a couple weeks ago, but can
you talk about that?
What the insurance process or what the insurance is for us to have that cleaned up once those
are retired?
Yeah.
I don't know the insurance process, but I can certainly follow up with you and see
what that looks like.
As indicated earlier, as part of our applications, the Public Service Commission includes what
happens with decommissioning and when it's not operating and how we work with
those landowners going forward.
So that's that's a critically important part of the process as well. I got one last question
I appreciate you indulging me mr. Chair on this and thank you Brian for indulging me as well
My last question is I have not heard of a single solar project
Anywhere in this country and maybe there are some where it is all completely private funded without any type of federal subsidy
For the at least the initial construction of it including private residents
businesses
What have you guys applied for or what will you apply for any federal subsidies once this
project is approved if it gets approved?
So we will take advantage of any tax advantages and subsidies that there are for the project.
Those cost reductions are then go back to our customers in the cost of a lower cost
project.
But as of right now, there's no grant application in or what does that look like?
No grant application in.
But once it is approved by the PSC, I'm under the assumption you will look for those subsidies.
Yeah, I'm not sure what tax benefits there might be out there at the time.
You know, we're talking well into the future.
But any of the tax advantages that are for projects like this flow back to lower cost for our customers
and then a lower cost project for our customers.
Okay, thanks, Brian.
Supervisor Leif, I believe you have a question.
I do, and I'm sorry for my voice.
I'm wondering if Heather could court counsel could give us some information about what what
realistically if anything the county can really do in this case I know there probably was an email
but I haven't gotten to it all but I wonder if she could just give us the what is what
really if anything the county can do regarding this project. Thank you.
I and with all due
respect Supervisor Leaf I think that's another discussion for another meeting.
It's not really on our agenda to discuss those types of ins and outs of what we
can or can't. Well I think okay I guess that's fair but I don't it's my
understanding there's not much.
Okay Supervisor Carlson.
Thank you. The biggest
complaint and worry about people I get from our constituents is the closeness
to residential areas and covering farmland. Have there been studies done
to see, because I know you want to stay close to Oak Park, but have there been
studies to see how much it would cost to put transmission lines and put it in
the area that's much more rural, because it certainly doesn't fit the
setting right next to houses. I was horrified when I saw one of
the pictures where they put yellow where all the solar panels were, and there was a road
going in, 10 houses, and it completely surrounded it, like forever.
So has there been a study done to see how much it would cost, and can we see that study
if it has been done so we know?
Yeah, I don't know if a particular study has been done.
I know studies have been done to determine what's the best use of that interconnection
site and how far you can be away from it to make it, obviously every mile you
move further away it's another mile of transmission line and obviously there's a cost that goes
up with that.
What I will share about the map and I think it's important to note, 60 days before we file
the application we do file the general area that the project be located and it will show
the map of that location as well.
And then when we file the application I have more detailed information.
So we are looking in a very large 30,000 to 40,000 acre area.
area. So I think some of the images that have been out there haven't been very detailed
enough. And I encourage the public and supervisors and elected officials to look at that map when
it comes out to see where we're proposing for those final arrays. Again, we're talking
to landowners in a very large area. Just for a little geography, I did my own little
AI search beforehand, St. Croix County, but just under 500,000 acres in size.
we're talking 5,000 acres so St. Croix County is a big area as well and so we're
and we're talking to landowners in about a 40,000 acre of that 500,000 acre area in St. Croix County.
Uh, Supervisor Coehr.
And I also would like to thank you for coming and walking through this
with us. Um, I have two questions for you. One that has been brought up by some is, uh,
the concern for bleeding of, uh, is there a potential for bleeding for PFAS or other contaminants
from the amount of array that's out there? Yeah, I appreciate the question. Environmental
environmental concerns are one of the key things that the Department of Natural Resources
will look at for any of the solar arrays.
So that's part of their process to look at what types of environmental impacts there are
from not only the land use, but the type of project that you're proposing, the type
of materials that you're proposing, where you're getting them from as well.
So those will all be a part of that study process.
And I'm confident that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and other state agencies
will look at that to ensure that anything that's approved is safe for the community.
Thank you for that. Then my second question is,
does Excel Energy then, do they have any provisions in the contract to be able to
sell the solar farm to investors? This solar array will be owned by
We're based out of Eau Claire, my office is in Eau Claire, so that's the operating company that will own this.
We've been operating there since 1924, which is celebrated 100th anniversary in Eau Claire.
I don't anticipate that changing in the future.
So, Excel Energy is the owner, will be the owner and the operator of this plant.
Okay, so that would be for the entire life of the contract.
Correct.
They would have ownership and the contracts themselves are provided that way that Excel
will continue ownership.
So I think the question is going to add.
So some solar arrays are built by third parties, right?
They might not be a public utility that's building it, and then the ownership of that
solar array can transfer from owner to owner.
This is actually being owned by the public utility and it's being used to provide electric
service to our customers.
Okay.
Thank you.
Supervisor Shirley, a couple other questions for you.
Do you have an estimated total project, proposed project cost?
We don't.
We will when we file.
So we'll have all that information, the detailed application.
As we indicated earlier, we're really at the front end of this process, right?
I keep telling you, we're kind of like at 1B now.
I think before we were at 1A, we transferred into 2025, we're kind of at 1B now.
We have a lot of work to do before we file that application including all the financial analyses that will go into that
So we will have a total project cost when we file it with the public service commission
Obviously cost is one thing that the public service commission will look at
Along with all the other considerations that they get for projects like this
And I know what you said earlier in
presentation that your your initial application is for the 350 correct and then you'll do a later
submission. Does that first submission include a future proposed up to 650 so
the public service knows that you're going to grow this or is it just 350 and
then when you go for more they could say yes or no. There'll be two different
there'll be multiple applications perhaps right. The work that we're
doing with landowners right now is to secure those lease agreements for the
entire full project, that 5,000 acres. So what that looks like in the future, you know,
I guess I don't have information on, but it could be multiple applications for different
sizes of the project. You asked a question about batteries, too. Certainly that's something
that can be incorporated for future phases of the project. We don't have that for the
first phase of the project, but that's certainly something that can be evaluated going forward.
And one quick last thing. In a previous meeting that the two of us were at, you said that
that there were no new energy plants other than solar that were in the – any proposed
in this area. Do you think that that is a sustainable thing to do in the future?
So when we look at providing service to our customers, we look at all those energy sources
we talked about before. We're investing in our nuclear plants. They might not be
located here, but they're serving our customers here. Our customers here, everyone
in this room if you're an Excel customer is paying for those nuclear plants, our hydroelectric
plants, the 19 hydroelectric plants, we're investing in those to make sure that not only
they've been operating since 1901, but that they can operate for well into the future. So
when we look at all of our energy sources, it's important to look at them as a system and not
as individual pieces. St. Croix County, as I indicated, we've got two hydroelectric plants
here. They've been operating for a long time. We're proposing solar, there's other solar
projects being proposed in the area as well. This area doesn't lend itself for us, for
wind resources, so for Excel Energy, because we serve Western Minnesota and the Dakotas.
That's a much better wind resource for us, and that's why when we site wind generation,
we look to site it in areas that we serve in Western Minnesota and the Dakotas. When
we upgrade our hydroelectric plants, that's right here in Wisconsin. We've got 19 hydroelectric
plants, and we do that right here. When we invest in our biomass plant up in
Ashland, that's because there's a huge logging resource up in Ashland with the wood products
industry.
It's a great plant for rut and provides about a $5 million economic impact in Ashland in
that region.
So when we look at energy sources, it's important to look at it as a system for us.
And that's why we're proposing this one here.
But it's difficult to kind of compare and contrast when you look at just one area.
Okay.
Thank you, Brian.
I have one final question for you.
One more here.
One more?
Okay, let me throw this out for you, and then I'll turn it over to Supervisor Rotino.
I'm aware of this possible agreement called Joint Development Agreements, and that would
be agreements between Excel and counties or municipalities.
Addressing a lot of the concerns that a lot have been voiced here tonight, is Excel
going to be interested or agreeable to possibly get into those types of agreements?
I think we're always open to having those discussions with our elected officials and
the community.
I would say as we move forward, being engaged and involved in that public service commission
process is really critical.
Supervisor Rotino.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
here. Something struck me about this, since it's such a large piece of property, there
has to be an environmental impact. But it sounds like this has all been, it's a done
deal and you guys are just going to push this through. I have a real problem with the new
green deal that's going on in the administration and we don't have any say of it. We have
three guys in Madison, determining the future of that piece of property in this very heart
of our county. And they're 275 miles away. I just, this is, we have no say. I would like
to see that the county has a voice in that decision because it, right now we're being
railroaded.
I would appreciate if you could see if we could get some local representation in some
of the decision-making.
So to answer your question about environmental impact statements, so as we noted earlier,
the Public Service Commission process is very thorough, includes a review from the Wisconsin
Department of National Resources, so there is a very detailed environmental analysis
that's done on projects like this.
Thank you.
Any other final questions?
Okay, Brian, thank you very much.
Thank you, Chairman.
Our intent is not to be confrontational.
Not at all.
Appreciate your time.
But we appreciate your presentation.
We appreciate the information.
At this point, we're going to take a real quick eight-minute break.
We'll come back at 7.10, please.
Of course.
Okay.
We're going to have a slight change in the agenda.
Our cast of presentation from Sean Kinsella is going to wait, hold off until the annual
department reports.
Thank you very much, Sean, for your consideration so that we can move on to our county administrators
report and our business items so we can move ahead with those.
So county administrator, you are on.
all right thank you the financial report is in your packet the financials
are through the month of November I have looked at preliminary year and
there's a lot of entries that we book back through the first quarter back into
the prior year really from a financial standpoint it looks very much like all
the other years which is a good thing because St. Croix County does very well
sales sales tax were above what we had budgeted for the year so that's
where our cushion is and I think that'll be fine.
And then the other update that I had
was the Department of Corrections.
We did get the final approval on that.
So that lease is a done deal
and the probation and parole offices
will be moving into our building in July.
So
any other questions about anything
in the financial report?
Any questions for our County Administrator?
All right, seeing none,
we're gonna move on to our first business item,
which is an ordinance to repeal and recreate Chapter 11
and the St. Croix County Code of Ordinances.
Can we start out with a motion, please?
Supervisor Anderson.
I move to, what's the language?
Repeal and recreate Chapter 11,
we store its facilities in the St. Croix County
Court of Ordinances.
Yeah, the motion is to approve the resolution.
Do we have a second?
Supervisor Rice.
Yes.
Okay, who would like to give us a nice explanation of this resolution and
Supervisor Anderson? Yeah, so this is to kind of modernize and update our
chapter 11 we storage facilities ordinance came about with some projects
that were proposed in some industrial large-scale projects that were
proposed in the county. I would rather get ahead of it than try to play
catch-up. We had multiple discussions on this at one in a regular committee
meeting. We had a special open house with stakeholders of all kinds, farmers and
residents of the county to go through it and then passed it at our most recent
committee meeting. It's went over repeatedly with a lot of comment and I
I think we have a pretty good ordinance.
Supervisor Shirley.
Yeah, I will concur that we had a lot of public comment.
We did a lot of work to recreate this ordinance
and put a lot of time into this.
So there are two items.
And I think I had planned to bring an amendment to this
motion.
I think you heard about them earlier, but if we look at my amendment would be for 11.2
number three, we will strike the remaining paragraph after fields in an NMP plan.
So three A in
the A section at the what you have highlighted there.
So after that strike-through of every four years, that fields from there on strike the rest of that.
So that will – the public comment you heard earlier with fields in multiple NMP plans that would take care of that issue.
I think that there – you heard public comment earlier about that.
But I can't explain it any better than they did earlier, so good job with that.
Our second item for the amendment would be 11.3 in Permits and Applications, letter D 2.3.
So we would omit the rest of the sentence that says and include the SNAP plus database.
So
it's 11.3d
to two point, it's an operation permit, so I think it's down further.
There we go.
And then number three.
And that last part of the sentence there, the and includes snap data plus database.
Let's strike that.
Keep in the files submitted electronically and then omit the and include the snap data plus database.
Yes, just like that.
So there's two amendments being proposed.
We do need a second.
Second.
Sorry, who is that? Oh, Surveysel Lynn, second.
And could we clarify just quickly to make sure
that we everybody knows what we're doing? Or what the proposed amendments are?
Yeah, so it's the words that you see highlighted on the screen striking those words from this
section.
Do you have a question specific to this one before I go back to the other one?
I do. I do. And my question maybe can be directed to Supervisor Shirley. So can you explain to me,
since I've been deep in this, the SNAP plus database, tell me the why, what changes in this by
eliminating those words that are highlighted? Supervisor Shirley. So by eliminating the
database, you heard someone say earlier in public comment, the database is their proprietary
information that's their company plan for the next, however long the NMP plan is.
So if we, six years, six-year plan.
So having all that database that is provided in a format that could be manipulated when
And they pay for somebody to create that plan and submit it.
We've heard from, for the people that are not in Community Development Committee, we
heard from some of our farmers that have said that if this is required, that that database
is required, then the people that they pay to create their nutrient management plan
would charge them a significant amount, more money to submit the database as well.
Go ahead, Supervisor Rice.
So what I'm trying to understand here, because we have several people here who have commented
on seeing the connection to this manure storage ordinance and their desire to have clean water.
And my understanding with the SNAP Plus database is that while county staff could look at
it, I mean think about all the departments we have here that have access to confidential
information and it does not come out.
It does not leak out.
So, this concern is being expressed by those in the dairy business that somehow their proprietary
information will somehow be manipulated and shared and used and that that's going to cause
some hesitation on landowners.
I frankly just don't buy it.
It is, I think, an over-response to a small ask to ask for that elimination.
So my concern is we've worked really hard on this overall chapter.
I don't know that we'll ever come to 100% agreement between those that are arguing
to continue to support our dairy business in their desires and those who want clean water.
We've worked pretty hard on this.
And we have a good chapter right now.
Primarily, what all of this does is it stops manure from being transported into the county.
That's from my vantage point.
A lot of this is detail, but that's what we're stopping to do, but with this chapter.
So if we open up this fox and we vote for these amendments, I would say we should go
back to committee and tweak a few other things that could be clean water protections.
So that's my view.
I see Supervisor Leif has her hand up.
I would like to invite our Community Development Director to address both of these amendments
to get a little better background if I could.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
So to fill in the board members in that that haven't been through the Community Development Committee meetings
in regards to the database and what that is.
So currently our staff are getting a large array of different nutrient management plan
formats.
Basically everybody does them a little bit different.
The SNAP Plus program is the state approved program by DATCAP and that for the nutrient
management planning process.
And so what the database does is instead of having a checklist on each field it's
more of an Excel spreadsheet where you can see all the fields
in that nutrient management plan at a glance.
It also allows us to get accurate sediment
and phosphorus losses over those fields
and that over many years.
Whereas the checklist just takes an average loss
of the sediment and phosphorus based on their crop
and what they've been growing year after year.
So that crop adjustment in that can make it off and with our county land and water
dollars that we've done in 2024 we did roughly $400,000 and that can help us
identify areas or fields that maybe have high phosphorus loss, high you know
erosion and that to take and do more best management practices on the
landscape and that will be in that database as it will kind of highlight
those outliers that are not necessarily the best fields that we want and also in
that but it what it does show is it does show the calculations that the
agronomist or whoever is putting together the plan is using for the
manure application so usually you're able to take and select it's the first
year that they've applied manure the second year the third year that
they've applied on those fields.
And from what staff have seen is all of the time
the agronomist picked the first year
because then everything works out and it's approved.
And that in the checklist and in the SNAP program
whereas reality it maybe has seen
minor applications many times.
And so that helps us to take and get accurate information
because otherwise in this program
you can tweak the information and that to make it fit
and have it checked.
And I will say that this isn't a green it's go red it stops and that because a lot of these fields may be
excessively high in one area already
And so it's really a tool to try to allow our staff to be able to work with the property owners and the producers to bring
Them closer and that to a check
point so
That's that change
The other change is in regards to
the field in two different nutrient management plans at the same time.
With farmland preservation, the property owner maybe is submitting the nutrient management
plan to get a tax credit, and the producer was submitting the same plan.
The proposed text said that each one of those plans would then match because really
our application should be exactly the same because the property owner is renting out
that property to the producer. The public comment that we heard brought up the farmland preservation
it also brought up economical concerns and that for transporting the waste and that's generally one
of the main issues why we see fields getting excessively high in phosphorus is because it
costs a lot to take and move the manure or there's implications with doing a drag line
and then the crop change and that which and that they're constantly amending
the NMPs every year for what the crop actually gets. So let's say we get a
really wet year and we were going to take and plant corn on those acres and
that but we couldn't get in there in time to plant corn so that the farmer
had to switch it to beans they can amend that plant at the end of the
year and that so that it reflects actual T-WAS over the years. That's the summary
of the changes. They're really policy changes. Our staff can move forward either
way but that's the reason why the proposed draft was written the way it was.
Other discussion. Supervisor Lin.
I think one of the... Sorry. No, I'm sorry. I
needed to let Supervisor Lee go first. I'm sorry. I apologize. It's okay. Sorry,
Lisa. I had a question because there was somebody in public comment that said that even if this
is passed that it would be outdated and I don't understand what that meant and is what that means
and if it's related to the cloud or what can you shed light on that Jason? Yeah so the state is
working through switching SNAP plus this approved software to a cloud-based platform in the next
year or two. And then we did amend on that the ordinance to say the state approved system or an
approved system by county staff, I believe. So that would be covered in that if that change
caused any heartache or hardship.
I think another one of the concerns that's even bigger with the SNAP Plus is the fact
that the program is editable and that there's no secure way for them to send in their six
year business plan.
It becomes part of a file that people can request and there's ways to manipulate it
and I think that the farmers want their property
that they submit protected from the ability to edit it.
Is there a way to lock it?
Not that I'm aware of.
So, and I believe that our staff actually wants
to be able to get that information
and be able to use it for calculating our phosphorus
loss for the St. Croix TMDL.
And so we want to be able to use that information and help the producers.
So we're actually considering doing some training for nutrient management planning and how that can be done.
But that will be something that will be coming after this ordinance.
Or a subline thrown in that then becomes part of an editable place,
but that the program itself is not violated the plan.
Correct. And so that's where we're kind of on that line.
We're not saying that it's got to be approved by SNAP Plus either.
We just don't want to check all the boxes.
We're really trying to consider the water quality impacts of that
that may be from a field that's high.
Like I said, it's not a green or a red
and that we're going to have fields that are excessively high
that have had bad BMP practices over the last, you know, 10, 20, 30 years, and so can we
help them in that when funding becomes available to help them cost share some projects and
that and a checklist doesn't give us that information that we need and that in order
to be able to help them with T-WAS or the soil loss on the field.
So there's a fundamental that's that I'm seeing here that I don't think we're covering it's not it
I think we're getting into the weeds and the fundamental is that it's it's kind of a matter of
respect that the people who are the business people that have this proprietary property this
intellectual property have asked that they don't want to turn it over.
And I think the next and appropriate question is, would be, is there a way that we can
cooperate to get the information we would like to get to calculate TMDLs in a manner
that you find more palatable and not do it hamhandedly?
That would be my preference that we make the – we pass this amendment that we honor and
respect the people who run the largest industry in the county.
And then we ask them, would you please help us collect the data?
They're going to submit their report electronically, presumably a PDF.
We're going to get data on how they're spreading the manure in the fields.
Presumably, it's going to be an improvement from what we've been doing for the last period
of time.
And then we can say, Steve and Steve and everybody else, what can we do to improve?
Because we would like to find a better way of doing it than what we just passed.
And would you help us?
And I have a feeling that they probably would, because I respect these guys and I know
that they have their best interest to the community of mine.
So I say, please, let's pass this and move on.
Carlson.
Thank you much.
I heard you say a couple of times that you wanted to snap
to plus data.
Then you said you can help or teach the farmers
and help them in the future with it.
Are they asking for that help?
can they get it otherwise? Also, in a letter that they sent to all of us, they say requiring
submission of this data not only mandates the use of specific software but transforms
otherwise confidential information in the public records, this would inadvertently expose
sensitive information to reputational consequences, competition for resources, and misinterpretation
by third parties.
So in other words, they're worried about their business plans and their profits because people
might be able to compete against them better if they knew what their business plans.
So is that, do you consider that a valid worry for them or can you guarantee that it doesn't
become, because it seems to me they should be able to protect that kind of information.
All there are
Actually doing the nutrient management plan, the SNAP was done by University of Wisconsin,
and even they in the confidentiality agreement that they have online express that this is confidential
information. But it sounds like we're not keeping it confidential. So I would, you can answer
those questions or rhetorical, but I also suggest that we pass the amendment.
Okay.
Supervisor Shirley.
I forget sometimes that, you know, not everybody, we've gone through this so many times that
not everybody was there to see it, but, you know, our largest producers, our CAFOs in the county
have this requirement for the database, and all of this is more rigorous than what they need to go through.
the best thing that our county could do would be to put more farmers, more farmers would
choose to turn in nutrient management plans. And by doing this we're making it more expensive
for them to do it and we're making them making it harder for them to do it. So it's counterproductive
for us to do this without these amendments in there because our goal is to have more farmers
or is that want to give us the data that we really need?
Supervisor Adams.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm looking on page 157 of the packet,
and there's a letter in here from the Dairy Bureau,
and they talk about section 11.2, point alpha, two delta.
The owner operator shall maintain daily records
of manure and non-manure components added
to the manure storage and processing system.
Is that still in the program?
No, it took and was changed in that throughout the meetings that we've had and that to take
and be an annual maintenance walk, basically a starting point and an ending point for the year
because if we got bad weather for fall spreading and that we might be going into the winter
months with much more mineral on hand and that than what we did and so that would just
impact how many acres we need for nutrient management planning purposes.
Any other comments or discussion regarding the two amendments to the ordinance?
Okay, seeing none, I think we're ready to vote on amending the ordinance as proposed with the two changes.
Yeah, why don't you real quickly?
Yes, so the motions will be to strike language in section 11.2.A3A to remove the language that says
as fields in the NMP shall be unique to owner-operator plan
and not be part of any other NMP
unless the property owner is applying
for the Farmland Preservation Tax Credit,
what Mr. Witt has on the screen.
Also, in this case,
the operator and property owner
shall submit matching plans to avoid confusion.
And also strike language in section 11.3.D2A3
to remove and include the SNAP plus database.
Does anybody have any questions on the amendment?
Okay we're ready to vote and
the amendment passes 16 to 2. Okay now we're
back to the original ordinance as amended.
Yes sir.
Okay so now we're back to
the original resolution for the ordinance to repeal and recreate chapter 11
as amended.
Sure.
Discussion?
Questions?
Surprise or Rice?
I'd like to submit an amendment.
If we can go to section 11.3, D2A6.
So, yes, there's a lot of text in this.
There is.
Let's see.
Do we have it here?
It's the phrase, if possible.
One of the things we were striving to do is to use consistent clear language that could
be understood by everyone and not misinterpreted.
And I see that if possible is subjective.
So this has to do with an initial permit application.
And the circumstance that came up was somebody trying to, they bought some land and maybe
didn't have the past history.
So I'd like to see it strike the word if possible, and instead, I have to pull it up here.
Instead, say something along the lines of to be calculated in partnership with county
staff or other reliable expert.
It's always possible to come up with a calculation for what the soil quality is.
So the idea of it being not possible
doesn't strike me as prudent.
We're looking for a second on that amendment.
Second.
Second by Supervisor Leith.
Jason, would you like to comment on that?
Yeah, so if possible,
that was something that came out of the stakeholder meeting
that we had with the ag producers, basically,
in that this would be a new field
that was in the nutrient management plan
that we didn't know you know we maybe knew that it was corn last year because
there's still corn stocks there but what it was two years ago or three years ago
maybe up in the air we can probably get that information know from the USDA
however any fertilization practices that would go into this snap plus software
we would be guessing at and any tillage practices that were used for the past three years
and that would also be a guess and with, you know, over 100,000 acres in the county our
staff and that don't know what that is exactly.
And so that's the reason for the vagueness and that that it was in there, but, you know,
and that we can try to help and assist in that we're just not going to be able to
fill it in accurately and that you're probably going to have to go back to an
old producer.
Now, if that acreage was in a previous nutrient management plan, it's easy because
that acreage can just roll over into the new plan it's for the acreage and that
for the smaller producers and that that may not have been included or maybe came
out of a soil bank or CRP so and then one is in production so questions
discussion I'd like to submit additional amendment to no we're gonna just one
at a time one one at a time one well
we did two last time okay see no
No additional discussion will vote on this amendment to the ordinance to strike if possible
and it went away.
Oh, there it is.
Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
Supervisor Anderson?
I think what would be, I understand not wanting the vagueness, but I think, and I
know this original one would have to get stricken and then we'd have to take it
up again.
but something that reads data to represent baseline conditions unless no
data is available would be more appropriate here.
First the county board
should vote on. Yeah I'm just that's just a polite suggestion so. Okay let's let's
vote on the amendment to strike if possible first and understand what we're
on. The amendment to strike that phrase.
Can I just ask for clarification for Supervisor Rice? I think she said to remove the words
if possible and add the language instead to be calculated in coordination with county
staff and or necessary professionals.
Okay, thank you for that clarification.
Yes, that's correct and I'm endorsing the change here.
Let's vote on this amendment first.
I'm going to vote no.
Okay, that motion fails 2 to 16.
Supervisor Anderson, would you?
Yeah.
I'll make the amendment.
Can we pull up the text again?
So we'll read, we'll change 0.6.
That's highlighted there.
App to read application data to represent baseline conditions unless no data is available
period instead of if possible.
I need a second.
All second.
Supervisor Rice.
Any discussion?
It's getting easier as we get tired, isn't it?
Okay.
We're ready to vote on the amendment.
All right.
That amendment passes unanimously.
Thank you.
So now we're back to the original resolution to improve the ordinance replacement as amended.
Supervisor Rice.
have another amendment. And for those of you who don't know, we rely on some of the county
staff that were unable to be at our last committee meeting. We were able to ask some of these technical
questions. This one has to do with 11.3 D2A5. It starts out the owner operator. And what
I'd like to do at the very end is add the sentence, all land application agreements
shall be made with the land owner.
And while this is very much in the weeds, what we were hearing was that producers didn't
want to have to share those contracts.
We're not asking for contracts for a manure application on land.
We want them to just have them because there's often confusion between who owns land, who's
applying the manure.
So that's the proposal.
Okay. We'll need a second on that for discussion. Supervisor Leaf,
I think we could use a little
more explanation on this change, please. Jason, would you like to enlighten us?
I can kind of try to get at what Supervisor Rice is looking for. So the idea behind this
change or this whole provision is that the manure facility, manure processing
facility and that a farm if it is and that they would actually have an
agreement in writing certifying the amount of acres in their nutrient
management plan and so she is changing it from the owner-operator I believe
and that the property owner would have that agreement. As these dairies get
bigger there are some new business models out there and that for how to
handle their farming operation and so sometimes they don't even crop
the acreage themselves. They just contract with a grower or another farmer to produce their crops
and then they use that same acreage base in that to spread the manure on. And so with doing that
type of business plan, they can get big quick in that. They can have a lot of acres in their
nutrient management plan. However, is it actually accurate that they've got that acreage approved
for spreading by the property owner and even by that grower that's farming that particular field.
And so that was the reason in that for considering having some agreements and of course if it's
you know not something that our staff is questioning they're probably not going to
run known every single nutrient management plan field and make sure that we've got that agreement
but if things just aren't adding up and all of a sudden we're seeing other fields in their
plan starting to increase in phosphorus and then we'd be asking
questions why is that phosphorus increasing is it because those fields are
the closest to the farm will cost areas to spread or is it because we really
don't have as much acreage as what we think in the plan or as what is being
claimed in the plan.
Supervisor Shirley.
I know that we've talked about this a
few times in committee my issue is is that as a governmental body we are
telling a business owner what best practice is and that's not really our
purview you know it should they have the agreement with the landowner yeah but I
don't think that we're in a situation that that we need to tell them that what
about how to do the business that they're doing.
In number five, it says that we're going to have a table of all the landowners
and their contact information already.
So we know who they are and we know what their contact is.
Public information is, if Jason's staff has an issue, we could always call one of them too.
So I just have a problem with government dictating something that isn't really in our place to
do.
Supervisor Mansome.
Thank you, Chair. I guess I don't see that as dictating that, you know, if we're interested
is in clean water, which we are.
And I think the producers are interested in that too.
I think we have to, there has to be some accountability.
The accountability would be that indeed there
is enough land to spread on, there's enough land
to put this amount of manure on that amount of manure.
I think that's why there has to be some way of getting that.
And maybe you're right.
Maybe, you know, the supervisor's right when he talks about the government shouldn't tell
people that except the government at the state level, the town level, municipal area, tells
us the very same thing all the time.
That is part of government because the government is concerned about the outcome.
So I think we should leave that as it is.
Thank you.
Supervisor Hansen?
Perhaps it's important to see these agreements to know not only that the grower has the agreements,
but that the other landowner has acknowledged them and has agreed to them.
because you want to see two parties, that somebody isn't just saying, I would like to spread over there,
but that they've gone out and said, hi, neighbor, do you need nutrients and made an agreement?
agreement, not what the agreement is, don't need to know what their private business is
just that there is an agreement.
Those things are dynamic, but that they have permission
to spread,
that there's not going to be a backlog of manure,
that there's three different
operators planning on spreading on one small area.
That's something that when I'm putting
together the puzzle in my head of how you prevent from having an area of being overspread,
again, I don't want to be telling people how to do their business. But I want to understand
on how you keep from overspreading.
I don't want to know who's, you know, go ahead.
I don't know.
Supervisor Carlson.
Thank you, Chair.
It occurs to me that you would have to tell them
how to do it too.
Do they have to prove it?
Does it have to be written?
Or do they just say, yeah, we have a verbal agreement?
I guess that's my only question about it.
I think all of that we're looking for,
and that is to make sure that X number of acres are allowed to be spread on.
And then in the SNAP program, as part of the nutrient management planning, that would tell
you you're putting on X number of gallons of manure or X number of pounds of phosphorus
and that through chemical fertilizer, and then the application type for that.
So that's all done through the nutrient management planning side of it, and that all this
would be is just saying yes, and that you've got 20 acres of mine that you can
spread manure on.
But how would the county know that actually happened?
Are they going to have to have a written agreement or?
Well, I mean, there's a lot of partnerships in that with the producer and that actually know that that is being spread on that field.
And over time, the soil tests, so that the soil tests are required for the nutrient management plan.
If it's not happening, we should be seeing change.
Other discussion on Supervisor Sherup?
The reality of all of this is that the only time that staff is going to look at this is if it's red flagged.
We don't have the staff to go out and look at every nutrient management plan and track down every field and look at every single one of these.
It's only going to come through with a flag from either the nutrient management plan or the soil test.
If the soil test is failing, then we're going to go back to these things, or staff is going
to go back to these things and say, hey, we need to look at this more, and then they could
go with this table of landowners, and they could follow that right now, the way that
it's written.
I don't see the need to tell them to have an agreement that, yes, they should have,
but it's only going to come into contact when there's already a red flag there saying
that something is not meeting optimal levels.
Other discussion comments?
I think we can move ahead and vote on the amendment.
Suggested amendment.
Could you read that back, please, Heather?
Yes.
I can't forget what section it is.
But to add the language to, I believe it's 11.3D2A5, that all land application
agreement shall be made with the landowner.
Okay, so we're voting on the amendment to that section.
And that motion fails 15 to 13. All right, we're back to the original resolution to approve the
ordinance replacement as amended, as we've already agreed on. Is there any other discussion
of the year of the comments.
Good. Seeing none, we're ready to vote on the ordinance to repeal
and recreate Chapter 11 as amended.
Okay. Thank you.
That passes unanimously.
Thank you very much.
Yes, I will also commend the community development,
committee and the department and staff.
They spent a lot of time on this.
There's been a lot of work, a lot of discussions, and they've done a fabulous job.
So congratulations, I think you guys did a great job.
Okay, we're moving on.
Number two, business item ordinance to repeal and recreate Chapter 30, Parks and St. Croix
County Code of Ordinances.
We have a motion.
We have a motion, Supervisor Counter.
And second by Supervisor Shirley, I'm assuming that's a motion to approve this ordinance to repeal and replace.
Okay, that's okay. Who would like to discuss and explain? Supervisor Anderson.
This is an update to the park's ordinance.
It allows some seasonal long-term camping, both restrictions for like the quality of
the campers in there, you know, no one's camping in their van there.
But just to allow some of our, I guess, emptier areas of camping to be used, it also,
am I missing something significant here, Jason?
and please remind that, huh?
Yeah, Mr. Chair, I can just add,
there was also some text added in here for e-bikes
in that because that's kind of a new emerging trend
on county properties and the county trails.
And then also there was a lot of just duplicated text
in that throughout the ordinance.
And so that was kind of cleaned up and streamlined
and that into the staff's current practices.
And that's really the summary of the amendments.
So, there was some commercial event permits and that that we just standardized and created
a process for and more of an application like a normal permit would be, whereas it wasn't
really detailed to that level in the past.
Any questions?
Comments?
Okay.
Seeing none, we're ready to vote on, I'm sorry, oh, I'm sorry, Supervisor Conner.
My apologies.
One of the future things that we're still working on then is the event camping.
Yeah.
So that being Chapter 15 would be the special event camping.
Yep.
Thank you.
Okay.
Any other comments?
All right.
Seeing none, we're ready to vote on the resolution to repeal and recreate Chapter 30 of the
St. Croix County Code of Ordinances.
Thank you.
That passes 18 or unanimously. Thank you. All right move on to our third business
item establishing St. Croix County legislative priorities. Do we have a
motion?
Motion to approve. Do we have a second by Supervisor Fiedler? Who would
like to describe this? Supervisor Burding? Yeah, thank you Mr. Chair. So this is an
exercise that we did last last meeting to establish the priorities and
and then we just took them at the admin committee
and rallied around them and here they are today.
So we're taking the, was it about an hour above work
that we did taking the WCA priorities
and establishing those that we're making a priority
as a board here at St. Croix County.
Subraza counter.
One of the things too, during the admin meeting
that we also discussed some of the things
that were pertinent also directly more
towards St. Croix County versus the state program and Supervisor Bernanke, you may remember
what the things that we discussed on that, too.
I mean, I don't.
So there's that.
But I don't know if we're just, that's not, yeah, why don't you, if you can fill that
in because I don't remember what we talked about because I don't think that's on this.
It is.
So number six on there.
So, number six is not one of the WCA legislative items.
That's how come it's labeled a little bit differently.
SCC is for St. Croix County.
Resolution 44 that we passed last year.
This one was more particular to St. Croix County,
an issue that we have without a home child placement cost
that WCA really hasn't picked up on yet.
So, yeah, so admin had made, yeah, so admin had made the,
to add this one on. And they had pulled one off, and that was related to circuit courts being able to have certain types of cases via video conference.
When we talk to the judges, it might be an issue more in other counties. It really probably is not in our county.
So the judges didn't see it as a priority for us.
So admin based upon additional information that after the last meeting made those two changes.
Okay, and just a reminder, these are going to be discussed with some of our legislators at a breakfast meeting next Monday
and also at the WCA legislative conference at the end of February.
Any other comments, questions?
Okay, we're ready to vote on the resolution establishing the legislative
priorities.
Thank you.
That passes unanimously.
All right.
We'll get our last and fourth business item, resolution amending personnel policies.
Surprised or burning?
Make a motion to approve the resolution amending personnel policies.
And the second, Surveyser counter.
Surveyser burning?
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.
So this is just part of the standard operating procedure that Audrey's been working on cleaning up our policy handbook and some of the other items inside of HR.
So it includes IT's acceptable use policy, some proposed changes there, jury and witness leave, and then the benefits policy.
And if anyone has any questions, I hope Audrey's still here after a long meeting.
She hasn't gotten Chipotle yet.
So yeah, if there's any questions, we can address them to her.
But otherwise, this is just standard cleanup that we've been doing throughout the last
couple of years.
Any questions, comments? Alright, we'll vote on the resolution to accept the resolution of
Mending Personnel Policies.
Thank you, that passes unanimously. We're getting good at this now.
Alright, that takes care of our business items. We're going to back up now. We kind of delayed
the report of CASA and Saycroy County Annual Report. Thank you, Sean, for waiting
until we were needed to get a few of a couple items. So thank you very much.
Good evening and happy New Year. If you haven't heard it before, you guys are
all angels for what you do. So I'm the Executive Director for the
the Quarter Pointed Special Advocate Program, and I'm just here to give you our annual report.
I also sent out our published one, which is a little bit different.
So I did a deeper dive, but I also pulled out various items that I thought would give
a greater insight.
So if we can go to the next slide.
So every year, of course, we have strategic plan, and we look at key performance indicators.
and one of ours is about advocate retention. How long are we able to retain
our advocates? We asked the advocates to commit to about two hours a week for an
entire year working with children and we have about an 80% retention rate.
Really what we're finding is the biggest cause are family issues with
the advocates. A lot of our advocates are retirees and they're struggling
with parents who have cognitive issues and that's really pulling them out. So that's quite
honestly or we have a lot of knee replacements as well. So those are really the issues that
where we lose people on, they are staying on past their year and they're often taking
on multiple cases too. So we're just doing a great job with that recruitment and retention.
Our total special advocates were 31, and we served 50 children last year.
And out of that, 10 children were also placed in what we'd call a safe, stable home.
That could be with a family member, it could be returning to the parents.
And then our board had a goal to recruit two new board members, and they accomplished
that as well.
Next slide.
So, if you haven't heard, we did get approved for the Victims of Crime Act funding, and
we have already started that.
We have about 10 individuals right now that are identified, and our data is actually due
to the state next week.
We will be providing those services that are outlined there, and we're really targeting
the families and the children that are within juvenile court, we're not trying to duplicate
what exists with the county. So if there's any question that I'm just going to keep going
because I know it's been a long day for you. So I do want to show you what our budget
look like for actual and performance. I'm going to just draw your attention right
down to that bottom line. Our goal this year was $236,000 and we came in at $266,000. Our
revenue is pretty solid. I don't think there was anything in there that hasn't been accounted
for yet. It is our expenses that are really more fluid yet. We have not closed the
year out. So if we can move forward, then I wanted to, we'll go one more slide. Thank
Thank you.
I want to draw your attention down to total expenditures.
So our targeted total expenditures were $222, and we actually came in at $169.
Part of that was some staffing changes, and then part of that is I'm just really frugal.
So I don't like to give up money very easily.
I had a joke about it, but I'm going to keep going.
These are bullet points.
This is not an actual tabulation here.
So, when I presented it earlier, they called me out on that.
So, what I wanted to really direct you to are the first two.
Direct contributions and then organ is organizational contributions.
What we saw was this year we were budgeted for more direct contributions.
We actually received less direct contributions, but we received more organizational contributions.
So, at our gala, stand up for kids, which is scheduled for May, it happens in May.
What we saw is more organizations came in and bought tables, but then there was less contributions
individually.
So, we ended kind of netting out where we thought we would be.
Grants, this is probably one of our, what would you say, crystal ball things that's
really hard to look into.
to. One of the things that I would say, though, is we did get two grantors through the bit.
There's about four big grantors that really serve St. Croix County area. So two of them
have stepped forward and said that we're on their continuation list. So we'll just
have to submit and we'll come up with a growth plan. They said, give us two years
and we'll establish your growth plan. So that's exactly what we wanted to happen.
And if you're not aware, the next, the other organization is Burma Bank is currently merging
with Old National Bank.
So what will happen with this is at the end, when it's all said and done, some of the money
from that merger will go into the Otto Burma Trust.
Otto Burma is really one of those great trusts that give money out to Wisconsin,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, North South Dakota. And we're all extremely nervous about what that
will mean. They're not taking grants right now. So we would have applied in October. We're
still in a holding pattern waiting to hear what those trustees decide to do with that.
And we just don't know. We know at this point that one of the big issues will be,
and they've stated that on the web page, is that they're not going to fund young
organizations moving forward. So we are moving into our fourth year here, but they're going
to start with year five. However, we've been funded, so maybe we'll be grandfathered in,
but that's the big thing that I don't know yet. And so that's also partly why our grants
are lower, is that we were not able to apply and we're still waiting to see what will
of that. So as you can see, we came in 30,000 above target and my margin was around 97,000.
And again, that was some staffing. We were going to hire full-time staff at the beginning
of the year and we didn't do that until October. So we keep things fluid and we watch
what's happening and we make sure that we're responsible. So that's that big margin.
As I said, the two foundations have accepted us. We are going to continue to focus on the
victim compensation. This will be a big program for us, and that will create stability. So
this grant that we got from Wisconsin is a three-year grant. So every year we have
to reapply, but in that sense, once you get it, the next three years are funded at that
first grant amount. So we receive 38,541, I believe. So that will carry us forward for
the next three years. We're going to continue to work on serving children. A lot is changing
in child protection. So we didn't want to put a growth factor on at this point. Also, as
we are aging and we've been around now going into our fourth year. So I assume we're
start losing some of our advocates. We lost a very good one with Carrie, but she's also
doing a great job here. So, and then our volunteer recruitment to continue to target the CHIPS
program. We did have a change there in that we're getting involved a little bit earlier
and it's giving me more control over those numbers so that I'm able to flex. Before
I didn't really know who was coming in and I just was very kind of nebulous how that
came through. So that is the change that occurred. That's it in a nutshell. I went through that
super-flat-fast because I'm sure everyone's hungry and ready to go. But I will field
questions if you have any.
Any questions for Sean?
Yes. Supervisor Feudler.
Just a 20-second observation. We hear from Sean quarterly at the Public Protection
Judiciary Committee meeting, and he gives us updates very, say, quarterly, and they're
always very helpful.
In our last meeting, since it was the end of year, meeting of the year, Judge Waterman
came down from the circuit court, and I think the members of the committee all agreed he
gave Sean an A-plus for what he and his volunteers have done with COSIS.
It's invaluable to the judges in understanding what's happening to these young people
in very trouble situations.
So you get an A-plus from the judges.
Thanks, Sean.
Thank you.
So everyone have a great night.
Thank you, Sean.
Yes, I want to say thank you for the update on that.
And I would appreciate it if the committee, when
they get that presentation, would do a quick synopsis
to the board members, because that was another one
that we hadn't heard about in quite some time.
Thank you.
All right, we're going to move on to annual reports.
Justice Support Services.
Dr. Galli, you're on.
Thank you.
Good evening.
I'll keep my remarks fairly brief here.
Just quick overview of justice support.
So again, justice support services oversees the pre-trial division in the county, the
Adult Treatment Court, and then the CJCC, which is the Community Justice Collaborating
Council.
Another really successful year.
I want to start by talking about the Adult Treatment Court.
report. You all get emails from me probably every couple of months about a graduation.
We had seven of those in 2024. You'll continue to receive those emails from me. Please make
your way up, not necessarily just for a graduation, but a Wednesday morning at 8.30 in Judge
Nordstrom's Court in Branch 1. We would love to have you.
I would point your attention to the end of the report.
There are four different sets of pie charts.
And I just want to outline these.
These are all specific to our pre-trial program.
Again, just a little bit of brief history.
Pre-trial in St. Croix County, as it's currently run
in what we call a civilian model by case managers,
is fairly new.
We're not quite three years into it,
about two and a half years.
years. Before that, it was run by our Sheriff's Department for about four years. It was more
of a law enforcement model. But what I would like to, again, kind of just make a comment
about each of these and then take maybe some general questions. But the first pie chart
there is broken down into branches. So, again, we have four branches, four judges
here in St. Croix County. What that first kind of pie chart looks at is what I would
say it's a pretty even split for the most part.
Our judges are all using pretrial services.
There's some variation there, certainly Branch 3,
which is Judge Needham, has more cases with us
than maybe the other three, but for the most part,
all judges are assigning cases to us.
If we go to that next one there,
what we're looking at there are levels of monitoring.
So we have levels one, two, three, and four
as far as when people are assigned to us pre-trial,
how we monitor them, how closely
and how actively we monitor them.
Level one really isn't a level at snow monitoring
so we can kind of just remove that.
Level four is gonna then be individuals
who are at the highest risk to public safety
as well as to not return to court.
So 40% of the individuals that we monitor on pre-trial
fall into that higher risk category,
which is again determined by our public safety
assessment, it's a risk assessment tool
validated nationally that we use. That's really good. That means we're monitoring
the correct people per the tool and then the judges then take that into
consideration. Ultimately the discretion is left up to each judge to make that
decision. Stop me if you do have questions. That next group of pie chart
pie charts there is broken up into those four different branches again. This
This looks at the individuals that are assigned to each branch.
Are they active?
Are we monitoring them?
Do they have an active warrant, meaning they're not in compliance?
Or are they incarcerated oftentimes in the jail?
The majority of clients, we call them clients defendants in each branch assigned to us
are actively being monitored by our staff, which is a really good thing.
That means they are presumably returning to court, presumably being compliant
in the community.
And so we're meeting those two standards of public safety and return to court, which are
again kind of the gold standards in pretrial.
And then the last group of pie charts there, there's actually four of them, those are broken
down into those three different levels of monitoring, two, three, and four.
If you look at level four,
again, those are a higher risk individuals.
we see that 65% again so a majority of those individuals at that level are
actually out of custody meaning even at a higher assessed risk level to public
safety there's still maintaining compliance in the community coming back
to court which is really important I mean that really is the biggest part of
pre-trial is maintaining that return to court and they don't have active
warrants and that's really important too because that creates obviously other
issues. So I'm happy to answer any questions on those charts or other questions in the
reports.
Supervisor Berninger.
Yeah, thanks, Phil. So we made that switch from the Sheriff's Department to private,
you know, more of a private approach and not so law enforcement-y, I think. How's
that, how's that impact?
I did the people that were helping, I guess, in their compliance. Like, have you seen a drastic
shift from them feeling like there's no more room? Like, it's not a pressure thing, so there's
less stress, so there's less. I don't know. Tell me how that transition has gone, because
that was a while ago that we did that. Sure. Yeah, it's a really, really great question.
I would say, and again, I can't speak to prior to my time here in the last couple
years. However, I would say case management, what we do now really helps to build some
rapport with clients and help them return to court, you know, our staff do a great job
of reaching out, asking them if they want services, if they're struggling with anything.
So I think that rapport building is something we can spend a lot of time on now, that maybe
the prior model, they just didn't have time to, it wasn't set up for that.
That was no offense to the Sheriff's Department whatsoever, it was just how the model
was set up.
So I think rapport building has been huge.
Any other questions?
I'll just make a quick comment.
You didn't mention the CJCC, and I've been lucky enough to participate in that group
for the last couple of years, and I just have to say I'm amazed at the amount of programs
that we have that are helping people in this county.
I was also shocked to find out the number of people that need help.
So, I think there are so many programs that are going on that I think we should be very
proud of because there's a lot of people that need help and we're doing the best we can.
Thank you, Phil.
Thank you.
And really, right along the same lines, we're going to hear from our district attorney
regarding victim witness.
Good evening.
So, I'll be pretty brief. It's been a long meeting.
One good thing that happened was
TAD increased their funding. So we used to have a part-time data entry specialist split
between our office and Justice Support Services. Now we each have a part-time position funded
by TAD, which is great because there's a ton of reporting requirements for that grant.
Nothing unexpected really in the budget.
We did lose a federal crimes victim grant which allowed or it was a grant for our victim
witness to assist non-victims like just met general members of the public get restraining
orders.
We lost that grant so we no longer do that for non-victims.
We still help victims of crime get restraining orders.
The last year, we had a little over 1,400 adult criminal cases about an even split between
misdemeanors and felonies.
For our diversion program, we had 72 people complete it successfully, which means they
had either a felony or misdemeanor dismissed or reduced.
We had 20 people revoked, meaning they went to sentencing because they violated the
conditions.
so about 7 out of 9 success rate. We had more people enter, but a lot of our
agreements are over a year. So diversion, it's going to continue to be an ask our
office for an additional diversion position. Like right now we have one of
our two and a half people going on maternity leave, so then we have one
and a half people in diversion to supervise a couple hundred defendants
which is a huge task.
The one thing that we're big, we're doing right now that I'm excited about for 2025
is looking into digital evidence receipt as well as forwarding that to defense digitally.
Right now we get body camera footage, reports in every way you can imagine.
We get personal deliveries of flash drives, DVDs.
we get them in the mail, we get things emailed to us.
So we're kinda trying to come up with a third party provider
for software essentially in cloud-based services
that all the agencies in the county
can send us everything in one mode
and we can share that with defense in one mode digitally.
That would be a huge time saving for us.
We've had a couple presentations
from the most promising is evidence.com
which some of our neighboring counties use.
They just have to figure out how to link it
to the body cam system that everyone uses
and all our agencies use, but that's extremely promising.
I think that's about it as the big overall summary
unless anyone has any questions.
Yeah.
Any questions?
Supervisor Bernie.
Yeah, thanks Carl.
So since COVID we saw a big dip in people jailed,
we saw a big dip in people actually committing crimes
because people weren't wanting to go out.
how is our like everything like what's what's happened with that is there an
increase in crime are you seeing more I mean I know we have like the Apple
River ordeal there was a bunch of other incidents like tell us what the state of
the county is in that and what's your like outlook on the trend for like 25
and 26 the the weird trend we had from during COVID was our overall numbers of
crimes stayed the same, but we used to have a lot more misdemeanors than felonies and then we
suddenly had more of an even split. So we're having more felonies. And that's pretty much
stayed the same. We haven't seen like a drastic increase in crime. It's pretty much stayed consistent
since COVID. Fortunately, we haven't had a homicide in a while. We currently have no
pending intentional or, you know, gun knife homicides, all of them have either gone to trial or resulted in a plea.
So that's good.
Yeah, it's been pretty steady, the crime since that weird change we had during COVID, which I still have no idea what caused it.
Yeah, nothing significant as far as fluctuation.
Surveyor Hansen. Mr. District Attorney, you say there's an increase in felonies, but that's
a pretty broad category. Are we seeing what we got, moonshineers, or is there people? What are we
seeing? Violent crimes or are there white collar crimes? What kind of things are we seeing in the
category? I think a lot of it was just a lot more felony level drug offenses. And honestly,
my best theory at the time during COVID was a lot of people were out of work or you know giving
getting the COVID relief money and suddenly had a bunch of cash to buy drugs but it's kind of stayed
the same so I don't I don't really know what the yeah when people hear that though they
truthfully and instead of trying to be funny people worry about violent crime and are we
seeing an increase in violent crime or is it mostly static? No we haven't had a big increase
in violent crime. We did have several homicides in a relatively short time frame.
There's
no real pattern to them. They're just random. They're all situational.
I'm not seeing any
sort of pattern on increase of violent crime. We're not seeing some of the things you
in bigger cities suddenly start to happen here a lot. So, no, there hasn't been any sort
of dramatic increase.
And hard, and I hate to ask this, but with the drug problems, are we seeing more domestic?
I haven't ran the numbers, but I can tell you anecdotally, domestic seems pretty, I
I mean, kind of our bread and butter, the cases
we see on an everyday basis are drunk driving,
domestics, and meth.
And that hasn't changed.
That's probably 80% of our caseload
or 90% of our caseload.
And usually, domestics are alcohol related, actually,
versus drugs.
Probably, there might be a lot of reasons for that.
One probably is meth users aren't probably
going to call the cops if they have a bunch of meth
there.
You know, so they probably just don't report it, but yeah, thanks
Any other questions?
Thank you Carl, thanks for hanging in there.
Any request for future agenda items?
Supervisor Burning.
I think we need to have a discussion on what the presentation that we just had today from Excel Energy.
I think we should have a discussion item on the agenda.
If not for this board, for the Committee of the Whole.
I think we need a lot more information, quite frankly, too, on what we may or may not, what
we can or can't do, what are our options.
So I think that would be a good discussion item, even from an educational standpoint.
Any other requests?
County clerk correspondence announcements.
I sent out an email earlier today reminding you about the St. Croix County Economic Development
Corporation Banquet that's coming up September 27, or September, February 27.
Just coordinate with me if you want one of the tickets, I'll make sure to register
you then.
So we have a certain number of tickets that are available to us for free.
So please email me if that's something of interest for you.
I also want to mention just to remind everybody that last month, we were very fortunate, our
very own sheriff was the 2024 Wisconsin Badger State Sheriff of the Year.
It was quite an accomplishment.
And I'm sure he will attribute that to his staff, but we're very lucky to have him and
all of the deputies and all the staff in that department.
Okay.
With that, thanks for hanging in there.
everybody's still awake it's 8.33 we are adjourned