Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Midwest Barge Terminal engineers' report prompts committee questions; county revenue from terminal small compared with potential repair costs

5329139 · July 8, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Committee members reviewed a consultant packet for Midwest Barge Terminal dock and floating-dock concepts and were told county rent and tonnage receipts are roughly $30,000 year-to-date; members requested more detail and expect proponents to present to the county property committee.

Members of the LaSalle County Finance and TIF Committee on July 8 reviewed a consultant's packet related to the Midwest Barge Terminal dock and floating-dock concepts and asked for more information before committing county funds.

Committee members said the consultant materials include conceptual options and referenced construction cost estimates and examples from other river ports; one spreadsheet in the packet showed a line with a roughly $284,000 amount tied to specific work items and additional pages included other example projects with multi-million-dollar budgets. Committee members asked whether projected work would be funded by grants, by the port district, or require county support.

Stephanie (county staff) said rent and tonnage revenue for county property and the terminal is currently about $30,000 year-to-date, driven in part by ADM rent and some farm leases. Committee members said that level of revenue is small compared with the consultant's illustrative construction figures and that they would want clearer funding plans before the county considered committing money.

The committee expected a presentation to the County Property Committee and asked proponents to explain funding sources, phased scope and whether federal or state grants would be pursued. The proponents or their representative are expected to appear before the county property committee at an upcoming meeting for further discussion.

No county funding decision was made at the finance meeting; the committee treated the consultant packet as preliminary information and requested follow-up on revenue, tenant receipts and grant opportunities before any county appropriation would be considered.