Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Transportation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Linn County reviews road‑use agreement for ITC Midwest transmission project

Linn County Board of Supervisors · January 12, 2026
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

Road department staff told the Board the ITC Midwest transmission line will use private easements through county land, not eminent domain, and the proposed road‑use agreement would require the utility to pay for dust control and road rock if damage occurs. Supervisors asked for map and bus‑route checks before final action.

The Linn County Board of Supervisors heard a presentation Jan. 12 on a proposed road‑use agreement with ITC Midwest LLC to govern county road use during construction of a roughly 60‑mile transmission line.

Garrett Redish, assistant engineer for the road department, told the board the project extends west toward Marshall County and that, within Linn County, the company identified only seven entrances that would use county roads. "There is only 7 entrances going in, so again, not a big impact to our road system," Redish said. He said towers within the project corridor are sited on private land using easements and that ITC is not seeking or using eminent domain in Linn County.

Redish said the draft agreement includes language to protect county assets: ITC would be responsible for dust control and for supplying rock to roads if construction caused damage. "We have some verbiage in the agreement that holds them responsible for dust control if it becomes a problem, rock for the roads if it becomes a problem," he said.

Supervisors asked staff to post the agreement off the consent calendar so the board can review the map and confirm whether any school or bus routes are affected and to allow further questions from residents. One supervisor said they preferred discussion rather than handling the item on consent so the board could "communicate about it" and requested staff follow up on routing and community impacts before final approval.

No formal vote on the road‑use agreement was taken during the Jan. 12 meeting; staff indicated they will return with the electronic map and any further details requested.