Kossuth County supervisors to hold meeting after contractor disputes DD 60 Sub‑4 crop damage assessment

Kossuth County supervisors on July 15, 2025 said they would not act immediately on a request to reconsider damages assessed after construction in Drainage District 60, Sub‑4 and agreed to schedule an informational meeting or public hearing for affected landowners.

The request was presented by a contractor representative who said the contractor (identified in the discussion as REI) had not been given adequate notice to respond to damage claims after the project and asked the board to reconsider several of the assessed amounts. The contractor said the firm responded to reported issues when notified, made repairs to a tile connection on May 14 and fixed a settled spot the same day it was reported on June 2, and provided videos and offers to meet on site.

Why it matters: The dispute concerns which damages are eligible for county-paid crop‑damage reimbursement after ditch construction, how cleanup was documented and communicated, and whether additional leveling or chisel‑plowing (which the contractor said was not in its contract scope) should be required. The outcome will affect several landowners along the DD 60 route and the county’s processing of drainage claims and assessments.

Contractor account and landowner complaints

The contractor representative told supervisors an email requesting reconsideration had been sent the day before the meeting and said portions of the work were cleaned up and leveled in the same manner as other parcels along the project. The representative acknowledged that some steel strapping used to bind pipe arrived on the site and was left behind in places: “I apologize to the landowners that had to deal with that,” the contractor representative said. The speaker said the project used a large quantity of bedding stone — roughly 25,000 tons — and that in some areas the team chose to leave a thin layer of rock to preserve topsoil rather than remove additional topsoil to get every rock cleared.

The contractor disputed portions of the damage assessment for one landowner identified in the discussion as Gorkowski/Gorskowski, saying that those fields were not worked or planted within the right‑of‑way and that other adjacent owners were able to plant without issue. The contractor maintained that additional chisel‑plowing and full reworking of compacted ground were not in the scope of the contract and described compaction as a typical, multi‑year effect of construction that is why crop‑damage payments are often spread over multiple years.

Board response and next steps

Supervisors asked whether the matter required a public hearing or could be handled by a smaller, targeted meeting. The board and the contractor discussed notifying only affected landowners rather than the entire drainage district. The contractor offered to provide video evidence and to meet on site; supervisors said they would coordinate a date and that the county would place the event on a future agenda. No formal vote or change to the previously recorded damage determinations was made at the July 15 meeting.

The board asked staff to contact the affected landowners and to check Supervisor Kyle Hurd’s availability to attend a meeting; the contractor was asked to provide contact information and the additional video files it referenced.

Clarifying details from the record

- Contractor reported fixing a tile backfill issue after receiving a picture from Tyler Connolly, and said additional leveling was done later the same day (May 14). (source: contractor representative)

- Contractor reported fixing a settled spot on June 2 the same day it was reported. (source: contractor representative)

- Contractor said the project used “roughly 25,000 ton” of bedding rock and that complete removal of rock would have required removing additional topsoil. (source: contractor representative)

- Contractor said chisel‑plowing or full decompaction work was not in the contract scope, and therefore was not performed systematically across the project. (source: contractor representative)

Community and procedural relevance

The board indicated it will notify only landowners with damage complaints and will place an item on a future agenda to set a date; supervisors discussed using either a phone call for a handful of landowners or a formal meeting or public hearing depending on how many are affected. The board also indicated a preference to provide a punch list at project close in future projects so contractors know what final cleanup is expected.

Ending

No change was made to the damage determinations at the July 15 meeting. The county will arrange an informational meeting or hearing for the affected landowners, and staff were directed to coordinate notice and a meeting date with Supervisor Kyle Hurd and the contractor.