DD60 Sub‑4 completion hearing continued; retainage and damage claims remain unresolved

At a public completion hearing for Drainage District (DD) 60 Sub‑4, the board heard the engineer’s report, landowner concerns about construction damage and finish work, and decided to continue the hearing without setting a new date so contractors can finish outstanding items and affected landowners can file written damage claims.

Tyler Shami, the project engineer, summarized field testing and the contractor’s work. He reported that tile deflection tests were within the specification maximum (5 percent) and that record testing shows the project complies with the design specification. Tyler also told the board there remain punch‑list items, including removal of two inspection ports and one joint connection that needs reinforcement; he recommended continuing the hearing while retaining leverage to ensure completion.

The project’s financial summary presented at the hearing shows the original contract award at $2,342,243.00; final quantities produced a total cost of $2,401,428.73. That amount has been paid except for the 10 percent retainage that is being held until work is accepted and the completion hearing is closed; the board noted the retainage remains a practical lever for ensuring outstanding work is finished.

Several landowners described localized impacts they said resulted from construction: drowned-out or worked ground, rough or rock-strewn surfaces, and damage to tile outlets or fences. The board accepted written claims and directed landowners to file itemized documentation for damages (receipts, estimates, or contractor bids) before the hearing’s closure so trustees could consider each claim. Two claims were identified during the hearing record: one submitted by Phil Reynolds (additional planting/hours/delay claim, $1,223 submitted in itemized form) and other objections from landowners including Richard Johnson and Bill Wilks concerning flooded areas and rough ground.

Engineers explained how the district computes damages: immediate crop losses plus an allowance for reduced productivity in a corridor above the tile (a multi‑year percentage split commonly used to account for soil blending and compaction). The engineer recommended the trustees consider both immediate crop losses and a one‑year additional loss allowance on heavily disturbed areas. Trustees also discussed how replacement of fences and work to restore passable condition would be handled (districts generally reimburse landowners for reasonable, documented restoration cost rather than asking the contractor to do all restorative work).

The board voted to continue the completion hearing without setting a date; trustees said they would notify landowners when the contractor reports that all work has been completed to the required standard. Separately, the board is scheduled to hold an assessment/reclassification hearing on April 29, at which time the reclassification report (and estimated parcel-level assessments) will be available to landowners.