McLeod County tentatively accepts $478,000 bid to repair County Ditch 12A; railroad crossing work held pending insurance talks

McLeod County officials tentatively awarded the contract to repair County Ditch 12A’s open channel and non‑railroad culverts to Rickert Excavating after the lowest responsive bid came in at $478,000 — substantially below the engineer’s estimate of roughly $750,000.

The county opened a public meeting May 5 to review years of study and recent bids for repairs on the roughly 5.3‑mile drainage trunk. Chris Otterness of Houston Engineering, filling in for project manager Lisa Olen, told the board the repair scope includes 5.7 miles of excavation and vegetation removal, replacement of seven crossings, bank stabilization, and up to 50 outlet repairs. He said the work is expected to reduce flooding frequency and duration for upstream landowners and that his team found no wetland impacts requiring mitigation.

Otterness said bids were split into two packages: the open‑channel work (base bid plus alternatives) and a separate package for a railroad crossing at a TCNW line. The county received five bids for the open‑channel package; Rickert Excavating submitted the low responsive bid that included the base work and selected alternatives. Otterness summarized the recommendation: “We recommend that the drainage authority execute a contract with Rickert Excavating to complete the open channel and culvert repairs on the system other than the railroad culvert.”

The county received three bids for the railroad boring package; the low bid for a 24‑inch boring was $239,127 from RNR Excavating. Otterness said the railroad crossing alternatives produce some reduction in peak water surface elevations but do not eliminate surface flooding upstream; even a 72‑inch bore, he said, would not fully address upstream surface flooding and the open‑channel repairs would provide independent benefit.

A central obstacle to moving forward at the railroad crossing is the railroad’s insurance and permit requirements. Otterness said the TCNW permit asked for a $6 million insurance policy with coverage “in perpetuity” on the crossing; county staff reported they have not been able to find an insurer willing to provide that product. County counsel expressed concern that perpetual insurance would unreasonably bind county finances. As one commissioner put it during debate, “You can’t saddle a board in perpetuity for expenses.”

After extensive public comment from landowners and township representatives about how costs should be allocated, the board voted to tentatively accept the Rickert Excavating low bid for the base work and alternatives 1–3 and to conditionally award alternatives 4–5 subject to final written sign‑off from Glenco and Sumpter Townships within about 30 days. If the townships do not sign off, the county will delay issuing a notice of award for those alternatives and may rebid or otherwise reassess the work. The decision was approved by voice vote.

Board and staff emphasized two points for property owners: (1) the open‑channel work has independent utility and is expected to provide measurable benefit upstream even if the railroad crossing cannot be completed immediately; and (2) the allocation of actual costs to individual landowners depends on the redetermination maps and benefit percentages, which staff can compute and provide to landowners who sign up for individualized follow‑up.

The county will continue negotiations with TCNW to seek a practicable insurance/permit approach for the railroad crossing. If those insurance issues are resolved, staff said they would consider awarding the railroad boring contract to the low bidder; if not, they recommended rejecting or holding those bids.

What happens next: the county will issue the notice of award on the open‑channel contract and begin coordination with townships on alternatives 4–5; staff will continue talks with the railroad and return to the drainage authority with final recommendations once the insurance question is resolved.

Key numbers and parties - Low bid for open‑channel (base + selected alternatives): $478,000 (Rickert Excavating) - Engineer’s estimate (open channel + alternatives): ~ $750,000 - Low bid for railroad 24‑inch boring: $239,127 (RNR Excavating) - Project scope: ~5.7 miles open‑channel excavation, multiple crossing replacements, bank stabilization, up to ~50 outlet repairs

Quotes “We recommend that the drainage authority execute a contract with Rickert Excavating to complete the open channel and culvert repairs on the system other than the railroad culvert,” said Chris Otterness, engineering lead for the project.

“The insurance requirement, as I read it, would apply to the crossing and, as you say, in perpetuity,” said county counsel, noting the county has been unable to find an insurer offering that coverage.

“The bids are valid for 60 days; we need to move quickly to resolve township coordination and railroad insurance so work can proceed,” Otterness said.

Context The ditch has been under study since 2023 with a historic review and a 2024 repair report. The county emphasized environmental compliance — the engineer reported no wetland mitigation is expected under the proposed open‑channel work — and described coordination required with road authorities and townships for culvert replacements. Township representatives from Glenco and Sumpter participated in the meeting and agreed to work toward written sign‑offs on culvert alternatives.

Next steps Staff will: finalize and issue the notice of award for the open‑channel contract; continue negotiations with TCNW on insurance and permitting for the railroad crossing; compute and provide individual landowner cost estimates based on redetermination maps; and return to the drainage authority with a final recommendation on the railroad package when insurance/permit issues are resolved.