UTILITIES RELOCATION INCENTIVE FEES
Requested by: California
Survey Deadline: August 20, 2007
Questions:
QUESTION:
California would like your response to the following:
Do you or have you paid utility companies an incentive for relocation
their facilities either on time or ahead of schedule?
If yes, what was your process for paying the incentive?
If yes, how long have you been doing this and how much success have you
experienced?
If no, would you considered doing this in the future?
Lorrie L. Wilson
Office of Organizational Development and Utility Relocations Division of Right of Way and Land Surveys
916/653-2132
ATSS 8-453-2132
VIRGINIA
Virginia Department of Transportation
We do not pay the utilities an incentive for relocations.
Greg Wroniewicz, PE
State Utility Engineer
804-786-2931
------------------------------
WASHINGTON
Washington State
We have not provided incentives for relocating utility facilities.
We have discussed this internally but we are restricted from participating in utilities relocations costs by
our state constitution. They must have a compensable property right for us to pay.
Tom Swafford
Utilities, Railroad & Agreements Manager
Washington State Department of Transportation
PO Box 47329
Olympia, WA 98504-7329
360-705-7237
swaffot@wsdot.wa.gov
SOUTH DAKOTA
South Dakota does not pay incentives and it's doubtful we would in the future.
UTAH
The Utah DOT has no incentive program in place for the relocation of utilities. We would consider it in
the future, and are very interested in any and all suggestion/comments.
Thanks,
Justin Sceili
UDOT Permits and Utilities
4501 South 2700 West
PO Box 148420
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-8420
MAINE
Maine does not pay relocation incentives. We have scheduled some projects so that after contract
award the utilities were given full use of the project site for relocations without the project contractor being
onsite. This has been fairly successful.
Charlie
TENNESSEE
TnDOT
Under provisions of a 2003 state statute amendment referred to as Chapter 86, at the commissioner's
discretion established by Department policy specific projects are qualified CH86, these are generally
grade and drain projects with ROW acquisition or bridge replacement projects. If the project is qualified
CH86, and the utility maintains eligibility, they are reimbursed utility relocation costs. For eligibility: 1)
Utility submits utility relocation plans within 120 -165 days; 2) Utility has a permit to occupy public ROW
for the existing facility; and 3) the utility relocates either PRIOR to the project letting date, or INCLUDES
the utility relocation in the state contract, which is an incentive to the utility to meet the Department
construction schedule.
Currently since 2003 only one (1) project qualified CH86 resulted in supplemental agreements to
compensate state contractor for utility delays. Most utilities have chosen to include the utility relocation in
the state contract, which provides for the State contractor to phase and construct the highway project and
the utility relocation providing greater control of the project sequence and eliminates delays by outside
influences.
TDOT does not directly provide a direct incentive payment for performance. The incentive is provided in
the reimbursement for utility relocation cost if the utility meets the criteria set forth in CH86.
Joe Shaw
TDOT Utilities Office
Suite 600 JK Polk Bldg.
Nashville, TN 37243-0337
E-mail: joe.shaw@state.tn.us
Phone: 615.741.2891
Fax: 615.532.1548
CELL: 615.202.7268
ARIZONA
We do not pay incentives to utility companies
Bruce Vana
Eng - Mngr
U&RR
PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania
No
Gary C. Fawver, PE
Chief
Utilities and Right of Way Section
gfawver@state.pa.us
INDIANA
Indiana has not paid incentives to utility companies for on time relocation or for being ahead of schedule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DELAWARE
Delaware has not but would consider it in the future if other states start having success with it.
Thanks,
Francis J. (Fran)Hahn, PE, AICP, Utilities Engineer
Delaware Department of Transportation
302-760-2269
NORTH DAKOTA
NDDOT does not pay incentives and is not pursuing the idea, however would like to find a new solution to
get the utilities out sooner so our contractors don't file delay claims.
VIRGINIA
The Virginia Department of Transportation does not and has not offered incentive payments to utility
companies for the early or timely relocation of utility facilities.
However, VDOT does participate in the FHWA/VDOT pilot program for Utility Relocation Preliminary
Engineering Reimbursement regardless of the pro-rated relocation cost. The parameters for receiving the
100% PE reimbursement stipulate the utility company that requests to participate must adhere to our
schedules and dates in regards to the submission of the utility relocation plans for authorization.
There is always the possibility this incentive may be considered in the future, but there would also be
parameters which should include a disincentive should the relocation be delinquent.
Matt Reynolds
Assistant State Utilities Engineer
(804) 786-2934
MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts reimburses only for relocations on Federal-Aid bridge projects. This is not really an
incentive rather than a local federal policy.
There have been talks regarding incentive based reimbursements, but nothing has been moved forward.
Guy Rezendes, P.E.
MassHighway Department
Utilities/Railroad Engineer
10 Park Plaza - Room 6340
Boston, MA 02116
(617) 973-7512
FAX: (617) 973-7554
ARKANSAS
Arkansas
Do you or have you paid utility companies an incentive for relocation
their facilities either on time or ahead of schedule? No
If yes, what was your process for paying the incentive?
If yes, how long have you been doing this and how much success have you
experienced?
If no, would you considered doing this in the future? Not being considered at this time.
Perry M. Johnston
Division Head
Right of Way Division
Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department
P.O. Box 2261
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
501-569-2311
Office
501-569-2018
Fax
Perry.Johnston@arkansashighways.com
MARYLAND
Maryland
We discussed the idea of giving an incentive for exceeding relocation schedules with the various utility
companies a few years ago. They indicated that it would not really be a benefit to them as the monies
would go into the companies general fund and not back into the local offices' budget. We then discussed
possibly of using a prior rights incentive which would have helped the local offices' budgets and the
response was that for them to go back and revise prior rights and justify it to the auditors was too difficult
and labor intensive. No further action was taken.
Nelson P. Smith, Jr.
Statewide Utility Engineer
Maryland State Highway Administration
211 East Madison Street, mailstop MLL4
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(410) 545-5546
nsmith@sha.state.md.us
ALABAMA
In Alabama we recently executed an incentive/disincentive agreement to relocate water and sewer
facilities that crossed I-65, the major north-south in Montgomery, the capital city. The bid came in at
about $8 million.
The highway project consisted of some bridge widening and pavement rehabilitation. The condition of the
pavement was very poor and the highway construction was a high priority. The highway project
contained an asphalt as well as concrete alternate. There highway construction also contained an
incentive/disincentive clause plus numerous stipulations (penalties for lane closures) and time
constraints. We only received one bid that was $100 million over estimate. We rejected the highway bid,
but in an effort to get ahead of the highway construction, accepted the utility bid. The scope of work on
the highway project was changed and the work re-bid.
We included the incentive/disincentive in the bid proposal and kept track of the time to complete the work
to determine payment.
There were numerous problems on the project that lead to monthly meetings to discuss the legitimacy of
time extension requests. It was difficult to determine which items of work were critical path. The prime
contractor had numerous problems with a micro-tunneling subcontractor that led to the firing of the sub
and a subsequent lawsuit. There was an elevation error on a manhole that caused the prime contractor
to have to reorder a manhole. There was also a sewer line that crossed a ditch where a slide developed
that threatened the stability of the crossing.
This is the only project that I have ever seen where an incentive/disincentive was used.
I don’t think that I would recommend this approach, because It did not seem to be cost effective and
occupied a significant amount of our time. If the utility conflicts had been given proper consideration in
advance there would not have been a need to use an incentive/disincentive contract in the first place.
Robert G. Lee
State Utilities Engineer
1409 Coliseum Blvd.
Montgomery, AL 36110
334.242.6155
SOUTH CAROLINA
The South Carolina Department of Transportation has not paid any utilities an incentive to relocate their
facilities on time or ahead of schedule. We may consider this but it would be on a case by case basis
depending complexity of and schedule for the project.
Thanks,
Mark
Mark C. Attaway
State Utility Engineer
South Carolina Department of Transportation
955 Park Street, P.O. Box 191
Columbia, SC 29202-0191
Office Number 803-737-1296
Fax Number 803-737-6045
OHIO
Ohio has not but I really believe this could be a very effective "tool" if structured correctly...however, our
state is not giving consideration to the idea..
G. Raymond Lorello
Utility & Railroad Program Manager
Ohio Department of Transportation
1980 West Broad St.
Columbus, Ohio 43223
(Office) 614 466-2279 (Cell) 614 975-5312
fax. 614 466-0158
Ray.Lorello@dot.state.oh.us
IOWA
Iowa does not pay an incentive. However, if a utility moves early and the department later changes the
project plans, we will pay for the utility to move the second time.
Gerry Ambroson
Utility Relocation
Iowa Dept. of Transportation
Phone: (515) 239-1014
FAX: (515) 817-6684
WISCONSIN
Wisconsin DOT has not paid any incentives. We are not considering such a practice at this time. State
Statutes would have to be changed to allow such payment.
Ernest J Peterson, P.E.
State Utility/Access Engineer
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
ernest.peterson@dot.state.wi.us
608.266.3589
MICHIGAN
Michigan DOT has not paid incentives for relocation.
Mark A. Dionise, P.E.
Michigan Department of Transportation
Utility Coordination and Permits Engineer
(517) 373-7682
OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma responds as follows:
1) No.
2) N/A
3) N/A
4) No. I think that an incentive of this nature would set a precedent that would evolve from the rare case
exception to the norm. Once you start paying for performance, it won't stop.
Kurt A. Harms
Chief, Right-of-Way & Utilities
Okla. Dept. of Trans.
200 N.E. 21st Street
Okla. City, OK 73105
(405)521-2661 Office
(405)522-1858 Fax
KENTUCKY
Kentucky amended our legislation on utility reimbursement to create a special type of project, effectively
a "fast track" project, on which we will reimburse utility companies 100% to relocate their facilities. There
is a difference from our standard agreement language, however; on the "fast track" projects we establish
specific dates, agreed to by both parties, and if they do not meet those dates they forfeit reimbursement. I
have included a link to the statute. http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/177-00/035.PDF
Greg Smith
Transportation Engineer Branch Manager
Division of Right of Way & Utilities