UTILITIES RELOCATION INCENTIVE FEES

                                         Requested by: California
                                     Survey Deadline: August 20, 2007


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


  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


ATSS 8-453-2132

Virginia Department of Transportation

We do not pay the utilities an incentive for relocations.

Greg Wroniewicz, PE

State Utility Engineer



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



                                              SOUTH DAKOTA

South Dakota does not pay incentives and it's doubtful we would in the future.


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.


Justin Sceili

UDOT Permits and Utilities

4501 South 2700 West

PO Box 148420

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-8420

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.




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

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

 We do not pay incentives to utility companies

Bruce Vana

Eng - Mngr





Gary C. Fawver, PE


Utilities and Right of Way Section



Indiana has not paid incentives to utility companies for on time relocation or for being ahead of schedule.



Delaware has not but would consider it in the future if other states start having success with it.


Francis J. (Fran)Hahn, PE, AICP, Utilities Engineer

Delaware Department of Transportation

                                                          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.

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 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



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


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




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


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


                                           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.



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 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



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 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




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 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 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

To top