U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration

Office of International Programs

FHWA > Programs > Office of Policy > Office of International Programs  > Contract Administration: Technology and Practice in Europe > Appendix: Team Members

Appendix: Team Members

Team Members and Affiliations*

Catherine Muth

Richard Moeller (Co-Chair)

Team Leader, Technical Services Group Office of Real Estate Services Federal Highway Administration 1172 Commodore Court, #102 Fort Pierce, Florida 34949 Phone: (561) 429-0064 E-Mail: rmoeller@orcolan.com

Joachim Pestinger (Co-Chair) Director, Real Estate Services Washington State Department of Transportation PO Box 1227 Oting, Washington 98360 Phone: (360) 893-6617 E-Mail: pestinger@earthlink.net

Myron Frierson

Administrator, Real Estate Division Michigan Department of Transportation PO Box 30050 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Phone: (517) 373-2200 E-Mail: friersonm@mdot.state.mi.us

Wayne Kennedy

International Right-of-Way Association 38807 South Starwood Drive Tucson, Arizona 85739 Phone: (520) 2818-1812 Fax: (520) 818-1813 E-Mail: wayneken1@earthlink.net

John A. Almborg

(Delegation Coordinator) American Trade Initiatives, Inc. 3 Fairfield Court Stafford, Virginia 22554-1716 Phone: (540) 228-9700 Fax: (540) 288-9473 E-Mail: j.almborg@gte.net

O.R. Colan Associates, Inc. 128 North Street, Suite 201 Bluefield, West Virginia 24701 Phone: (304) 327-6968 E-Mail: muth@orcolan.com

Janet Myers

Director, Right-of-Way Division Maine Department of Transportation Center for Transportation and the Environment Box 8601 Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-8601 Phone: (919) 515-8041 E-Mail: jlmyers@unity.ncsu.edu

Paul Scott

Highway Engineer (Utilities Coordination)

Office of Program Administration Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street SW

Washington, DC 20590 Phone: (202) 366-4104 Fax: (202) 366-3988

E-Mail: paul.scott@fhwa.dot.gov

Stuart Waymack

Director, Right-of-Way and Utilities Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Phone: (804) 786-2923 Fax: (804) 786-1706 E-Mail: waymack_sa@vdot.state.va.us

Adele McCormick

(Report Facilitator) Technical Writer 4017 Libby Road NE Olympia, Washington 98506 Phone: (360) 943-4708 Fax: (360) 943-4708 E-Mail: McAdele@aol.com

*Affiliations at time of scanning study. Addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses current at time of publication.


APPENDIX A

TEAM MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES

The following biographies were written before the Right-of-Way and Utilities Scanning Study to provide information about team members to the host delegations.

Richard Moeller is a real estate specialist/manager for FHWA in Washington, D.C. Moeller serves on a leadership team of three senior managers that directs operations of FHWA's Office of Real Estate Services. He is responsible for developing and issuing national policies and procedures related to acquisition of real property for highway right-of-way. Specific responsibilities concern valuation and acquisition of real property through negotiation and condemnation. This process of right-of-way procurement also includes assistance to residential and business occupants displaced by proposed construction activity. Moeller has served FHWA in various capacities in its highway right-of-way program for more than 36 years. He has a bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of Iowa. He is secretary of the AASHTO

Subcommittee on Right-of-Way and Utilities.

Joachim Pestinger is director of real estate services for the Washington State DOT in Olympia, Washington, where he administers acquisition, appraisal, relocation assistance, title clearance, and property management activities. He approves up to 900 property purchases, mediated settlements, or stipulated judgments a year. He establishes policies and procedures for the department and other State and local public agencies. After graduating from Brigham Young University, he became an appraiser and manager for Clark County in Washington and then property supervisor for Seattle, Washington. He holds the senior member designation of the International Right-of-Way Association, and has taught courses in appraisal, negotiation, engineering, land titles, court testimony, real estate law, and property management throughout the United States and Canada. He was lead author of Course #700, Introduction to Property Management, and Course #801, Land Titles. He serves on the eminent domain faculty of Law Seminars International, Inc., and has been a speaker at appraisal conventions and education conferences for the Washington State attorney general's office. As an AASHTO member, he represents 17 western States on the executive board of the Subcommittee on Right-of-Way and Utilities. He also is on AASHTO's Special Committee on International Activity Coordination.

Adele McCormick is a technical writer for the Washington State DOT in Olympia, Washington. She is responsible for writing and editing reports, manuals, and studies developed by the Olympia Service Center Design Office and other Washington State DOT offices and teams. She is web master for several Washington State DOT web pages covering roadside and site development, design-build, real estate acquisition, and real estate asset management. McCormick has served as technical writer for numerous Washington State DOT value engineering studies and process improvement teams. She recently completed two comprehensive process improvement efforts covering real estate acquisition and real estate asset management. She has a bachelor's degree in speech from Washington State University.

Myron Frierson is division administrator for the Michigan DOT in Lansing, Michigan. Frierson directs the department's Real Estate Division, which provides direction and develops right-of-way policies and procedures for statewide right-of-way operations. His duties include providing administrative direction to all phases of right-of-way activities, such as appraisal, acquisition, relocation, and property management. He administers the Michigan DOT's oversize and overweight vehicle permitting, billboard permitting, and utility coordination programs. In this capacity, he has emphasized cross training of staff and the generalist property analyst concpet. He has implemented several process improvements that have resulted in processes that are more responsive to customer needs. In his 18 years with Michigan DOT, he has held administrative positions in highway district administration and financial management. Frierson has a bachelor's degree in accounting from Michigan State University and is a certified public accountant. He is a member of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Right-of-Way and Utilities.

Wayne Kennedy is international president-elect of the International Right-of-Way Association (IRWA), with headquarters in Gardena, California. He is responsible for the committees on Ethics, Asset Management, Local Public Agency, Liaison, Pipeline, Relocation Assistance, Environment, Surveying, Transportation, Utilities, Valuation, and Professional Development. He has served as director of FHWA's Office of Right-of-Way, director of right-of-way for New Mexico, manager of appraisal and appraisal review in Florida, appraiser for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and has spent 34 years at FHWA. He has bachelor's and master's degrees in business administration with a real estate major from San Jose State University in California. He also holds certificates in real estate and public administration from the University of California. He holds IRWA's senior designation and the American Society of Appraisers' senior and master governmental appraiser designations.

Catherine Colan Muth is president, chief executive officer and owner of O.R. Colan Associates, Inc., a Bluefield, West Virginia, consulting firm specializing in providing all phases of right-of-way acquisition between design and construction of public works projects. Her company's clients include departments of transportation, airport authorities, and local public agencies throughout the United States. She is lead author for a Transportation Research Board study on "Innovative Practices to Reduce Delivery Time for Right-of-Way in Project Development." After graduating from West Virginia University with a bachelor's degree in political science and English, she completed two years at Bluefield State College in West Virginia studying computer science and accounting. She is a member of IRWA and the Environmental Assessment Association. She was nominated as West Virginia's entrepreneur of the year in 1996.

Janet Myers is director of the Right-of-Way Division of the Bureau of Project Development for the Maine DOT in Augusta, Maine. She is responsible for statewide policies, procedures, and operations for property valuation, acquisition, management, and relocation activities, as well as utilities, accommodation, and relocation functions. Maine DOT is pursuing significant program expansion, which calls for evaluating and streamlining many of the standards and processes relating to right-of-way and utilities activities. Myers is an attorney with a background in real estate and environmental law. Before joining the Right-of-Way Division, she was a trial attorney and major projects manager for Maine DOT. Myers holds a bachelor's degree in history from Stanford University and a law degree from Boston University School of Law. She is a member of AASHTO's Subcommittee on Right-of-Way and Utilities and she serves as a research panel member on NCHRP 25-23, "Environmental Information Management and Decision Support System for Transportation."

Paul Scott is a highway engineer for FHWA in Washington, D.C. Scott coordinates the relocation and accommodation of utilities on Federal-aid highway projects. His work includes wireless telecommunication towers, subsurface utility engineering, underground damage prevention programs, and utility pole crash reduction programs. Before taking on his utilities responsibilities in 1989, he served the FHWA for 20 years in a number of highway engineering capacities. Scott has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from the University of Tennessee. He is a licensed professional engineer and serves on technical committees of the American Society of Civil Engineers, IRWA and TRB.

Stuart Waymack is state director of the Right-of-Way and Utilities Division of the Virginia DOT in Richmond, Virginia. He is responsible for statewide acquisition of all real property and relocation of families, businesses, and utilities in the path of or affected by transportation improvement projects in Virginia. He is also responsible for developing strategies for implementing new Federal and State laws that affect the transfer of private lands to the Commonwealth of Virginia for transportation projects. Waymack has more than 40 years of service with the Virginia DOT and has served as an appraiser, negotiator, district right-of-way manager, and assistant state right-of-way engineer. He attended the University of Richmond in Virginia and has been active in several local and national right-of-way and appraisal organizations. Most recently, he has been a member of an FHWA task force on the installation of fiber optics on the U.S. interstate system under the shared-resource concept.


APPENDIX B

AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS

Several months before the Right-of-Way and Utilities Scanning Study, team members developed the following list of topics and questions. These amplifying questions were submitted to the host countries to give them an indication of the basis and scope of information the team desired. The host countries used these questions as a guide for developing their presentations.

  1. Right-of-Way and Utility Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Programs
    1. Please provide an overview of laws on private property ownership in your country and acquiring private property for highway purposes. Are these laws the same for all levels of government?
    2. What compensation are you required to give a property owner before private property can be taken for public use?
    3. When a property owner will not voluntarily sell a piece of property, what procedures do you follow to acquire it?
    4. What laws govern controlling, managing, and disposing of improvements (primarily buildings) when you acquire a property for highway use?
    5. Please provide an overview of your laws on utilities in highway rights-of-way. Are they different for publicly and privately owned utilities?
    6. Do your laws require compensation for impacts caused by transportation projects, such as noise, business interruption, etc.?
    7. What are the most important right-of-way and utilities challenges facing your agency in the next five years?
  2. Right-of-Way and Utility Involvement in Project Development
    1. Please share the practices, policies, and techniques you use to minimize time requirements for delivery of right-of-way for project construction. How do you ensure there is adequate time to perform right-of-way functions?
    2. What role do right-of-way and utilities staff members have during planning, design, and construction of a project?
    3. During project decision-making, how much importance is given to the impact of the project on local neighborhoods and on viability of local businesses?
    4. During project development, when do you begin coordination with utility companies and departments on the use of the highway right-of-way for utilities and the location or relocation of those utilities?
    5. What methods do you use to minimize the cost of right-of-way?
    6. What techniques do you use to ensure that your design and right-of-way plans are sufficiently complete to proceed with right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation?
  3. Property Appraisal and Appraisal Review
    1. In the United States, an appraisal is used to determine the value of property needed for highway right-of-way. What process do you use to determine how much to pay for properties?
    2. If you use appraisals to determine property values:
      1. What are the requirements for appraisers?
      2. What are the requirements for an acceptable appraisal?
      3. What problems have you encountered with the appraisal process?
      4. What is your process for reviewing appraisals?
      5. Are there appraisal associations and what are their requirements?
    3. When compensating a property owner, what consideration is given for:
      1. Tenant-owned improvements?
      2. Business damages?
      3. Damages to the remainder of a property when only a portion of it is required for highway right-of-way
  4. Acquisition of Property Rights, Easements, and Permits
    1. What types of property rights do you acquire? Under what circumstances and for what purposes do you acquire them?
    2. Have you developed any effective techniques for resolving disputes related to compensation, such as mediation, arbitration, settlements, etc.?
    3. How do you negotiate to acquire property and what information do you give property owners?
    4. What techniques have you found to expedite acquisition of property needed for right-of-way?
    5. Relocation Assistance to Owners, Tenants, Businesses, and Farm Operations
      1. What relocation assistance do you provide to owners, tenants, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and farm operations when their property is acquired and they must move to a new location?
      2. What problems do you encounter in your relocation process?
  5. Utility Coordination, Adjustments, and Relocation for Highway Projects
    1. Are utility companies privately or publicly owned? Do you have different standards for each?
    2. Please give an overview of the requirements for utility companies when placing and relocating utilities in the highway right-of-way.
    3. What responsibilities does the highway agency have for coordination and compensation when utilities are placed or relocated in the highway right-of-way?
    4. What records does your agency maintain on utility installations in the highway right-of-way? Is subsurface utility engineering used to show utility locations?
    5. Do you have written agreements between your highway agency and utility companies to describe their respective responsibilities for financing and accomplishing relocation and adjustment work?
    6. How do you resolve conflicts over utility work and relocation, including scheduling, cost, location, and right-of-way acquisition?
    7. What permits are required for location of utilities in the right-of-way and how are they enforced?
    8. What are your standards for aboveground and underground utility installations? What considerations are used in establishing standards?
    9. Do you have legal requirements for advising the public of proposed highway projects?
    10. Please give an overview of your process for advising the public and receiving public input about proposed highway projects
  6. VII. Public Involvement
    1. Do you have legal requirements for advising the public of proposed highway projects?
    2. Please give an overview of your process for advising the public and receiving public input about proposed highway projects.
  7. Property Management of Real Estate Acquired for Highway Right-of-Way
    1. Please describe your process for disposing of property you own that is no longer needed (excess property).
    2. What records are kept on excess property? Are they kept electronically? What software is used?
    3. Do you lease excess property? If so, under what conditions and to whom do you lease it, and how is it valued?
    4. Do you lease airspace over or along the highway right-of-way? What laws and regulations do you have on airspace use?
    5. Are fiber optics and wireless telecommunication towers accommodated on the highway right-of-way?
    6. Does your country protect roadway capacity and safety by controlling access to the roadway system? How and where do you control it?
  8. Training Programs and Mentoring Procedures for Right-of-Way Staff
    1. Please describe the education and training required for right-of-way employees.
    2. What training and/or mentoring programs do you provide for your employees? Does your agency pay for required training?
    3. Do you require any proficiency certifications, examinations, licenses, or other standardized measures of competency?
    4. Do you use any training methods you think are especially effective?
    5. How do you measure the effectiveness of training?
    6. What role does technology play in:
      1. Training?
      2. Project management?
      3. Property management?

APPENDIX C

CONTACTS IN HOST COUNTRIES

The following list includes people who served as points of contact for the Right-of-Way and Utilities Scanning Study. The team would like to express its gratitude to each of them for their contributions to the success of the trip.

NORWAY

Roar Midtbo Jensen

Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA) Grensevegen 92 Helsfyr, Oslo NORWAY

GERMANY

Hans Mundry

Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing Robert-Schuman-Platz 1 D-53175 Bonn-Bad Godesberg GERMANY

THE NETHERLANDS

Paul van der Kroon

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management Johan de Wittlaan 3 P.O. Box 20906 2500 EX The Hague THE NETHERLANDS

Hans J.P. van Douwe

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management Johan de Wittlaan 3 P.O. Box 20906 2500 EX The Hague THE NETHERLANDS

UNITED KINGDOM

James Bradley

The Highways Agency St. Christopher House Southwark Street London SE1 OTE UNITED KINGDOM

Malcolm Macleod

The Highways Agency St. Christopher House Southwark Street London SE1 OTE UNITED KINGDOM

John Powell

The Highways Agency St. Christopher House Southwark Street London SE1 OTE UNITED KINGDOM

Listed below are the individuals the team met with during the scanning study. The team members wish to express their sincere gratitude to these individuals for their time and hospitality and the valuable information they provided.

NORWAY

Norwegian Public Roads Administration

Per Arne Andresen Olaf Ballangrud Anders Hagerup Tor Hoie Roar Midtbo Jensen Dagfinn Loyland Tormod Olsen Ola Omenas Stein Rinholm Eric Westerlund

The Agricultural University of Norway

Professor Hans Sevatdal

GERMANY

Bundesministerium fur Verkehr (Federal Ministry of Transport)

Vera Gintzel Karl-Heinz Johnen Hans Mundry Karl F. Ribbeck Hans Stumpel Peter J. Weitershagen Edgar Wittmann

THE NETHERLANDS

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (Ministery of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management)

Martien Beemsterboer E.J. M. Coenen J.J. Dressing Henk Gieerveld A.J J. Hekker Pieter Jansen Peter Kieft E.J.A. van der Boom Huub van der Kolk Paul van der Kroon H.J.P. van Doewe Gerit van Kekem Robert J.J. van Winden

ENGLAND

Highways Agency

Mike Ainsworth Terry Brackenbury James Bradley Martin Hobbs Malcolm Macleod Mary Moore John Robinson John Sherwood

Valuation Office

David Russell-Smith


APPENDIX D
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE PROJECT REPORT

Virginia DOT Logo

COST & SCHEDULE SAVINGS
FROM THE EARLY MOVE
INCENTIVE PROGRAM
FOR THE HUNTING TOWER
AND TERRACE BUILDINGS

 

VDOT Right-of-Way Group
December 6, 2001

INTRODUCTION

When the design for the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge was approved, one of the biggest challenges to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) was the relocation of tenants from one Hunting Tower and three Hunting Terrace apartment buildings that are in the path of the new roadway alignment. To maintain the project schedule, the VDOT right-of-way team used an experimental tenant relocation incentive program in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to vacate the properties in time for subsequent construction activities to continue as planned. With the recent successful completion of the relocation effort, this paper summarizes the schedule and cost savings achieved through the relocation incentive program. This incentive is a result of FHWA's right-of-way scanning study in Europe in 2000.

BACKGROUND

During the design phase of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project, VDOT determined that one tower apartment and three garden apartment buildings had to be vacated to make room for the expanded Interstate 495/95 Capital Beltway immediately adjacent to the new river crossing. The acquisition and demolition of these properties required the relocation of approximately 333 residential units. A right-of-way production team was hired to assist VDOT in the relocation process and given an aggressive schedule for relocating displaced tenants.

Under the original project schedule, goodwill contacts were to begin on June 1, 2000, and all tenants were to have offers for replacement housing payments (RHPs) presented by September 1, 2000. Between 25 and 30 RHP offers needed to be made each month to maintain the project schedule.

Because of various political and environmental factors, VDOT was unable to maintain the original schedule for acquiring the properties and relocating the residents. As a result, offers were presented to the property owners on October 27, 2000, and a public tenant meeting was held on November 6, 2000. The development and approval of a property management plan was required, which resulted in additional delays from the original schedule. On April 2, 2001, VDOT acquired the property and the production company began to make RHP offers to the tenants. As a result, the original 15 months was compressed to eight months, maintaining the overall project schedule. The new schedule required that approximately 42 RHP offers be made each month.

To aid in meeting this compressed schedule, VDOT introduced the Early Move Incentive Program for the affected tenants. The program stated that any tenant in residence on April 2, 2001, and moved within 30 days of receiving an RHP offer would be entitled to a $4,000 incentive. If the resident chose to move between 31 and 60 days of receiving an RHP offer, he would be entitled to a $2,000 incentive. VDOT stated that the program was voluntary and was not subject to negotiation. The incentive program was in addition to relocation assistance benefits due to those displaced. To ensure that the information was transmitted to all residents, VDOT delivered announcements individually to all occupants in the affected properties. Out of the 333 residential units affected, 298 were eligible for the incentive.

RESPONSE TO INCENTIVE

The response to the Early Move Incentive Program was outstanding, and the production company has moved all of the displaced residents in eight months. A total of 262 units (88 percent of eligible tenants) have claimed the maximum allowable amount of $4,000. Another 15 units (5 percent of eligible tenants) claimed $2,000. VDOT is working with the remaining 21 residents to process their incentive payments.

LESSON LEARNED

One lesson learned from the program is that if you give people a good reason (i.e., incentive payment), you can motivate them to get things done in your time frame. Thus, many of those displaced elected to move to be assured that they could claim the incentive. Others elected to move at the end of their lease term, and some moved before receiving an RHP offer. The schedule for making RHP computations and offers had to be altered to accommodate individuals who wanted to move immediately. Personnel resources had to be reallocated to accomplish this, but the right-of-way team met the compressed schedule in clearing the right-of-way in an extremely short time period.

INCENTIVE PROGRAM COSTS AND RESULTANT SAVINGS

In total, VDOT expects to pay $1,162,000 to individuals displaced from the Hunting Tower and Hunting Terrace apartments. This includes $1,078,000 paid to date and an additional $84,000 for the remaining claims to be processed.

While this incentive program may at first seem expensive for VDOT, savings in terms of overall project cost and schedule are profound. The incentive program saved VDOT a little more than $6 million from the effects of a seven-month delay. If the relocation effort had taken the full 15 months, VDOT would have had to delay demolition of the properties and the start of construction for the U.S. Route 1 tie-in, advance structures, and main contracts.

Taking into account the added costs related to the incentive program, VDOT saved about $4.8 million by using the Early Move Incentive Program. In addition to these savings, VDOT reduced overhead costs required to manage the condemned properties for an additional seven months.

CONCLUSION

The VDOT Early Move Incentive Program successfully relocated residents from 333 apartment units in seven months--less time than originally scheduled. Even though the program cost the project about $1.2 million, VDOT was able to derive the following direct savings from the accelerated relocations:

  • Construction schedule-related savings of about $6 million.
  • Reduced property management overhead costs for the condemned properties during the relocation period.
  • Met the overall project schedule such that the relocation effort will not have an impact on the opening of the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge. If the relocations were delayed and as a result the opening of the new bridge was delayed, VDOT could have been assessed a $50,000-a-day penalty by the State of Maryland until the new span was accessible.

In addition to the direct savings VDOT achieved, following are indirect benefits to citizens as a result of the incentive program:

  • The program developed goodwill between the tenants and VDOT, which serves as a model for future resident relocation programs.
  • Virginians and all users of the Capital Beltway will enjoy reduced commuting expenses and travel times through earlier project completion.
<< Previous Contents  

Return to top