Lawmakers debate utility‑relocation bill after contractors say misaligned schedules stall Georgia road projects

Representative Lauren McDonald introduced House Bill 13-42 to address a frequent problem on Georgia road projects: misaligned utility relocation schedules that delay construction and raise costs. "When those schedules do not match up, projects are delayed," McDonald said, adding that delays ultimately cost the state's taxpayers.

The substitute would require utilities to provide coordinated relocation schedules tied to DOT contracts, allow DOT to deny or suspend permits if a relocation falls more than 20% behind its approved work plan, and remove an existing mediation board provision in favor of a streamlined dispute process. McDonald said the change aims to give contractors a firm, predictable timeline and to avoid litigation by encouraging upfront coordination.

GDOT's Office of Utilities administrator Nick Fields told the committee the department distinguishes "project permits" (relocation work tied to a specific DOT project) from routine right‑of‑way permits and that proposed permit suspensions would apply to requests introduced into the right‑of‑way when projects are delayed. Fields emphasized GDOT's escalation procedures and the years of coordination that precede construction. He also told members GDOT recorded 207 delayed projects over the last three years.

Utility representatives and local cooperative utilities urged caution. Stephanie Gossman, Georgia Power's planning and policy manager, said the industry already participates in coordination forums and resolves most projects through existing processes; she opposed codifying procedures that remove mediation, saying the bill would be "punitive" and unnecessary. AT&T's Elizabeth Reynolds and representatives of the EMCs expressed similar concerns about complexity, the order of utility relocations, and the removal of mediation as a dispute mechanism.

Contractors and the Georgia Highway Contractors Association urged statutory fixes. David Mollring and contractors Brett Johnson and Joseph Martin told the committee that utility adjustment schedules (UAS) often extend years beyond contract timelines, producing projects that cannot be completed within the bid contract period and leaving contractors exposed to liquidated damages.

After extended questioning, testimony and cross‑sector debate about tradeoffs between enforceable schedules and flexibility for unforeseen conditions, Chairman Hagan moved to table HB 13-42 so stakeholders could negotiate further with Chairman McDonald. The committee voted to table the bill and asked parties to continue discussions before the measure returns.