O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 32-6-173 (2019)

Payment of expenses of removal and relocation of utility facilities

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The expenses incurred by the department as a result of utility removal and relocation pursuant to subsection (b) of Code Section 32-6-171, including the cost of acquiring new land or interests therein pursuant to subsection (b) of Code Section 32-6-172, shall be paid out of the available appropriations of the department for the construction or maintenance of public roads. A statement of such expenses shall be submitted to the utility, which shall make payment to the department. In the event the utility does not make payment or arrange to make payment to the department within 60 days after the receipt of said statement, the department shall certify the amount for collection to the Attorney General. However, nothing in this Code section shall restrict the authority of the department pursuant to Code Section 32-6-170 to pay any or all of the expenses of removal and relocation of government owned utilities; and, furthermore, nothing in this article shall be construed so as to deprive any utility, relocated from a location in which it owned a property interest, of compensation for such property interest.

History

Code 1933, § 95A-1004, enacted by Ga. L. 1973, p. 947, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Utility’s right to compensation for loss of easement. - County may require a utility, at the utility’s expense, to relocate the utility’s equipment, even if the county’s right-of-way was obtained after the utility had obtained an easement for the equipment. But in turn the utility may seek just and adequate compensation for the loss of the use of the utility’s old easement, which loss would include the costs necessary to relocate to the new easement. Bibb County v. Georgia Power

Co., 241 Ga. App. 131, 525 S.E.2d 136 (1999). County liable to power company for movement of power lines from private property easement. - Trial court properly found that a power company was entitled to compensation from a county for the taking of the company’s private property easements, including the costs of relocating the electrical power and distribution poles, when the county widened a road because a 1929 franchise agreement

did not apply to situations where the power company was forced by the county to relocate power transmission lines and poles that the company originally erected

on private property easements. Clayton County v. Ga. Power Co., 340 Ga. App. 60, 796 S.E.2d 16 (2017).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Constitutionality of state legislation to reimburse public utilities for cost of relocating their facilities because of highway construction, conditioned upon

federal reimbursement of the state under the terms of Federal-Aid Highway Act (23 U.S.C. § 123), 75 A.L.R.2d 419.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1999–2017 · leading case: Bibb Cnty. v. Georgia Power Co., 525 S.E.2d 136 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bibb Cnty. v. Georgia Power Co., 525 S.E.2d 136 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “24 OCGA § 32-6-173 provides for this circumstance in that nothing in thé article is to be construed so as to deprive any utility, relocated from a location in which it owned a property interest, of compensation for such property interest.”
Clayton Cnty. v. Georgia Power Co., 796 S.E.2d 16 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “However, OCGA § 32-6-173 explicitly provides that “nothing in this article shall be construed so as to deprive any utility, relocated from a location in which it owned *62 a property interest, of compensation for such property interest,” and OCGA § 32-6-171 contains essentially…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.