About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-149833-O.M. 1 (1963-06-24)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadaiu0001 and id is 1 raw text is: .... COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON 25 B-1l9833-0. J4 June 24, 1963 CE~OPY pi Director, Civil Accounting and Auditing Division Pursuant to your memorandum of May 23, 1963, we have reviewed our position with respect to Federal participation toward utility relocation casts in California in light of the views expressed by the General Counsel of the Rreau of PUblic Boads. The Breau takes the view, essentially, that since there is not a precise statutory farmula for deriving *any increase in the-value of the new facility' far credit against the costs incurred in relocating, there need not be uniformity among the various States in the application of criteria for determining the cost of utility relocationa. The Barean's General Counsel states that in these circumstances, the Administrator uas free to select any reasonable means for determining value, including those established by the laws of each State. 1j' way of analogy he refers to the fact that in the case of right-of-vay acquisition, the Bureau partici- pates in cost, on the basis of varying State laws controlling the ascer- tainment of just capensation. We cannot agree with the Breau's position in the matter; the analogy rmn with respect to right-of-way acquisition costs is inappropriate. In the right-of-way situation, there is no question but that payments made by a State ftr the purchase or condeanation of property according to its laws constitute costs to that State for highway right-of-way purposes. The controlling statutes do not in any way limit Pederal participation in such costs. In the utility relocation situation, however, the statute places a pecific limitation on what may be considered as cost for reim- burement purposes. We apee that there is rom for sane discretion in ostablishing detailed criteria for implementing the statutory directive. But ouch discretion is to be exercised by the Administrator and the estab- lished criteria applied uniformly througbout all the States. As stated in our earlier memarandn there are two limitations in section 123 of title 23, United States Code, with respect to reimbursements for utility relocation costs: Reimbursements cannot be made for payments in violation of coutract or State law, and reimbursement cannot be made for Daymente covering an increase in value of the new facility. We do not believe that reimbursaent nay be made in any specific ease for payments covering an increase in value of the new facility as deternined by application of the Administrator's criteria on the assumption that other reimbursements will be for less than the State's entitlement under those criteria thereby balancing, out the overreimbursenents. In the first place, there could not,

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most