Engineering Policy Guide - Recent changes [en]

903.1 General (MUTCD Chapter 2A)

Hoskir — Thu, 02 Jul 2026 20:08:58 GMT

{{SpanID|903.1.11}}903.1.11 Enhanced Conspicuity for Standards Signs (MUTCD Section 2A.11): fixed spelling error in title

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:08, 2 July 2026
Line 322:		Line 322:
	'''Support. '''[[#903.1.12\|EPG 903.1.12]] contains information regarding the use of light-emitting diode (LED) units within the border of a sign.		'''Support. '''[[#903.1.12\|EPG 903.1.12]] contains information regarding the use of light-emitting diode (LED) units within the border of a sign.

	=={{SpanID\|903.1.11}}903.1.11 Enhanced Conspicuity for ~~Standards~~ Signs (MUTCD Section 2A.11)==		=={{SpanID\|903.1.11}}903.1.11 Enhanced Conspicuity for Standard Signs (MUTCD Section 2A.11)==

	'''Option. '''Based upon engineering judgment, where the improvement of the conspicuity of a standard regulatory, warning, or guide sign is desired, any of the following methods may be used, as appropriate, to enhance the sign’s conspicuity (see [[#fig903-1-11\|Figure 903.1.11]]):		'''Option. '''Based upon engineering judgment, where the improvement of the conspicuity of a standard regulatory, warning, or guide sign is desired, any of the following methods may be used, as appropriate, to enhance the sign’s conspicuity (see [[#fig903-1-11\|Figure 903.1.11]]):

User:Hoskir

Hoskir — Thu, 02 Jul 2026 17:26:04 GMT

Revisions

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:26, 2 July 2026
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= <big>'''Revisions'''</big> =		= <big>'''Revisions'''</big> =

			[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3818\|Revision Request 3818 (ON HOLD)]]

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3902\|Revision Request 3902 (ON HOLD)]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3902\|Revision Request 3902 (ON HOLD)]]
Line 9:		Line 11:
	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4036\|Revision Request 4036 (ON HOLD)]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4036\|Revision Request 4036 (ON HOLD)]]

	~~<!--~~ [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4136\|Revision Request 4136 (ON HOLD)]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4136\|Revision Request 4136 (ON HOLD)]]
	~~-->~~
	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4165\|Revision Request 4165]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4165\|Revision Request 4165]]

	~~<!--~~ [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4175\|Revision Request 4175 (ON HOLD)]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4175\|Revision Request 4175 (ON HOLD)]]
	~~-->~~
	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4190\|Revision Request 4190]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4190\|Revision Request 4190]]

Line 20:		Line 22:

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202\|Revision Request 4202]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202\|Revision Request 4202]]

			[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4209\|Revision Request 4209 (New TM)]]

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4213\|Revision Request 4213]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4213\|Revision Request 4213]]

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4230

Hoskir — Thu, 02 Jul 2026 12:52:31 GMT

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" /><span style="background:#00FF00">copy 236.13.12 Plan Submittal and Filing</span><hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" />
+<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" /><span style="background:#00FF00">New Section 236.19</span><hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" />
 <br>
 ==236.19 Dedication of Thoroughfares==
-.19.1 Purpose
-The purpose of this guidance is to establish statewide consistency in evaluating and processing requests for the dedication of right of way (ROW) to the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (Commission).
+<span style="background:#00FF00">add link to 236</span>

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4230

Hoskir — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 21:01:35 GMT

Created page with "<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" />copy 236.13.12 Plan Submittal and Filing<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" /> ==236.19 Dedication of Thoroughfares== 236.19.1 Purpose The purpose of this guidance is to establish statewide consistency in evaluating and processing requests for the dedication of right of way (ROW) to the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (Commis..."

New page

<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" />copy 236.13.12 Plan Submittal and Filing<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" />
 

==236.19 Dedication of Thoroughfares==

236.19.1 Purpose
The purpose of this guidance is to establish statewide consistency in evaluating and processing requests for the dedication of right of way (ROW) to the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (Commission).
Dedications typically arise from local governments or private developers and historically have not been routinely accepted by MoDOT. Recent operational, legal, Americans with Disabilities Act and risk management issues demonstrate the need for clear procedures.
236.19.2 Policy
A. Definition & Applicability
A dedication is a voluntary transfer of private property to a public entity, typically used for streets, sidewalks, drainage, utilities, parks, and other infrastructure supporting development. State agencies are normally exempt from municipal zoning, building codes, and dedications, but districts may consider accepting ROW dedications when a transportation need exists and the dedication benefits the state system.
B. Conditions for Acceptance
MoDOT may accept dedicated right of way only when all the following requirements are met:
1. Fee Simple Ownership
The land must be conveyed in fee simple, free of:
• environmental concerns
• easements or encumbrances that impair MoDOT use or ownership
2. Demonstrated Need
MoDOT must determine that the development creates a need for public infrastructure improvements on the state system (e.g., roadway width, sidewalk continuity, drainage functionality, access management).
3. Proportionality and Legal Justification
The dedication must be reasonably attributable to the development.
Dedications not meeting proportionality may be considered unconstitutional exactions.
C. Risk Management
MoDOT shall evaluate potential exposure before accepting any dedication, particularly where sidewalks, drainage ditches, or other facilities transfer liability to the Commission. Examples include unknown sidewalk dedications later associated with ADA ownership reviews or injury claims.
These groups ensure legal sufficiency, alignment with statewide policy, and the proper entry of assets into the asset management system.
236.19.3 Procedure
A. Submittal Requirements
The party proposing the dedication shall provide:
1. Recorded plat or replat showing the dedication
2. Legal description and GWD conveying fee simple ownership free of encumbrances.
3. Documentation demonstrating the development created transportation need
4. Any applicable thoroughfare plan or planning documents
5. Any existing improvements on or adjacent to the property (e.g., sidewalks, utilities)
B. District Review Steps
1. ROW initiates a review with the District Asset Management Committee.
2. District leadership evaluates whether the dedication supports current and future operational needs.
3. District compiles findings and forwards the package to COROW for statewide policy compliance.
4. CCO/RCO reviews legal sufficiency.
C. Central Office ROW (COROW) Level
1. After the District is prepared to accept the dedication, the district will submit the request to COROW for review and concurrence.
D. Acceptance & Recording by the District
Once approved by COROW:
1. The dedication is accepted on behalf of the Commission.
2. Documents are recorded per statutory requirements.
3. The new right of way is added to MoDOT’s asset inventory and mapping systems
4. Dedications of any right of way, permanent easement or temporary easement must be accounted for in the database Right of Way Parcel Acquisition (RWPA). A value MUST be placed on these dedications by individual realty type. While a full-blown valuation is not required, documentation of the estimated value(s) must be placed in each parcel file for audit purposes.
E. Communication Requirements following the dedication
Internal
District ROW notifies Traffic, Maintenance, COROW, Central Office Planning, and CCO/RCO of acceptance and provides documentation for system updates.
External
MoDOT supplies written confirmation to the submitting municipality or developer outlining acceptance, limits, and any conditions.

User:Hoskir

Hoskir — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 20:58:23 GMT

Revisions

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:58, 1 July 2026
Line 30:		Line 30:

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225\|Revision Request 4225]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225\|Revision Request 4225]]

			[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4230\|Revision Request 4230]]

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235\|Revision Request 4235]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235\|Revision Request 4235]]

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4241

Hoskir — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 20:17:57 GMT

Created page with "<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" />copy 941.2.5 Quit Claim Deeds, General Warranty Deeds and Agreements<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" /> ===941.2.5 Quit Claim Deeds, General Warranty Deeds and Agreements=== Once an access request has been approved (See EPG 941.2.4 Approval Authority), there is additi..."

New page

<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" />copy 941.2.5 Quit Claim Deeds, General Warranty Deeds and Agreements<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" />
 

===941.2.5 Quit Claim Deeds, General Warranty Deeds and Agreements===
Once an access request has been approved (See [[:Category:941_Permits_and_Access_Requests#941.2.4_Approval_Authority|EPG 941.2.4 Approval Authority]]), there is additional documentation and deed-work that needs to be completed. This guidance provides the required steps ([https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/DE/RW/Traffic_Agreement_and_Deed_Process.pdf Traffic Agreement and Deed Process]).It is important to remember that an access break within controlled access is a property right that is given and received by a recorded deed. Specific agreements may need to be executed as well.

'''Quit Claim Deed'''

When there are access changes within controlled access right of way, a quitclaim deed, releasing the Commission’s claim on the proposed access shall be developed by the district right of way staff in eAgreements, following guidance in [[153.20_Right_of_Way|EPG 153.20]]. Quit claim deeds are executed by the Commission and filed with the County Recorder’s Office by the District Representative. MoDOT is responsible for the filing/recording fee with the County Recorder’s Office.

'''General Warranty Deed'''

In cases involving entrance shifting, a general warranty deed, releasing the applicant’s claim to the existing access right shall also be prepared by the District in eAgreements, following guidance in [[153.20_Right_of_Way|EPG 153.20]]. General Warranty Deeds are executed by the landowner, and filed with the County Recorder’s Office by the District Representative. MoDOT is responsible for the filing/recording fee with the County Recorder’s Office.

'''Agreement'''

Access changes in controlled access right of way require execution of a contract between the property owner(s) and the MHTC when either of the following occurs:

:*There are geometric improvements above and beyond the entrance location, such as an additional turn lane, required as a condition of the access change.
:*There are specific conditions or future requirements that are associated with the access change.

All Access Change Agreements should be drafted by the district staff in eAgreements. The Highway Safety and Traffic Division will be the reviewer for all these agreements. (See [[#153.21 Traffic|EPG 153.21 Traffic]].)

Agreements shall be prepared using Chief Counsel’s Office (CCO) standard format agreements, which are available from [http://sp/sites/eagreements/SitePages/Home.aspx eAgreeements], as are additional pre-approved boilerplate clauses.

[[image:941.2 Coordination between MoDOT and Local Entities.jpg|right|400px]]
Appropriate acknowledgement pages must be completed and notarized for each party executing the agreement (including an acknowledgement by the Commission); standard form acknowledgements are available from eAgreements.

Agreements with local government entities (cities, counties, villages, etc.) shall be accompanied by an ordinance authorizing execution by the person(s) signing the agreement; sample enabling ordinances are available from CCO’s site.

Any modification to the standard formats, outside of the addition of boilerplate clauses, shall require Highway Safety and Traffic Division and CCO review and approval.

If it is determined no agreement is necessary, district traffic staff shall complete the [[media:941.2.5-Access Change Checklist-06_2023.docx|Access Change Checklist]]. This is then shared with district right of way staff to draft the required updates to the deeds.

Once the agreement or checklist is prepared, district traffic staff sends agreement or checklist to district right of way staff to complete the deeds required.

Once the agreement and deeds are prepared and all necessary approvals secured, it is the district’s responsibility to obtain the appropriate local signatures and notarize the acknowledgements. The applicant must fully execute all necessary copies (2 copies are required), prior to final execution by the MoDOT and MHTC representatives. If additional copies are desired, the drafter will work with the Commission’s Secretary’s Office prior to sending the agreement to the applicant for signature.

User:Hoskir

Hoskir — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 20:07:27 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:07, 1 July 2026
Line 40:		Line 40:

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240\|Revision Request 4240]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240\|Revision Request 4240]]

			[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4241\|Revision Request 4241]]

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240

Hoskir — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 17:46:30 GMT

643.4.1.5 Grade Separation Structures / Closing of Existing Crossings

Show changes

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240

Hoskir — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 16:34:38 GMT

Created page with "<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" />copy 643.4.1.5 Grade Separation Structures / Closing of Existing Crossings<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" /> ===643.4.1.5 Grade Separation Structures / Closing of Existing Crossings=== The design of railroad-highway grade separations is coordinated with Bridge and district Design. :Category:747_Bridge_Reports_and_Layouts|EPG 747 Bridge..."

New page

<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" />copy 643.4.1.5 Grade Separation Structures / Closing of Existing Crossings<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" />
 

===643.4.1.5 Grade Separation Structures / Closing of Existing Crossings===
The design of railroad-highway grade separations is coordinated with Bridge and district Design. [[:Category:747_Bridge_Reports_and_Layouts|EPG 747 Bridge Reports and Layouts]] provides information for creating a grade separation report.

A minimum lateral clearance and vertical clearance from the railroad track to the structure is required. (For additional information see [https://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=Category:760_General_Construction_Inspection_for_Structures#760.4.4_Railroad_Vertical_and_Horizontal_Clearances EPG 760.4.4 Railroads Vertical and Horizontal Clearances].) The right angle section must extend entirely across the railroad's right of way.

At an early stage in the design process, the district will coordinate efforts with MO-RR to explore the feasibility of closing adjacent at-grade crossings that may or may not be located on the state highway system. Should this be the case, the closing of the other crossings will be a part of the grade separation project.

[http://www.up.com/real_estate/roadxing/industry/index.htm BNSF Railway-Union Pacific Railroad Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects] provides specific guidelines as required by these railroads when constructing over or under railroad property.

Railroads often request information to be included within the initial submittal. When preparing concept or preliminary plans for railroad review, include the following when possible:

Item No. Sheet Comment
1. TITLE Identify RR location: Add Railroad milepost number and subdivision. Add latitude and longitude. Add DOT number.
2. PLAN Add north arrow. Add timetable directions and direction to next station. Show increasing or decreasing MP to next station.
3. PLAN Show limits of RR ROW (on elevation & profile)
4. PLAN Show individual span length and total bridge length
5. PLAN On new structures, show future track with access road.
6. PLAN Provide all existing and any proposed horizontal and vertical clearances (even when they will not change)
7. PLAN Add note: “Access to RR ROW to be maintained at all times and public use of railroad access road is not allowed.”
8. PLAN Drainage directional arrows at slopes

 <hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" />copy 643.4.2 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Railroads<hr style="border:none; height:2px; background-color:red;" />
 

==643.4.2 Construction Inspection Guidelines for Railroads==
[[image:643.4.2.jpg|right|275px]]
There are two basic types of railroad projects that require oversight and inspection by MoDOT construction inspectors:

:* Highway construction projects built by MoDOT contractors over, on, or under railroads. The work on these projects use traditional job numbers (JXXXXX). MoDOT’s Railroad Projects Manager (RPM)is the Central Office contact for any questions concerning this type of railroad work. Refer to [[#643.4.1.1 Highway Construction Projects With Railroad Involvement|EPG 643.4.1.1 Highway Construction Projects With Railroad Involvement]] and [[#643.4.1.2 Contract Job Special Provisions Detailing Railroad Requirements|EPG 643.4.1.2 Contract Job Special Provisions Detailing Railroad Requirements]].
:* Railroad crossing safety improvement projects built by the railroad or their contractor. Railroad crossing safety improvement projects typically use the following style of job number: RRP-000S(XXX). MoDOT’s Railroad Safety Specialists (RSS) are the Central Office contact for any questions concerning this type of railroad work.

Highway construction projects usually involve state routes only, whereas the railroad crossing safety improvement projects can be located on any public crossing, including but not limited to crossings located on city streets, county roadways or highways.

===643.4.2.1 Railroad Flagging===

A railroad flagger is a railroad employee designated to communicate with our contractor. A flagger is required whenever the contractor’s work could endanger or interfere with the railroad’s operations such as the movement of trains through the project site. A general rule is a flagger is required whenever the contractor will have workers or equipment within 25 feet of the centerline of an active track. One of the primary duties of the flagger is to advise the contractor when trains are expected so that the contractor can pull back personnel and equipment to secure the construction area for the safe movement of trains. The department’s contractor shall contact the railroad to hire a flagger under the conditions specified in the JSP; however, if the contractor proceeds without a flagger when one is needed, the railroad may choose to station a flagger at the site full time throughout the project duration. Under most circumstances a flagger cannot be hired on an hourly basis. Typically the flagger is hired for a minimum of one eight-hour day. Some railroads require as much as 30 days advance notice to hire a flagger and as much as one week’s notice to discharge a flagger, so the contractor is economically inclined to consolidate all work that requires flagging service. Flagging costs are deducted from the contractor’s progress payments. There is no bid item for flagging service. The contractor’s costs for flagging must be in other bid items. The project office shall review all flagging invoices for accuracy, thus inspectors should keep an independent record of the flagging service provided.

Since flagging costs can quickly become extremely expensive, MoDOT districts are urged to strictly monitor the charges and ask MO-RR for assistance should they appear unreasonable.

===643.4.2.2 Adjustment of Railroad Facilities===

Railroad facilities may need to be modified or adjusted to clear the construction area. For example overhead communication lines frequently need to be relocated prior to the construction or demolition of a highway bridge over a railroad. Sometimes the railroad tracks need to be moved to make space for a new bridge pier. Railroad employees perform these adjustments at MoDOT expense. Ideally this type of work is performed prior to the start of the project construction. The project office inspects these adjustments and makes recommendation for payment when the railroad invoices are received.

===643.4.2.3 Field Inspection of Railroad Work===

Inspection of work performed by railroads during highway construction projects is similar to the inspection of work performed by [[643.2 Local Utility Adjustments - Public and Private#643.2.2.6 Field Inspection|utility companies]]. The railroad is responsible for the work that will be reimbursed by MoDOT, but the work is performed on their facilities in accordance with their own standards. The RE’s office or MO-RR staff will keep detailed records of the work performed so the [[643.2 Local Utility Adjustments - Public and Private#643.2.2.8 Maintaining Construction Records|railroad invoices]] can be verified in the following situations.

===643.4.2.4 Railroad Invoices - Highway Construction Projects===

On MoDOT construction projects in which, for example, a bridge is built over a railroad, MoDOT’s Railroad Projects Manager (RPM) receives the progressive and final invoices from the railroads. The RPM will forward all invoices to the RE. The RE’s office is responsible for reviewing and making recommendation for the payment for all railroad work performed for highway construction projects. Railroads may send progressive invoices for facility adjustments and for flagging services on a monthly basis. The project office shall determine the amount of flagging costs that need to be deducted from the contactor’s payments. The project office should process the invoices within one month of receipt when possible. Progress invoices are handled in the same manner as the [[643.2 Local Utility Adjustments - Public and Private#643.2.2.9.2 Partial Payment Invoices|utility partial payment invoices]]. Therefore, the RE sends progress payment memos directly to the Controller’s Office (copy memo to Division Construction and the RPM (not the DUE)). Final invoices are processed in the same manner as [[643.2 Local Utility Adjustments - Public and Private#643.2.2.9.3 Final Invoice|Utility Final Invoices]]. However, the RE will forward the following items to the Construction Division with a memo:

:* [https://epg.modot.org/forms/CM/C9_Daily_Utility_Report.pdf Daily Utility Reports (C-9)] and the
:* [https://epg.modot.org/forms/CM/C13_Final_Utility_Report.pdf Final Utility Report (C-13)]

The district construction office and the RPM also receive copy of the memo and attachments. If disputes are encountered between the contractor and the railroad representatives that cannot be resolved by the RE, or if questions arise regarding the intention of construction and maintenance agreements or railroad special provisions, the project office can contact the RPM.

User:Hoskir

Hoskir — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 16:21:19 GMT

Revisions

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:21, 1 July 2026
Line 38:		Line 38:

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238\|Revision Request 4238]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238\|Revision Request 4238]]

			[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4240\|Revision Request 4240]]

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235

Hoskir — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 16:13:11 GMT

236.13.12 Plan Submittal and Filing

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==236.13.12 Plan Submittal and Filing==
 A complete set of right of way plans includes a title sheet, typical section sheet(s), finished plan sheet(s), and any additional sheets needed to fully define and detail the required right of way, including easements, for the improvement. These plans must show the project’s outermost termini in stations. The limits of right of way acquisition, also shown in stations, must fall within the project’s beginning and ending termini. No design work should occur on new right of way outside the project termini. The District Engineer, as designated by the Chief Engineer (see Commission action of November 5,1993), or Assistant District Engineer (see Commission Policy - Execution of Documents Effective November 2, 2018) is responsible for approving the right of way plans. Approval of right of way plans is indicated by the District Engineer's signature and seal on the title sheet. The District Engineer's signature and seal are only required on the title sheet. When a consultant designs the plans, the title sheet is signed and sealed by a representative of the firm and the District Engineer. Right of way plans are only considered approved once the District Engineer signs and seals the title sheet.
@@ Line 11: / Line 14: @@
 <div id="Additionally, the project manager is responsible"></div>
 Additionally, the project manager is responsible for providing the results of the DGN Merger tool to the district’s Right of Way Manager. The DGN Merger tool should be run on the approved right of way plans and will provide the Right of Way Section polygons defining the shape of the right of way parcels to be purchased. Along with the file containing the polygons, the appropriate scale factor will also be provided. If any changes to the right of way plans occur after the tool’s information is provided to the Right of Way Manager, the project manager is responsible for having the DGN Merger tool run against the modified right of way plans and will provide the resulting file to the District Right of Way Manager. More information can be found at [http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Attachments/483/RW%20dgn%20to%20Spatial%20Editor%20Instructions.docx How to use the DGN Merger Tool].

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235

Hoskir — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 15:56:44 GMT

Created page with "==236.13.12 Plan Submittal and Filing== A complete set of right of way plans includes a title sheet, typical section sheet(s), finished plan sheet(s), and any additional sheets needed to fully define and detail the required right of way, including easements, for the improvement. These plans must show the project’s outermost termini in stations. The limits of right of way acquisition, also shown in stations, must fall within the project’s beginning and ending termini...."

New page

==236.13.12 Plan Submittal and Filing==
A complete set of right of way plans includes a title sheet, typical section sheet(s), finished plan sheet(s), and any additional sheets needed to fully define and detail the required right of way, including easements, for the improvement. These plans must show the project’s outermost termini in stations. The limits of right of way acquisition, also shown in stations, must fall within the project’s beginning and ending termini. No design work should occur on new right of way outside the project termini. The District Engineer, as designated by the Chief Engineer (see Commission action of November 5,1993), or Assistant District Engineer (see Commission Policy - Execution of Documents Effective November 2, 2018) is responsible for approving the right of way plans. Approval of right of way plans is indicated by the District Engineer's signature and seal on the title sheet. The District Engineer's signature and seal are only required on the title sheet. When a consultant designs the plans, the title sheet is signed and sealed by a representative of the firm and the District Engineer. Right of way plans are only considered approved once the District Engineer signs and seals the title sheet.

Approved right of way plans are submitted to the Design Division by email that includes the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/RW/Chapter%2013_Designing%20Right%20of%20Way%20Plans/Letter%20of%20Certification%20RW%20Plans%20Approval%20Form%20236.13.docx letter of approval] signed by the District Engineer. The email must contain the plans attached as Adobe Acrobat files (pdf.'s) or indicate the location of the electronic plans.

Details of the [https://www.modot.org/cadd-services process to save files in electronic format] are available. The electronic use and storage of right of way plans documents the history of acquisition and allows staff to access approved plans as needed.

Additionally, the specific role of the Transportation Project Manager in obtaining authority to acquire right of way on a project is found in [[236.3 Administration#236.3.4 Right of Way Acquisition Authority and Project Funding|EPG 236.3.4 Right of Way Acquisition Authority and Project Funding]].

The project manager should also ensure that the easement needs of utilities affected by the proposed improvement have been addressed prior to submission of the approved right of way plans to the Design Division (see [[643.2 Local Utility Adjustments - Public and Private#643.2.1.5 Right of Way|EPG 643.2.1.5 Right of Way]]).
<div id="Additionally, the project manager is responsible"></div>
Additionally, the project manager is responsible for providing the results of the DGN Merger tool to the district’s Right of Way Manager. The DGN Merger tool should be run on the approved right of way plans and will provide the Right of Way Section polygons defining the shape of the right of way parcels to be purchased. Along with the file containing the polygons, the appropriate scale factor will also be provided. If any changes to the right of way plans occur after the tool’s information is provided to the Right of Way Manager, the project manager is responsible for having the DGN Merger tool run against the modified right of way plans and will provide the resulting file to the District Right of Way Manager. More information can be found at [http://sharepoint/sites/de/epg/Lists/EPGResponse/Attachments/483/RW%20dgn%20to%20Spatial%20Editor%20Instructions.docx How to use the DGN Merger Tool].

User:Hoskir

Hoskir — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 15:52:42 GMT

Revisions

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:52, 1 July 2026
Line 30:		Line 30:

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225\|Revision Request 4225]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225\|Revision Request 4225]]

			[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235\|Revision Request 4235]]

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236\|Revision Request 4236]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236\|Revision Request 4236]]

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236

Hoskir — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:50:15 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:50, 30 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	::'''Intended Users:''' Intended users of this report are the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (the client), the ~~MoDOT~~, the ~~FHWA~~ and the United States Department of Transportation and persons authorized by the client. Although the ~~MoDOT~~ authorizes a copy of this appraisal report be provided to the owner of the subject property for information only, the owner is not an intended user as defined by USPAP.		<span style="background:#00FF00">Copy only 236.6.3.1 Standard Appraisal Format (only copy the intended users section)</span>

			::'''Intended Users:''' Intended users of this report are the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (the client), the Missouri Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration and the United States Department of Transportation and persons authorized by the client. Although the Missouri Department of Transportation authorizes a copy of this appraisal report be provided to the owner of the subject property for information only, the owner is not an intended user as defined by USPAP.

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236

Hoskir — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:45:58 GMT

Created page with "::'''Intended Users:''' Intended users of this report are the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (the client), the MoDOT, the FHWA and the United States Department of Transportation and persons authorized by the client. Although the MoDOT authorizes a copy of this appraisal report be provided to the owner of the subject property for information only, the owner is not an intended user as defined by USPAP."

New page

::'''Intended Users:''' Intended users of this report are the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (the client), the MoDOT, the FHWA and the United States Department of Transportation and persons authorized by the client. Although the MoDOT authorizes a copy of this appraisal report be provided to the owner of the subject property for information only, the owner is not an intended user as defined by USPAP.

User:Hoskir

Hoskir — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:44:33 GMT

Revisions

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:44, 30 June 2026
Line 30:		Line 30:

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225\|Revision Request 4225]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225\|Revision Request 4225]]

			[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236\|Revision Request 4236]]

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237\|Revision Request 4237]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237\|Revision Request 4237]]

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238\|Revision Request 4238]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238\|Revision Request 4238]]

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237

Hoskir — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 16:53:50 GMT

Show changes

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237

Hoskir — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:43:04 GMT

Created page with "{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto; text-align: center" |+ ! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2" | Available Right of Way Boilerplate Agreements1 ! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2" | What triggers the use of this agreement? When is it used? ! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2" | Who are the drafters? ! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2" | Who needs to review the document prior toexecution?2 ! styl..."

New page

{| border="1" class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto; text-align: center"
|+
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2" | Available Right of Way Boilerplate Agreements1
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2" | What triggers the use of this agreement? When is it used?
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2" | Who are the drafters?
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2" | Who needs to review the document prior toexecution?2
! style="background:#BEBEBE" colspan="3" | Who signs for MoDOT?3
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2" width="80" | Is acknowledge- ment by a notary public required?
! style="background:#BEBEBE" rowspan="2"| Link to Available Instructions
|-
! style="background:#BEBEBE" | Executing Signature
! style="background:#BEBEBE" | Approval as to Form
! style="background:#BEBEBE" | Attestation Signature
|-
| RW01_ Quitclaim_Deed_ (_MHTC_Grantor_) || MHTC conveying property || District ROW || Central Office ROW || In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy] || No || Yes || Yes || [[236.5_Property_Management|236.5 Property Management - Engineering Policy Guide]] [[236.4_Description_Writing_and_Titles|236.4 Description Writing and Titles - Engineering Policy Guide]]
|-
| TR64_ Quitclaim_Deed_ for_Access_Rights_ (_MHTC_Grantor_) || MHTC conveying access rights || District ROW || Central Office ROW || In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy] || No || Yes || Yes || -
|-
| RW02_ Quitclaim_Deed_ (_MHTC_Grantee_) || MHTC acquiring property || District ROW || District ROW || In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy] || No || No || Yes || [[236.4_Description_Writing_and_Titles|236.4 Description Writing and Titles - Engineering Policy Guide]]
|-
| RW03_ General_Warranty_ Deed_(_MHTC_Grantee_) || MHTC acquiring property || District ROW || District ROW || In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy] || No || No || Yes || [[236.4_Description_Writing_and_Titles|236.4 Description Writing and Titles - Engineering Policy Guide]]
|-
| TR65_ General_Warranty_Deed_ for_Access_Rights_ (_MHTC_Grantee_) || When change in access is requested || District ROW || District Traffic || In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy] || No || No || Yes || -
|-
| RW04_ General_Warranty_ Deed_(_MHTC_Grantor_) || MHTC conveying property || District ROW || Central Office ROW || In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || Yes || Yes || [[236.4_Description_Writing_and_Titles|236.4 Description Writing and Titles - Engineering Policy Guide]]
|-
| RW08_ Escrow_Agreement _742A || MHTC acquiring property using an escrow agent || District ROW || District ROW || In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy] || No || No || No || [[236.7_Negotiation|236.7 Negotiation - Engineering Policy Guide]]
|-
| RW10_ Tenant_Escrow_ Agreement_742B || MHTC acquiring interest from tenant using escrow agent || District ROW || District ROW || In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy] || No || No || No || [[236.7_Negotiation|236.7 Negotiation - Engineering Policy Guide]]
|-
|RW12_ Extension_of_ Possession_Agreement _564|| MHTC extending possession of property acquired|| District ROW || District ROW|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy] || No|| No|| No|| -
|-
|RW13_ Agreement_for_ Utility_Easement|| MHTC conveying utility easement ||Central Office ROW || Central Office ROW || In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| Yes || Yes|| Yes|| -
|-
|RW14_ Lease_of_ Premises_555|| MHTC leasing MHTC property to another party|| District ROW || Central Office ROW ||In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No|| No|| Yes|| -
|-
|RW15_ Release_of_ Structures_and_ Leasehold_727D|| MHTC acquiring tenant structure, like a billboard ||District ROW|| District ROW|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No|| No|| Yes|| -
|-
|RW16_ Proposal_for_ Appraisal_Work|| Requesting proposals from fee appraisers|| District ROW|| District ROW ||In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || No|| -
|-
|RW17_ RW_Appraisal_ Agreement_651|| Contracting with fee appraiser|| District ROW || District ROW|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || No|| -
|-
|RW18_ Supplemental_Appraisal _Agreement_652|| Changes made to executed fee appraiser contract ||District ROW || District ROW|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || No|| -
|-
|RW20_ RE_Purchase_ Agreement_744|| MHTC acquiring property without escrow agent|| District ROW || District ROW ||In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || No|| -
|-
|RW21_ Right_of_Entry|| Permission to enter upon private property|| District ROW|| District ROW|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || No|| -
|-
|RW22_ Sales_Agreement_545|| MHTC selling property for money|| District ROW || District ROW|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || No|| -
|-
|RW23_ Easement_for_ Highway_Purposes_474|| MHTC acquiring permant easement|| District ROW|| District ROW || In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || Yes|| -
|-
|RW24_ Temporary_Easement _for_Highway _Purposes_475|| MHTC acquiring temporary easement|| District ROW|| District ROW|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || Yes|| -
|-
|RW25_ Partial_Deed _of_Release|| MHTC acquiring property encumbered by lien|| District ROW|| District ROW ||In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || Yes || -
|-
|RW27_ Road_Relinquishment _Agreement_533|| MHTC relinquishes a roadway|| District ROW, Distrct Maint., Design, AE, PM, LPA Planning Specialist|| CO & District ROW, Design, Maint., Traffic|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| Yes|| Yes|| No|| [[236.14 Change in Route Status Report#236.14.6 Roadway Relinquishment Agreement|EPG 236.14.6]]
|-
|RW28_ Airspace_License _Agreement|| MHTC allowing something like a walking trail over the roadway or a tunnel below a roadway ||District ROW, Distrct Maint., District TP, AE, PM|| CO & District ROW, Design, Maint., Traffic|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| Yes|| Yes|| Yes|| [[236.5 Property Management#236.5.25 Leases, Licenses and Airspace License Agreements|EPG 236.5.25]]
|-
|RW29_ Exclusive_Right _to_Sell_Agreement|| MHTC contracting to sell property through broker|| District ROW|| District ROW|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || No|| -
|-
|RW31_ Mediation_Services _Agreement|| Agreement to hire a mediator|| District ROW|| District ROW|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || No|| -
|-
|RW33_ Proposal_for_ Contract_Negotiation_784|| Request proposals for fee negotiator|| District ROW || District ROW ||In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || No|| -
|-
|RW34_ Negotiator_Services_ Agreement_785|| Agreement to hire fee negotiator|| District ROW|| District ROW ||In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || No|| -
|-
|RW35_ Supplemental_Negotiation _Services_ Agreement_786|| Changing existing negotiator agreement ||District ROW|| District ROW ||In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || No|| -
|-

|RW37_ Trailway_License_Form|| MHTC allowing trail to be partially constructed on MHTC property|| District ROW, Distrct Maint., District TP, Distrct LPA,AE, PM|| CO ROW, Design, Maint., Traffic|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| Yes|| Yes|| Yes ||[[236.8 Relocation Assistance Program#236.8.11.4 Computations - Actual Rental Subsidy Payment Due Relocatee|EPG 236.8.11.4]]
|-
|RW39_ Voluntary_Annexation _Petition|| When MHTC agrees to voluntarily annex ROW|| District ROW || District ROW ||In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No|| No|| No|| -
|-
|RW40_ Acceptance_of _Conveyance|| When MHTC accepts property|| District ROW || District ROW || In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || Yes|| -
|-
|RW41_ Salvage_Agreement|| When owner salvages an acquired structure|| District ROW || District ROW|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || Yes|| -
|-
|RW42_ Acceptance_of_ Conveyance_by_ County_or_Other|| When property is conveyed to county or city ||District ROW|| Central Office ROW|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || Yes|| -
|-
|RW44_ Title_Company_ Services_Contract|| Agreement to hire title company|| District ROW || District ROW|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || No|| -
|-
|RW45_ City_Monument_Form|| When City erects welcome to sign on MHTC ROW|| District and CO ROW and Traffic ||CO ROW and Traffic|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| Yes || Yes || Yes|| [[:Category:941 Permits and Access Requests#941.5 Request by a City to Construct a “WELCOME TO” Monument|EPG 941.5]]
|-
|RW46_ Partial_Waiver_ and_Reset_Agreement|| When a billboard is reset rather than purchased|| Central Office and Distrct ROW-ODA|| District and CO ROW || In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No|| No|| Yes|| -
|-
|RW47_ Lease_of_ Premises_Agreement|| MHTC leasing non-MHTC property|| District ROW|| Central Office ROW & GS ||In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| Yes|| Yes|| No|| -
|-
|RW48_ Assignment_of_ Lease_of_Premises|| Lessee assigning lease of MHTC property|| District ROW || Central Office ROW & GS || In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No|| No|| Yes|| -
|-
| RW49_ Release_of_ Temporary_Easement_for_Highway_Purposes || Releasing a temporary easement || District ROW || District ROW || In accordance with [https://www.modot.org/mhtc-policies MHTC Policy] || No || No || Yes || -
|-
| RW50_ Mediation_ Services_Agreement || Mediation services in connection with the acquisition of right of way for highway construction || District ROW || District ROW || In accordance with [https://www.modot.org/mhtc-policies MHTC Policy] || Yes || Yes || No || -
|-
|RW51_ City_Monument_Form Installed|| When City erects welcome to sign on MHTC ROW|| District and CO ROW and Traffic ||CO ROW and Traffic|| In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| Yes || Yes || Yes|| [[:Category:941 Permits and Access Requests#941.5 Request by a City to Construct a “WELCOME TO” Monument|EPG 941.5]]
|-
|RW52_ Special_Warranty_ Deed_(_MHTC_Grantee_)|| MHTC acquiring property ||District ROW || District ROW ||In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || Yes || -
|-
|RW53_ Special_Warranty_ Deed_(_MHTC_Grantor_)|| MHTC conveying property|| District ROW|| Central Office ROW || In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || Yes || Yes || -
|-
|RW54_ Sales_Agreeement _(Nominal_Consideration)|| MHTC conveying property for $1|| District ROW|| District ROW || In accordance with [http://www.modot.org/about/MHTCPolicies.html MHTC Policy]|| No || No || No|| -
|-
|RW55 Release_of_Tenant Interest || When MHTC acquires interest from tenant|| District ROW || District ROW || District Engineer || No || No || No || -
|-
|RW56 Master_Services Agreement || Master Agreement for On-Call Consultant Contracts|| ROW Liaisons|| Asst. to the State Design Engineer-ROW and ROW Liaisons|| Director’s Office|| Yes|| Yes|| No|| -
|-
|RW57 MOU_for_on-Call Right || MOU for On-Call Consultant|| ROW Manager|| Asst. to the State Design Engineer-ROW and ROW Liaisons|| District Engineer/Division Head|| Yes|| Yes|| No|| -
|-
|RW58_ RW_Appraisal_ Review_Agreeement || Contracting with fee review appraiser|| District ROW|| District ROW || District Engineer|| No || No || No|| -
|-
|RW59_ ROW_Services Agreeement|| Consultant Contract via RFP|| ROW Manager|| Asst. to the State Design Engineer-ROW and ROW || District Office|| Yes || Yes || No|| -
|-
| RW60_ Trailway_License Agreement_Extension || MHTC allowing trail to be partially constructed on MHTC property || Maint., District TP, District LPA, AE, PM || CO ROW, Design, Maint., Traffic || Director's Office || Yes || Yes || No || [[236.8 Relocation Assistance Program#236.8.12.4 Advance Down Payment Assistance | EPG 236.8.12.4]]
|-
| RW61_City_Monument_License_Agreement_Extension || When City erects welcome to sign on MHTC ROW || District and CO ROW and Traffic || CO ROW and Traffic || In accordance with [https://www.modot.org/mhtc-policies MHTC Policy] || Yes || Yes || No || -
|-
| RW63_Welcome_Center_/_Rest_Area_Lease || MHTC leasing MHTC Welcome Center/Rest Areas || Central Office ROW || Central Office ROW || In accordance with [https://www.modot.org/mhtc-policies MHTC Policy] || Yes || Yes || No || -
|-
| colspan="9" align="left" | '''1''' Use the [https://netprod3.dot.missouri/eAgreements/Search/QuickSearch eAgreements site] to find and begin drafting the corresponding boilerplate agreement.
|-
| colspan="9" align="left" | '''2''' Any agreement that is changed from its original form must be reviewed by CCO. Please refer to [[:Category:153 Agreements and Contracts#153.1.4 Step 3, Chief Counsel’s Office (CCO) Review|EPG 153.1.4 Step 3, Chief Counsel’s Office (CCO) Review]] and throughout EPG 153 for guidance on when to contact CCO. When in doubt, do not hesitate to contact CCO for guidance.
|-
| colspan="9" align="left" | '''3''' Can also be found in the Execution of Documents Policy
|}

[[Category:153 Agreements and Contracts|153.20]]

User:Hoskir

Hoskir — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:20:02 GMT

Revisions

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:20, 30 June 2026
Line 30:		Line 30:

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225\|Revision Request 4225]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225\|Revision Request 4225]]

			[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237\|Revision Request 4237]]

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238\|Revision Request 4238]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238\|Revision Request 4238]]

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202

Hoskir — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 13:55:49 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:55, 30 June 2026
Line 118:		Line 118:
	To limit the number of structures on Commission right of way, opportunities to locate the LPRs and PTZs off of right of way is the preferred option, followed by an installation location on an existing structure already on right of way. If it is determined a new stand-alone structure is required to facilitate the LPR and PTZ deployment, the following guidance shall be followed:		To limit the number of structures on Commission right of way, opportunities to locate the LPRs and PTZs off of right of way is the preferred option, followed by an installation location on an existing structure already on right of way. If it is determined a new stand-alone structure is required to facilitate the LPR and PTZ deployment, the following guidance shall be followed:
	* The district traffic shall work with the local agency to find a location which meets the requirements outlined on the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/General_LPR_Typical_Details.pdf General LPR Typical Details] or [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Flock_LPR_Typical_Details.pdf Flock LPR Typical Details].		* The district traffic shall work with the local agency to find a location which meets the requirements outlined on the [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/General_LPR_Typical_Details.pdf General LPR Typical Details] or [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/TS/Flock_LPR_Typical_Details.pdf Flock LPR Typical Details].
	* Stand-Alone LPR and PTZ structures shall be properly spaced away from ~~other~~ traffic control devices, which can include but are not limited to highway signs, ~~traffic signal~~, roadway lighting poles~~, etc~~.:		* Stand-Alone LPR and PTZ structures shall be properly spaced away from traffic control devices, which can include but are not limited to highway signs and traffic signals, as well as other structures, such as roadway lighting poles.
	:○ No closer than 200 feet upstream of a traffic control device.		:○ No closer than 800 feet upstream of a traffic control device on freeways or expressways.
	:○ No closer than 50 feet downstream of a traffic control device.		:○ No closer than 200 feet upstream of a traffic control device on all other roadways.
			:○ No closer than 50 feet upstream of other roadway structures.
			:○ No closer than 50 feet downstream of a traffic control device or other roadway structure.
	* Installation and maintenance access should be via adjacent private property or secondary roadways for divided highway, unless physically impossible.		* Installation and maintenance access should be via adjacent private property or secondary roadways for divided highway, unless physically impossible.

	<span style="background:#00FF00">No changes to 941.10.3</span>		<span style="background:#00FF00">No changes to 941.10.3</span>

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225

Hoskir — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 13:40:53 GMT

643.2.3 Determination of Existing Utilities

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:40, 30 June 2026
Line 362:		Line 362:
	For projects with scopes that have potential for utility conflicts, the minimum level of effort required is SUE Quality Level D. Locations of existing utilities are determined by requesting locates through Missouri 811, also known as the “One-Call” process. Missouri 811 locating requests should be carefully considered for the scope of work of the project. When necessary, the location of existing utilities should be established by a field survey of locate markings and features and shown on the roadway plans. Higher level SUE Quality Levels can be used on any project. Adjustment cost savings, whether to the MoDOT or to the utility owner, are beneficial to the taxpayer. Good SUE projects are typically urban in nature, or in congested areas, where the project footprint is to be minimized, or anytime accurate vertical and horizontal location of the utility facility might allow a design to avoid the utility facility thus preventing the need for the adjustment. The SUE process combines civil engineering, surveying, and geophysics. It utilizes several technologies, including vacuum excavation and surface geophysics.		For projects with scopes that have potential for utility conflicts, the minimum level of effort required is SUE Quality Level D. Locations of existing utilities are determined by requesting locates through Missouri 811, also known as the “One-Call” process. Missouri 811 locating requests should be carefully considered for the scope of work of the project. When necessary, the location of existing utilities should be established by a field survey of locate markings and features and shown on the roadway plans. Higher level SUE Quality Levels can be used on any project. Adjustment cost savings, whether to the MoDOT or to the utility owner, are beneficial to the taxpayer. Good SUE projects are typically urban in nature, or in congested areas, where the project footprint is to be minimized, or anytime accurate vertical and horizontal location of the utility facility might allow a design to avoid the utility facility thus preventing the need for the adjustment. The SUE process combines civil engineering, surveying, and geophysics. It utilizes several technologies, including vacuum excavation and surface geophysics.

	When proposed excavation or installation of subsurface features (drainage, equipment bases, etc.) falls within three feet (3’) of a marked Missouri 811 line, soft digging (hand digging, potholing, vacuum methods, pressurized air/water jetting, pneumatic hand tools, etc.) is required to more exactly locate the utility facility both horizontally and vertically. Utility facilities present within the right of way by permit, should be investigated by the utility owner. ~~Utility~~ facilities that would be reimbursable or partially reimbursable as defined in EP 643.2.8 will be investigated by MoDOT.		When proposed excavation or installation of subsurface features (drainage, equipment bases, etc.) falls within three feet (3’) of a marked Missouri 811 line, soft digging (hand digging, potholing, vacuum methods, pressurized air/water jetting, pneumatic hand tools, etc.) is required to more exactly locate the utility facility both horizontally and vertically. Utility facilities present within the right of way by permit, should be investigated by the utility owner. The SUE of utility facilities that would be reimbursable or partially reimbursable as defined in [[#643.2.8_Cost_Responsibility\|EPG 643.2.8]] will be investigated by MoDOT is a reimbursable expense to the utility owner. MoDOT may undertake the SUE investigation of these utility facilities utilizing a SUE provider.

	==643.2.4 Conflict Determination==		==643.2.4 Conflict Determination==

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238

Hoskir — Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:34:05 GMT

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==106.3.2.59.2 Inertial Profiler Certification Procedures==
 Each IP used for construction acceptance testing on a MoDOT project shall be annually certified (verified) at a MoDOT approved certified test site in accordance with AASHTO R 56. The test site will have a known IRI in two wheel paths, measured with a reference profiler.
@@ Line 18: / Line 20: @@
 Inertial profilers that do not pass the certification test shall be corrected offsite by their respective owners and recertified. Inertial profilers that are not certified on an annual basis shall not be used for QC or QA testing.

User:Hoskir

Hoskir — Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:21:54 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:21, 29 June 2026
Line 30:		Line 30:

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225\|Revision Request 4225]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225\|Revision Request 4225]]

			[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238\|Revision Request 4238]]

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238

Hoskir — Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:20:39 GMT

Created page with "==106.3.2.59.2 Inertial Profiler Certification Procedures== Each IP used for construction acceptance testing on a MoDOT project shall be annually certified (verified) at a MoDOT approved certified test site in accordance with AASHTO R 56. The test site will have a known IRI in two wheel paths, measured with a reference profiler. The MoDOT approved certification site shall issue a passing certification letter for the profiler that list the following: * Name, Address, and..."

New page

==106.3.2.59.2 Inertial Profiler Certification Procedures==
Each IP used for construction acceptance testing on a MoDOT project shall be annually certified (verified) at a MoDOT approved certified test site in accordance with AASHTO R 56. The test site will have a known IRI in two wheel paths, measured with a reference profiler.

The MoDOT approved certification site shall issue a passing certification letter for the profiler that list the following:
* Name, Address, and Company of Profiler Operator
* Profiler ID, Manufacturer, and Model Number
* Profiler Type
* Lazer Serial Numbers
* Host Vehicle Description and VIN number

The certification letter shall list the final test results of the inertial profiler for repeatability and accuracy in accordance with AASHTO R 56 as follows:
* Minimum average cross-correlation repeatability shall be 92%.
* Minimum average cross-correlation accuracy shall be 90%.

The certification letter shall be sent to MoDOT’s Technician Certification Program Coordinator at the following email address: TechCert@modot.mo.gov.

MoDOT’s Technical Certification Program Coordinator will store a copy of the certification letter on MoDOT’s SharePoint site. The Profiler Operator shall have a copy of the certification letter available upon request.

Inertial profilers that do not pass the certification test shall be corrected offsite by their respective owners and recertified. Inertial profilers that are not certified on an annual basis shall not be used for QC or QA testing.

Functional Intersection Area

Hoskir — Mon, 29 Jun 2026 12:53:28 GMT

corrected spelling error per email

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:53, 29 June 2026
Line 15:		Line 15:
	Ideally, driveways and entrances should not be located within the functional area of an intersection or in the influence area of an adjacent driveway or entrance.		Ideally, driveways and entrances should not be located within the functional area of an intersection or in the influence area of an adjacent driveway or entrance.

	~~Addition~~ information concerning the functional area of intersections is contained in [[940.3 Clearance of Functional Areas of Interchanges\|EPG 940.3 Clearance of Functional Areas of Interchanges]].		Additional information concerning the functional area of intersections is contained in [[940.3 Clearance of Functional Areas of Interchanges\|EPG 940.3 Clearance of Functional Areas of Interchanges]].

903.2 Regulatory Signs and Barricades (MUTCD Chapter 2B)

Legged1 — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 16:24:13 GMT

{{SpanID|903.2.3}}903.2.3 Size of Regulatory Signs (MUTCD Section 2B.03): added link

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:24, 26 June 2026
Line 594:		Line 594:
	! style="text-align:left;"\| Right Turn Signal		! style="text-align:left;"\| Right Turn Signal
	\| R10-10R		\| R10-10R
	\| -		\| [[#903.2.48\|903.2.48]]
	\| 30 X 36		\| 30 X 36
	\| -		\| -

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225

Hoskir — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:52:04 GMT

643.1.7.5 Water Works Structures

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:52, 26 June 2026
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 102:		Line 102:
	Exceptions may be made for encasement as listed in [[#643.1.4.2_Exceptions_to_Encasement\|EPG 643.1.4.2]].		Exceptions may be made for encasement as listed in [[#643.1.4.2_Exceptions_to_Encasement\|EPG 643.1.4.2]].

	=====643.1.3.1.~~1.3~~ Parallel Installations along the Interstate or Other Major Freeways/Expressways=====		====643.1.3.1.2 Parallel Installations along the Interstate or Other Major Freeways/Expressways====
	New parallel installations on the right of way may be permitted only where an outer roadway exists, provided that poles are within two feet (2') of the normal right of way line and underground utility facilities are within the utility corridor, and provided that the utility facility can be installed and maintained between the outer roadway and the right of way line. Existing overhead or underground utility facilities that parallel an existing roadway which will be incorporated into a completed highway as an outer roadway may remain in place if all maintenance and service can be performed from an outer roadway and the existing location does not interfere with construction, maintenance, or operation of the completed highway. If an existing parallel utility facility needs to be relocated so as to not interfere with the construction, maintenance, or operation of the completed interstate or other major freeway, poles may be located withing five feet (5’) of the right of way line.		New parallel installations on the right of way may be permitted only where an outer roadway exists, provided that poles are within two feet (2') of the normal right of way line and underground utility facilities are within the utility corridor, and provided that the utility facility can be installed and maintained between the outer roadway and the right of way line. Existing overhead or underground utility facilities that parallel an existing roadway which will be incorporated into a completed highway as an outer roadway may remain in place if all maintenance and service can be performed from an outer roadway and the existing location does not interfere with construction, maintenance, or operation of the completed highway. If an existing parallel utility facility needs to be relocated so as to not interfere with the construction, maintenance, or operation of the completed interstate or other major freeway, poles may be located withing five feet (5’) of the right of way line.

	Underground utility facilities are expected to be buried within the utility corridor of sight distance triangles (SDTs) at roadway intersections unless granted a variance. Overhead utility facilities may be allowed to span intersecting roadways with SDTs provided the poles, or supports, are located outside the SDT.		Underground utility facilities are expected to be buried within the utility corridor of sight distance triangles (SDTs) at roadway intersections unless granted a variance. Overhead utility facilities may be allowed to span intersecting roadways with SDTs provided the poles, or supports, are located outside the SDT.

	=====643.1.3.1.~~1.4~~ Sanitary Sewers within the Right of Way of Interstates or Other Major Freeways/Expressways=====		====643.1.3.1.3 Sanitary Sewers within the Right of Way of Interstates or Other Major Freeways/Expressways====
	New installations of sanitary sewers should follow the applicable guidelines for either underground crossings or parallel installations as appropriate. Existing gravity trunk sanitary sewers should be considered individually and removed or left in place contingent upon its age, condition, feasibility of moving, and maintenance access. Encasement of existing trunk sewers left in place may be required for questionable condition, protection during construction, or heavy fills.		New installations of sanitary sewers should follow the applicable guidelines for either underground crossings or parallel installations as appropriate. Existing gravity trunk sanitary sewers should be considered individually and removed or left in place contingent upon its age, condition, feasibility of moving, and maintenance access. Encasement of existing trunk sewers left in place may be required for questionable condition, protection during construction, or heavy fills.

Line 286:		Line 286:
	The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) Safe Drinking Water Commission via 10 CSR 60-10 and Clean Water Commission via 10 CSR 20-8 govern the design of water and sewer lines in the vicinity of one another. Basic criteria are outlined below for information, and details are contained within the regulations. MoDOT is not responsible for providing or acquiring adequate right of way for utility owners to comply with MoDNR requirements.		The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) Safe Drinking Water Commission via 10 CSR 60-10 and Clean Water Commission via 10 CSR 20-8 govern the design of water and sewer lines in the vicinity of one another. Basic criteria are outlined below for information, and details are contained within the regulations. MoDOT is not responsible for providing or acquiring adequate right of way for utility owners to comply with MoDNR requirements.

	===643.1.7.1 ~~Water and Sewer~~ Separations===		===643.1.7.1 Line Separations===
	====643.1.7.1.1 Horizontal====		====643.1.7.1.1 Horizontal====
	Sanitary and storm sewers are to be laid at least ten feet (10’) horizontally measured from outside edge to outside edge from any existing or proposed water main. In cases where it is not practical to maintain ten feet (10’) of separation, installation of the water main closer to the sewer is acceptable where the water main is installed in a separate trench or on an undisturbed earth shelf located on one (1) side of the sewer at an elevation so the bottom of the water main is at least eighteen inches (18”) above the top of the sewer.		Sanitary and storm sewers are to be laid at least ten feet (10’) horizontally measured from outside edge to outside edge from any existing or proposed water main. In cases where it is not practical to maintain ten feet (10’) of separation, installation of the water main closer to the sewer is acceptable where the water main is installed in a separate trench or on an undisturbed earth shelf located on one (1) side of the sewer at an elevation so the bottom of the water main is at least eighteen inches (18”) above the top of the sewer.

	===643.1.7.2 Crossings===		====643.1.7.1.2 Crossings====
	Water mains are to be laid to provide a minimum vertical distance of eighteen inches (18”) vertically measured outside edge to edge from sanitary or storm sewers. This is the case whether the water main is above or below the sewer. One (1) full length of water pipe must be located so both joints will be as far from the sanitary or storm sewer line as possible. Special structural support for the water main or sanitary or sewer main may be required.		Water mains are to be laid to provide a minimum vertical distance of eighteen inches (18”) vertically measured outside edge to edge from sanitary or storm sewers. This is the case whether the water main is above or below the sewer. One (1) full length of water pipe must be located so both joints will be as far from the sanitary or storm sewer line as possible. Special structural support for the water main or sanitary or sewer main may be required.

	===643.1.7.3 Exception===		====643.1.7.1.3 Exception====
	When it is impossible to obtain proper horizontal and vertical separation as stipulated, the sewer will be designed and constructed equal to water pipe and will be pressure-tested to assure it is watertight prior to backfilling.		When it is impossible to obtain proper horizontal and vertical separation as stipulated, the sewer will be designed and constructed equal to water pipe and will be pressure-tested to assure it is watertight prior to backfilling.

	===643.1.7.4 Water Supply Interconnections===		===643.1.7.2 Water Supply Interconnections===
	No physical connection is permitted between a public or private potable water supply system and any sanitary or storm sewer or appurtenance that would permit the passage of any sewage or polluted water into the water supply. No water pipe is permitted to pass through or come in contact with any part of a sanitary sewer manhole.		No physical connection is permitted between a public or private potable water supply system and any sanitary or storm sewer or appurtenance that would permit the passage of any sewage or polluted water into the water supply. No water pipe is permitted to pass through or come in contact with any part of a sanitary sewer manhole.

	===643.1.7.5 Water Works Structures===		===643.1.7.3 Water Works Structures===
	Sewers are not permitted to be installed within fifty feet (50’) in any direction from any existing or proposed public water supply well or other water supply sources or structures.		Sewers are not permitted to be installed within fifty feet (50’) in any direction from any existing or proposed public water supply well or other water supply sources or structures.

751.40 LFD Widening and Repair

Hoskir — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 13:53:08 GMT

751.40.8.5.1.1 Design Criteria

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:53, 25 June 2026
Line 2,063:		Line 2,063:
	\|<math>\, j</math>\|\|= <math>\, 1 - k/3</math>		\|<math>\, j</math>\|\|= <math>\, 1 - k/3</math>
	\|-		\|-
	\|<math>\, k</math>\|\|= <math>\, \sqrt {2n\rho + (n \rho)^2 - n \rho}</math>		\|<math>\, k</math>\|\|= <math>\, \sqrt {2n\rho + (n \rho)^2} - n \rho</math>
	\|-		\|-
	\|<math>\, n</math>\|\|= <math>\, E_S/E_C</math>		\|<math>\, n</math>\|\|= <math>\, E_S/E_C</math>

User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225

Hoskir — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 16:18:10 GMT

643.2.13.3 PS&E Submittal

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:08, 2 July 2026
Line 322:		Line 322:
	'''Support. '''[[#903.1.12\|EPG 903.1.12]] contains information regarding the use of light-emitting diode (LED) units within the border of a sign.		'''Support. '''[[#903.1.12\|EPG 903.1.12]] contains information regarding the use of light-emitting diode (LED) units within the border of a sign.

	=={{SpanID\|903.1.11}}903.1.11 Enhanced Conspicuity for ~~Standards~~ Signs (MUTCD Section 2A.11)==		=={{SpanID\|903.1.11}}903.1.11 Enhanced Conspicuity for Standard Signs (MUTCD Section 2A.11)==

	'''Option. '''Based upon engineering judgment, where the improvement of the conspicuity of a standard regulatory, warning, or guide sign is desired, any of the following methods may be used, as appropriate, to enhance the sign’s conspicuity (see [[#fig903-1-11\|Figure 903.1.11]]):		'''Option. '''Based upon engineering judgment, where the improvement of the conspicuity of a standard regulatory, warning, or guide sign is desired, any of the following methods may be used, as appropriate, to enhance the sign’s conspicuity (see [[#fig903-1-11\|Figure 903.1.11]]):

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:26, 2 July 2026
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= <big>'''Revisions'''</big> =		= <big>'''Revisions'''</big> =

			[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3818\|Revision Request 3818 (ON HOLD)]]

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3902\|Revision Request 3902 (ON HOLD)]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 3902\|Revision Request 3902 (ON HOLD)]]
Line 9:		Line 11:
	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4036\|Revision Request 4036 (ON HOLD)]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4036\|Revision Request 4036 (ON HOLD)]]

	~~<!--~~ [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4136\|Revision Request 4136 (ON HOLD)]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4136\|Revision Request 4136 (ON HOLD)]]
	~~-->~~
	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4165\|Revision Request 4165]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4165\|Revision Request 4165]]

	~~<!--~~ [[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4175\|Revision Request 4175 (ON HOLD)]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4175\|Revision Request 4175 (ON HOLD)]]
	~~-->~~
	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4190\|Revision Request 4190]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4190\|Revision Request 4190]]

Line 20:		Line 22:

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202\|Revision Request 4202]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4202\|Revision Request 4202]]

			[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4209\|Revision Request 4209 (New TM)]]

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4213\|Revision Request 4213]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4213\|Revision Request 4213]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:58, 1 July 2026
Line 30:		Line 30:

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225\|Revision Request 4225]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225\|Revision Request 4225]]

			[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4230\|Revision Request 4230]]

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235\|Revision Request 4235]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235\|Revision Request 4235]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:52, 1 July 2026
Line 30:		Line 30:

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225\|Revision Request 4225]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225\|Revision Request 4225]]

			[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4235\|Revision Request 4235]]

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236\|Revision Request 4236]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236\|Revision Request 4236]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:44, 30 June 2026
Line 30:		Line 30:

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225\|Revision Request 4225]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4225\|Revision Request 4225]]

			[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4236\|Revision Request 4236]]

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237\|Revision Request 4237]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4237\|Revision Request 4237]]

	[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238\|Revision Request 4238]]		[[User:Hoskir/Revision Request 4238\|Revision Request 4238]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:18, 23 June 2026
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 490:		Line 490:

	====643.2.8.1.7 Second Moves====		====643.2.8.1.7 Second Moves====
	If the Commission requires additional work to a utility facility after the facility has been relocated or adjusted in accordance with a plan of adjustment approved by the Commission for a single project number, the Commission is responsible for the cost of the additional work regardless of whether the initial adjustment was Commission responsibility as outlined in other parts of [[~~643.2_Local_Utility_Adjustments_-_Public_and_Private~~#643.2.8.~~1_Federalizing_Funds_for_Preliminary_Engineering~~\|643.2.8.1]].		If the Commission requires additional work to a utility facility after the facility has been relocated or adjusted in accordance with a plan of adjustment approved by the Commission for a single project number, the Commission is responsible for the cost of the additional work regardless of whether the initial adjustment was Commission responsibility as outlined in other parts of [[#643.2.8.1_Commission_Responsibility\|643.2.8.1]].

	The purpose of the policy is to encourage utilities to relocate early rather than waiting until plans are published for bidding. The policy eliminates the utility having to relocate twice at its own expense because of late changes in the design. It is best to have utilities relocated prior to construction, and this policy helps achieve that goal. Therefore, it is imperative that the designer notifies district utilities staff as soon as possible of any changes made after these plans have been sent. If notified immediately, it may be possible to inform the utility owner prior to their final design thereby eliminating a second move.		The purpose of the policy is to encourage utilities to relocate early rather than waiting until plans are published for bidding. The policy eliminates the utility having to relocate twice at its own expense because of late changes in the design. It is best to have utilities relocated prior to construction, and this policy helps achieve that goal. Therefore, it is imperative that the designer notifies district utilities staff as soon as possible of any changes made after these plans have been sent. If notified immediately, it may be possible to inform the utility owner prior to their final design thereby eliminating a second move.
Line 617:		Line 617:
	Whenever the Commission is responsible for the cost of the necessary adjustments to allow highway construction, an agreement is required. If a Master Reimbursable Utility Agreement (see [[#643.2.12.2_Master_Reimbursable_Utility_Agreements\|EPG 643.2.12.2]]) has not been executed with the utility owner, a Project Specific Agreement (see [[#643.2.12.3_Project_Specific_Agreements\|EPG 643.2.12.3]]) is executed between the utility owner and the Commission. In some cases, it may be more practical for the Commission to include adjustment of utilities into a Commission administered contract. A Utility Agreement - Actual Cost (For Utility Work That is to be Included in the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission's Road Project) (see [[#643.2.12.4_Agreement_for_Utility_Work_Included_in_Roadway_Improvement_Project\|EPG 643.2.12.4]]). Agreements include a plan of adjustment (Exhibit “A”), cost estimate (Exhibit “B”), and schedule (Exhibit “C”).		Whenever the Commission is responsible for the cost of the necessary adjustments to allow highway construction, an agreement is required. If a Master Reimbursable Utility Agreement (see [[#643.2.12.2_Master_Reimbursable_Utility_Agreements\|EPG 643.2.12.2]]) has not been executed with the utility owner, a Project Specific Agreement (see [[#643.2.12.3_Project_Specific_Agreements\|EPG 643.2.12.3]]) is executed between the utility owner and the Commission. In some cases, it may be more practical for the Commission to include adjustment of utilities into a Commission administered contract. A Utility Agreement - Actual Cost (For Utility Work That is to be Included in the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission's Road Project) (see [[#643.2.12.4_Agreement_for_Utility_Work_Included_in_Roadway_Improvement_Project\|EPG 643.2.12.4]]). Agreements include a plan of adjustment (Exhibit “A”), cost estimate (Exhibit “B”), and schedule (Exhibit “C”).

	The Utility Agreement boilerplate forms have been approved by the Chief Counsel’s Office (CCO). They are identified in the upper left-hand corner of each agreement by an identifier such as CCO Form: UT01 for the Master Reimbursable Utility Agreement. CCO updates these agreements as necessary. They serve as a guide in the preparation of the agreement to be executed with the utility owner for the adjustments required to their utility facilities to accommodate the proposed roadway improvement project. District utilities staff should use the latest version of the agreement found in [https://netprod3.dot.missouri/eAgreements/Search/QuickSearch eAgreements] in drafting an agreement with utility owners. A list of utility agreements and detailed information concerning the sequence for preparing and executing an agreement is available in ~~EPG~~ [[:Category:153_Agreements_and_Contracts\|153 Agreements and Contracts]].		The Utility Agreement boilerplate forms have been approved by the Chief Counsel’s Office (CCO). They are identified in the upper left-hand corner of each agreement by an identifier such as CCO Form: UT01 for the Master Reimbursable Utility Agreement. CCO updates these agreements as necessary. They serve as a guide in the preparation of the agreement to be executed with the utility owner for the adjustments required to their utility facilities to accommodate the proposed roadway improvement project. District utilities staff should use the latest version of the agreement found in [https://netprod3.dot.missouri/eAgreements/Search/QuickSearch eAgreements] in drafting an agreement with utility owners. A list of utility agreements and detailed information concerning the sequence for preparing and executing an agreement is available in [[:Category:153_Agreements_and_Contracts\|EPG 153 Agreements and Contracts]].

	These forms are to be used word for word. Revisions or additions are only made to address specific project details. The intent of each paragraph must be retained, although specific words may be revised to fit the particular situation. No paragraphs are deleted without prior approval from CCO. For guidance on acceptance of liability, refer to the [[:Category:153_Agreements_and_Contracts#153.1.1.2_Acceptance_of_Liability_Policy_(MoDOT_Access_Only)\|Acceptance of Liability Policy]] at the CCO SharePoint page. Drafts of agreements having major revisions or complications are to be submitted, with supporting data, to Design Division for comment and approval.		These forms are to be used word for word. Revisions or additions are only made to address specific project details. The intent of each paragraph must be retained, although specific words may be revised to fit the particular situation. No paragraphs are deleted without prior approval from CCO. For guidance on acceptance of liability, refer to the [[:Category:153_Agreements_and_Contracts#153.1.1.2_Acceptance_of_Liability_Policy_(MoDOT_Access_Only)\|Acceptance of Liability Policy]] at the CCO SharePoint page. Drafts of agreements having major revisions or complications are to be submitted, with supporting data, to Design Division for comment and approval.
Line 635:		Line 635:

	===643.2.12.2 Master Reimbursable Utility Agreements===		===643.2.12.2 Master Reimbursable Utility Agreements===
	The UT01: Master Reimbursable Utility Agreement (MRUA) is a statewide agreement that has been executed by the utility owner and the Commission for all future reimbursable utility adjustments between both parties. Once a MRUA is executed, no other utility agreements are required on design-bid-build projects. The district utilities staff should encourage utility owners to enter into a MRUA with the Commission to reduce potential future delays in executing a project specific agreement. A list of previously executed [https://modotgov.sharepoint.com/sites/DE/Utilities/Agreements/MRUA%20-%20Existing?csf=1&web=1&e=4LJHoa Master Reimbursable Utility Agreements (Modot Access Only)] is available. District utilities staff should add newly executed agreements to this list. The MRUA can be employed as either an actual cost ([[#643.2.12.3.1_Actual_Cost_Agreements\|EPG 643.2.12.3.1]]) or lump sum ([[#643.2.12.3.2_Lump_Sum_Agreements\|EPG 643.2.12.3.2]]) agreement. When the reimbursable adjustment will utilize a MRUA, the district utilities staff will prepare a MRUA correspondence letter (“letter agreement”) referencing the executed MRUA. A copy of the MRUA correspondence letter should be saved in MoProjects for reference by Financial Services, the district construction office, and the district staff responsible for inspection of utility adjustments. All project specific items such as type of agreement (actual cost or lump sum), plan of adjustment, estimated total cost, cost allocation, and schedule are addressed in the MRUA correspondence letter from the district utilities staff to the utility owner. A flowchart of the MRUA process is available.		The UT01: Master Reimbursable Utility Agreement (MRUA) is a statewide agreement that has been executed by the utility owner and the Commission for all future reimbursable utility adjustments between both parties. Once a MRUA is executed, no other utility agreements are required on design-bid-build projects. The district utilities staff should encourage utility owners to enter into a MRUA with the Commission to reduce potential future delays in executing a project specific agreement. A list of previously executed [https://modotgov.sharepoint.com/sites/DE/Utilities/Agreements/MRUA%20-%20Existing?csf=1&web=1&e=4LJHoa Master Reimbursable Utility Agreements (Modot Access Only)] is available. District utilities staff should add newly executed agreements to this list. The MRUA can be employed as either an actual cost ([[#643.2.12.3.1_Actual_Cost_Agreements\|EPG 643.2.12.3.1]]) or lump sum ([[#643.2.12.3.2_Lump_Sum_Agreements\|EPG 643.2.12.3.2]]) agreement. When the reimbursable adjustment will utilize a MRUA, the district utilities staff will prepare a MRUA correspondence letter (“letter agreement”) referencing the executed MRUA. A copy of the MRUA correspondence letter should be saved in MoProjects for reference by Financial Services, the district construction office, and the district staff responsible for inspection of utility adjustments. All project specific items such as type of agreement (actual cost or lump sum), plan of adjustment, estimated total cost, cost allocation, and schedule are addressed in the MRUA correspondence letter from the district utilities staff to the utility owner. A [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/DE/flowchart.pdf flowchart of the MRUA process] is available.

	===643.2.12.3 Project Specific Agreements===		===643.2.12.3 Project Specific Agreements===
Line 641:		Line 641:

	====643.2.12.3.1 Actual Cost Agreements====		====643.2.12.3.1 Actual Cost Agreements====
	The UT03: Utility Agreement – Actual Cost is used when detailed estimates are not practical or costs appear to be questionable. Details on actual cost estimates can be found at [[#643.2.12.3.~~1_Actual_Cost_Agreements~~\|EPG 643.2.9.2.1 Actual Cost Estimates]]. Once the final invoice on a UT03 is submitted to Financial Services, district utilities staff should change the status on the agreement in eAgreements to completed.		The UT03: Utility Agreement – Actual Cost is used when detailed estimates are not practical or costs appear to be questionable. Details on actual cost estimates can be found at [[#643.2.9.2.1_Actual_Cost_Estimate\|EPG 643.2.9.2.1 Actual Cost Estimates]]. Once the final invoice on a UT03 is submitted to Financial Services, district utilities staff should change the status on the agreement in eAgreements to completed.

	====643.2.12.3.2 Lump Sum Agreements====		====643.2.12.3.2 Lump Sum Agreements====
Line 699:		Line 699:

	===643.2.13.3 PS&E Submittal===		===643.2.13.3 PS&E Submittal===
	In the District Final Plans Submittal Checklist (D-12), the TPM should note any issues related to existing utility facilities or the adjustment of utility facilities either shown or not shown on the plans. Projects with “No Utility Impacts” such as some overlays, striping, bridge washing, etc. do not need a Utility Status Letter or Utility JSP. The D-12 is used for these projects. In the D-12, under Project Details – “Utilities”, the note “NO” is selected and under “Status”, select “Clear”. For all other projects, the district utilities staff will write a Utility Status Letter. The TPM will include the Utility Status Letter with the submittal of the final plans to the Design Division. The Utility Status will be defined as:		In the District Final Plans Submittal Checklist (D-12), the TPM should note any issues related to existing utility facilities or the adjustment of utility facilities either shown or not shown on the plans. Projects with “No Utility Impacts” such as some overlays, striping, bridge washing, etc. do not need a Utility Status Letter or Utility JSP. The D-12 is used for these projects. In the D-12, under Project Details – “Utilities”, the note “NO” is selected and under “Status”, select “Clear”. For all other projects, the district utilities staff will write a [https://epg.modot.org/forms/general_files/DE/utilitystatusletter Utility Status Letter]. The TPM will include the Utility Status Letter with the submittal of the final plans to the Design Division. The Utility Status will be defined as:
	# Utility facilities are present, but no conflict is anticipated with the highway construction project. Or,		# Utility facilities are present, but no conflict is anticipated with the highway construction project. Or,
	# All utility facilities requiring adjustment to allow highway construction have been physically adjusted on the project. Or,		# All utility facilities requiring adjustment to allow highway construction have been physically adjusted on the project. Or,