Volume 9, Issue 5 September | October 2013
CLEANER CONCRETE IS ON THE WAY See story on page 6
2
Georgia Contractor
GEORGIA
CONTRACTOR
w w w. t h e g e o r g i a c o n t r a c t o r . c o m Editor-in-Chief: Roland Petersen-Frey Managing Editor: Daniel Simmons | (770) 521-8877 Art Director: Pamela Petersen-Frey | (770) 521-8877 The Georgia Contractor is published bi-monthly on a calendar year basis. It is a magazine designed around the construction industry associations and their members. It is supported by associations and their members. Executive, editorial, circulation, and advertising offices: 1154 Lower Birmingham Road, Canton, Georgia 30115 • Phone: (770) 521-8877 • Fax: (770) 521-0406 e-mail: rfrey@a4inc.com. Send address changes to your association and/or to A4 Inc. Opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of any of the associations or publisher nor do they accept responsibility for errors of content or omission and, as a matter of policy, neither do they endorse products or advertisements appearing herein. Parts of this magazine may be reproduced with the written consent of the publisher.
ADVERTISEMENTS
On The Cover ~ Concrete being placed by pump on the 28th floor pool level of the Sovereign high rise tower in Buckhead. See the story on page 6.
Albany Tech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 CLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Deemer, Dana & Froehle LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Engineered Restorations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Georgia 811 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover Georgia Power Company . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover Georgia Trade School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Go Build Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover Heath & Lineback Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Independent Electrical Contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 MH Miles Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 New South Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Rexel Duluth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 September | October 2013
3
6
Cleaner Concrete is on the way Federal Policies Impacting Coal-fired Powed Production
10
Public-Private Partnerships A trend or a thing of the past?
12 14
Georgia Brownfields Turning Green
17
Go Build Georgia High School Teams provide information about skilled trades
18
“The Sewer Question is Nearly Solved” -Atlanta Mayor W. A. Hemphill, 1891
23 24
Here to Stay
26 29 30
Contractor News
4
Economic Development in Georgia ~ Opportunities for communities and the engineers who serve them
Construction in Georgia Out of the hole but not out of the woods
What to Do When You Don’t Know What to Do Lessons Learned
Georgia Contractor
Georgia Brownfields Turning Green There are hundreds of contaminated properties in metro Atlanta. The Brownfields Act has helped make ownership of contaminated properties more feasible, which has also helped make productive use of unused and/or depreciated land. In turn, this creates jobs for our local markets.
12
14 GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY & MCCARTHY BUILDING COMPANIES BREAK GROUND on Highly Anticipated Law Building
Construction in Georgia
24
out of the hole but not out of the woods
26
Ken Simonson
Here to Stay With over 25,000 new construction job openings projected in Georgia over the next seven years, an investment in this industry is certainly an investment in our future.
23
Blake Ashby
McCarthy’s Senior VP of Operations Eddie Harris with Mayor Reed September | October 2013
5
Feature
Federal Policies Impacting Coal-fired Power Production
oal-firing of electric power plants is in decline, due mostly to the federal policies implemented beginning back in 1970 and being tightened ever more this year. President Obama made clear that he intends to impose regulations on existing coal plants that can only be met through carbon capture and storage (technology that doesn’t exist on a commercial scale), switching to natural gas, or shutting plants down completely. While coal-based energy still produces 37 percent of U.S. electricity, this is well below the 50 percent level just six years ago. According to Reuters, US power companies have shut or converted over 15,000 megawatts of coal-fired power plants since 2009 and have plans to convert another 37,000 megawatts over the next ten years or so. Two factors cited are cheap natural gas and stricter environmental rules, making coal the more expensive option. Eventually the switch may shut 60,000 to 100,000 megawatts of power generation. On the other hand, natural gas will generate 27.6 percent of the electricity this year. Georgia Power Company is asking permission from state regulators to close 15 coal-fired power generators or convert them to gas, according to a report from the Athens Banner-Herald. Reuters reports the scheduled closings for 2013 are two 6
Georgia Contractor
Georgia Power Plant Bowen near Cartersville, early in the morning. The Clouds you see are water vapor, not ash emissions
units at Harlee Branch, and in 2014 two more at Harlee Branch, two at McManus, and seven at Yates. Total power production at these facilities is 3,606 megawatts. Georgia Power has a total of 18 coal-fired power plants with total capacity of 9,110 MW, according to the company Web site. Under construction presently to supplant closed power facilities is Plant Vogle, consisting of two nuclear units, near Waynesboro. Southern Nuclear, a subsidiary of Southern Company, is overseeing construction and will operate two 1,100megawatt AP1000 units for Georgia Power and co-owners Oglethorpe Power Corporation, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and Dalton Utilities. Georgia Power owns 45.7 percent of the new units, with a certified cost of $6.1 billion. Even wind energy is playing a role, while minor, in power production. Georgia Power will source 250 megawatts (MW) of wind energy from EDP Renewables wind farms in southwest Oklahoma. From their news release, the wind energy purchased through these contracts will provide enough electricity to power more than 50,000 Georgia homes. This is the equivalent of one of the Harlee Branch units being shut down. September | October 2013
7
How This Affects Concrete Fly ash is defined by the American Concrete Institute Committee 116 as “the finely divided residue resulting from the combustion of ground or powdered coal, which is transported from the firebox through the boiler by flue gases.” Two classes of fly ash are produced, based on the type of coal used. Anthracite and bituminous coal produce fly ash classified as Class F. Class C fly ash is produced by burning lignite or subbituminous coal. Fly ash is presently used as an economical replacement for Portland cement, favored by LEED specifiers because it reduces the carbon footprint of Portland cement concrete. For every ton of cement manufactured, about 6.5 million BTUs of energy are consumed. For every ton of cement manufactured, about one ton of carbon dioxide is released. According to Boral Materials, around 300,000 tons of fly ash are typically consumed in Georgia each year by the concrete industry. Relating this to the total cement used in Georgia in 2012, this calculates to 14 percent of total cementitious materials. Class C and F fly ash have separate preferences by specifiers. Class C is preferred by ready-mix suppliers because it has a higher cementitious value, and can be used up to around 30 percent replacement of cement. Class C is widely used in Georgia, from the Georgia Power Plant Scherer, located near Macon. Class F is used when specified, and with its lower cementitious value, is more costly to use, and has a lower range of replacement rate. Georgia DOT permits only 15 percent replacement in their structural concrete. It is mainly available for concrete users from Georgia Power Plant Bowen near Cartersville. It typically has a higher carbon content, which interferes with the ability to produce entrained air in concrete. Among its many benefits, fly ash can make concrete much more durable in the face of aggressive environments such as sulfate bearing soils or water. It can lower the heat of hydration of mass concrete. For airport and highway paving, it can reduce alkali-silica reactivity. Fly ash improves the 8
Concrete with fly ash as an ingredient being pumped 28 floors up to the pool level of the sovereign tower in Buckhead, Atlanta, Georgia. finishing and pumping characteristics of concrete, lowering the placing and finishing effort. Fly Ash Availability Versus Supply The US Geological Survey reports fly ash production and usage, reporting US fly ash production peaking in 2002 at 69 million tons with 24 million tons of it being used commercially. The electric power industry has always pursued maximum fly ash utilization through commercial outlets, to avoid having to deal with it as a disposal issue in their landfills or ash ponds. The 2002 numbers calculate to 35 percent
utilization. Production of fly ash has been trending downward since 2002. The trend in utilization is up, because of the reduced production. Fly ash commercial consumption peaked in 2006 with 29 million tons being used, at a utilization rate of 45 percent. In 2011, production of fly ash was the lowest it has been since 1997, down by 22 percent from the peak in 2002. The trend in utilization pressures the supply and will continue over the next decade, with plant closings or conversions to natural gas. ‘Cleaner’ concrete is on the way, based on the evidence. Georgia Contractor
Impact on Concrete Will be Felt About 20 percent of fly ash consumed commercially in the US is used in cement and concrete products. As the availability diminishes, users will compete for the reduced supply, and prices are certain to increase. According to the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, in 2012 the overall average fly ash content nationally in a cubic yard of concrete was around 85 pounds, with the actual use in mixes ranging from none to over 200 pounds, depending on the application. The wide range of permitted contents in concrete is because specifiers vary on their allowable replacement rates. With the introduction of the LEED building rating protocol, specifiers are pushing the limits up, with forty percent seen as the desired target. While this is going on, the supply is beginning this new direction downward, which flies in the face of market forces. One force is pushing the demand upward, while the other force is driving the supply down. A More Rational Specification of Fly Ash in Concrete What concrete mix designers often see in project specifications are a wide variety of allowable replacement rates. While the LEED target of forty percent is laudable, it is not a practical or sustainable limit for construction. On the other hand, the DOT limit of fifteen percent is conservative, and ignores the cementitious value
September | October 2013
inherent in class C fly ash. Twenty and twenty-five percent are often specified, and this adds more to the confusion. The best practical approach for specifiers is to permit the manufacturer or producer of the concrete to simply follow the American Concrete Institute specification for use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) in ACI 301 and ACI 318. Consensus standards are developed by ACI with committees composed of various interests, primarily engineers who have extensive experience in the science of concrete. Following ACI standards is the rational approach, rather than the mixture of percents that are presently being required. A second rational change needed is in the specified age at which concrete is evaluated for compressive strength. With the increased effort to include SCMs in concrete for the benefit of sustainability, the 28 day cylinder is becoming only an indicator of strength, and the true evaluation is more frequently being done at 56 days. The ‘hold’ cylinder is being tested on a high percentage of reports we are observing.
information and review your project specifications and permit the ready mix concrete mix designer to have the flexibility they need. Your specification should reference ACI 301 for the use of fly ash and other SCMs. Refrain from limiting fly ash or mandating minimum percents in the concrete mix design. With your desire to have a more sustainable project, you should also look at the 56 day test result as normal and not the exception. Fly ash will often lower the earlier strength of concrete, but will extend strength gains out to 56, 90, and even 180 days after placement. Fly ash is a great sustainability design tool, but it requires better understanding of how it impacts your project, as well as being aware of the market forces at work today. v
The Takeaway for Specifiers Changes for the better will only come through the efforts of the readers of these journals and the thoughtful application of codes, standards, and practical knowledge gained in the field. With the impending pressure on fly ash availability, take this
9
Public-Private Partnerships A trend or a thing of the past? By Kevin Wills, CCM, LEED AP & Charles Bolyard, Jr., PSP, CFCC ublic Private Partnerships, also referred to as PPPs or P3s, have been in use for many decades after first gaining wide acceptance and use in the United States in the early 1990s. These partnerships were established through states’ legislative actions as an alternative method to finance public capital improvement projects during times when public debt was increasing rapidly. Primarily for use in transportation, infrastructure, and educational facility programs and projects, PPPs offer a vehicle for state and local government agencies to obtain needed infrastructure for the public good without leveraging their bond ratings or taking on increased fiscal risk. The processes and procedures for these partnerships are specific to each jurisdiction that has enacted legislation enabling the use of PPPs, and while similarities exist from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, legislation often contains provisions specific to each public owner. While the Commonwealth of Virginia has been at the forefront in the application of PPPs in the United States, this approach to project development and construction has been applied internationally to leverage private resources to fund and build a comprehensive range of projects, including transportation infrastructure, environmental, higher education and research facilities, K-12 schools, wastewater treatment plants, and telecommunications infrastructure - essentially any type of public project. This process, once authorized by legislation and adopted by public agencies, entities, municipalities, counties, or cities, is a relatively simple one which complies with the transparency required of public sector procurements, but also increases the opportunity for the owner to receive the best possible goods from the marketplace
P
10
to serve the public’s needs at the best value. In simple terms, PPPs typically involve a proposal (which may be solicited or unsolicited depending upon what each governmental agency’s legislation allows) from a private vendor to design, construct, and provide some form of financing for a project which serves the public good, and would typically otherwise be financed and constructed by a public owner through more traditional procurement processes. In some circumstances, PPPs may include an alternative approach that involves governmental agencies transferring public assets to private concessionaires to operate in the public interest (such as existing toll roads that have been transitioned in Virginia, Indiana, and other locations). Most important to the PPP process is the review, negotiation, and the development of financing, design, and construction parameters that establish the business arrangement between the vendor/developer/design builder and owner prior to entering into a contract based on the PPP procurement process. In a traditional public project procurement, whether utilizing design-bidbuild, design-build, or another method of project delivery, the Owner would hire a designer to develop plans and specifications, then arrange public funding sources, and once approved for procurement, would publicly advertise the project for bidding or receipt of proposals. The resulting lowest responsive bidder would then be responsible for constructing the project. Change order costs in the more traditional type of project delivery are largely the responsibility of the Owner, as are the costs for designer errors and omissions. The PPP process, on the other hand, encourages the allocation of risk and reaches into the marketplace to bring the innovative thinking and vision from the private sector to public projects. PPPs
provide the opportunity for the owner and the project developer to act in concert, as a team, and use all available expertise, specialization, knowledge, and financing options as a team to the benefit of the project and in the greater interest of the public. The PPP vendor, selected following evaluation of proposals received by the Owner, will work in concert with the Owner to achieve expectations and address the public need, while providing the Owner the level of confidence in successful completion of the program or project. Many times, through the PPP process, the Owner is able to leverage more of the potential for enhancing a project than would otherwise been achievable if it had been a project procured under a more traditional procurement method. PPPs combine talents across the public and private sectors and bring those talents and innovations to the table to achieve the greatest benefit to the public. The PPP process can also speed the time for completion of the project as the expediencies inherent in the delivery process eliminate the traditional need for extensive review by local, state or federal agencies once the parameters for the project are established. More traditional contracts for design and construction are an Owner’s way of dispersing risk, and PPPs are no exception. Depending upon the Owner’s risk management profile—a PPP can be an integral component of an Owner’s risk management program. Allocation of risk is an important consideration since there is a cost to transfer risk from the Owner to the vendor. In the customary design-bid-build project delivery vehicle—the Owner holds contracts with both the designer(s) and contractor(s), and takes responsibility and the risk for unforeseen costs that may be encountered. In a PPP procurement, the Owner holds one contract with the PPP Georgia Contractor
team. The PPP team holds the responsibility for design costs and issues and may also hold responsibility for site conditions, integration with utilities, and interface with public agencies other than the Owner, which are elements of the agreement with the Owner and included in the contract price. Opportunities for funding of the project through tolls, tax financing, lease agreements, and numerous other options are additional ways through which the Owner is able to reduce its risk profile related to a project, as these options may be more readily available under a PPP project delivery as compared to more traditional project delivery approaches. Essential projects that would be deferred by the Owner due to a lack of available funding are able to proceed under the PPP approach when project funding is a component of the vendor’s scope. PPPs are increasingly showing that the more traditional project delivery methods based on low bid contracting do not always result in the lowest completed project cost. PPPs have been found to be lower, or at least comparable to traditional delivery approaches, in overall costs if the characteristics of the project are compatible with the use of a PPP based procurement. Based on the breadth of our experience with state and local jurisdictional
agencies that have enacted varying forms of PPP legislation, MBP has a longstanding history of assisting project Owners throughout the PPP process. Our firm provides Owners with an expert review and analysis of PPP proposals including cost, schedule, and constructibility review in support of the Owner’s evaluation of proposals and during negotiations to conclude the procurement process. We also provide comprehensive program or project agency construction management services to further assist an Owner during the actual design, construction, and commissioning phases of a project. As the agent of the Owner, MBP offers the Owner a higher level of independent scrutiny during procurement and performance by the PPP, further enhancing the results of the Owner’s risk management program. For PPP teams, MBP provides assistance during the proposal development and procurement process. During actual design and construction performance, we can provide quality control and assurance program development, implementation of inspections and testing, and expert scheduling services. In the political, financial, and economic climate of today, Owners are quickly seeing the benefits in the application of the Public Private Partnership de-
livery approach for programs and projects. The need, both nationally and internationally, to upgrade and replace current infrastructure under tremendous budgetary limitations has led to this innovative delivery method being utilized more frequently than before. As public revenue streams have diminished, the collaboration of the private and public sectors is being recognized as a cost competitive, quick-to-themarketplace process that is often superior to the traditional methods of project delivery. States across the nation, as well as the federal government, have instituted PPPs as a viable and preferred method to obtain high quality and innovative projects, and we expect that this trend will continue for many years to come. v
Kevin Wills
Charles Bolyard
Kevin Wills is Senior Project Manager and Charles Bolyard is Chairman/CEO, both with MBP. They can be reached at kwills@mbpce.com or cbolyard@mbpce.com, respectively.
September | October 2013
11
Georgia Brownfields Turning Green By Scott D. Smelter, R.P.E. | & Russell C. Griebel, P.G. | United Consulting rior to the passage of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfield Revitalization Act (a.k.a. the ‘Brownfields’ Act), developers would typically steer clear of environmentally impacted (contaminated) properties. The risk and uncertainty associated with such properties often outweighed the benefit of property ownership. People would prefer to buy the ‘clean’ property down the road, rather than taking unneeded risk of a more desirable location. However, in densely populated areas, large ‘clean’ properties may be difficult to find. There are hundreds of contaminated properties in metro Atlanta. The Brownfields Act has helped make ownership of contaminated properties more feasible, which has also helped make productive use of unused and/or depreciated land. In turn, this creates jobs for our local markets.
P
What is a Brownfields site? Per the Act, a Brownfield site means “real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.” Based on information provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), anywhere from 500,000 to a million Brownfield Sites exist across our country. Who regulates Brownfields sites? EPA originally developed the Brownfields Initiative in 1995, looking for methods, procedures, or legal processes to encourage development of contaminated properties. Since its inception, various amendments have been made, ultimately providing greater protections to future owners of Brownfields properties. The most significant change was the passage of the Brownfields Act (Act) on January 11, 2002, which provided liability protection for 12
Georgia State University Student Housing – after
prospective purchasers, contiguous property owners, and innocent landowners. This Act also authorized increased funding for state and local programs that assess and clean up Brownfields. For additional information on Federal Brownfields regulations visit www.epa.gov/brownfields/. Since the passage of the Act, approximately 40 states have developed their own voluntary Brownfields Programs (BFP) to fit their area. On July 1, 1996, Georgia passed the Hazardous Site Reuse and Redevelopment Act (HSRRA), which provided limitation of liability benefits (legal protection) mainly for Hazardous Site Inventory (HSI) facilities, otherwise known as ‘state Superfund’ sites. The HSRRA was amended on numerous occasions, and is now arguably one of the best in the country. The 2005 amendment provides protections for properties with ‘preexisting releases’ including non-HSI properties and properties with petroleum releases. The protections for petroleum were made available for releases from Underground
Storage Tank Management Program (USTMP) sites, which have helped make one of the most commonly contaminated facilities, gasoline stations, more marketable for redevelopment. For additional information on Georgia Brownfields regulations visit http://www.gaepd.org/Documents/brownfields.html. What are the Benefits of a Prospective Purchaser receiving a Georgia Brownfields Limitation of Liability (LoL)? State LoL benefits vary. The state of Georgia provides three primary benefits with their issuance of a LoL to a Prospective Purchaser (PP) of a contaminated property. The LoL provides protections from: • Groundwater impacts; • Third party liability; and • Regulatory changes. Although these benefits may seem minimal to some, anyone previously involved with environmentally impacted properties knows that groundwater remediation can Georgia Contractor
be very expensive. Groundwater remediation projects rarely cost less than six figures, and often extend near and into the $1,000,000 range and take years to complete. Further, the third party liability protections could be even more valuable; lawsuits can be very expensive! Finally, the exception from regulatory changes removes substantial uncertainty for the remedial process—protecting sites from future regulatory actions for the pre-existing releases. An added benefit of a Georgia LoL through the BFP is the tax incentives, as outlined in House Bill 531 (HB 531). Generally, this Bill permits the PP to freeze the tax value of the property at the lesser of the purchase cost or the fair market value at the time of the Brownfields Application and deduct the costs associated with receiving the LoL from the tax bill at the current fair market value of the property. This can help re-coupe the costs for the remedial actions required to receive the LoL. Brownfields turning green The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) has approved several hundred Brownfield applications, helping to turn run down, vacant properties into valuable apartment complexes, college dorms, parks, restaurants, branch banks, and just about any development imaginable. United Consulting has assisted clients with over 70 projects through the Brownfield process. Initially, United Consulting completes a detailed environmental assessment to fully characterize the contamination present on a Georgia Brownfield site. The PP and the property itself must qualify for LoL protections. The PP cannot have contributed to the existing contamination. Historic information is presented. A full definition of the soil and groundwater conditions at the Brownfield site is made. If soil contamination is present above the appropriate residential or commercial Risk Reduction Standards (RRS, i.e., ‘clean-up’ levels), or if source materials such as free product (gasoline floating on the groundwater) is present, remedial actions are September | October 2013
Georgia State University Student Housing – before needed. However, since the LoL provides protections for groundwater impacts, the PP does not need to remediate groundwater, just define the conditions for protection. United Consulting has worked on many sites where clean-up was not required, as the contamination was in the groundwater only, not the soil. The Georgia Brownfield process is a multi-step process. The number of steps required is generally dependant on the result of each subsequent step. Typically, a Prospective Purchaser Corrective Action Plan (PPCAP) is initially submitted to the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) along with a non-refundable application review fee of $3,000.00—as the Brownfield Application (Application). The PPCAP clarifies the conditions that qualify the property and the purchaser for the program and its protections. It also provides specific plans to define the soil and groundwater conditions across the entire property, groundwater flow, remediation for soils with concentrations greater than the appropriate RRSs, possible gas venting, and management of impacted materials during site construction. The EPD must respond to the PPCAP with a conditional LoL letter, contingent on completing the items in the PPCAP. The PPCAP is then implemented and the conditions resulting from the actions outlined in the PPCAP are documented in a Prospective Purchaser Compliance Status Report (PPCSR). The PPCSR is a very detailed report that defines the final conditions at the Brown-
fields property, documents the soil remedial actions conducted (if any), restates the property and purchasers’ qualifications, and certifies that the soils at the Project Site meet the appropriate RRSs. With the EPDs review and concurrence that the PPCSR is complete, the final LoL will be issued by the EPD and the PP receives the LoL benefits outlined above. In the event that remediation is not required at a property, or full remediation and site characterization has already been completed, a PPCAP would not be needed and a PPCSR could be submitted with the fee as the Application. References: www.epa.gov/brownfields/ www.gaepd.org/Documents/brownfields.html Georgia Code Article 1. General Provisions Regarding Ad Valorem Taxation of Property, so as to Provide for Preferential Assessment of Environmentally Contaminated Property, House Bill 531. Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act, Article 9. Georgia Hazardous Site Reuse and Redevelopment Act, Senate Bill 277. v United Consulting 625 Holcomb Bridge Road Norcross, Georgia 30071 (770) 209-0029 ssmelter@unitedconsulting.com rgriebel@unitedconsulting.com
13
Economic Development in Georgia – Opportunities for communities and the engineers who serve them By Pamela Little, PE,LEED AP | President | EcoWise Civil Design and Consulting Inc.
Developed XL Brands site and adjoining lot - photo courtesy of Dalton-Whitfield County Joint Development Authority
D
uring the economic downturn, an increased emphasis was placed on attracting new jobs and growth to the state of Georgia. Over the past decade, the state has brought in new industry including Caterpillar to Athens-Clarke and Oconee Counties, Kia to West Point (Troup County), Porsche Headquarters to Hapeville, and Baxter International to a site outside Covington, Georgia, among others. Each of these projects was realized through the hard work of the state and local officials, as well as the local economic 14
development authorities, community leaders, and the consultants who serve them. The projects are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and have brought thousands of jobs to the state of Georgia. In many communities, these groups are still working today to bring additional investments and jobs to our state. Their efforts are significant not only for the communities they represent but also for the A/E/C Industry who will provide property due diligence, design, and construction services to both the communities and the developers. At the heart of each of the large in-
vestments listed above has been a hardworking development authority. A development authority is a type of public corporation. The authority is often made up of community leaders and officials who operate with broader powers than local government. These powers allow them to promote incentive real estate and development deals to attract business and industry to their areas. A development authority may be set up to represent a single municipal entity, such as the Effingham County Industrial Development Authority, or it may be set up as a joint development authority and Georgia Contractor
represent the combined interests of a city and county, such as Dalton-Whitfield County Joint Development Authority, or even the combined interests of several counties as in the case of Joint Development Authority of Jasper, Morgan, Newton, and Walton Counties—the entity that worked with Baxter International. Downtown development authorities are similar in structure, but have a more narrow focus than industrial development authorities. Downtown development authorities were created to promote revitalization and development within existing downtown areas within incorporated cities. Industrial development authorities and joint development authorities operate with a broader scope in developing and promoting the greater community for the populations they represent. All types of development authorities in the state of Georgia operate through the rules and regulations spelled out in the official code of Georgia annotated (OCGA). One of the most powerful tools development authorities have to attract development is tax incentives. Tax credits are available to companies based on the number and quality of jobs brought to an area compared to the need for jobs in that area, use of a Georgia port to import or export goods, performance of research and development within facilities in Georgia, overall investment, and more. Tax exemptions are also available to companies depending on the use and distribution of goods that they use and produce. One of the programs that the state has implemented to help attract new development is the GRAD program. GRAD stands for Georgia Ready for Accelerated Development and is a certification process offered for sites through the Georgia Allies, a group comprised of the Georgia Department of Economic Development and the major utility companies with organized economic development departments. The program provides an assurance to potential developers that the sites are ready for construction. The sites must be submitted by a community or economic development organization and reviewed by a third party. The package includes inforSeptember | October 2013
mation on zoning, transportation accessibility, utility services, environmental studies, and conceptual planning. One of the best ways to understand how economic development works in Georgia is to examine an existing project. The Dalton-Whitfield County Joint Development Authority put together a GRAD package for their Carbondale Business Park site, a 238-acre property at the intersection of Carbondale Road and I-75 just outside the city limits of Dalton in unincorporated Whitfield County. The area is known for its carpet manufacturing facilities but the community and development authority wanted to focus on diversifying their industrial base. Available lots within the park vary in size from three to 54 acres serving a wide range of endusers. So far, one 16-acre parcel has been sold to XL brands for the construction of a new 122,000 square foot facility, built during the time infrastructure was underway to open the new park. Elyse Cochran-Davis served as the Executive Director of the Whitfield-Dalton Joint Development Authority from late 2009 until early 2013 and talked about the value of the project, “It is the only product of its kind between Atlanta and Chattanooga.” She indicated that one intent of the project was to attract suppliers to the Volkswagen manufacturing facility located in nearby Chattanooga, Tennessee. The property was considered a prime development candidate due to its access to both the interstate system and rail lines. The Whitfield County Board of Commissioners took a lot of risk in a down economy to do what they thought was right for their community in the long run. The development of Carbondale is expected to trigger additional residential and retail development in the area, spurring revitalization of the community. The board originally purchased the site then partnered with the Development Authority to develop it. The Development Authority recommended bringing in industrial real estate development experts to prepare conceptual plans that would maximize the property for development. Sil-
vio Development Company partnered with Constructive Ingenuity to prepare studies that led to preliminary conceptual drawings used for engineering and subsequent RFP. The group ordered geotechnical and environmental studies for the property as well as surveys and conceptual engineering studies, all of which were submitted for the GRAD certification process. Silvio Development Company is owned and managed by Jerry Silvio while Constructive Ingenuity is owned and managed by his daughter Sara Silvio. Carbondale was not the first project they had the opportunity to partner on within the industrial and economic development arenas. Jerry Silvio said their job is, “to assist communities and development authorities who wish to evaluate land for development or execute the development process for land they already own.” The county and Development Authority thought that GRAD certification was vital to compete in today’s real estate arena. Companies and developers are looking for assurances that the properties they consider are buildable, and they want to close on deals quickly. GRAD certification offers a pre-prepared due diligence study to provide assurance to potential investors and lenders, reducing risk and the overall transaction timeline. Studies conducted concerning the site and potential development also triggered transportation improvements to the I75/Carbondale interchange. The improvements are expected to be complete in 2015. Easy access to transportation is key for most manufacturing and industrial clients and creates opportunities for transportation planners and engineers. The precise tax incentives will vary for each company that decides to build a site within Carbondale Business Park, but Whitfield County is a Tier 2 county for job tax credits, ensuring that any company creating more than ten jobs can claim a tax credit of $3,000 for each employee per year for the first five years. As an example, a company creating 100 new jobs could claim 100 x $3,000 = $300,000/year x 5 years = $1,500,000 in tax credits against 15
Entrance to Carbondale Business Park - photo courtesy of Dalton-Whitfield County Joint Development Authority their Georgia income tax. Tax credits can be powerful motivators. Today Cochran-Davis has her hands full managing her own consulting business called Bridge Concepts offering advice and support to other communities and development authorities. She has been actively working in economic development since 1987 in both North Carolina and Georgia. The communities she is helping hope to attract new businesses to support their tax bases and to provide jobs to their residents by creating their own successful developments using economic incentives. Cochran-Davis emphasized the importance of having design professionals active in the process both within the community and as consultants. She said, “Clients are more sophisticated now and development authorities need to be too by proactively allocating resources to their developments. Professional engineers should be a part of the ‘sales team’ for these developments.” Engineers can be more active in the economic development process by volunteering their time to the local authorities, being active in the chamber of commerce, or by providing consulting services through the course of a project. Sara Silvio recommends, “First and foremost, be a 16
champion for the state of Georgia and your local community. Earning the opportunity for business must be secondary to being a team player.” More information can be found
through your local development authority or through the Georgia Department of Economic Development or the Georgia Economic Developers Association (GEDA). v
Georgia Contractor
Go Build Georgia High School Teams provide information about skilled trades By Go Build Georgia Team ith millions of people seeking work, there is no better news for Georgia citizens than more job openings. And, Go Build Georgia is working hard to give young job seekers hope, ensuring students that abundant opportunities await them. GBG, the state’s campaign to educate youth about the value and benefits of learning a skilled trade, launched its High School Teams program in October 2012. These teams, which currently reach 184 public schools across the state, provide detailed information regarding the ever-present need for skilled workers. As longtime tradesmen retire, jobs are left vacant, available to anyone with proper training. “As a seasoned career and technical educator, and someone who worked directly with employers for years trying to find enough technically skilled employees for jobs such as welders and industrial maintenance technicians, I know a little about their dilemma and the fact that Georgia, and perhaps the nation, is at an epidemic point of not having enough skilled workers,” said Senior Program Manager Karen Curtis. Raising awareness in high schools is one method of filling the gap. Teams are led by teachers, counselors, and local business and industry partners. According to Curtis, educators have been excited to partner with GBG and share data about in-demand occupations with their students. “The GBG posters and trade cards are prominently displayed for students to view or are given to a student who has an interest in a specific career area,” said Curtis. “Some schools will have a specified class where the students are guided in the use of the GBG Web site, or must do a project based on the skilled labor trades.” Schools disseminate information about trade jobs in other ways as well. Career development programs and services can provide helpful resources. Additionally,
W
September | October 2013
educators might host career days or fairs, and certain industry partners offer tours for students. Teaching pupils about career paths in growing skill sectors such as energy, telecommunications, manufacturing, engineering, transportation, and industrial construction is critical for driving the economic future of Georgia. Young people are often discouraged from pursuing well-paying, respectable careers in skilled trades. High school teams endeavor to open up the options. “We must get real and try to change the thinking of the average parent, educator, and policymaker to help them understand the extreme need for skilled workers,” said Curtis. “The Go Build Georgia High School Team approach is one way to do this.” Looking forward, GBG hopes to have a High School Team in every one of the 336 public high schools in the state by the end of 2014. During this school year, GBG will offer statewide conference calls, allowing teams to share how they are utilizing the GBG Web site and providing materials to students. The program is also working to connect teams with more industry and business partners.
“With a team that truly understands the critical need to spread this message, the opportunities are endless for change,” said Curtis. “We have miles to go, but with every High School Team we can move the needle a little more in the right direction toward a bright future for Georgia’s students, industries, and economy as a whole.” For more information about Go Build Georgia High School Teams, please contact Dr. Karen Curtis, Go Build Georgia senior program manager, kcurtis@georgia.gov (770) 301-3858. v
17
BY TOM LESLIE
“The Sewer Question is Nearly Solved.” - Atlanta Mayor W. A. Hemphill, 1891 n the 1880s in Atlanta, there was considerable agitation about the course the city should take to protect the health of its citizens. A yellow fever epidemic in 1878 in the Mississippi Valley (which was especially bad in Memphis) led to an editorial in the Atlanta Constitution which warned the city that it was the worst in the South in providing sanitary services: “(Atlanta) has no comprehensive system of removing filth…. Every block contains pig pens, filthy stalls, pens of animals for slaughter, decayed water closets, or other filth laboratories.” At the time, social reformers, physicians, and engineers, especially in the Northeast, were creating a sanitary movement that gave rise to the
I
18
term ‘sanitary engineer’ and new public health institutions. Early public health officials observed that illness/disease transmission was strongly associated with crowded slums filled with poor immigrants, filth, dirty water, and crime. The sanitary movement concluded that mitigating these conditions would result in a reduction in morbidity and mortality. Medical science held two primary theories of disease transmission, which placed people into two principal camps: contagionists and anti-contagionists. Contagionists believed that illness was caused by specific entities— ‘contagia.’Think of contagia as bacteria or viruses and you get to the germ theory of disease. The anti-contagionists believed that illness was due to miasma—in short,
R. M. Clayton, City Engineer, 1879-1913 bad air. The noxious ‘emanations’ from the decomposition of organic matter when combined with certain (unspecified) atmospheric conditions produced dangerous miasma. Adherents of both disease theories agreed that cleaning up filth was a lofty Georgia Contractor
City of Atlanta Annual Report | Butler Street Trunk Sewer Construction, about 1891
goal since it would either remove sources of ‘miasma’ or breeding grounds for ‘germs.’ Removing filth included cleaning streets of garbage and animal manure, proper removal of night soil, building sewers, and general cleanliness. There were numerous other theories of illness/cures in these unsettled days of medical science. As an example, in the 1840s the foremost sanitarian of the era, Lemuel Shattuck from Massachusetts, believed that disease was the “unfailing penalty for the immoral behavior that seemed to characterize the lives of the poor and foreign-born.” Common thinking of the era was that disease was associated with the ‘lower classes,’ regardless of the precise causation. September | October 2013
The yellow fever epidemics of the 1870s drew attention to the fact that many people of the ‘comfortable classes’ were also infected. This led to broader support for enhanced sanitation practices by the elites. The Atlanta Board of Health was created in 1879. By 1881, the city was authorized to charge $3 per year per developed lot to provide sanitary services. The Board of Health had no operational role in providing services but offered advice to the elected officials on priorities for the allocation of these funds. The annual reports to the mayor and council include extensive, supporting heath and sanitation data and, frequently, very direct, plainspoken advice. The board’s 1888 report relating to sewers conveys both its sense of
frustration and accomplishment: “For eight years past this board has labored persistently and earnestly, in season and out of season, often against apparently hopeless odds, to secure on the part of the city, the adoption of a complete and comprehensive system of sewerage, adapted in every respect to the present and prospective necessities of the city, and based upon plans and specifications, with working details, prepared by a skillful sanitary engineer. At last, . . . the righteous cause has triumphed and the most important sanitary advance ever attempted by this city has been accomplished. (emphasis added) “Early in the year Mr. Rudolph Hering, a gentleman of high character and of great reputation as an expert in matters of 19
sanitary engineering, was engaged to prepare necessary plans and estimates for a general system of sewers.” Rudolph Hering was a nationally regarded sanitary engineer from New York. The American Society of Civil Engineers awards the namesake Hering Medal each year to the best research papers in what is now known as Environmental Engineering. R. M. Clayton was Atlanta’s Chief Engineer from 1879 to 1913 and the primary liaison with Hering, who noted that the “sewerage works since 1888 have been built under the skillful direction of the City Engineer, Capt. R. M. Clayton. As the work progressed, numerous conferences have been held with him during the past two years regarding the general and detail matters connected with the design and construction. The completed general plan of the proposed system was delivered to him on December 3rd, 1889, and drawings and sketches of details were furnished from time to time as needed.” It was not until December 1890 that Hering submitted a report “to record the fundamental principles upon which the plan is based…” The report provides a summary of Hering’s view of the ‘Object of Sewerage Works.’ Cities produce a continuous flow of “organic waste and refuse matter… (that) is subject to decomposition, which is not only extremely offensive, but may be dangerous to the health of the community… (T)he causes of many diseases are directly due to the growth and action of the same low forms of life, which find as rich a field for propagation within the human body as they do in the organic matter discharged from it either directly or as waste from the household.” Hering declares two purposes of sewerage works. The first is “the rapid and complete removal of all this waste matter, so far as may be accomplished by water carriage in sewers…” He adds clarification to what may not have been obvious at the time, “Garbage, slaughter house offal, stable manure, and solid manufacturing refuse cannot be properly removed by sewers.” He cautions that organic 20
waste should not settle in the sewers where it will decompose, and to achieve this sufficient flow velocity must be maintained to ensure suspension of the solids. The second principle is that the sewers must “deliver the sewage at certain places where its decomposition can do no harm, or where it can be purified by a proper oxidation of its organic matter.” In the description of existing conditions, he observes that Atlanta is situated on a ‘narrow ridge’ that divides the drainage between the Chattahoochee River to the north and the Ocmulgee River to the south. The city includes “the headwaters of a number of brooks which remain small until after they have passed far below the inhabited territory.” These small streams “are easily fouled by sewage,” but “they do not require very large artificial sewers or drains to enclose and carry off all the water that will come to them. Therefore they have generally been enclosed when flowing through populated territory.” “When fouling and frequent flooding made it necessary to enclose the water courses, the enclosing sewers were constructed without reference to sanitary requirements. Rough stone work, flat bottoms and irregular grades and sizes are their characteristics features… They have therefore caused considerable nuisances.” Hering estimated that about 40,000 people (of the 1890 population of about 65,000) were connected to the water system and received an annual average of 45 gallons per person per day, “thus causing considerable sewage.” The Board of Health records for 1890 indicate that 68.8 percent of the lots were without sewer and received night-soil removal service from their privies by the city. The city limits consisted of a three-mile diameter circle, with its center at the Union Terminal where Central Avenue crosses the railroad. Hering directly describes the two concepts for sewerage systems: combined and separate, the latter carrying only sanitary waste and the former carrying rainwater and sanitary waste. Where the service area is densely developed and rainwater needs to be put in storm sewers and
where there is no need to immediately treat wastewater, “the combined system is less expensive.” “Where the rainwater can be allowed to flow over the surface, or where the sewage requires pumping and artificial purification, the separate system is preferable.” He recommended combined sewers because it was “almost as necessary to relieve the streets from the troubles of storm water as it is to build sewers for foul water.” “In preparing the design for the new system I have endeavored to utilize all the old existing works as far as practicable. This has been done whenever they were in fairly good condition.” Some sewers required modifications to their alignment and interior surfaces. Hering’s analysis of existing conditions meant that Atlanta would continue to have combined sewers with only small modifications. The driving objective was to find the least costly solution to a defined problem—a goal common in all engineering analysis (change the ‘problem’ and you will frequently get a different ‘solution’). Hering’s rationale was based on the economy of reusing as much of existing infrastructure as possible. The small headwater streams originating at the center of the city suggested that sewers and drains to enclose them would not require large expenditures. The report includes three basic alternatives related to the disposal of sewage: 1. Discharge at a remote location where it will not be objectionable. 2.
Purify by dilution in a large stream or ‘filtering’ on land.
3.
Partly purify “by straining out the coarser particles,” “allowing them to settle in large tanks, or precipitating them by adding certain chemicals.” This treatment would be followed by discharge in a sufficiently large stream or on land.
Hering observed that there was no large water body near Atlanta for “purification through dilution” and “no suitable land near the city” to receive the sewage. ConGeorgia Contractor
sequently he concluded that the first alternative was the most suitable, “As the territory along the brooks leaving the city is not inhabited, there seems to be no reason why the sewage of Atlanta should not be turned into them at the present and for some time to come. This is decidedly the cheapest method of getting rid of it. Further, it will not at any time in the future prevent or render more difficult the construction of additional works for complete or partial purification when this is deemed necessary. As there are five distinct and separate valleys into which the city drains, possibly as many plants for purification of sewage may eventually be necessary. I therefore recommend the discharge of the sewage into the brooks as far below the city as may be desired.” The city built its first treatment plant in 1913 on Proctor Creek. Hering divided the city into five drainage areas, or districts. The plan provided for a trunk sewer(s) to carry the sewage from each district to the edge of the city. The trunk sewers generally followed streams and, in most cases, were named after a street closely associated with the stream. The construction of trunk sewers in accord with the Hering plan (and specifications and details) began in 1888, which marks the beginning of the period of modern sewers in Atlanta. In 1891, Mayor W.A Hemphill gave a glowing report on progress during the year, “The building of two great trunk sewers is a grand event and a most necessary work for the city. The sewer question is nearly solved, and the increased healthfulness of the city is a proof that good work has been done in the sanitary line.” (emphasis added) The mayor was presumably speaking of the Loyd Street and the Butler Street lines since they were the only ones essentially complete in 1891. In fact, sewer construction is never complete as long as population growth and development continue. For the purpose of this essay, however, the construction of sewers from 1888 to about 1900 is described, which roughly reflects the initial time horizon in the Hering Report. September | October 2013
Mineral Spring Branch Three primary streams drain this west side district that generally flow northerly toward Proctor Creek. The district is bounded on the east by the north-south lines of the railroads and elsewhere by the city limits. It includes the Atlanta University Complex. These three lines flowed into an 11’diameter line along Proctor Creek that was completed in 1904. Loyd Street The Loyd Street district encompasses an area south of the city, bounded on the north and west by railroad lines and approximately on the east by Capitol Avenue. A stream flowed generally along the alignment of Loyd Street (now Central Avenue), then along the Pryor Street alignment almost to the city limits. The Loyd Street trunk line was an 8’8” diameter brick sewer when it was completed near the city limits in 1891. It was extended to the city limits as a 10’6” line in 1902 when the Connally Street trunk was connected to it. Connally Street The service area for the Connally Street trunk sewer comprises much of the Southeast section of the city. The sewer line followed a stream that flows almost due south from the railroad tracks on the north, along the Connally Street alignment. Construction of the seven-foot diameter line at the city limit was completed in 1896. Butler Street The Butler Street sewer service area encompasses the northeast section of Atlanta, bounded on the south by the railroad, the west by Peachtree Street and the north and east by the city limits. The Butler Street trunk line flows under the parking deck of the Georgia Power Corporate Headquarters and the parking lot of the Atlanta Civic Center, then under Ponce de Leon Avenue between Myrtle Street and Argonne Avenue before continuing its path under Grady High School Stadium and then through Piedmont Park. In 1891 the work was completed to the city limit and
the line at that point was 8’8” in diameter. In 1893, the line was extended 965 feet with an 8’10” x 10’6” egg-shaped crosssection. Orme Street The Orme Street sewer district includes the north-northwest area of Atlanta and is bounded on the west by the Western and Atlantic Railroad, Peachtree Street on the east, and the city limit on the north. A stream that generally followed Orme Street (now Techwood Drive north of North Ave and Centennial Olympic Park Drive south of North Ave) ran due north from International Boulevard on the south to and through the Georgia Tech campus. Built over the original stream alignment and trunk sewer are Grant Field, Alexander Rose Bowl Stadium (baseball), Rose Bowl football practice field (indoor and outdoor), Griffin track, and tennis courts (indoor and outdoor), which face 10th Street, the northern edge of the Georgia Tech campus. At some point the stream becomes Tanyard Creek. Its flow continues north for about five miles where it intersects with Peachtree Creek in the city’s Bobby Jones Golf Course. The city eventually built a wastewater treatment plant at the juncture of these streams and which discharged its effluent to Peachtree Creek. In 1892, the Orme Street Trunk Sewer had reached the city limits near Third Street. At that point, the line was 5’6” x 7’6” and egg-shaped. In 1894, the line was extended to Fifth Street with a 6’x9’, egg-shaped cross-section. In 1904, the line was extended again for 419 feet, with a seven-foot diameter shape to ‘near Peters line’ (probably near Eight Street). The basic recommendations of the Hering Report were followed during the decade after it was written. It contemplated an economically feasible plan with phased implementation where the continued use of existing sewers was maximized, with modest adjustments to alignment and sewer details. Treatment facilities were suggested at the end of five trunk sewer lines at some time in the future. Hering recommended combined 21
sewers, and almost all of those installed in accord with his plan remain combined sewers to this day. The facilities that currently exist at the end of these trunk sewers were built at least 80 years after Hering’s report. Surely Hering could not have imagined the tunnels for sewage storage and interbasin transfer and the sophisticated treatment plants that currently exist. It is not hard to imagine, however, that Hering would have understood the rationale for these facilities – it is the same phased implementation of new projects and the optimization of the use of existing infrastructure to achieve the most cost-effective solution to the ‘problem.’ In recent decades the ‘problem’ has been defined by federal and state laws and regulations, as interpreted by federal judges, and largely supported by
public sentiment. v
Author Tom Leslie Sources: 1. Annual Reports to the Mayor and General Council of Atlanta for 1882 to 1904 2. John H. Ellis, Yellow Fever and Public Health in the New South, 1992
CLP: Closing the Skills Gap One Job at a Time Closing the Skills Gap – what does that mean? To CLP it means providing workforce solutions to our customers and creating opportunities to put people to work every day. We change lives of our customers and workers by doing one thing and doing it well: skilled trades staffing! We provide qualified workers to customers throughout Georgia and the entire United States. We partner with some of the largest and best construction companies to provide safe, reliable employment opportunities to thousands of workers each day. CLP is proud to align with CEFGA as its placement program leader. We take certified students and work with our customers and CEFGA members to place these students as temporary workers or as temporary to permanent employees, affording you the cost benefit of testing a workers skills set and match for values prior to signing that person on permanently. This model creates win-win for both the employer and the employee. We invest in the students training and meeting our customer’s priorities and objectives remains our clear directive. The CEFGA System, a construction Workforce Development Plan for Georgia, is shown below:
AWARE NE SS WEBSITES, OUTREACH, MEDIA TRAINING/EDUCATION HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE LEVEL SKILLED TRADES PROGRAMS PLACEMENT/EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT THROUGH CLP, LABOR UNIONS, AND PRIVATE INDUSTRY TERRY DAUGHERTY | CLP RESOURCES 8975 Roswell Road Suite 207 Atlanta, GA 30350 678-710-0826 678-710-0829 fax 404-987-9325 cell tdaugherty@clp.com www.clp.com 22
Georgia Contractor
Here to Stay By Blake Ashbee | Executive Director of the Governor’s Office of Workforce Development hen we hear the word sustainable, it’s easy to think about being green, recycling, and protecting the environment. But, it’s important to remember the role that the skilled trades industry plays in building a sustainable future for the entire state. With over 25,000 new construction job openings projected in Georgia over the next seven years, an investment in this industry is certainly an investment in our future. As jobs open up and industry leaders continue to locate in Georgia, we move closer to reaching Governor Deal’s goal of becoming the No. 1 state in the nation to do business. However, it is critical that Georgia is prepared to match the growing jobs numbers with a dependable pipeline of qualified workers. I am honored to have recently begun my role as Executive Director of the Governor’s Office of Workforce Development and look forward to experiencing the impact of a new generation of Georgia workers, ready to excel in the critical skilled trade positions. While the number of skilled trade jobs is growing, for every four tradespeople looking to retire, there is only one entering the skilled trades industries. This alarming statistic is partially a result of the stereotypes surrounding the industry. To make a change, the word needs to get out that skilled trade workers are not just learning skills to land a job making minimum wage, but instead are acquiring talents for a rewarding, debt-free career that is here to stay. Think about it—will buildings, hospitals, schools, and houses ever go unneeded? No. Using data driven decision-making, our office, under the leadership of Governor Deal, launched Go Build Georgia to dispel those misconceptions and educate the public on the value and opportunities of a career in the skilled trades, ultimately closing the skilled labor gap in Georgia.
W
September | October 2013
Blake Ashbee Over the past 20 months, Go Build Georgia has worked to inform youths of the professional pathways available to them, helping them unlock the possibility of a prosperous career outside of a cubicle. While education is important, it doesn’t have to be a four-year degree. Instead, constructions jobs such as boilermakers, electricians, and brick masons all begin with hands-on education in pre-apprenticeships or technical colleges. From there, the possibilities become virtually endless for fasttrack advancement with earning potential that is often above that of the average college graduate. Go Build Georgia High School Teams and the Go Build Georgia Web site
provide young people with an inside look into the different ways they can utilize their talents to stand out. For example, an artistic eye doesn’t just come in handy for a career in graphics. Skilled trade professionals bring art to life by literally building out ideas from the ground up. Go Build Georgia has continued spreading this message statewide through media launches that help connect people with the right resources to get started in the industry. Go Build is also focused on building partnerships with industry leaders and organizations that have similar visions, streamlining efforts to truly make a difference. Recently, Go Build helped develop the new Junior Achievement’s Chick-fil-A Foundation Discovery Center, a place where middle school students can interact with a model of the marketplace and learn, firsthand, the financial decision-making that follows career choices such as construction. It is GOWD’s goal to provide the basic tools that young people need to succeed. ‘Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.’ We do not offer temporary solutions or quick fixes, but aim to arm the next generation with the skills to build a future from the ground up, with the sky as the limit. v
23
Construction in Georgia: out of the hole but not out of the woods By Ken D. Simonson | Chief Economist | The Associated General Contractors of America ontractors in Georgia have finally begun hiring again. But the industry has a long way to go before it looks healthy. Construction employment in the Peach State bottomed out at 139,000 (seasonally adjusted) in November 2012, nearly two years after contractors nationally began adding to payrolls, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (Seasonal adjustment is a statistical technique to remove variations that result from normal weather and holiday patterns so as to reveal changes due to more permanent impacts.) By July, employment had risen to a two-year high of 146,400, and employers had added workers compared with the year-earlier month for six months in a row. Nevertheless, employment was still more than a third below the record high of March 2007. Among the state’s major metropolitan areas, the recovery so far appears to be limited to Atlanta. Construction employment in the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta metro area rose by 6,100 (not seasonally adjusted) from July 2012 to July 2013, nearly the entire statewide increase. (BLS does not seasonally adjust metro data, which means data can meaningfully be compared to the same month in prior years but not to other months.) In contrast, employment in the Augusta-Richmond County, South Carolina, metro area has remained stuck at virtually the same level for more than four years. The situation in Savannah is even worse: employment in the first seven months of 2013 matched the year before but was more than 40 percent lower than in 2006 and 2007. (BLS combines mining and logging with construction in these and most metros to avoid disclosing data about industries with few employers.) One reason for the industry’s recovery in Atlanta is the strong rebound in house
C
24
Ken Simonson prices. The widely watched Case-Shiller home price index surged 23 percent, seasonally adjusted, from its low in March 2012 to May 2013. This comeback has spurred demand for both single- and multifamily construction, as it has in other parts of the country. Nationally, construction has shown three divergent trends so far this year. Spending on new and existing private, single- and multifamily construction jumped 18 percent from June 2012 to June 2013, the Census Bureau reported. The segment maintained the impressive gains it showed in 2012, when it grew 15 percent over 2011. Private nonresidential construction was nearly flat, rising just
1.4 percent in the latest 12 months, after posting a 16 percent rise in 2012. Public construction plunged 9.3 percent from June 2012 to June 2013, after slipping 3 percent in 2012. Total construction spending climbed 9 percent in 2012 but rose only 3.3 percent between June 2012 and June 2013. Going forward in the remainder of 2013 and early 2014, these trends are likely to continue both nationwide and in Georgia, but with some modification. New single- and multifamily construction has kept on growing but at a less hectic pace and appears headed for a 10-15 percent increase for 2013 as a whole compared with the 2012 total. Private nonresidential construction should accelerate to a 5-10 percent full-year growth rate. And the rate of decline in public construction spending should slacken slightly, so that the sector finishes the year 3-6 percent lower than in 2012. These projections imply 5-10 percent growth for construction overall, compared with the 2012 total. Prospects appear somewhat brighter for multifamily construction than for single-family, especially in large metro areas, including Atlanta. Fewer people than be-
Georgia Contractor
fore the recession qualify for mortgages. People are waiting longer to marry, to have a first child and to have a second child (if ever)—events that had been major triggers for home buying. And more people are choosing to live closer to the central core, even if they must give up lawns and detached houses. Furthermore, Georgia is no longer experiencing as big an influx of people from other states as it did before the recession. All of these factors are likely to keep demand for single-family construction lower than during the boom of the last decade. Private nonresidential construction is being led at the moment by two small categories: warehouse construction, up 17 percent from June 2012 to June 2013, and lodging, up 28 percent. Later this year, the much larger power and manufacturing construction segments are likely to ramp up again. But the once-active retail, office, and health care construction categories seem stuck in neutral. Public construction spending will continue to be weak. Communities dependent on military bases, which thrived during the base realignment construction of 2006-2011, are now experiencing the brunt of federal budget cutbacks, including the sequestration that cost civilian Defense Department workers several days of pay. Sequestration is likely to cut deeply again in 2014, and the count of military personnel will shrink, further hurting local economies in those areas. Throughout Georgia and most of the nation, local government and school district construction spending depends heavily on property tax receipts, which will not recover until assessors have had time to mark up the value of homes that have only recently appreciated. As elsewhere, state tax revenues have climbed in Georgia, but the recovery has been weaker than in many other states, and there has been little if any pickup in state spending on construction. There is an unusually high degree of consensus among economic forecasters that the U.S. economy will continue expanding at a moderate rate through 2014 (and beyond), which will lead to gradual declines in the unemployment rate. Economies in Europe and developing nations should also September | October 2013
improve, boosting U.S. exports. These trends will help a variety of construction types, including projects around the port of Savannah as it prepares for the expansion of the Panama Canal which will allow much bigger ships to call on East Coast ports. The increased port activity in turn will spawn investment in warehouse, railroad, and trucking facilities. An improved economy will help the airport hub in Atlanta and surrounding areas with investment in hospitality, business travel, and distribution activity. State and local revenues should continue to improve and gradually add to public construction budgets. If there is any consolation in this slow-growth scenario, it is that price spikes and labor or material shortages remain unlikely. The producer price index for inputs to construction—a weighted average of the costs of materials used in every type of project, plus items consumed by contractors such as diesel fuel—edged up just 1.4 percent last year and is likely to climb only 1-3 percent this year. The employment cost index for construction, which measures wages, salaries, benefits and required
payments such as worker’s compensation, rose 1.6 percent last year and appears headed for a 2-3.5 percent rise in 2013. There have been scattered reports of labor shortages but Georgia’s sluggish recovery should mean there is still an adequate pool of workers for the next year. In other words, Georgia contractors can expect gradual improvement overall but not in every segment or region. v
25
Contractor News GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY & MCCARTHY BUILDING COMPANIES BREAK GROUND on Highly Anticipated Law Building The downtown Atlanta building is the university’s first dedicated facility for legal education The chancellor of the University System of Georgia, members of the Supreme Court of Georgia and the Georgia General Assembly, and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed along with Georgia State University officials, alumni, friends and students, and McCarthy Building Companies Inc. (www.mccarthy.com) today commemorated the groundbreaking for the new law building one block east of Peachtree Street on John Wesley Dobbs. The 200,000-square-foot space includes a conference center, a 230seat ceremonial courtroom, areas for clinical practice and community outreach, and an International Arbitration Center. The Law Library will occupy the top two floors and offer flexible learning space for individuals, groups, classes, and guests, as well as a formal reading room, a café, and outdoor terraces. “We’re honored to be part of Georgia State University’s team in providing a modern, sustainable law school that will not only allow them to train the best legal scholars in a great new environment, but also adds to the transformation of downtown Atlanta,” said McCarthy’s Southeast Division President Kevin Kuntz. “We are excited to have this project underway,” said Mark Becker, president of Georgia State. “The showplace building will shine a spotlight on our nationally recognized law program and will enhance its already strong experiential learning component dedicated to producing graduates who can contribute to the profession from day one.” The estimated $82.5 million project, including about $60 million in building costs, will seek LEED Silver certification and features numerous sus26
McCarthy’s Senior VP of Operations Eddie Harris with Mayor Reed tainable elements, including a green roof complete with vegetation and trees to both improve air quality and provide a unique downtown aesthetic. Several energy efficient components of the climate control system include the use of magnetic drive chillers, proven to be more efficient by reducing heat and friction during operation, as well as a variable refrigerant flow cooling system which allows efficient multizone temperature control while eliminating air and water as heat transfer mediums. Inside finishes include high-end wood paneling on walls and ceilings and terrazzo flooring. Outside, zinc metal panels and coping will connect windows for an ultra modern finish. Throughout the project, McCarthy will work closely with adjacent property owners, Georgia State students, and university officials to ensure a safe and productive workplace during construction. The project will be complete and ready for fall 2015 classes. SmithGroup JJR and Atlanta-based Stevens & Wilkinson architectural firms designed the building, collaborating with GSU’s building committee. Finishing Fast Facts • 16,179 square feet of wood paneling • 292 square yards of area accent rugs
• • •
31,300 square feet of cast in place terrazzo flooring See building rendering at building.law.gsu.edu Follow project progress on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/gsulawconstruction or on Twitter at https://twitter.com/gsulawconstruct
About McCarthy McCarthy Building Companies Inc. is the nation’s seventh largest education builder, second largest healthcare construction manager,, and 11th largest domestic general contractor (Engineering News-Record, May 2013). With nearly 150 years of experience, McCarthy is one of the nation’s oldest privately held construction firms. Committed to the construction of high performance buildings, the company provides general contracting, construction management and design-build services for education, laboratory, biotechnical, healthcare, parking structure, entertainment, commercial, retail, civil, and industrial facilities. In addition to Atlanta, McCarthy has offices in Newport Beach, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Diego, Kansas City, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Dallas, Albuquerque, Houston, Collinsville, Illinois, and St. Louis. McCarthy is 100 percent employee owned. v Georgia Contractor
DAVE CYR ELECTED PRESIDENT OF GEORGIA’S TOP COMMERCIAL CONTRACTOR ASSOCIATION AGC GEORGIA
AGC GEORGIA
AGC GEORGIA
AGC GEORGIA
DAVE CYR
RANDALL REDDING
TREY ANDERSON
RANDY HALL
The Associated General Contractors of Georgia (AGC Georgia) recently elected Dave Cyr as the 2013-2014 Chapter President. Cyr is President of Parrish Construction Group, a full-service contractor with expertise in construction management at-risk, general contracting, design build, preconstruction, and facility planning services. Founded in 1995 in Perry, and later opening offices in Atlanta and Warner Robins, the firm specializes in academic, commercial, healthcare, and industrial projects for the public and private sectors throughout Georgia. Cyr was appointed by Governor Perdue in 2006 to serve as a member of the State Licensing Board for Residential and General Contractors. He recently completed his second four-year term which included a twoyear term as chair of the General Contractor Division of the Board. Cyr also serves on the Editorial Review Board for Georgia’s State Construction Manual, the Facilities Advisory Council for Georgia’s Board of Regents and the Construction Industry Advisory Board for the Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission. In addition to volunteering time to serve the construction industry, Cyr enjoys participating in civic, charitable, and economic development organizations in and around Middle Georgia. “It is an honor for me to enter my
September | October 2013
fourth year of service as an officer of the AGC Georgia Board representing our member firms and Georgia’s construction industry. I am pleased to be in the company of so many outstanding professionals who make up our great association,” says Cyr. Other officers joining Cyr in leading the chapter’s board of directors include Randall Redding, R. K. Redding Construction Inc. of Bremen as vice president; Trey Anderson, Anderson Construction Company of Fort Gaines as secretary; and Randy Hall, Batson-Cook Company of Atlanta as treasurer. v
New at Manitou : E-Reco, an attachment recognition system for greater simplicty Manitou is offering, as standard, the attachment-recognition system (E-Reco) on its new-generation ranges of rotative telescopic trucks MRT EASY and MRT PRIVILEGE +, recently presented at BAUMA last April.
The system uses RFID radioidentification technology, which is very widely used in industry and volume retailing. This autonomous technique can recover and record data remotely. The machine detects the attachment at the head of the boom, analyses its data, and directly proposes the corresponding working configuration. This technology provides the load chart in real time, taking into account the rotation angle of the turret and the position of the machine's stabilisers, in accordance with the standard relative to mobile cranes. “Simple and intuitive, it lets all MRT users work easily while making best use of the machine's potential. The automatic calculation of the load chart, adapted to the attachment in place, safely optimises the use of the rotative telescopic truck,” says Olivier Vasseur, Product Line Manager Attachments. The ranges of attachments that are not equipped with the attachment-recognition system can benefit from this technology simply by adapting RFID kits. Remember that all attachments offered by Manitou follow a complete process of validation (structural calculation, hydraulic and thermal assessment, analysis of risks, and load chart) to ensure maximum safety for the user and an optimised machine/attachment pair. v
27
IEC SAVANNAH GRADUATES RECEIVE A MISSION-FOCUSED MESSAGE IEC Savannah Graduates Receive a Mission Focused Message from Senator ‘Buddy’ Carter Independent Electrical Contractors’ Georgia Chapter held its fifth annual Savannah graduation ceremony on July nineteenth at the Cambria Suites Savannah Airport. The graduates had the pleasure of having Senator ‘Buddy’ Carter as their guest speaker. Senator Carter has been a member of the Georgia State Senate since 2009, and he provided a thought provoking message on the importance, significance, and the responsibility of their accomplishment. Senator Carter certainly sent them out into the industry, mission focused! Prior to the esteemed guest speaker, Pace Electrical Contractor’s Project Manager and IEC Georgia Board member, Robbie Jones started the program with a gracious welcome to the graduates and all in attendance. A special award went out to Christopher Awesome of Prolectric for winning first place in the Apprentice Short Story Contest. Mr. Awesome is also the re-
cipient of the 2013 Academic Achievement Award with a grade average of 96.25 percent. All of the graduates did an amazing job completing the 4 years of instruction and on-the-job training required. Showing their appreciation, IEC contractors were on hand to present their graduates with a well earned certificate. Contractors in attendance were, Pace Electrical Contractors, Prolectric Electrical Contractors, and A & V Electrical Contractors. The event was packed to maximum capacity with family and friends showing their support. Graduates also received an array of gifts from IEC members ranging from
clothing to tools. Gifts from Graybar, Mayer, Legrand, Southwire, and Home Depot gave the Savannah graduates plenty to prepare for a prosperous career in the electrical field. IEC is a trade association for merit shop electrical contractors. IEC offers a wide array of training programs for apprentices and experienced electricians, personnel referral including loan/borrow programs, and provides a broad range of informational resources for electrical contractors in Atlanta and Georgia. For more information about IEC and its programs, contact Niel Dawson, Executive Director at 770-242-9277 or niel.dawson@iecgeorgia.org v
Tom Gay Honored by Top Commercial Construction Association in Georgia Associated General Contractors of Georgia (AGC Georgia) is proud to announce L. Thomas ‘Tom’ Gay, president of Gay Construction Company in Smyrna, as the recipient of their 2013 SIR Award. This annual award recognizes one individual for a lifetime of exemplary service and substantial contributions to the construction industry, the AGC organization, and their community. Individuals winning the ‘SIR Award’ exemplify what is meant by possessing ‘skill, integrity and responsibility,’ the values associated with AGC, the largest and most respected construction trade association in the U.S. Ken Swofford, President of Swofford Construction Inc. and 2012-13 AGC Georgia President presented the SIR Award to Tom at the association’s recent convention in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. Gay Construction Company was 28
Tom Gay
founded 65 years ago by Tom’s father, Logan Gay, so he grew up in the construction business working on job sites throughout his high school and college
years. He joined the firm full time in 1970 after graduating from Georgia Tech and completing four years of service in the Marine Corps where he attained the rank of captain. He earned his MBA from Georgia State University in 1972. The firm became a member of AGC Georgia in 1979, and since that time Tom has been actively engaged in the affairs of the association. He has served numerous terms on the Board of Directors helping shape AGC Georgia policies. For over 25 years, Tom chaired the Labor Committee and led labor negotiations with the Carpenters, the Laborers, and the Cement Finishers Unions. Throughout his career, Tom has enjoyed helping young people. He has mentored and encouraged many students who have expressed an interest in a construction career. v Georgia Contractor
What to Do When You Don’t Know What to Do By Dr. Ruth Middleton House The difference between stumbling blocks and stepping stones is how you use them. —Unknown Author The thing you expected to happen didn’t; the thing you didn’t expect to happen did; the thing you never even thought about came out of nowhere. Perhaps you’ve given the thing your best shot three times and here it still is. Perhaps you feel panicky; or perhaps you’re too stunned to feel anything at all. You are just stumped. In his mind-stretching book A Guide for the Perplexed, E. F. Schumacher develops the distinctions of mineral, plant, animal, and human. One of the things he says makes us human is our ability to direct our attention (to the things that can help) instead of simply allowing our attention to be captured (by the perplexities of the situation). In order to move, a rock must be acted on by an outside force—it gets hit by lightning, someone throws it. In order for us to move, we just need to direct our attention, decide, and act. But much of the time we act like rocks, instead. We don’t move under our own power: we wait to be moved by an outside force. But, wait a minute! Isn’t this situation beyond your control? Yes, the situation is beyond your control: but you, on the other hand are not. You are in full control of how you deal with it. You can choose to panic; you can choose to do nothing; or you can choose to deal. Deal how? No matter what, there are four things you can do to increase the odds of an improved outcome. You can shore up; you can suit up; you can show up; you can act as if. Shore up. Inventory your infrastructure—even before a crisis audits it. For starters, sort out what you feel right now (could be panic) from what you value. What are the five to 15 things that matter to you most? How can you act consistently with each of those values in this situation? First, list those values. Second, put September | October 2013
them in priority order. Third, take at least the top six and describe in a paragraph or two what they would look like in a movie of your life. How will they look in this scene? Suit up. Add the new knowledge, the new skills, and the new outlook you need to flourish in the new circumstances. You were taught (like I was) that the shortest distance from A to Z is a straight line; but a straight line won’t get you there in a complex and confusing situation. In fact, trying to force a straight line might only make matters worse. You’re used to directing the action; now is the time to enlist the participation of others, instead. You’re used to gathering all the data before you take the first step; this time you may never have all the data. You’ll need to take a step, see what happens, take another step, see what happens and so on. Show up. Resist the temptation to isolate yourself. It is tempting to sit in a room alone with your favorite beverage or some chocolate and try not to think about it. Get out the door and interact with others instead. Keep networking. That doesn’t mean ‘Hang out and commiserate with other people who are in the same boat.’ When you realize you’re leaning into isolation, require yourself to initiate at least three ‘real’ conversations a day—including one with someone you haven’t talked to before. Pay attention. When taking a long drive, have you ever suddenly realized you don’t know where you are or how you got there? That’s a dangerous state of mind whether you’re driving down the interstate or driving down the Road of Life. Listen to other people so intently that you could summarize to their satisfaction both the emotional content and the factual content of what they have said. Connect emotionally. Then actually feedback to people both the feeling content and the factual content of what they have said. Be prepared to name your own feelings, too, as “I statements”: “I’m confused….” “I’m concerned about….” “I’m really happy that….”
Act as If. Picture a good outcome. Perhaps you can’t achieve the solution you originally hoped for; but you can collaboratively reach resolution, a path forward. Success looks more like moving ahead together in this situation than it looks like achieving numerical milestones. Encourage yourself. Point your thoughts and your words in the direction you want this situation to go. Separate the past from the future. An unfortunate history doesn’t need to play itself out over again. Remind yourself: “True, in the past…; but going forward….” Practice the person you want to be until you become that person. Change the questions you ask yourself. Instead of “How on Earth will I ever…?” to “What will it take for me to…?” Map your answers back to the values you identified earlier. And watch your nonverbals. If you make yourself small, you’re more likely to feel small. Stand up straight, roll your shoulders back and down, and then lean into the situation. The more confident you look, the more confident you will feel. The Native American advocate Joy Persall put it aptly: “Lean into the change with courage and curiosity.” The song ‘I’m Starting with the Man [Person] in the Mirror’ had it right. If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself, and then make a change. Yes, the situation is beyond your control: but you, on the other hand are not. You are in full control of how you deal with it. You can: • Shore up. • Suit up. • Show up. • Act as if. References. Ballard, Glenn and Garrett, Siedah (Writers); Jones, Quincy and Jackson, Michael (Producers) (1988). I’m starting with the man in the mirror. [CD]. New York: Epic. Schumacher, E.F. A guide for the perplexed. (1977). New York: Harper and Row. v 29
Lessons Learned Construction Engineering Services
Observations and Lessons from the School of Experience:
Firestopping irestopping consists of the proper use and installation of tested and rated systems that are designed to limit the passage of flame, heat, smoke, and/or toxic gases during a fire. Similar to firewalls, smoke barriers, and other rated assemblies, firestopping contributes to containment. In many applications, it is intended to maintain the integrity of fire-rated assemblies such as penetrations through rated floors and walls, joints between rated assemblies, and perimeter systems between floors and curtain wall assemblies. Firestopping is a key component of passive fire protection systems. There are numerous instances where fire and smoke were able to spread due to missing or damaged firestopping, and the potential liability implications are obvious. The variations in tested firestopping systems are extensive. Piping penetrations can be metallic or plastic such as PVC each of which would obviously react much differently in a fire event. If the penetrations are data or power cables, systems may need to be selected that allow for easy modifications as information technologies for many facilities are frequently changing. Many joints must allow for normal building movement while still retaining their fire-resistive ratings. Perimeter systems often need to be customized for the architectural characteristics of the curtain wall. A significant change regarding firestopping is that the 2012 edition of the International building Code (IBC) now requires Special Inspections of firestopping in certain structures. The new requirement applies to all high-rise buildings and all Risk Category III and IV buildings such as most schools, emergency services
F
30
facilities, hospitals, and public assembly buildings with an occupancy load greater than 300. Firestopping in some form has always been required by the IBC (addressed in detail in the chapter on “Fire and Smoke Protection Features”). In the past, most inspections of the proper installation of firestopping systems were typically accomplished by building inspectors working for code officials. The 2012 change now requires that proper installation be confirmed by an approved, independent inspection agency through the Special Inspections process. The inspection agency must provide interim and final reports to building officials, the project’s designers, and the general contractor. The systems developed to meet the various requirements are typically a combination of proprietary products and accessories installed in a prescribed manner. Firestopping components can consist of compressed packing material such as mineral wool with elastomeric, fire-resistive sealants; while others use expanding, heatactivated tapes or putties often in conjunction with manufactured collars or other appliances. To receive a rating, a system is rigorously tested in actual fire situations by specialized testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories, Intertek, or FM Global. At the end of testing, each approved system can be assigned up to three primary ratings: F Rating: The time that the system remains intact and does not permit the spread of fire. L Rating: The amount of air or smoke leakage through a joint or penetration.
T Rating: The amount of time a firestop system prevents the temperature on the non-fire side from rising 325° F above the ambient temperature. Based on the IBC or other requirements, the architect or a fire protection engineer can specify the minimum levels of applicable ratings or specify specific systems that meet a project’s needs. The goal during construction is to install the selected systems as they were tested in the laboratory to duplicate the intended performance. The inspection and reporting process is well delineated between the IBC and two supporting documents published by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The inspection frequency defined by the owner or architect can consist of continuous inspection of all firestopping, random observations of a minimum percentage of the installed systems, or destructive testing of a lesser percentage of installed systems. On some projects there may be a need to develop project drawings that show the type and location of every firestopping system so that future occupants and maintenance personnel know what type of firestopping needs to remain in place. This can also include labels on each individual firestopping installation. We hope this Lessons Learned has increased your understanding of firestopping and the new IBC requirements for the inspection of firestopping. For more information or to contact one of our offices please visit our Web site at www.ecslimited.com.v Georgia Contractor
September | October 2013
31