G e o R G i A
ENGINEER
速
THE BUSINESS OF ENGINEERING & EDUCATION Volume 20, Issue 5 OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
Queen eLizAbeTH
PRize foR enGineeRinG fRoM THe RoYAL AcAdeMY of enGineeRinG
econoMic deVeLoPMenT incenTiVe PRoGRAMs
succession PLAnninG
2
GeorGia enGineer
G e o R G i A
ENGINEER Publisher: A4 Inc. 1154 Lower Birmingham Road Canton, Georgia 30115 Tel.: 770-521-8877 • Fax: 770-521-0406 E-mail: p.frey@a4inc.com
ASCE/G Representatives Daniel Agramonte, PE Steven C. Seachrist, PE GMCEA Representative Birdel F. Jackson, III, PE
Editor-in-Chief: Roland Petersen-Frey Managing Editor: Daniel Simmons Art Direction/Design: Pamela PetersenFrey
ITE Representatives Daniel Dobry, PE, PTOE John Edwards, PE
Georgia Engineering Alliance 233 Peachtree Street • Harris Tower, #700 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Tel.: 404-521-2324 • Fax: 404-521-0283
ITS/G Representatives Bill Wells, PE Shaun Green, PE Kay Wolfe, PE
The Georgia Engineer Editorial Board Thomas C. Leslie, Chair Michael L. (Sully) Sullivan, ACEC Georgia, President Gwen D. Brandon, CAE, ACEC Georgia, Chief Operating Officer
WTS Representative Angela Snyder
GSPE Representatives Tim Glover, PE
ASHE Representative Jenny Jenkins, PE SEAOG Representative Rob Wellacher, PE
ACEC/Georgia Representatives B.J. Martin, PE Lee Philips
The Georgia Engineer is published bi-monthly by A4 Inc. for the Georgia Engineering Alliance and sent to members of ACEC, ASCE, ASHE, GMCEA, GEF, GSPE, ITE, SEAOG, WTS; local, state, and Federal government officials and agencies; businesses and institutions. Opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of the Alliance 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 periodical may be reproduced with the written consent from the Alliance and publisher. Correspondence regarding address changes should be sent to the Alliance at the address above. Correspondence regarding advertising and editorial material should be sent to A4 Inc. at the address listed above.
OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
3
Advertisements AECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 AEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Atkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Ayres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management . . . . . . . . . . 11 Columbia Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 CROM Prestressed Concrete Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Deemer, Dana, Froehle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Eco-Wise Civil Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Edward Pitman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Facility Design Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Georgia Power Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover Hazen and Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 HDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Heath & Lineback Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 HNTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Innovative Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Kennedy Engineering ~ KEA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 M.H. Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Photo Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Pond & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Prime Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Reinforced Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Rosser International. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 RS & H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 S&ME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Stevenson & Palmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 STV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 T. Wayne Owens & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Terrell Hundley Carroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 THC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 United Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover Wilburn Engineering LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Wolverton & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4
GeorGia enGineer
T a b l e
o f
CONTENTS 7
The Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering
9
Succession Planning for Sustainability
11
How’s the Engineering Job Market? Depends on Whom You Ask
12
“The Sewer Question is Nearly Solved.”
18
Economic Development in Georgia Opportunities for communities and the engineers who serve them
21
Construction Code Changes for 2014
22
Georgia Brownfields Turning Green
GEORGIA ENGINEER October | November 2013
7
24
What to Do When You Don’t Know What to Do
26
The Walkable Communities, The Next Generation
28
Three Actions You Can Take Now to Finish 2013 Strong
12 32
ACEC Georgia Firm Operations Committee Questionnaire
34
ASCE Georgia News
36
ASHE Georgia News
38
GSPE Georgia News
39
ITE Georgia News
41
ITS Georgia News
43
SEAOG Georgia News
44
WTS Georgia News
OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
29
ACEC Georgia News
26
5
Visit: thegeorgiaengineer.com
6
GeorGia enGineer
The Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering By Caroline Evans | QEPrize Director he Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering (QEPrize), is an international £1m award for a pioneering advance in engineering that has been of global impact on humanity. On June 25, 2013, at a ceremony at Buckingham Palace, HM the Queen formally awarded the prize to five extraordinary engineers; Vinton Cerf, Robert Kahn, Louis Pouzin, Tim Berners-Lee, and Marc Andreessen. Earlier that day, they were honoured at a lunch hosted by the Lord Mayor of London in the presence of Princess Beatrice and Eugenie. The day finished with a party on London’s Bankside to celebrate the wonders of Modern Engineering. The winners received a trophy designed by Jennifer Leggett a school student who won a competition to create the prize. Together, the QEPrize winners are responsible for the creation and propagation of the Internet and the World Wide Web. These remarkable technologies have revolutionized the way we communicate, access knowledge, and work; engineering on the grandest and most far-reaching scale. They have facilitated the information revolution, which has been of as much as significance as the industrial and agricultural revolutions were in their day. The judging panel for the inaugural cycle comprised: Professor Frances Arnold, Lord Broers (Chair), Professor Brian Cox, Madam Deng Nan, Professor Lynn Gladden, Diane Greene, Professor John Hennessy, Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Reinhard Hüttl, Professor Calestous Juma, Professor Hiroshi Komiyama, Dr. Dan Mote, Narayana Murthy, Dr Nathan Myhrvold, Professor Choon Fong Shih, and Paul Westbury. This distinguished group made their decision in a dramatic final meeting following a long and detailed judging process. The quality and range of entries was extremely high and were received from all over the world—from Slovenia to Samoa. Lord Broers, Chairman of the QEPrize Judges, described the winning innovations as
T
OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
HM e Queen with the QEPrize winners at Buckingham Palace “the most complex engineering system ever built by man.” Over 2.7 billion people now use the internet, a third of the world’s population. It carries 330 Petabytes of data per year, enough to transfer every character ever written in every book ever published 20 times over. There are about 50 billion pages on the Web. These engineers have truly changed the world. Robert Kahn and colleagues at DARPA (the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency) demonstrated that it was possible to connect 20 different computers and send messages between them, this was called ARPAnet. Meanwhile, in Europe, Louis Pouzin was also working on peer-to-peer networks, and leading the team at the French Delegation a l’informatique which developed the CYCLADES network. Pouzin has said he designed this “to be connected to other networks—in the future,” a remarkable foresight into the potential of a global communications network. Building on this, Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf invented the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet Protocol (IP) which make up the fundamental architecture of the internet. They made it possible to create a network of networks by using a common language so anyone who wanted to build a network connected to the internet
was able to do so. The internet connects billions of computers together globally but it is the World Wide Web that enables us to use it in the way we do today. Created by Tim BernersLee at CERN, the World Wide Web is a system of interlinked documents that can be accessed via the internet. It is, essentially, an information space. Berners-Lee’s breakthrough was to link hypertext to the internet
e trophy handed out to the winners 7
using: a Universal Resource Locator (URL) to reference a web resource; Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) which is the foundation of web data communication and Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) which creates information that can be displayed on a browser. Marc Andreessen, while a student and working with colleagues, wrote the Mosaic browser in order to make the World Wide Web user-friendly. It was widely distributed and made the Web accessible to everyone. This triggered a huge number of applications unimagined by the early network pioneers. Mosaic became the final piece in the jigsaw that would enable rapid adoption of the Web by society. While Kahn, Cerf, Pouzin, Berners-Lee, and Andreessen made major contributions to the development of the Internet and the Web, these systems were the result of collaboration through the use of open standards involving engineers all over the world. That the five winners have never been honoured together is important, it is their collaboration and generosity that enabled their creation to flourish. All five engineers have been instrumental in guiding the technical progress and politics of the Internet, allowing it to grow from an experimental academic tool to a central
Jennifer Leggett, the 18 year old student who designed the trophy given to the winners 8
Robothespian, a life sized talking robot attends a QEPrize party to celebrate the wonders of modern engineering
aspect of our lives. Bill Gates, philanthropist and former CEO of Microsoft said, “It would be difficult to point to any significant human endeavour that has not been touched profoundly through the invention and deployment of the Internet.” The QEPrize celebrates exactly this, the engineers who have, often unnoticed, changed the world. Vint Cerf described this succinctly; “The Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering is a stunning and welcomed recognition of the power of engineering to effect change.” From large scale power and water infrastructure to the nanotechnology and bioengineering that are beginning to enhance our daily lives and, of course, innovations such as the internet, the products of engineering are ubiquitous in modern society. This makes it a subject of huge importance to the global economy, and to humanity as a whole. Yet,
we take much of this for granted. It is perhaps time engineering is better acknowledged for its contributions, not only to improving our quality of life, but the contribution that investment in technology and engineering projects makes to growth. Lord Browne of Madingley, Chairman of the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering Foundation said, “Engineering underpins economies, it gives commercial application to scientific discoveries, and it affects every aspect of our daily lives.” With this award, the next stages will be equally important; encouraging young people to think deeply about engineering, and society to appreciate its breadth and scope. “I firmly believe our field’s best days are ahead of us,” said Andreessen, “and I can’t wait to see what the next generation of engineers will accomplish.” v GeorGia enGineer
Succession Planning for Sustainability By Matt Stringfellow & Chad Reese | Deemer, Dana, Froehle
S
uccession planning and sustainability are big buzz words in the design industry these days, but what do they really mean? Succession is defined as the process of inheriting a title or role. Sustainability is defined as the capacity to endure. With an aging baby boomer generation at the helm of many design firms, it is never too early to begin the process of succession planning and determining how to either transition the firm to the next generation or to position your firm so that it can endure for many years to come. It has been said that “not having a plan, is a plan….and not a very good one at that.” A well thought out and written transition plan is your firm’s and its owner’s way to clearly define when and how ownership in your firm will change hands. At a minimum, a well written buy-sell agreement is a must, but true succession planning goes well beyond the nuts and bolts of how ownership is transferred. The plan, preferably written, needs to identify the game plan for transition, those individuals expected to carry out the plan, and it should also align itself with the mission and future business plan of the firm, in order to be most effective. Getting Started So when do you start? Most experts agree that five to ten years is not too early to start on a succession or transition plan. For most it would be beneficial to determine a timeline of when a transition could or should occur and then work backward from there. Without a doubt, there are a few places and times when it is not most effective to start succession planning: 1. The funeral home 2. Your retirement party 3. When an owner is being fired or resigns 4. The courthouse (owners are arguing) Therefore, it is never too early to get started. OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
Form of Succession One thing to consider in building your succession plan is choosing the right form of transition. The first choice is an internal transition. In order for this to occur, the firm must have existing or new eligible owners in place that are able to take over. If that next generation does not exist within the firm, then one must consider bringing in talent from outside of the firm. If bringing in talent is not an option, then the second choice to consider is an external sale of the firm. This will involve courting potential merger candidates or being acquired by another firm. If neither of these choices is available, then the last option is to shut the doors and liquidate. This is generally not a good choice. Think about the implications. You have worked hard and built a successful design practice, hopefully, you have earned some financial reward for your efforts along with professional and community recognition, and therefore there should be value that you can transition to someone else for some amount. If, as an owner, you have not hired and trained your replacement then your firm’s value will suffer when it’s time to retire. What to Transition If you do elect an internal transition, it is very important to consider ‘what’ needs to be transitioned and where do certain characteristics ‘reside’ within your firm. Do these characteristics reside only with the transitioning owner or owners or do they also reside in the succeeding owners? An honest assessment of the following characteristics both within the transitioning and succeeding owners groups can help to identify gaps or areas where more attention will be needed in order for an internal succession to be successful and will help to identify where true value resides within your firm.
Uniqueness of skills • Does the selling owner have ‘rare’ skills that would be difficult to replace? • What would it cost to hire a replacement? • Does a replacement exist? Recognition (Recognized locally or nationally) • Does the selling owner possess a public persona that attracts work to the firm? • Does the selling owner possess political power? • Does the selling owner possess personal industry recognition? Work habits • Does the selling owner work exceptionally long hours? • Can one person replace the selling owner? • Has the selling owner slowed down over time? Age and health • Is the selling owner’s health good enough to complete the transition? • Are the remaining owners able to take over? • How close to retirement are the remaining owners?
Personal Characteristics: Ability, skill, and judgment • Does the selling owner possess ability, skill or judgment not found elsewhere within the firm? 9
Closeness of client contact • Will existing clients stay with the practice when the selling owner leaves? • Are relationships with multiple owners and employees? Relationships with referral sources • Most people refer business to their friends that they have confidence in. • Few referral sources know enough to recommend the absolute ‘best’ firm for the job; they go with who they know. Enterprise Characteristics: Reputation and practice specialty • Is the firm highly regarded? • Is the firm ‘famous’ in one or more specialty areas? • Can the firm command premium rates or is it the low bidder? Geographic reach • Does the firm have multiple offices? • Does the firm have clients in multiple locations?
10
Business name, marketing, and branding • Is the business name promoted through marketing efforts? • Is the firm name known to potential clients and referral sources? • How will advertising, sponsorships, and social media strategies need to be addressed? Repeating revenue stream • Do clients use the firm repeatedly? • Is every job a new job? Tax Considerations of Succession There are many approaches to structuring a transfer of ownership. Sales are generally set up as a stock sale or an asset sale. A seller would prefer the stock sale as this provides straight-forward capital gains treatment assuming the stock was held for the requisite year or longer. Buyers usually prefer an asset purchase for basis and liability purposes, but this is rarely a good option for C-Corporations due to the resulting double taxation. Internal transfers of ownership interest present additional alternatives. For example,
the company could simply buy out the departing party which allows the remaining owners to increase their proportional ownership without risking their personal resources. The downsides to this treatment include no additional basis to the remaining owners and the need for the company to have sufficient earnings to cover the purchase price. Frequently, installment notes are issued to the seller in exchange for ownership. This allows the seller to get full value for the company while only paying taxes on the money received, although you would need to consult with your CPA on some potential pitfalls with installment loans. Another alternative in transitioning ownership would be the adoption of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan. While ESOPs are complex and can include pitfalls, they can also present wonderful succession opportunities in the right environments. These are just a few considerations in a process that is different for every company. Putting together a plan with your advisors is an important step to avoid any unwanted surprises. v
GeorGia enGineer
How’s the Engineering Job Market? Depends on Whom You Ask By Jeffrey Quinn | Vice President of Monster’s Global Insight
E
ngineering professionals are among the most satisfied workers, but lack confidence in their job prospects, new survey results from Monster.com suggest, a perception that is at odds with what employers are reporting. Among employed job seekers, engineers expressed the greatest satisfaction with all aspects of their job (42 percent), edging out finance and healthcare respondents. Despite these high levels of satisfaction, engineers believe they face some challenges in the job market: • Over one-half (57 percent) state that the job market is saturated with qualified talent. •
Only 37 percent agree that employers are willing to provide the time and training to support a job.
•
Only 27 percent agree that employers are willing to provide higher compensation than 12 months ago.
•
Only 11 percent are extremely confident they could find a new job in the next year.
surveyed nearly 6,000 job seekers who are currently employed or desire employment in the next 12 months via an online survey. The study was designed to be inclusive of all Monster job seekers who have actively used their My Monster account over the past three
years. The survey ran from Jan. 14, 2013 to Feb. 18, 2013. The top occupations within the engineering field include industrial, mechanical, and electrical engineers especially in cities such as Houston, New York, and San Diego. v
Where are the jobs? At the end of August, 2013, engineering job openings by discipline in key Georgia cities as provided by engineerjobs.com.
However, the employer perspective is quite different. According to a recent Monster survey of employers recruiting for engineering talent, a majority (73 percent) reported they were likely to hire this year, yet less than onehalf (39 percent) were confident in staffing all their engineering job opportunities due to a lack of qualified candidates, highly specialized job requirements, and non-competitive salaries. The marked contrast in engineering job market perceptions of job seekers versus employers is curious. Enterprising seekers might take advantage of these dynamics, if many other potential employees are largely sitting on the sidelines. Monster’s study ‘U.S. Workforce Talent’ OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
11
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 term ‘sanitary en-
I
12
gineer’ 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, bad air. The noxious ‘emanations’ from the decomposition of or-
R. M. Clayton, City Engineer ganic matter when combined with certain (unspecified) atmospheric conditions produced dangerous miasma. Adherents of both disease theories agreed that cleaning up filth was a lofty goal since it would either remove sources of ‘miasma’ or breeding grounds for ‘germs.’ GeorGia enGineer
City of Atlanta Annual Report
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. 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 sanitaOCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
tion 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 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 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 13
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 nightsoil 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 14
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.
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
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. Consequently 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
GeorGia enGineer
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.
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” eggshaped cross-section.
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. OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
15
yard 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 crosssection. 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 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 underOrme 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 16
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 Tan-
stood 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 GeorGia enGineer
OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
17
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 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. 18
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 investments listed above has been a hard-working 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 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 developGeorGia enGineer
ment 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 information 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 OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
serving a wide range of end-users. 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. Silvio Development Company partnered with Constructive Ingenuity to prepare studies that led to preliminary con-
ceptual drawings used for engineering and subsequent RFP. The group ordered geotechnical and environmental studies for the
19
Entrance to Carbondale Business Park - photo courtesy of Dalton-Whitfield County Joint Development Authority 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 preprepared 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 Whit20
field 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 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 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 enGineer
Construction Code Changes for 2014 By Gregg Johnson | Mechanical Engineer | State Codes Advisory Committee
J
anuary 1, 2014 will bring new code changes statewide to Georgia, as approved on July 25, 2013 by the Georgia State Codes Advisory Committee (SCAC). Once a final public hearing is held on September 26th of this year and the DCA board approves the new codes and amendments in November, the new codes and amendments will be adopted as the law in Georgia effective January 1, 2014. For the past six years Georgia has maintained the 2006 International Code Council (ICC) family, with small state amendment updates, as the continuing body of construction codes for the state. The Georgia SCAC concluded that a major code change at that time could make a very bad recession in the state economy even worse. During this six year period, the International Code Council has approved two major sets of new code publications, the 2009 International Codes and the 2012 International Codes. Georgia is ready for a code update, and for two years the SCAC has been very busy reviewing the individual 2012 International Codes, and adopting proposed Georgia Amendments to these new codes. After the DCA Board’s final approval in November, these new 2012 International Codes and the approved Georgia Amendments will become effective on January 1, 2014. The changes will include adoption of the 2012 International Building Code, 2012 International Mechanical Code, 2012 International Plumbing Code, 2012 International Residential Code, 2012 International Fuel Gas Code, and 2012 International Fire Code. Furthermore, the 2012 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code will be adopted as a permissive code, meaning local jurisdictions must adopt this swimming pool code for it to be mandatory in their jurisdiction. Finally, the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code will remain the energy code for Georgia. There are Georgia Amendments to all of the codes listed, and all of the Georgia OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
http://shop.iccsafe.org/ Finally, the Georgia State Fire Marshal’s Office is currently developing the new requirements and amendments to update the NFPA standards intended to be adopted in Georgia early next year. Public hearings regarding these code updates have not yet been set as this is written in late September 2013. Further information on the status of these updates should be available in the near future at: http://www.gainsurance.org/ADMINPROC/PendingRegulations.aspx
Amendments are posted at the Department of Community Affairs Web site (DCA) listed below: http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/constructioncodes/programs/code Amendments.asp
Look under 120-3-3 for the new regulations. Standards are available from the National Fire Protection Association at their Web site. Make sure you visit the DCA and Georgia State Fire Marshal sites, copy the new code changes, and become familiar with the new requirements. v
The International Code Council (ICC) has numerous publications available, including the 2012 ICC Code Set to help designers and contractors understand the changes in these new codes. The codes are available at:
21
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 prospective purchasers, contiguous property owners, and innocent landowners. This Act also authorized in22
Georgia State University Student Housing – after
creased 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 nonHSI 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 be very expensive. Groundwater remediation projects rarely cost less than six figures, and often GeorGia enGineer
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 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 contamiOCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
Georgia State University Student Housing – before nation 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 Brownfields property, documents the soil remedial actions conducted (if any), restates the property and purchasers’ qualifica-
tions, 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.ht ml 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
23
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 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. 24
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 nu-
merical 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 GeorGia enGineer
The Georgia Engineering Foundation Supports Georgia High Schools
O
ne of the purposes of the Georgia Engineering Foundation is to promote the study of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences. Much of the attention of the Foundation goes to working with our member organizations to support scholarships for engineering students from the state of Georgia. Perhaps a lesser known but very important purpose is to support the study of science and mathematics at the pre-college level. Examples of the impact of GEF’s work with two Atlanta-area high schools, Benjamin E. Mays and Rockdale Magnet School, are supported by comments from officials at these schools: Dante Edwards – Academy Leader of the Math & Science Academy at Benjamin E. Mays High School in Atlanta, Georgia “Students in The Academy of Science and Mathematics at Benjamin E. Mays High School have benefited greatly from the generous donations of The Georgia Engineering Foundation. Their monetary contributions have allowed students to attend field trips to architecture and engineering firms, construction sites, and local colleges and universities. Also, funds have been used to purchase materials and supplies that allow students to engage in the learning of engineering concepts in a meaningful way. Finally, the human capital of the Foundation helped us to design our engineering program to prepare students to pursue a career in engineering.”
Steve Poole, Life Member of GEF, presents a $500 grant to Dante Edwards and some of the students in e Academy of Science and Mathematics at Benjamin E. Mays High School. fers three levels of engineering courses and has an active robotics team which competes in FIRST Robotics and other competitions around the region. We feel fortunate to
have a supportive relationship with GEF and hope that we can expand this partnership to include mentorships and internships in the future.” v
Mary Ann Suddeth - Director/Principal at Rockdale Magnet School for Science and Technology in Conyers, Georgia “The Georgia Engineering Foundation’s support is invaluable to the Rockdale Magnet School for Science and Technology. Funding is used to keep our engineering and robotics lab updated with new saw blades, tools, and materials. Our school ofOCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
Mike Ray, Chair of GEF’s Ways and Means Committee, presents a $500 grant to Mary Ann Suddeth and some of the students at Rockdale Magnet School. 25
The Walkable Communities, The Next Generation By Daniel B. Dobry Jr., P.E., PTOE, AICP | Croy Engineering LLC
T
he average metro Atlantan spends 20 hours per month in traffic. That’s enough time every year to plant a garden, watch two seasons of Mad Men, have six dinners with friends, and read 100 books to your toddler. Metro Atlantans —and others across the country—are increasingly looking for alternatives to the commuter lifestyle. They are choosing walkable areas to live, shop, and work. The development community is following consumer preferences, creating both urban and suburban spaces where people can meet their needs and wants without getting in a car. According to Dana Johnson, AICP, Director of Cobb County’s Community Development, “From a market perspective, what we are seeing in the Atlanta region is that the share of suburban vs. urban developments is shifting. There is still a market for new single-family detached homes, especially in the best public school districts, but the single-family home share of overall development is decreasing as some baby boomers and Gen Y indicate a preference for more urban style living.” The concept of walkability is hardly new. Many cities have long been celebrated for their walkability, including New York City, Chicago, Boston, and Washington. These cities are also very multi-modal, all having excellent public transit and being friendly to both bicyclists and pedestrians. In recent years, the concept of walkability has gone mainstream. Gen Y, the largest generation in history and one-third of the U.S. population, is prioritizing walkability over space. In other words, young people today would rather be able to stroll to a favorite coffee shop than have a big yard or guest bedroom. Also, after the housing bust, many people choose to rent apartments, no longer viewing home ownership in the suburbs as the American dream. In metro Atlanta, Mark Toro, the managing partner of North American Properties (NAP), has watched this trend play out. Sub26
Atlantic Station
Avalon Ice Skating Rink urban Atlanta areas such as Cherokee, Cobb, Gwinnett, and Henry counties grew exponentially in the ’80s and ’90s. However, in recent years, intown Atlanta neighborhoods have fared better. Toro even participated in the trend when he and his wife, empty nesters, sold their suburban home and moved to a condo in midtown Atlanta. The trend, as well as his own experiences, has fundamentally impacted how Toro approaches real estate development. Once a developer of suburban power centers, North American Properties (NAP) bought in 2011 the retail portion of Atlantic Station, a struggling mixed-use property in midtown At-
lanta, not far from Toro’s current home. Despite the property’s well-documented challenges, Toro was betting on urban walkability. NAP has successfully turned around Atlantic Station and is now focusing on Avalon, a $600 million mixed-use project in Alpharetta, Georgia. With Avalon, NAP will be creating a walkable environment with an urban feel—in the suburbs. Toro expects to see more of such developments across the country, as developers increasingly see that walkability has a financial return, both in urban cores and in suburban areas. Richard McLeod, Director of Community Development for the city of Alpharetta GeorGia enGineer
and formerly Woodstock, agrees. Small historic downtowns offer an ideal setting for retrofitting suburbia into compact walkable urban places. “These historic downtowns have all the bones for well-connected walkable areas. The key is to not let modern suburban zoning and auto centric transportation engineering policies ruin it by accommodating the automobile at the expense of the pedestrian.” McLeod adds, “If planners and engineers would approach urban design and development from the perspective of the human rather than the big metal box with wheels then the types of community that the Gen Y’s and others desire can happen successfully.” “Suburban areas will have to be redeveloped to correct the sprawl created in the ’80s and ’90s,” said Toro. “This is more complex than developing in urban areas, where walkable centers have evolved naturally over time.” Toro is a believer in the ‘Walk Score,’ a number between 0 and 100 that measures the walkability of any address. The underlying concept is that the higher the Walk Score, the better the quality of life. From a development standpoint, Toro believes that financial returns increasingly will directly correlate to the Walk Score. For Toro, who is focused on mixed-use, multifamily, and retail, he knows that retail is being impacted by more than just Gen Y’s appreciation for walkability. There’s also the Internet. Consumers no longer need to shop; they can buy whatever they want online. While in a traditional store, they can comparison shop and make a purchase from a smartphone. However, today’s consumers gravitate toward a place with fun activities, high-end customer service and beautiful surroundings, especially if they can walk there from home or work. Bricks-and-mortar retail is still more than viable but it must be part of an experience that consumers seek out. But how does the engineering community capture all these perspectives and develop construction documents for agency site plan review and approval? James R. Hamilton, P.E. of SCE Inc. offers this insight. “As project Civil Engineer we have had a backstage pass to the development of Avalon. We have been fortunate to provide a vital service OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
The Plaza at Avalon but, in doing so we see why this will really be special. As with all great things, being clear on purpose is vital. The North American team communicated this early and often. Avalon will be a great walkable community and modeled after other great places but likely better. A tremendous amount of effort went into defining the brand, assembling a world class development team, and most importantly, clearly understanding what the customer wants. We have been able to mix in some really cool engineering stuff- rainwater harvesting, best in class energy management, meticulously planned grade relationships to promote pedestrian connectivity, state of the art storm water manage-
ment, efficient traffic management, and a site campus that inspires residents, visitors, and employees to get out and experience all Avalon will offer. Great memories will be created here.” If Toro is right about this shifting trend, more regularly the development industry will be bringing forward smaller apartment units, denser neighborhoods, retail centers with plenty of green space for community gathering, and neighborhoods with sidewalks and parks. An urban experience will be created in the suburbs. And everyone will be happily walking a lot more. The author would like to thank Elizabeth Hagin of The Wilbert Group for her
Wellness Wednesday at Atlantic Station 27
Three Actions You Can Take Now to Finish 2013 Strong By T. Wayne Owens, CPA he calendar year may be winding down, but you can improve your position for the new year ahead by ramping up your efforts to strengthen your A/E firm. Much like an athlete trains and prepares all year long, with an extra push leading up to a big event, your firm should be engaged in an ongoing planning process with a final tune-up at year end. Whatever your current year-end planning may already entail, consider the following actions you can add to the mix to put you in the best possible condition for 2014.
T
Action #1. Get Your House in Order It’s easy to let the internal components of your company slide a bit, especially if you are very busy. As you are focusing on projects and clients, you must also stay on top of your accounting and financial reporting structures. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) provide guidance for pretty much every scenario your business will face. Now is a great time to perform a check-up to ensure you are using sound GAAP practices on the following elements of your business: • Accounts receivable (Reserves) • Work in process (Do you report and do you value?) • Prepaid insurance • Depreciation (Book not tax) • Accounts payable • Accrued payroll • Accrued vacation and paid time off • Income taxes Labor Costing Options Standard cost is the preferred method, with the standard hourly rate based on the number of hours the employee is expected to work during a year (usually 2,080 hours). Any differences, such as uncompensated overtime or premium overtime, are allocated to overhead. The labor rate stays fixed. Pre28
mium overtime on projects can create problems when a firm wants to bill to a client. Firm policy should be followed in this circumstance. If you are using the average cost method, divide the paycheck by actual hours worked during the pay period. The labor rate can change each pay period. Action #2. Clean Up your Billings and Work-in-Process (WIP) Computations We often see firms record revenue on lump sum jobs based on actual costs incurred. We also see firms bill not-to-exceed jobs on the same basis – neither is a good practice. Revenue is based on progress of work, based upon actual work completed, regardless of hours or cost. Bill as much as you can as fast as you can but remember, without proper revenue recognition you can delay corrective actions on over-budget jobs. Forecasting is difficult enough, but now we’ve got even greater uncertainty with the hard-to-predict impact of the Affordable Healthcare Act. This means ‘cash is king!’ You want the best possible cash flow scenario in turbulent times, so that you can remain nimble and flexible. It is of utmost importance to have clean numbers. If your balance sheet is in good order, if your WIP (work in progress) is clean – your revenue data is more accurate, which will allow you to forecast your cash flow more accurately. Well managed WIP data will reveal the true health of a project, and even the firm as a whole. Clean WIP computations also make your accounts receivable easier to collect, especially additional services, and helps you make smarter staffing decisions for projects. There is no downside to minding your WIP! Action #3. Enhance Internal Company Value Come up with a strategy to improve your firm’s value, starting with key internal and
T. Wayne Owens external factors that affect your share value. Looking at internal factors: Your firm’s earnings record—how consistent are your earnings? How reliable is your earnings growth path? How consistent is your cash flow? What is the trajectory of your revenue growth? How strong is your balance sheet? How solid is your firm’s identity – could your firm live on without its founder? Do you have sound measures in place for internal risk management? Have you assessed accounts receivable as a percentage of book value? What is the quantity and quality of your firm’s backlog? And you must evaluate the external influencers as well. How would you rate the desirability of your primary client industry category? Or the desirability of your geographic location(s)? What is your firm’s reputation within your industry? Have you specialized in a tight niche? Or diversified your services? Have you looked at the balance of firm size vs. your transaction cost? What is your strategy for minimizing external risk? How well have you separated the identity of the firm from the identity of its founder? Any of these Actions will put your firm in a stronger position. The trick is to commit to focusing on your internal systems and sticking to your plan… no matter what tries to distract you! v Wayne Owens, CPA, is the founder of T. Wayne Owens & Associates, PC, a CPA firm with a singular focus on the design industry, providing accounting services, overhead audits, financial statement audits, tax returns and more to A/E/C firms. Contact: wowens@twocpa.com. GeorGia enGineer
Acec Georgia Jay Wolverton, PE Chair ACEC Georgia
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever
News has.” Although the quote’s attribution to Margaret Mead might be questioned, its meaning is clear. Change for the better is accomplished one person, or one group, at a time. That is how I look upon influencing government affairs. While ACEC Georgia is not a small group, it is committed and thoughtful. Our work does and can change the world by designing better infrastructure for transporting goods and people to their final destinations; by building facilities that clean and improve the water for our communities; and by providing new and consistent sources of energy to keep our country moving, just to give a few examples. One of ACEC Georgia’s value proposi-
tions is Political Advocacy. Through ACEC National’s Political Action Committee (PAC), which was formed in 1975 to support political leaders who support our industry’s interests in Congress, we not only promote business development and growth, but also build an understanding amongst our elected officials of the importance of our industry to the health and well being of the United States economy. Through the ACEC Georgia PAC we are committed to these same types of causes but on a state level instead of a national level. In this past legislative session alone, our national PAC has accomplished some important wins for our industry, including, among others:
Political Advocacy
The Value of ACEC Georgia Serving your firm’s business interests through:
• Advocating at all levels of government to advance policies that impact the business of engineering in Georgia. • Monitoring the regulatory issues and government agency actions that affect engineers. • Working for a more pro-business climate and defending against unfair business practices. • Fighting to protect the professional engineering practice.
Business Development • Providing networking opportunities, meetings, and programs that put you in contact with potential clients, industry peers, and the leaders of the engineering profession. • Hosting the Georgia Engineers Summer Conference, Transportation Summit, P3 Summit, and other programs that expand your professional knowledge and network. • Offering informative and relevant seminars, programs, and webinars with presentations from leaders who affect our industry and community.
Firm Operations • Providing a forum for the exchange of business and professional experiences. • Offering programs and resources on best business practices for member firms. • Sponsoring the Future Leaders Program to build the next generation of leaders within member firms and the engineering profession. • We provide executive development training for emerging leaders and firm management.
OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
29
•
Passage of MAP-21 which protects investment levels for transportation projects
•
Passage of a four-year aviation bill which maintains funding for airport projects and endorses the use of QBS for projects funded with passengerprovided fees
•
Repeal of the three percent withholding mandate and a rule expanding IRS reporting requirements for businesses
•
Defeat of legislation to weaken the Thomas Amendment which protects against competition for the Corps of Engineers
And there is more yet to come—we have important new initiatives and continuing advocacy that needs to take place in 2014. These include new national initiatives to expand energy markets, passage of sustainable
funding for transportation and new funding for water projects, and needed contracting reforms to protect our businesses. However, the PAC is not what makes these changes happen—it is our members who make these changes happen, through your donations to the PAC, your continued involvement in the association, and your outreach to your legislators. We have reached over half of our national donation goal for this year—but there’s still a long way to go. You can help us continue to advocate for our industry. Please make your individual donations to the National PAC. Also ask your firm to donate to the ACEC Georgia PAC. Call your congressperson to solicit their vote on issues affecting our industry. Come to ACEC events and meetings. Be involved in the only political organization looking out for engineering firms and their legislative interests. Change for the better is accomplished one person at a time. Join me in being part of the necessary changes in our industry.
Visit www.acecga.org/advocacy to learn more. v
“Gort! Klaatu Borada nikto.”
(770) 521-8877 use A coMPAnY You cAn TRusT wiTH YouR TRAnsLATion PRojecT, because a little mistake in another language can have unpleasant results.
ACEC GEORGIA MEMBER FIRMS
Board of Directors Jerry (Jay) Wolverton, Chairman Darrell Rochester, Chairman-Elect Roseana Richards, Treasurer / Charles Ezelle, Secretary Don Harris, Vice Chair / John Heath, Vice Chair / Doug Robinson, Vice Chair David Wright, National Director / Edgar (Eddie) Williams, Past Chairman Anita Atkinson / Jim Case / David Estes / Scott Gero / Rob Lewis / David McFarlin / Kevin McOmber / Taylor Wright
Committees Darrell Rochester, Government Affairs/PAC David Wright, ACEC PAC Champion Rob Lewis, Business Development Jim Case & Don Harris, Firm Operations John Heath, Coalitions Doug Robinson, Communications Brannen Butts & David McFarlin, Leadership Development Charles Ezelle, Membership Eddie Williams, Nominating Eddie Williams, Past Presidents/Chairmen David Estes & Rob Jacquette, Programs Scott Gero, Transportation Forum
30
Staff Michael “Sully” Sullivan, President & CEO Gwen Brandon, Chief Operating Officer Kathy Belcher, Member Services Manager Mia Wilson, Finance Manager
Forums Bill Griffin, Building Systems Corky Welch, Environmental Chris Marsengill, Transportation Brannen Butts, Leadership
ACEC consists of 5,000 firms nationwide and represents approximately 500,000 employees. ACEC Georgia consists of 206 firms and represents approximately 6,050 employees.
GeorGia enGineer
CONTACT US at ACEC GEORGIA
(404) 521-2324 acecga.org
President & CEO, Michael Sullivan (404) 537-1337 sully@acecga.org Chief Operating Officer, Gwen Brandon (404) 537-1415 gwen.brandon@acecga.org Member Services Manager, Kathy Belcher (404) 665-3539 kathy.belcher@acecga.org Accounting Manager, Mia Wilson (404) 537-1275 mia.wilson@acecga.org Chair, Jerry (Jay) Wolverton (Wolverton & Associates) (770) 447-8999, jay.wolverton@wolverton-assoc.com
Secretary, Charles Ezelle (Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co.) (912) 234-5300 ezelle.c@thomasandhutton.com Vice Chair, Don Harris (URS Corporation) (678) 808-8804 don.harris@urs.com Vice Chair, John A. Heath (Heath & Lineback Engineers Inc.) (770) 424-1668, jheath@heath-lineback.com Vice Chair, Doug Robinson (Walter P. Moore) (404) 898-9620 drobinson@walterpmoore.com National Director, David Wright (NeelSchaffer Inc.) (678) 604-0040 david.wright@neel-schaffer.com
Chair-Elect, Darrell K. Rochester (Rochester & Associates Inc.) (770) 718-0600 dkrochester@rochester-assoc.com
Director, Anita Atkinson (Patterson & Dewar Engineers) (770) 453-1410 aatkinson@pdengineers.com
Treasurer, Roseana Richards (Pond & Company) (678) 336-7740 richardsr@pondco.com
Director, Jim Case (Uzun & Case Engineers Inc.) (678) 553-5200 Jcase@uzuncase.com
OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
Director, David Estes (Ayres Associates), (404) 658-9320 estesd@ayresassociates.com Director, Scott Gero (AECOM) (404) 965-9726, scott.gero@aecom.com Director, Robert (Rob) Lewis (HNTB Corp.) (404) 946-5735 rtlewis@HNTB.com Director, David McFarlin (Long Engineering Inc.) (770) 951-2495 dmcfarlin@longeng.com Director, Kevin McOmber (Clark Patterson Lee) (770) 831-9000 kmcOmber@clarkpatterson.com Director, Taylor Wright (Atkins North America) (770) 933-0280 taylor.wrightt@atkinsglobal.com Past Chair, Edgar (Eddie) Williams (Keck & Wood) (678) 417-4000 ewilliams@keckwood.com
31
ACEC Georgia Firm Operations Committee Questionnaire By Gwen Brandon, CAE | Chief Operating Officer | American Council of Engineering Companies of Georgia
I
n July 2013, ACEC Georgia surveyed its member firms regarding their technology utilization. The objective for the questionnaire was to gather input on what sorts of programs and information member firms would find most valuable for ACEC Georgia to include in an upcoming Firm Operations Seminar, as well as other firm operations programing to be provided in the future. Firm Operations is one of the three pillars of the ACEC Georgia Value Proposition, and the Council wants to deliver significant ROI for its members in that regard. Thirty one percent of the total responding firms were single office firms and 69 percent were multi-office firms. 38 percent of the responding firms were less than 50 employees; 44 percent were less than 200 employees; six percent were greater than 200 employees; and two percent were greater than 500 employees. The following responses were received from approximately ten percent of the ACEC Georgia membership: Accounting • What accounting software is used by your firm? 58 percent of respondents use Deltek Vision. Other software utilized by respondents include Sage, Oracle, Quickbooks, and Ajera. Primary comments by the Deltek Vision users were: very robust; customized for the firm; provides project managers with everything they need; requires a lot of training to use it to its fullest capacity. •
Primary Accounting Platform Utilized Opinion (1-Poor, 2-Fair, 3-Good, 4Very good, 5-Excellent)
Among total respondents: Ease of Use—53 percent indicated very good, 20 percent in32
dicated good, 13 percent indicated excellent, seven percent indicated poor, and seven percent indicated unknown; Functionality - 60 percent indicated very good, 27 percent indicated excellent, seven percent indicated fair, and seven percent indicated unknown; Support and Service—33 percent indicated very good, 20 percent indicated excellent, 20 percent indicated good, seven percent indicated fair, and 13 percent indicated unknown. • Timesheets 93.7 percent of total respondents utilize electronic timesheets; 6.2 percent do not. •
Expense Reports 81.2 percent of total respondents utilize electronic expense reports; 18.7 percent do not.
•
Primary Project Management Platform Utilized Opinion (1-Poor, 2-Fair, 3Good, 4-Very good, 5-Excellent)
Among total respondents: Ease of Use - 67 percent indicated very good, 13 percent indicated good, seven percent indicated excellent, seven percent indicated fair, and seven percent indicated unknown; Functionality 53 percent indicated very good, 20 percent indicated excellent, 13 percent indicated good, seven percent indicated fair, and seven percent indicated unknown; Service/Support —33 percent indicated very good, 27 percent indicated good, 13 percent indicated excellent, 13 percent indicated fair, and seven percent indicated unknown. Marketing • What marketing software is used by your firm? 29 percent of respondents use InDesign; 43 percent of respondents use WordPress; other software utilized by respondents includes Web Easy Pro-
fessional and FrontPage •
Primary Marketing Software Utilized for Proposals/Brochures Opinion (1Poor, 2-Fair, 3-Good, 4-Very good, 5Excellent)
Among total respondents: Ease of Use - 53 percent indicated very good, 20 percent indicated good, 13 percent indicated fair, and 13 percent indicated unknown; Functionality – 47 percent indicated very good, 13 percent indicated good, 13 percent indicated fair, 13 percent indicated unknown, and seven percent indicated excellent; Cost-toBenefit Ratio – 33 percent indicated fair, 20 percent indicated good, 20 percent indicated very good, 13 percent indicated unknown, and seven percent indicated excellent; Service/Support—20 percent indicated good, 20 percent indicated very good, 20 percent indicated fair, 20 percent indicated unknown, 13 percent indicated fair, and seven percent indicated excellent. • Do you create/update your own Web site development in-house? Among total respondents: 62.5 percent answered Yes, 37.5 percent answered No Design • What primary design software is used by your firm? Among total respondents: Bentley 43.7 percent; AutoDesk Civil 3-D, Version 31.2 percent; AutoCAD, Version 12.5 percent; Other 12.5 percent •
Primary Design Software Utilized Opinion (1-Poor, 2-Fair, 3-Good, 4Very good, 5-Excellent)
Among total respondents: Ease of Use—38 percent very good, 31 percent good, 13 percent excellent, six percent fair, and 13 percent unknown; Functionality—56 percent GeorGia enGineer
very good, 19 percent excellent, 13 percent good, 13 percent unknown; Cost-toBenefit Ratio —31 percent good, 25 percent very good, 25 percent excellent, six percent fair, and 13 percent unknown; Service/Support—44 percent very good, 25 percent good, 19 percent unknown, six percent fair, and six percent excellent • Does your company utilize BIM Software? 56.2 percent answered No, 43.7 percent answered Yes •
•
If Yes to above, indicate all software utilized? Among total respondents: 85.7 percent AutoDesk Revit; 42.8 percent Bentley BIM BIM Software Utilized (1-Poor, 2-Fair, 3-Good, 4-Very good, 5-Excellent)
Among total respondents: Ease of Use – 56 percent unknown, 25 percent good, 19 percent very good; Functionality—56 percent unknown, 19 percent good, 19 percent very good, and six percent excellent; Service/Sup-
OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
port—56 percent unknown, 25 percent good, six percent fair, six percent very good, and six percent excellent • Other Major Design Software STAAD, CAiCE, InRoads, HecRAS, ICPR, Water CAD, FlowMaster, CulvertMaster, RAM, ETABS, Adapt, PCI, MS Project, Google Earth, Hydraflow, LEAP Bridge, GDOT Bridge Software, SAP, CAiCE Social Media • What Social Media is used by your firm? Among all respondents: 50 percent LinkedIn; 33 percent no social media; 17 percent company customized site with updates and news • Do you keep your corporate account(s) up to date with recent information? Among total respondents: 62.5 percent answered Yes, 37.5 percent answered No
Mobile Media • Does your company provide smart phones to employees? 87.5 percent answered Yes, 12.5 percent answered No •
If no above, does your company allow personal smart phones to access company resources? 68.7 percent replied Yes, 25.0 percent No, 6.2 percent no response
•
Does your Company provide tablets to employees? 43.7 percent replied Yes, 56.2 percent replied No
•
If no above, does your Company allow personal tablets to access company resources? 81.2 percent replied Yes, 18.7 replied No
The ACEC Georgia Firms Operations Committee thanks those firms that participated in the questionnaire and would appreciate receiving additional comments from its members related to technology utilization. v
33
Asce Georgia
News
Katherine Gurd, P.E., President American Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Section www.ascega.org Katherine.Gurd@aecom.com
Greetings! I’m excited to talk to you here, in my first message as your new Section President. My ASCE story begins something like this - I got involved in ASCE Georgia right out of college. Initially I was active only in the younger members group and enjoyed the social networking activities. Back then, I never expected that I would become your Georgia Section President, but one day someone asked me to get more involved. As you see, I did, and over the years that involvement grew. ASCE has been a great organization for me both personally and professionally. If you are a new or even long time member that hasn’t found your place in ASCE Georgia, I am personally asking you, right here, to look for your place to get in-
volved—you won’t regret it. Now that I am here, I am excited about serving you, and wanted to fill you in on some of our major initiatives this year. Report Card: In March of 2013, ASCE National released the Report Card for America’s Infrastructure (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/). As you may have heard, the Georgia Section is following-up this National release with an updated Report Card focusing on our own state’s infrastructure. Over 50 Georgia Section volunteers have been hard at work over the last few months researching, writing, and reviewing, and we are excited to announce that we will be unveiling our Report Card for Georgia’s Infrastructure in January. The Georgia Report Card, last updated in 2009, will be the third
edition released by the Section. We are planning several big events in conjunction with the report card release. If you’d like to get more involved, please contact our PresidentElect Rebecca Shelton at: Rebecca.Shelton@gwinnettcounty.com. Government Relations: I recently had the opportunity to work with ASCE National alongside some of our local legislative committee taking the National Report Card to State Legislators from across the Country at the National Conference of State Legislatures, which was held in Atlanta this year. First, I’d like to thank our local volunteers at this event: Rebecca Shelton, Ray Wilke, Janille Smith Colin, Rick Gurney, Danielle Elkins, and Jeffrey Chiu. Next I want to tell you how this and other government relations activities
Buzz knows the importance of infrastructure! Representing ASCE at the National Conference of State Legislatures: Jeffrey Chiu and Kat Gurd.
ASCE/GEORGIA SECTION 2012 - 2013 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Katherine McLeod Gurd, P.E. AECOM katherine.gurd@aecom.com
Treasurer Dan Agramonte, P.E. O’BRIEN & GERE Daniel.agramonte@obg.com
Secretary Julie Secrist, P.E. T.Y. Lin International Group Julie.Secrist@tylin.com
President-Elect Rebecca Shelton, P.E. Gwinnett County DWR rebecca.shelton@gwinnettcounty.com
External Director Shaukat Syed Georgia EPD, Watershed Protection Branch Shaukat.Syed@dnr.state.ga.us
Technical Director Luis E. Babler, P.E. Geo-Hydro Engineers Inc luis@geohydro.com
Vice President Richard Morales, M.Sc., P.E. LB Foster Piling rmorales@LBFoster.com
Internal Director Christina Vulova, P.E. ARCADIS U.S. Inc. christina.vulova@arcadis-us.com
President
34
Younger Member Director Benjamin L. Moss O’BRIEN & GERE benjamin.moss@obg.com Savannah Branch Director Laurel M. Webb
O’BRIEN & GERE laurel.webb@obg.com NE Georgia Branch Director J. Matthew Tanner, PE Breedlove Land Planning Inc. mtanner@landplanning.net South Metro Branch Director Greg A. Wombough, P.E. Oasis Consulting Services gwombough@oasis-cs.com Past-President Lisa S. Woods, P.E. JACOBS lisa.woods@jacobs.com
GeorGia enGineer
that I’ve been involved with through ASCE have inspired me to enhance our Georgia Section Legislative Activities this next year. To help promote the Georgia Report card, one of my goals is to try to engage many of you, our Section membership, in Government relations. We plan to mobilize many of our members to meet with their legislators at the Georgia State Capitol around the release of our Report Card, to not only provide them with our important research on our state and local infrastructure, but to make sure they are aware that ASCE is available to them as a technical resource. If you are interested in getting involved with this initiative, I urge you to contact me, and I’ll get you pluggedin. I also encourage you to look into ASCE National’s Government Relations programs. Programs like “Key Contact” can help you become engaged in important legislative issues for our profession and can keep you abreast of timely information on legislative activities year round. Outreach: If politics isn’t your thing, there are many other ways to get involved with the Section; one of the many ways is with our student outreach program. Last year, the Georgia Section of ASCE gave over 15 outreach presentations to schools and other groups. One thing all these presentations have in common was that they need volunteers to make them happen. Our charge in these presentations is to tell our engineering stories in a way that kids understand, showing them how fun and exciting this career really is! If you are up to the challenge, please contact our External Director, Shaukat Syed at Shaukat.Syed@dnr.state.ga.us. In closing, I’d like to thank our newest Past-President, Lisa Woods, for her leadership in 2012-2013. I’d also like to introduce you to our 2013—2014 Board of Directors. Their contact information is provided below, as we are all your representatives and are here to serve you. Please don’t hesitate to contact any of us if you have questions, concerns, or comments about our Section. I’d also like to thank our sponsors: ATG, Belgard Hardscapes, CH2MHill, Evonik, Haywood Baker, John Group International, and LBFoster. Please contact me if your firm is interested in supporting the Georgia Section. v OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
35
AsHe Georgia Ron Osterloh, PE President American Society of Highway Engineers / Georgia Section
News Officer Installations Officer installations were held in June, and three new board members were added. The 2012-2013 ASHE Georgia Section officers are:
President ~ Michael Bywaletz, Gresham
ASHE Georgia Happenings ~ Jenny Jenkins
Second Vice President ~ Rob Dell-Ross,
Annual Bowling Tournament The annual ASHE Georgia Bowling Tournament was held on August 29. There were 160 players and 40 teams competing in four divisions: Interstate, Highway, Local Roads, and Driveway. Each team bowled three games, at which point the top two teams from each division went on to compete for the division title. v
Smith and Partners First Vice President ~ Brian O’Connor,
T.Y. Lin International City of Roswell Secretary ~ Mindy Sanders, Lowe
Engineers Treasurer ~ Richard Meehan, Lowe
Engineers Co-Treasurer Rick Strickland, T.Y. Lin
International Past President ~ Ron Osterloh, Pond &
Company National Director ~ Nikki Reutlinger,
Atkins Director ~ Shawn Fleet, Heath and
Lineback Director ~ Karyn Matthews, GDOT Chairs Nominating Committee Chair ~ Tim
Matthews, GDOT Program Chair ~ John Karnowski,
Foresite Group Interstate Division Champs: Jive Turkeys (Gresham Smith) – Scott Shelton, Michael Bywaletz, Nithin Gomez, Josh Williams
Membership Chair ~ Scott Jordan, Cobb
County Scholarship Chair ~ Sarah Worachek, Gresham Smith and Partners ASHE Student Chapter Liason ~ Jennifer
Stephan, T.Y. Lin International Technical Chairs ~ Dan Bodycomb,
AECOM; Chris Rudd, GDOT Communications Chair ~ Jenny Jenkins,
McGee Partners Social Chair ~ Holly Bauman, ARCADIS Golf Tournament Chair ~ Ashley Chan,
HNTB Highway Division Champs: Cardno Express (Cardno TBE) - Frank Quattlebaum, Brandon Crawford, Sean Swiorcek, Randy Sandborn 36
Web site Chairs ~ Pervez Iqbal, HNTB
GeorGia enGineer
THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS We would like to sincerely thank our generous sponsors: Turkey Level Edwards Pitman, AECOM, United Consulting, Southeastern Engineering, TY Lin Strike Level THC Inc., Gresham Smith and Partners, ARCADIS, Terracon Spare Level Pond & Company, Heath and Lineback, STV/Ralph Whitehead, Hatch Mott MacDonald, Wolverton & Associates, ECS Southeast, Clark Patterson Lee Local Roads Division Champs: Pond Too (Pond) – Arwin Lopez, Bryon Letourneau, Graham Malone, Daniel Sabia
Driveway Division Champs: Spare Time (GDOT) ~ Terry Brigman, Jeff Baker, Mike Bolden, Meg Pirkle CALENDAR OF EVENTS September, 2013 Membership Meeting October, 2013 Membership Meeting
December, 2013 Holiday Social *Check the Web site for dates, changes, and other events.
November, 2013 Transportation Summit OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
37
GsPe Georgia Trey Wingate, P.E., President Georgia Society of Professional Engineers
Fall is a wonderful time of change that we all enjoy. We all anticipate that first crisp morning that signals the end of the heat of summer and ushers in the cool comfortable days of fall. The anticipation of the many fall colors in the trees and the sound of college football back in the air signals to us all that one of our favorite times of the year is back. GSPE also has a great calendar of events to offer for those that share my enthusiasm for the fall. Get involved in these events and enjoy the benefits from being a leader in your profession. As you will see in the calendar of events outlined, there is no shortage of opportunities for participation. Mark your calendars and enjoy participating in these events. MATHCOUNTS Golf Tournament If you missed the tournament on September 20th you missed a great outing for a great GSPE Board of Directors
News cause. We would like to thank all the companies and participants that came out to support this great cause. Once again we would like to thank our Gold Sponsor: Schnabel Engineering, LLC; Silver Sponsor: Southern Company Hydro Generation; and Bronze Sponsors: Integrated Science and Engineering and Prime Engineering for their generous support of the event with all of the other sponsors that made this event special for our future engineers that will be competing this year. New PE Recognition and Awards Dinner October 2, 2013, Georgia Tech Hotel & Conference Center, Atlanta, Georgia The New PE Recognition and Awards Dinner honors the newly licensed Professional Engineers in the state of Georgia and GSPE members that have made outstanding contributions to the profession. Come and help us welcome these new engineers to our profession. PDH Day October 25, 2013, Georgia Tech Student Center, Atlanta, Georgia The Annual PDH Day seminar is an expedient program that is modestly priced to assist engineers in securing professional development hours in a comfortable environment. There are multiple concurrent tracks for technical disciplines and professional business. Lunch is provided for all attendees.
Please Note: Nominations for the 2014 Georgia Engineer of the Year Awards are Due December 7, 2013. The awards will be presented at the Georgia Engineers Week Gala on Saturday, February 15, 2014 at the Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference Center. For additional information on the events and programs that GSPE presents, please contact Carolyn Jones at 404-840-2543 or via e-mail at cjones@gspe.org.v
GSPE Committees - Get Involved!
William Wingate III, PE President
Membership
John Wackerman, PE
David Simoneau, PE
Past-President
Communications
Steve Strong, PE
Rob MacPherson, PE
President-Elect
Programs
Ron Scinta, PE
Kevin Berry, PE
Secretary
Budget & Finance
Stuart McRae, PE
Stuart McRae, PE
Treasurer
MATHCOUNTS
Betty Jean Jordan, PE
Doug Benner, PE
VP Region I
Golf Tournament
Jason Cooper, PE
Gale Sights, PE
VP Region II
Engineers Week
Rob MacPherson, PE
Dennis Adams, PE
VP Region III
Legislative
Kevin Berry, PE
Douglas Weaver, PE
VP At Large Region
Nomination
David Simoneau, PE
Farley Wolford, PE
Chapter Rep.
Fundraising
Ed Fiegle, PE
Joe D'Alessandro, PE
Chapter Rep.
Chapters
Lee Newman, PE
Ed Fiegle, PE
Chapter Rep.
Student Chapters
TBD
38
PE Exam Lunch October 25, 2013, The Atlanta Metro and Macon Chapters have lead the way for several years in assisting with a lunch for those taking the exam and we look forward to them being there again this year for our future members. These events and all of the other benefits of being a member of GSPE are thanks to the dedication and hard work of many of our peers. Join me in thanking our list of officers and committee chairs below for contributing in such a dedicated fashion. For without them, these wonderful events would not be possible.
GeorGia enGineer
iTe Georgia Dwayne Tedder, PE Georgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers
Hello, readers! Thanks for taking the time to glance at the Georgia Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (GA ITE) article for this edition of the Georgia Engineer Magazine. I’ll try to hold your interest for a few sentences, perhaps even a couple of paragraphs. I’m not setting my sights too high since we’re probably all engineers that are reading this, and there’s an engineer writing this, and we all know that transportation engineering may not be the most glamorous of professions. However, there can be some excitement in engineering. A young engineering student at Georgia Tech recently gave an inspiring, passionate convocation speech to incoming freshmen (alma mater inserted on purpose). I watched
News on Facebook, as many apparently also watched. The sophomore challenged the students that, “They can do that” as engineers. The mechanical engineering student, named Nicholas Selby, was making the point that engineers shouldn’t find limits on what they can create, innovate, attain, and they can surpass previously set limits to what mankind has done. A lot of us in the transportation engineering industry may say that we believe in innovation. It can be quite difficult to venture out and actually try something new. Engineers find comfort and confidence in keeping with the normal tried and true methods. There can be a minimization in risk and liability by using the exact same processes and procedures as done so many times over. Another advantage of keeping with the status quo is the efficiency and predictability we find when maintaining consistency. The safety benefits and cost savings of repetitive processes should also not be overlooked by public and private entities alike. In light of these comments, I take a new direction now and highlight how the young student challenged engineers, and that we should be striving to do things that others are not capable of doing. Some of you may have entered transportation engineering because of the opportunities to innovate. The draw may
Family fun at bowling
OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
have been to work with technology and computers. Others may have chosen the profession because the design and construction of projects is what excited you. Regardless of how you got in this profession, I also challenge you to innovate, invent, and break new ground. The opportunities around you may sometimes be hard to spot. It may be the chance to suggest a new order of tasks on a contract. It may be using some personal time to write some code for a spreadsheet that later turns into a macro or a new computer program. Sometimes there may be innovations that are being applied in other states or countries that might be useful and beneficial where you are. I have heard some of the best engineers’ responses when asked how they learned to do something that very few people had learned to do. They stated that they decided that they wanted to do something and then started researching, learning, and teaching themselves how to do it. If you think that this narrative with familiar terms on innovation interests you and you want to get some guidance, motivation, insight, and encouragement on how to do this, GA ITE can help you by providing seminars and training. 1. The GA ITE Leadership Training is quickly approaching. This Leadership Training is scheduled for October 25 – 26 at The Lodge at Simpsonwood in Norcross, Georgia. This is the kind of training where you will hear how leaders can be willing to accept risks and do things differently. 2. The Annual Meeting for GA ITE will be held at the Buckhead Club in Atlanta, Georgia on Tuesday, December 10. Please consider this your invitation. We are looking forward to another great year-end event where we pat ourselves on the back a little and have a good time networking, socializing, and recognizing our accomplishments. We also have to induct a new board and find new officers. 39
is manageable and useful to planners, designers, operators, companies, agencies, and the list could continue.
portation engineers ‘can do that.’ Numerous presentations were given on subjects such as information technology in intelligent transportation system, incident detection using computer vision, flashing yellow arrows, bus rapid transit with traffic signal system priority, reversible lanes, and innovations in transportation funding just to name a few. Not only does the Summer Seminar contain excellent technical sessions, it also includes opportunities for socializing with colleagues and time for recreational activities.
3. The GA ITE Summer Seminar occurred on July 22-25 at the beautiful King and Prince Resort at St. Simons Island. There were 160 registrants for the Summer Seminar. This is the highest in five years. The seminar did an excellent job this year in showing how trans-
So come on out and get active in GA ITE. We have a ton of committees, so we can find somewhere for you if you want to volunteer. We also pledge to do our best to provide the most value for our members. See www.ite.org or www.gaite.org for ways to become a member. v
Golf Tournament In the last couple of months GA ITE has organized several other events that have highlighted projects and programs that are cutting edge in transportation engineering. 1. The monthly meeting for May was held at Mary Mac’s in Atlanta, and the speaker, Carmen Strauchon from Forest City Enterprises, talked about the planned Multi-Modal Passenger Terminal (MMPT) in Atlanta. The first phase will result in an approved concept and is expected within two months. The project is part of the GDOT Intermodal Office’s P3 initiative. The project will be developed by Cousins and Forest City Enterprises. It will incorporate MARTA, GRTA Express, Cobb and Gwinnett Transit, Greyhound, and the Atlanta Streetcar. The location is adjacent to the existing rail lines in downtown Atlanta between Forsyth Street and Centennial Olympic Park. The study is recommending the extension of some roadways in order to achieve improved access and circulation around the site. 2. GA ITE hosted the monthly meeting for June at the Northpark Town Center building in the Perimeter Mall area near SR 400 at I-285. Matthew Matimo of Airsage works with mobile telephone service providers to capture location data from cell phones. This data is then used to provide travel time and origin/destination data for transportation systems and clients. Matthew’s presentation showcased how information technology and the transportation industry are pushing the envelope on data collection, data mining and analysis, and managing extremely large data so that it 40
Board Position President Vice President Secretary/Treasurer Past President District Representative District Representative District Representative Affiliate Director
Member Dwayne Tedder Jonathan Reid Andrew Antweiler John Karnowski David Low Carla Holmes Jim Tolson Patrick McAtee
E-mail dwayne.tedder@urs.com reid@pbworld.com aantweiler@roswellgov.com jkarnowski@foresitegroupinc.com dlow@roswellgov.com carla_holmes@gspnet.com jtolson@dot.ga.gov pmcatee@thompsonengineering.com
Phone 404.406.8791 404.364.5225 678.639.7540 770.368.1399 770.594.6422 678.518.3654 404.635.2849 404.574.1985
Committee Activities Activities Annual Report Audio/Visual Awards/Nominations Career Guidance Clerk Comptroller Engineers Week Finance Georgia Engineer Magazine Georgia Tech Liaison Historian Host Legislative Affairs Life Membership Marketing Membership Monthly Meetings Newsletter Past Presidents Public Officials Education Scholarship Southern Poly Liaison Summer Seminar Technical Web site Winter Workshop
Chair(s) Meredith Emory Jim Tolson Mark Boivin John Karnowski Amy Diaz Elizabeth Scales Jim Pohlman Steven Sheffield Charles Bopp Dan Dobry Chris Rome Charles Bopp Vamshi Mudumba Bill Ruhsam Don Gaines Shannon Fain Sunita Nadella Jonathan Reid Vern Wilburn Todd Long Scott Mohler Mike Holt Bryan Sartin Sean Coleman Abdul Amer France Campbell Larry Overn
E-mail meredith.emory@kimley-horn.com jim.tolson@arcadis-us.com markboivin@alltrafficdata.net jkarnowski@foresitegroupinc.com amy.diaz@jacobs.com escales@thompsonengineering.com pohlmanj@bellsouth.net steven.sheffield@co.clayton.ga.us charles_bopp@hotmail.com ddobry@croyengineering.com crome@foresitegroupinc.com charles_bopp@hotmail.com vamshim@laiengineering.com bill@jbwr.net dgaines@gcaeng.com s.fain@delcan.com sunita.nadella@parsons.com reid@pbworld.com vwilburn@wilburnengineering.com tlong@dot.ga.gov scott.mohler@urs.com holtmr@pbworld.com bryan_sartin@gspnet.com sean.coleman@kimley-horn.com aamer@areng.com france_campbell@gspnet.com larry.overn@stantec.com
Phone 404.201.6133 770.384.6570 404.374.1283 770.368.1399 678.333.0283 404.574.1985 770.972.9709 678.479.5391 678.380.9053 770.971.5407 770.368.1399 678.380.9053 770.423.0807 404.931.6478 404.355.4010 404.771.7479 678.969.2304 404.364.5225 678.423.0050 404.631.1021 678.808.8811 404.364.2662 678.518.3884 404.419.8781 770.690.9255 678.518.3952 770.813.0882
GeorGia enGineer
iTs Georgia Scott Mohler, P.E. ITS President
Our 2013 Annual Meeting and Exposition was an incredible success. I want to express thanks to our sponsors, listed below, exhibitors, presenters, and attendees. Thanks are also in order to Kenn Fink and KimleyHorn, our organizers. In addition to our excellent program, headlined by GDOT Commissioner Keith Golden and ITS America CEO Scott
News Belcher, we announced new officers and directors. Elected president to a two-year term was Tom Sever of the Gwinnett County Department of Transportation, elected vice-president was Grant Waldrop of the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), elected secretary was Jennifer Johnson of Kimley-Horn, and elected treasurer was Ashlyn Morgan of Atkins. Elected to the board of directors were: Yancy Bachmann, World Fiber; Mark Demidovich, GDOT; Kenn Fink, Kimley-Horn; and Mike Holt of Parsons Brinkerhoff.
previous 12 months with an impact that is quantifiable and directly related to a specific activity/action that reduces congestion, improves safety and security, and enhances mobility in Georgia.
Awards Another important part of our annual meeting is awards. This year’s recipients are especially deserving.
Vice President Tom Sever, Gwinnett DOT Grand Waldrop, GDOT, Vice-president-elect
Project of Significance Award ~ City of Atlanta, Central Atlanta Progress and Atlanta Downtown Improvement District. A project, study, or program undertaken in the
ITS GEORGIA CHAPTER LEADERSHIP President Scott Mohler, URS Corporation President-elect Tom Sever, Gwinnett DOT
Secretary Kristin Turner, Wolverton and Associates Inc. Jennifer Johnson, Kimley-Horn, Secretary-elect Treasurer Ashlyn Morgan, Atkins Immediate Past President
Marion Waters Gresham Smith & Partners Directors Mark Demidovich, GDOT Susie Dunn, Atlanta Regional Commission Eric Graves, City of Alpharetta Carla Holmes, Gresham Smith & Partners Winter Horbal, Temple Inc. Keary Lord, Douglas County DOT Michael Roberson, GDOT David Smith, DeKalb County Transportation Prasoon Sinha, ARCADIS Grant Waldrop, GDOT Mike Holt, Parsons Brinkerhoff, elect Yancy Bachmann, World Fiber, elect Kenn Fink, Kimley-Horn, elect State Chapters Representative
Shahram Malek, Arcadis
ITS America CEO Scott Belcher gives the ITS Georgia Annual Meeting an update on transportation issues in Washington
OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
Ex Officio Greg Morris, Federal Highway Administration Andres Ramirez, Federal Transit Administration
41
Larry R. Dreihaup Award ~ R.J. Surgi, URS Corporation. The ITS Georgia Larry R. Dreihaup Award recognizes an individual or an organization that has provided leadership, professionalism, and dedication in promoting ITS in the state of Georgia during the previous 12 months. Outstanding Public Member Agency Award ~ Gwinnett County. Leadership in promoting ITS and/or ITS Georgia goals during the previous 12 months. Outstanding Volunteer Award ~ Mike Holt, P.E., Parsons Brinkerhoff. Open to all membership, including board members and Committee Chairs, who have gone above and beyond to support ITS Georgia during the previous 12 months.
Innovation: Outside the Box Award ~ Douglas County. Creative and unique approach or solution by an individual or group to an ITS challenge, or to an issue using ITS as a solution during the previous 12 months. Special Recognition Award ~ Susie Dunn, Atlanta Regional Commission and Marion Waters, P.E., Gresham Smith & Partners. In recognition of their dedication and outstanding service to ITS Georgia as a founding director, a board member, and an officer. Outgoing President’s Award ~ Scott Mohler, URS Corporation. In recognition of two-years of successful service to the chapter.
2013 Best of ITS award winners at the 2013 ITS Georgia annual meeting and expositions
ITS Georgia Mission We believe that ITS is a valuable tool for improved management of any transportation system, regardless of the inherent complexity of the system. ITS can help operate, manage, and maintain the system once it has been constructed. We believe that ITS should be systematically incorporated into the earliest stages of project development, especially into the planning and design of transportation projects. We believe the best way to achieve this systematic incorporation into the process is through a coordinated, comprehensive program to ‘get out the word’ on ITS to constituencies that might not otherwise consider the relevance of ITS to their transportation system.
OUR 2013/2014 SPONSORS Control Technologies Utilicom Temple Arcadis Atkins World Fiber Technologies Kimley-Horn and Associates Southern Lighting and Traffic Systems Delcan Gresham Smith and Partners Grice Consulting Jacobs Parsons Brinkerhoff Quality Traffic Systems URS Transcore
2013 Best of ITS award winners at the 2013 ITS Georgia annual meeting and expositions. 42
GeorGia enGineer
Wayne Shackelford Scholarship ~ Chieh (Ross) Wang, whose current research at Georgia Tech focuses on developing a riskbased decision making process for prioritizing pavement preservation projects in a more systematic and holistic fashion. Gary Millsaps As most of you know, people in the transportation industry lost a friend and innovator when Gary Millsaps passed away earlier this year. Gary was a friend of the ITS Georgia and a leader in improving transportation safety in Georgia. He will be missed.v
Join us for our final chapter meeting of the year: Newly elected officers and directors of ITS Georgia. L-R Jennifer Johnson, secretary; Mark Demidovich, director; Yancy Bachmann, director; Tom Sever, president and Grant Waldrop, vice-president.
October 31
seAoG Georgia Rob Weilacher, PE, SE President The Structural Engineers Association of Georgia
SEAOG began the fall 2013 season with the NCSEA (our parent organization) annual conference in Atlanta at the Westin Buckhead September 18-21. We sponsored two of our young members and one other member (who won a drawing) to the convention this year in addition to our delegate and alternate delegate. OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
News SEAOG has membership meetings for our fall season every third Thursday at Cross Creek Café in Atlanta during August, September, October, and November. Thanks to Wilbur Bragg and the Programs Subcommittee for their vital work in organizing these opportunities for education. In addition to the membership meeting presentations, SEAOG provided Structural Engineering Examination Preparatory Classes for the new 16-hour licensing exam required for structural engineers for wood, masonry, and AASHTO design. SEAOG has also started a new chapter in Savannah this fall, which we are very excited about. Our subcommittees to coordinate activities in the separate areas of service are: • Structural Engineering Emergency Response (SEER) • Structural Engineering Licensing (SE) • Programs (for monthly membership meetings)
• • • •
Liaison with the Board of Registration Legislative Council Young Members Group Awards Program (for winter 20132014)
Each subcommittee includes a member of the board and a separate chairman. Subcommittee meeting notes, subcommittee purpose and active members can be found on the SEAOG Web site. Please visit the site and volunteer ! In summary, the Structural Engineers Association of continues to offer quality continuing education and professional networking. We encourage you to keep tabs on our events and activities at www.seaog.org. Please consider getting involved with one or more of our subcommittees. Your involvement will keep SEAOG effective in service to the professional structural engineers of Georgia long into the future. v 43
wTs Georgia Angela Snyder, P.E. President, WTS Atlanta
Thank you for your support of the WTS Atlanta Chapter! We feel very fortunate to have such a diverse community of members, corporate partners, and participants in our organization. Our chapter is very active in both professional and social activities which help us grow our network and develop in our individual functions within the transportation industry. We have been very busy so far this year with various activities including a GDOT Board Luncheon in June and a Lunch and Learn panel discussion on Asset Management in July. The GDOT Board Luncheon was a very successful event in which we honored the four female board members, Ann Purcell, Stacey Key, Dana Lemon and Emily Dunn. The audience was able to ask them questions related to transportation in Georgia and hear their insight into the female perspective of the state’s transportation issues. We also heard the GDOT Commissioner, Keith Golden, speak about his vision for GDOT and the importance of females in his organization as well as the industry. Our president and CEO of WTS International, Marcia Ferranto, flew down from Washington, D.C. to speak and show her support of our local chapter and key partners in the industry. Thanks so much to everyone, especially the GDOT board members and commissioner, for making the event such a success. And I want to specifically thank Tonya Saxon with MARTA, VP of Programs, 44
News and her committee chair, Leeshu Kennedy, also with MARTA, for working very hard to pull together this event and think of every detail. The Lunch and Learn panel discussion covering Asset Management was also a hit! This accomplished panel consisted of three very smart women in our industry: Angela Alexander of GDOT, Dr. Kendra Taylor of AECOM, and Sarah Peek of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. This event
was held at Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) and those folks were very accommodating to our needs when we outgrew the initial meeting location. I would like to thank Regan Hammond, as well as her colleagues with ARC, for donating the meeting space and being so hospitable to us. A special thanks to the speakers who gave a significant amount of time to come down and share their knowledge of asset management with everyone.
WTS ATLANTA 2013 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Angela Snyder, P.E. President Wolverton & Associates Inc. Marissa Martin, P.E. Vice President, Membership Gresham, Smith and Partners Tonya Saxon Vice President, Programs MARTA Kirsten Berry Secretary HNTB Corporation Jennifer Stephan, EIT Treasurer Gresham, Smith and Partners Beth Ann Schwartz, P.E. Director-at-Large Michael Baker Corporation Helen McSwain, P.E. Director-at-Large Atkins Regan Hammond Director-at-Large Atlanta Regional Commission Shelley Lamar Director-at-Large Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport Jennifer King, P.E. Immediate Past President HNTB Corporation
angela.snyder@wolverton-assoc.com marissa_martin@gspnet.com tsaxon@itsmarta.com kberry@hntb.com Jennifer_stephan@gspnet.com baschwartz@baker.com hmcswain@matcjv.com rhammond@arc.com Shelley.Lamar@atlanta-airport.com jjking@hntb.com
GeorGia enGineer
In August, WTS Atlanta paired up with the Georgia Environmental Professionals (GAEP) to attend an Atlanta Dream women’s basketball game together. Around twenty professionals showed up to have dinner and drinks before the game at Taco Mac before heading in to watch the game. It was a great night of networking and socializing, and we appreciate all those who were able to attend. In September, we are going to be starting golf lessons! We have been working with Charlie Yates Golf Course to secure three one-hour lessons throughout the month at a reduced price. That is a fun time to learn how to play or to brush up on your game. Please do not forget our Annual Scholarship Luncheon coming up on October 29th at the Georgia Aquarium! Thank you to Jenny Jenkins, McGee Partners, for working tirelessly to make this the best event ever! Along with social and networking events, we also offer long-term programs for our members: the Mentor-Protégé Program and the Transportation YOU program. The Mentor-Protégé Program is one of the main programs that we offer that promotes professional development for some of the recent entrants into the transportation industry. During the first half of the year we were planning and soliciting interest in bringing the program back. Then we received an
OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2013
overwhelming response to the request for applications from potential protégés. We are currently pairing them with the mentors that we think will best compliment their skills and industry sector and will soon start meeting together. I want to thank the chair of that program, Daveitta Jenkins with CH2M Hill, along with our VP of Programs, Tonya Saxon with MARTA, for doing such a great job pulling this together. Another rewarding program that has recently re-started, once all of the kids went back to school after their summer break, is the Transportation YOU program. Helen McSwain with Atkins, along with Heidi Schneider with HNTB, are leading this exciting program with assistance from a very supportive committee. They have continued the efforts started last year with Grady High School Robotics team by meeting with the school advisor of the Robotics program, developing a strategy, goal setting, and gathering support for this school year. Recently, WTS Atlanta sponsored a pair of Big and Little Sisters (WTS Atlanta member and Grady High School student, respectively), as part of the Transportation YOU program, to attend the DC Summit. The DC Summit was an event started last year through WTS International in partnership with the USDOT in which fourteen female students from across the US
and their mentors attend a conference for young women designed to introduce, inspire, and guide them toward a future in STEM studies (science, technology, engineering, and math) and a career in the transportation industry. The four-day summit, which kicked off on June 26, 2013, celebrated some of the brightest young girls from across the country. At its conclusion, these future leaders of the transportation industry had established a national network of high-profile women transportation professionals, as well as an awareness of the variety of exciting and rewarding careers in the transportation industry. Helen McSwain with Atkins, and representing WTS Atlanta, attended with Grady High School student Martika Johanson-Murray. Both Helen and Martika came back very enthusiastic about the experience and ready to see the program expand and move forward. We are very fortunate to have Helen leading this program, giving of her time and energy to see that it is a success, and representing our chapter on a national level. And we would like to thank Martika’s parents for allowing her to participate in this program and Martika for being so mature and professional in her representation of WTS Atlanta and Grady High School. We look forward to sending a pair again in 2014! v
45