The Georgia Engineer Oct-Nov 2014

G E O R G I A

ENGINEER

速

BUSINESS OF ENGINEERING & EDUCATION Volume 21, Issue 5

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2014

MAINTAINING FOR SUCCESS: CONSIDERATIONS FOR GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE

2

GeorGia enGineer

G E O R G I A

ENGINEER Publisher: A4 Inc. 1154 Lower Birmingham Road Canton, Georgia 30115 770-521-8877 | Fax: 770-521-0406 E-mail: p.frey@a4inc.com Editor-in-chief: Roland Petersen-Frey Managing Editor: Daniel Simmons Art Direction/Design: Pam Petersen-Frey Georgia Engineering Alliance 233 Peachtree Street Harris Tower, #700 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 404-521-2324 | Fax: 404-521-0283 Georgia Engineer Editorial board Thomas C. Leslie, Chair Michael L. (Sully) Sullivan, ACEC Georgia, President Shawna Mercer, ACEC Georgia, Director of Communications & Government Affairs AcEc/Georgia Representatives B.J. Martin, PE Lee Philips

AScE/G Representatives Daniel Agramonte, PE Steven C. Seachrist, PE ASHE Representative Jenny Jenkins, PE GSPE Representatives Tim Glover, PE ItE Representatives Daniel Dobry, PE, PTOE John Edwards, PE ItS/G Representatives Bill Wells, PE Shaun Green, PE Kay Wolfe, PE SAmE Representative Pamela Little, PE SEAOG Representative Rob Wellacher, PE WtS Representative Angela Snyder

the Georgia Engineer is published bi-monthly by A4 Inc. for the Georgia Engineering Al-

liance and sent to members of ACEC, ASCE, ASHE, GEF, GSPE, ITE, SAME, 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 2014

3

advertisements American Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 AMEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Anderson Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Columbia Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 CROM Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 EcoWise Civil Design & Consulting Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Edwards-Pitman Environmental Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Georgia 811 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Georgia Power Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Go Build Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Back Cover Hazen & Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 HDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 MH Miles Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Nova Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Pond Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Prime Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Reinforced Earth Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 ROSSER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 S&ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Stevenson & Palmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 STV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Terrell Hundley Carroll Right of Way Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 T•H•C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 T. Wayne Owens & Associates, PC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 United Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Inside Front Cover Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Wolverton & Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 4

GeorGia enGineer

t a b l e

o f

CONTENTS

GEORGIA ENGINEER OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2014

Maintaining for success: considerations for green infrastructure operations & maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Consolidation with Kennesaw State University and the benefits to the SPSU engineering programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Do you share information well with others? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Flagpole behemoth didn’t mean to break the records—but it did!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Fear, compliance, and creativity…it’s all in the strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Planning for a smoother FAR audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Small business approach to international business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Georgia Engineering News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 ACEC Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 ACEC Georgia’s 2015 legislative agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 ASCE Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 ASHE Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 GEF Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 GSPE Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 ASHRAE supports change to NCEES education initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 ITE Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 ITS Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 SAME Atlanta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 WTS Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

maintaininG for success 7 october | november 2014

5

visit us at theGeorGiaenGineer.com

6

GeorGia enGineer

FEATURE

By Daniel Wible, PE | Water Resources Engineer | CH2M HILL & Susan McDaniels, LEED AP | Water Resources Engineer | CH2M HILL

MAINTAINING FOR SUCCESS: considerations for green infrastructure operations & maintenance part one of three

Green Infrastructure (GI) is being implemented with greater and greater frequency throughout the country in order to meet water quality goals, improve our communities, and even reduce costs. As communities implement individual GI projects or large-scale programs with multiple GI projects, they potentially face numerous challenges. Perhaps the most significant of these challenges is how to integrate new and presumably different maintenance protocols into their existing maintenance programs and operating budgets.

This is a question that municipal governments, other public entities, and even private organizations are facing as they make decisions about long-term stormwater management. Fortunately, both large and small communities throughout the United States are proving that GI maintenance programs can succeed through proper planning, effective integration with existing programs, and the creation of new partnerships through education and outreach. The following discussion of GI operations and maintenance (O&M) will begin with a high-level look at key programmatic elements, such as proper planning, design, and various institutional considerations, before diving deeper into specific O&M recommendations and associated costs for the more common types of GI practices and components. october | november 2014

7

factors to consider for Gi operations and maintenance When it comes to operating and maintaining GI practices, there’s good news and bad news for responsible agencies.

First, the good news: your maintenance crews are already doing most of the work.

In other words, there is considerable overlap between maintaining traditional drainage infrastructure and landscape improvements and maintaining GI. This overlap includes a variety of fairly standard maintenance practices such as removal of trash, accumulated sediment, and organic matter (e.g. leaf litter); control of invasive and non-target vegetative species; control of target vegetation by pruning, mulching, and reseeding; and structural repairs, erosion control, and other corrective needs.

Such practices are especially common to vegetated GI technologies like bioretention, bioswales, and infiltration basins, among other types. Even routine street sweeping may be considered sufficient for maintaining permeable pavements, assuming the sweeper has a vacuum component. So, while there still might be a ‘learning curve’ involved in GI maintenance, much of what typical maintenance staff are already doing is readily applicable, or at least adaptable to the variety of those new GI facilities dotting the landscape.

As for the ‘bad’ news: there’s still that learning curve to contend with. GI is often different enough from traditional infrastructure to entail, if not demand, significant institutional change in attitudes, development of specialized O&M instructions, procurement of specialized equipment, and new training programs, among other considerations. In many communities, implementation of GI is change and change is of course not always easy. This is especially true when one considers the sheer variety of potential atypical drainage structures and/or materials involved in GI: overflow weirs, upturned pipes, modular storage media, plastic arches, observation wells, sediment chambers, baffles, screens, forebays, underdrains, small diameter orifices, sand-based structural soils, micro-siphons, inlet filter inserts for 8

Many GI maintenance activities are already routinely performed as part of conventional infrastructure and landscape maintenance programs. pretreatment, other types of propriety pretreatment devices, and the list goes on.

Indeed, overlap with traditional maintenance will only get you so far. For example, while permeable pavements may be partially cleaned with standard street sweepers, they will often require specialized vehicles or equipment with vacuuming and/or power washing capabilities, not to mention a higher maintenance frequency.

Another differentiating component of most GI technologies is that they rely on natural, dynamic, and ever-changing systems (i.e. plants and soil) to reduce runoff and improve water quality. In addition, most GI technologies are highly visible and often considered to be public amenities, vastly different from conventional drainage systems that are buried and therefore ‘out of sight, out of mind.’ From a maintenance standpoint, this translates into a potentially much higher level of care, one that relies less on heavy equipment and confined entry and more on careful hand work.

Maintenance of GI facilities must not only ensure continued performance (and continued compliance with associated regulatory requirements), it must also keep the public happy, an often more diffi-

cult task. This is worlds apart from maintaining conventional infrastructure, which is often only maintained when there is a problem such as surface flooding. Indeed, establishing and maintaining vegetation, a critical component of many GI facilities, is simply not the same as maintaining pipes.

The stark reality of GI practices is that there are numerous factors affecting their success even before they are put in the ground, not to mention whether they are maintained to protect the investment over time. GI practices are often dynamic, vegetated systems with some inherent degree of unpredictability. However, over the past decade especially, the design community has steadily inched closer to predicting the once-unpredictable, adding to its ‘lessons learned’ list a number of factors contributing to the success or failure of GI maintenance. This ever-growing list includes site characteristics such as land use, drainage area size, slope, etc; vehicle/foot traffic volumes and the corresponding amount of potential litter, debris, and sediment; the potential for invasive plant propagation; inadequate design (e.g. lack of pretreatment); and deleterious conditions resulting from improper construction (e.g. compaction, incorrect materials, etc.). Of course, even GI GeorGia enGineer

facilities that were designed and constructed according to best industry practices are susceptible to failure.

Inadequate or harmful maintenance practices, such as simple neglect, poor vegetation maintenance, excessive mowing, and compaction can render otherwise successful GI projects into eye sores or worse.

With so much to consider for successfully implementing GI in a given community, as well as the knowledge of the numerous ways it can all go wrong, it’s easy to see how some communities could become overwhelmed and decide to invest in simpler (i.e. more conventional) solutions to their stormwater concerns, sacrificing the numerous benefits of GI in the process. For such communities, the onus is on the design community (i.e. engineers and landscape architects) to develop designs that are not only functional and beneficial to the community, but also able to be inspected, maintained, and, if necessary, fixed in as practical a manner as possible. Indeed, effective maintenance begins with effective design.

As all good designers know, prior to developing any details or specifications, the first hurdle for successful GI implementation is not so much design as proper planning. In other words, maintenance requirements should be considered when selecting the best GI practice(s) for a particular site or a particular owner/operator.

In general, designers are encouraged to design for minimal maintenance, especially where available resources are limited or when located on private property, and to be aware of site constraints that will make maintenance difficult (i.e. steep slopes). For example, it might be wise to avoid the use of permeable pavements on sidewalks that will be maintained by homeowners. A better alternative might be to design infiltration trenches below standard pavement sidewalks, fed by standard street inlets with necessary pretreatment. When considering vegetated practices in similar settings, it might also be wise to opt for a minimal plant palette such as turf grass, which will have a better chance of being maintained over the life of the facility. GI practices that require october | november 2014

greater or specialized maintenance might be better suited for sites with rigorous ongoing maintenance protocols and resources, such as schools, commercial areas, urban plazas, and public parks.

Once the GI practice(s) has been effectively selected for its site, the designer’s job is to include the necessary components (i.e. details and specifications) to make the facilities as functional and maintainable as possible. One very simple technique that has proven effective is signage, which not only calls attention to sometimes less-than-obvious GI technologies like permeable pavements, but can also educate the public on their benefits. More technical design components such as sediment forebays and ‘enhanced’ inlets (e.g. filter inserts, sumps, etc.) can help extend a facility’s useful life (and require less frequent maintenance), while readily accessible structures such as cleanouts and observation ports can facilitate both active and passive maintenance of a facility. Of course, pretreatment devices such as filter inserts come with their own, possibly frequent maintenance requirements.

Some considerations are technology specific. For example, when utilizing permeable pavement on a site with a potentially high amount of sediment, a designer should attempt to protect the permeable surface by carefully locating surface drains to direct uphill runoff into the subsurface part of the system. This will reduce the frequency of required vacuuming and prolong the useful life of the permeable pavement. For vegetated systems such as bioretention, some of the most important design considerations with respect to long-term performance and maintenance are plant selection (e.g. salt and drought tolerant species), effective stabilization (especially for sloping sites), clear specification language (e.g. requiring all plants be individually inspected), and providing barriers to foot/vehicle traffic.

Gi operations & maintenance Plan essentials Communities that have invested in GI even at low levels are encouraged to develop a robust O&M Plan for their facilities. The

makeup of such a plan will vary widely depending on numerous factors, such as the size of the community and its public works staff, the types of GI facilities it has implemented, the amount of facilities in the ground, etc. At the very least, a GI O&M Plan should include standard operating procedures (SOPs), possibly as part of an O&M manual, and a training/education program for its staff (and sometimes the public). Without such resources in place, communities with vested interest in GI run the risk of seeing their investments wasted as permeable pavements get sealed over, rain gardens become unsightly trash collectors, and the public at large starts to view such facilities as nuisances and blights, if not worse.

The most basic elements of a GI O&M plan are its standard operating procedures or SOPs, which are the specific maintenance instructions that must be followed to ensure long-term performance. Such procedures can take various forms, but are typically developed for each GI technology, or component, to establish who is responsible for maintenance, what specific procedures must be followed, and the frequency of those procedures. Effective SOPs should also define the triggers for certain maintenance actions (e.g. storm events greater than a certain rainfall depth), as well as any seasonal considerations (e.g. don’t use sand on permeable pavements during the winter). SOPs should be clear, unambiguous, and readily accessible to their users, especially for less frequent tasks. They are often also enhanced by the use of visuals tools, such as photographs of weeds versus bioretention plants.

SOPs for GI maintenance are of course only as effective as the staff trained to follow them. Thus, a staff training and education program is a critical component of any GI implementation effort. Such training, whether for municipal staff or private entities, should not only educate staff on things like the most effective means of cleaning out sediment forebays or discerning weeds from specified plants, critical practices though they may be. It should also attempt to instill a sense of pride in 9

this important labor; a purposeful knowledge that this work directly impacts water quality and contributes significantly to the well-being of the community. Armed with both this sense of purpose and the tools to perform their duties (i.e. clear SOPs), maintenance staff will have all they need to increase the probability of long-term success of a community’s GI assets. For a good example of a GI training program, see the Best Management Practice Inspection and Maintenance Certification program administered by North Carolina State University’s Cooperative Extension.

Communities with larger GI programs are especially encouraged to consider implementing a more sophisticated O&M program and asset management framework that will streamline inspections and maintenance of their facilities. Such programs may consider collecting their SOPs and training materials into a more detailed O&M manual, which could also include inspection forms and checklists (for tracking performance observations, vegetation health, sediment accumulation, etc.), descriptions/details/photographs of different types of GI technologies, and the framework for an O&M ordinance or property owner agreements (for defining the requirements to inspect and maintain facilities, adapting enforcement procedures, etc.).

Taking things even further, large GI programs, such as Onondaga County, New York’s Save the Rain program, may even elect to institutionalize their maintenance approach. Examples of such institutionalization include evaluating the opportunities for volunteer inspection programs, establishing a fee and credit system to incentivize and reinforce maintenance requirements, and/or instituting a new or adapting an existing Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) for GI assets. By defining such assets with respect to their type, location, quantity, etc. and linking them to their respective SOPs by work orders, which establish the ‘who, what, where, and when,’ CMMS has the potential to significantly streamline preventative GI maintenance. It can also streamline maintenance reporting and 10

documentation, providing an invaluable tool for tracking labor hours, costs, problems, etc. A tracking system like this is not just for large programs, however; it can be tailored to the specific needs of a community based on the size of the program, the available resources and crews, and the availability of an existing CMMS. The above sections focused on the more programmatic elements associated with effective GI maintenance, such as proper planning, design, and institutional considerations. The purpose was to provide a high-level O&M framework for potential owners and/or operators of GI facilities. The following sections, on the other hand, take a deeper dive into the specific O&M recommendations and associated costs for the more common types of GI practices and components. typical operations & maintenance recommendations for various Gi technologies O & M procedures among GI practices vary considerably and ultimately depend on a variety of factors: primary system function, system visibility, system size, vegetation composition, contributory drainage area, and land cover associated with this area, among others. In general, O & M procedures and guidelines can be categorized into several major maintenance areas or functions that will apply to most GI system types, as discussed further below. sedimentation/erosion control/ infiltration capacity GI systems that rely on infiltration and/or filtration for runoff management are particularly susceptible to performance impacts from sedimentation. These types of systems utilize native or engineered soils with moderate to high soil porosity to absorb, filter, and infiltrate runoff and typically include subsurface infiltration systems, permeable pavements, bioretention, tree trenches, vegetated curb extensions, planter boxes, and infiltration basins. Although systems designed to accept surface runoff can be somewhat resilient to larger debris and coarse

sediments, fine sediments can render their surfaces nearly impermeable and lead to failure. Therefore, it is typically recommended that surface flow systems be designed with a sediment/debris catchment or forebay and energy dissipaters at inlets to prevent long term surface degradation. For most subsurface systems, such as infiltration beds and trenches, pretreatment devices such as inlet filter inserts, inlet sumps, and baffles or traps are recommended to prevent sedimentation.

Additionally, both surface and subsurface systems require careful placement of erosion and sedimentation controls during construction in order to preserve their design integrity.

Once in place and functioning, GI systems should be inspected several times per year for evidence of erosion and excessive inflow of sediments and debris. In addition, the infiltration capacity of surface flow systems (i.e. infiltration basins and bioretention) should be measured annually at a minimum. If signs of erosion or sedimentation are apparent, systems should be repaired and stabilized and the source of sedimentation controlled to the maximum extent practical.

In addition to routine maintenance, infrequent or non-routine maintenance for these types of GI systems may include removal of significant sediment that has accumulated through time. System infiltration capacity should be either actively or passively tested annually to confirm drain down times, which are typically considered adequate if they are less than 72 hours. Similar observations may be made by inspecting inlets and cleanouts connected to subsurface infiltration systems.

Failure to administer recommended maintenance protocols may require corrective action to restore systems that exhibit signs of decreased performance due to surface or subsurface clogging. v

this article will be continued in the next two issues of Georgia Engineer magazine.

GeorGia enGineer

Consolidation with Kennesaw State University and the benefits to the Southern Polytechnic State University engineering programs

By Lance Crimm | Department Chair Electrical and Mechatronics Engineering any in our engineering profession have heard the news that southern Polytechnic state university in marietta, Georgia, and Kennesaw state university of Kennesaw, Georgia, plan to merge into a single, more comprehensive university this coming year in January of 2015.

M

This surprising news shocked numerous faculty, sta, students, alumni, and industry supporters, among many others, such that it was quite controversial in the press last year. At first glance, SPSU and KSU appear to be widely divergent in their focus and mission. However, a thorough analysis shows that these two universities are quite complimentary in their diversity, which will further promote and strengthen engineering education for the state of Georgia and beyond. Not only are we close in proximity, but also we share many other common characteristics such as serving both traditional and non-traditional students. There are many other similarities and nuances associated with how we grew and developed in Cobb county, originating primarily as commuter based institutions.

The timing for this monumental task of merging two top class universities just eight miles apart on the Northwest corridor of I-75 in suburban metro Atlanta has been truly well planned and orchestrated from the outset. KSU has extremely strong programs in nursing, education, and business, among many others, while SPSU has historically been very strong in engineering technology, architecture, computer sciences, and most recently engineering. This has been recognized through a variety of means on both campuses, such as copious awards and accolades as well as encouraging rankings among many regional and national october | november 2014

11

publications. Maintaining the legacy of both campuses is certainly a critical element in making the new consolidated University even more successful.

With the plethora of efforts that committees and staff from both universities have been tirelessly and ferociously working on to best merge KSU and SPSU into a new ‘U’ come 2015, abundant positive benefits from the proposal to merge SPSU and KSU last fall have been falling perfectly in place with amazingly unexpected timing.

In addition, the camaraderie in the process has brought new and familiar people together in even stronger collaborative relationships. All this work is proving to be quite impactful and instrumental in pro-

12

moting and growing both our engineering and engineering technology degree programs, ensuring that they will all continue to thrive and be extraordinarily robust as the new Southern Polytechnic College of Engineering and Engineering Technology at KSU. One example of such uncanny timing is with our recently announced ABET accreditation in August of 2014. Earlier in May of 2013, SPSU had culminated a lengthy and arduous undertaking of preparing for ABET accreditation for our remaining five engineering undergraduate degree programs of Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Mechatronics Engineering, and

Systems Engineering. ABET accreditation assures that engineering programs meet strict standards set by professional organizations such as ASCE, ASME, and IEEE, among several others. These standards serve to ensure adequate preparation for entry to the engineering profession, including employment and preparation for graduate school. Additionally, most states (including Georgia) specify a degree from an ABET-accredited program as part of the requirements for professional licensing.

The accreditation process is rigorous and requires documentation of curriculum, university resources, program objectives, and outcomes. The ABET team also evaluates student knowledge, skills, continuous improvement processes, curriculum content, faculty qualifications, and facilities.

The ABET evaluation team just so happened to be scheduled to visit the SPSU campus immediately after the announcement of the proposed consolidation in November of 2013 with not even a single business day transpiring post consolidation announcement. During the three day visit, the team interviewed university leadership, faculty, staff from the School of Engineering and other supporting academic units at SPSU, current students, alumni, and members of Industrial Advisory Committees. The ABET team also

GeorGia enGineer

toured classroom and laboratory facilities and evaluated course materials to verify the academic content of the Southern Polytechnic engineering degree programs and to review the documented program outcomes. These outcomes range from a graduate’s ability to design systems, components, and processes to the ability of communicating effectively and functioning well on multidisciplinary teams.

Despite the unrest and uncertainty on campus in the few days after consolidation was announced, the ABET evaluators’ findings were very positive. The ABET team found zero deficiencies, weaknesses, or concerns in all five of these engineering BS degree programs which had commenced at SPSU between 2007 and 2009.

The ABET team noted a number of strengths including the quality of the faculty and facilities. It is not uncommon for reputable programs to receive a weakness, concern, and/or observations as part of this review process. Southern Polytechnic’s engineering programs, however, received an entirely positive review without a single weakness, concern, or observation. This is vastly unusual! Several members who had served on evaluation teams for ABET for over two decades mentioned that they had never before seen such a ‘clean sweep.’

Many of our engineering technology programs are up for the routine re-accreditation cycle this year where we anticipate ABET will confirm again these super stellar degree programs.

Moving forward, Southern Polytechnic plans to build on its foundations and seek even stronger academic programs in engineering by instituting a new program this fall semester. Incoming freshman will apply for ‘Engineering Standing’ as they complete their sophomore year. Successfully attaining ‘Engineering Standing’ will demonstrate that they are doing well academically in their coursework and progressing towards a graduation plan. Our emphasis remains on quality over quantity.

Southern Polytechnic will continue to reach out to both traditional and non-traditional engineering students by offering both day and evening classes. Despite any critics or worrywarts, Southern Polytechoctober | november 2014

nic engineering enrollment is substantially up again this fall 2014.

At Southern Polytechnic, we are keen to be careful not to just have efficient mechanisms where students can easily become just a number in a large corporation or business, but to focus on each and every individual student. In this manner, we consistently are seeking the best means to ensure both their academic, professional, and even personal success for our engineering students as we seek to help them achieve their goals and aspirations. Southern Polytechnic will maintain our rich history and stay true to our long culture in engineering of being hands on for students with small class sizes. Engineering professors work directly with students, both in class and out. This manifests itself in a multitude of ways, such as in co-curricular activities like ample competition teams, involving students in engineering scholarly activities and research, and working alongside students in innovative engineering designs. One amazing example of this is how KSU reached out to Southern Polytechnic this summer for our engineering faculty, staff, and students to design and develop some truly exhilarating and technically challenging new ideas for the upcoming 2015 football season. Stay tuned for further developments regarding this!

Ultimately, the new opportunities in engineering at Southern Polytechnic re-

main resilient and electrifying with the rapidly approaching merger with Kennesaw State. Southern Polytechnic, throughout its 64 year history, has always embraced change and dealt with it so well, despite any resistance or seemingly insurmountable obstacles. In addition to growing the number of engineering alumni in the coming years, Southern Polytechnic foresees continued engineering growth post consolidation with KSU. We have proposed additional masters programs in such fields as electrical engineering, mechatronics engineering, and nuclear engineering to name just a few. Our reputation in the engineering industry and among others in academia will only be enhanced by our impending consolidation with Kennesaw State University. We look forward to the truly exiting and rewarding challenges which will present themselves in the coming years and decades. Engineers are always eager to solve problems and provide solutions, while others may focus too much on negative impossibilities or seemingly unattainable aspects of change. Southern Polytechnic will continue to awe and inspire the masses, due mainly to the commitments in engineering our faculty, staff, and students consistently put forth each and every day. Thus, we are confident that the forthcoming consolidation in 2015 between Southern Polytechnic and KSU will better serve all of our engineering constituencies as we boldly advance into our exceptional future, full of remarkable possibilities that have yet to even be realized. v Lance Crimm has been the department chair in the Electrical and Mechatronics Engineering department since its inception, having been instrumental on the SPSU team in bringing both of these exciting and relatively new engineering degree programs to SPSU in 2007 and 2008. Crimm has been a professor at SPSU since 1997 and has served in a multitude of roles as he continually seeks to savor in the joys of teaching and learning from faculty, staff, and students.

13

Do You Share information

we with others?

By Teri N. Pope | Georgia DOT | District Communications Officer

remember on early childhood report cards the ‘shares well with others’ category? Do you share INFORMATION

well with others? Do you share information well at public meetings?

It takes planning to share information well in a public meeting format. Before the meeting, think about creating a personal ‘cheat sheet’ with pertinent project information including project description, length, need and purpose statement, timeline, and costs. Then take the time to rewrite the information out in complete sentences, without industry jargon.

The need and purpose statement for a widening project might be similar to this: “The purpose of this project is to provide a safe transportation facility and improve operational deficiencies in the system for this county and the traveling public. The project is needed due to existing deficiencies in the system, which include substandard intersections and insufficient capacity to handle current traffic volumes.”

14

GeorGia enGineer

Plain talk- A better way to share the same information

with a citizen is this: “This two lane road carries much more traffic than it should. I bet you get caught in back-ups routinely on this road. This widening project will build two additional lanes, giving you two lanes in each direction. The work will straighten out the road too, giving you a better view of oncoming traffic so you can make better decisions while driving. The project also upgrades the intersections so they will have turning lanes.”

Rewrite the typical engineering answer to simplify it and make it ‘user friendly.’ Think of it as if you are translating from a foreign language—‘engineer-eze’ to a simpler language used in general conversation outside of work.

Here is another example of conversational information instead of just a parcel count for right-of-way acquisition.

“We need to negotiate with; then close; on property with 120 different property owners on this project. That will take about two to three years.” You can also share personal information if you want, “It took me three months to get to closing when I bought my house. Right of way acquisition is very time consuming.”

october | november 2014

15

Conversational information sharing will help you share and answer more confidently and easily. This method allows people to take in more information easily. At public meetings, we’ve been working on a project for months, possibly years. We are very familiar with the project and our part of the work. Citizens walk in and are bombarded with technical information they’ve never heard about from federal environmental laws, engineering standards, state laws concerning rights of way acquisition, federal funding, or the lack of federal funding.

Transportation planning and construction is a very complicated and dense subject for people not involved in the industry.

Location, Location, Location-

Citizens are typically stressed as they enter a public meeting. The physical environment can add to the tenuous atmosphere if it is uncomfortable. Recognizing and seeking to minimize these stressors can vastly improve the meeting and the input received about the project. Choose a meeting room at City Hall that is comfortable with gracious parking rather than an elementary school gymnasium that is hot and loud with little parking available.

read from several feet away. Wear your nametag visibly, not at your waist.

Badges allowing entrance into a building are not nametags and are of no use at a public meeting.

“I don’t expect a concierge-like attitude from staff but I do expect staff to be pleasant. We should interact with citizens; not be huddled all together, avoiding the displays and the work. Public meetings are a great opportunity to provide excellent customer service and positively change a community’s perception of us before construction begins,” said Deputy Commissioner Long.

GDOT Dept. Comm. Todd Long making an address Georgia DOT Deputy Commissioner Todd Long learned to focus on citizens when serving as District Preconstruction Engineer. “Proactively thinking about our citizens and working to provide the best location and information is integral to the overall reception of the project by the community. I learned the hard way about meeting locations. We had a public meeting in the summer in an elementary school gym that had no air-conditioning.

People were so hot and miserable, they didn’t stay to see the plans or get details of our project. We basically got no input on the road widening from the community because of the poor conditions at the meeting. We ‘shoot ourselves in the foot’ when people can’t find parking easily; can’t find the meeting location; or if it is miserably hot and loud. The point of a public meeting is to start a dialog with the community about the project. We must consider them as we set-up and conduct meetings,” Long explained.

attitude-

GDOT Staff answering citizen questions 16

Staff attitude is also a major impediment or an asset to a public meeting. Staff approaching someone with, “Can I help you?” or “This intersection is on the north end of the project near the high school. Can I answer a question for you?”

Always wear a nametag that identifies your organization, name, and title, making sure your name is large enough to be

Simple, Positive Customer Service Reminders • Smile, be kind, and always remain calm •

Proactively interact with citizens, offer to help before you are asked

•

Hand out your business cards, Project Manager’s card or a flyer with contact information for staffers on the project or in the area

•

Give out handouts with project details and easy to use directions to the information on the Web

•

Say, “I don’t know but I will find someone who does,” then do it.

We strive for changing our organization from big and faceless to people who are working to improve the community. People are watching and every action counts, good or bad.

Key messages-

In addition to the basic facts about a project, include ‘key messages’ in your personal ‘cheat sheet.’ Key messages are complete sentences that tie project information in with your project or organizational goals. It allows you to include support information about the reason for the work or project. Writing out key messages also helps you answer questions with a complete thought or reason.

GeorGia enGineer

october | november 2014

17

Pre-meeting staff discussion-

GDOT Staff discussing a project at public meeting

An invaluable tool to GDOT is the ‘premeeting’ staff discussion immediately prior to the public meeting. GDOT staff and consultants meet at least 30 minutes prior to the meeting to review the project, literally touring the project as the Project Designer leads the group along the displays, sharing pertinent information. Potential or verified historic and archeological sites are pointed out. Habitats of possible threatened and endangered species are identified. Expected community concerns are shared. Project details including key messages, timelines, and costs are reviewed. Staffers with specialty knowledge are identified so we

can direct citizens to Rights of Way Staff or an Environmentalist if needed.

“I believe purposeful preparation improves our customer service and ultimately improves the projects we deliver. “i don’t expect a concierge-like attitude from staff but i do expect staff to be pleasant.

Always remember, a public meeting is a two-way street. You need to get information from citizens on the project, not just lecture them! Don’t just direct them to the court reporter or the comment card. Listen to their concerns then work to incorporate them when possible,” concluded Deputy Commissioner Long. v

typical Gdot Key messages at Public meetings•

Your input is important to this project. In addition to talking to me, please take the time to talk directly to the project manager, Jill Smith, so she understands your concerns. You can also leave a written comment, talk to our court reporter or use our Web site to let us know what you think. Our Web site information is on the front page of the handout you received when you arrived.

•

These lanes were designed to improve traffic flow and increase safety of this corridor. By straightening the road and flattening out the hills or valleys—we improve and extend a driver’s view of oncoming traffic.

This allows a driver to make wiser driving decisions and improves safety for all of us.

•

We are here today to continue the conversation on how we improve this corridor. This information is the first draft or starting point of options.

We will drill down these possible routes based on community input, federal environmental laws, and engineering principles.

18

GeorGia enGineer

october | november 2014

19

20

GeorGia enGineer

october | november 2014

21

Flagpole behemoth didn’t mean to break the records—but it did!

By Daniel Simmons | Staff Writer

T

he 400’ Acuity flagpole is a flagpole in the same way that Stone Mountain is a stone. It technically meets all the right criteria to qualify as a flagpole: it’s an unsupported vertical structure with a flag at the top. But, then again, it also has three pendulum-style tuned mass dampers and a network of ducts to keep changes in temperature and humidity from making it rain inside. It never rains inside my flagpole at home.

This 420,000 lb behemoth was commissioned by the Acuity Insurance Company in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, in April of 2014 and is the largest flagpole in the United States, which, as it turns out, is kind of Acuity’s thing. Flagpoles, that is.

This most recent version represents their fourth attempt at the record and is the culmination of the company’s decadelong love affair with enormous flagpoles.

Interestingly enough, this endeavor did not begin as an attempt at any records. A statement from Acuity’s CEO Ben Salzman at the dedication of their first grandiose flagpole in 2003 (which was the tallest in Wisconsin at the time and stood 150’ tall) explains how a recent office construction project created the need for a bigger pole: “There was concern over the size of the flag dwarfing our new building,” Salzmann explained, “but that is precisely what we wanted to do, because we didn’t want our new building to dwarf the American Flag.”

Unfortunately, about a year after its construction was complete, this first pole was toppled by a 40 mph gust of wind.

Most people probably would have blamed the collapse on the flagpole’s enormous size and gone with a smaller version the second time around, but not 22

Photo credit: manifowoc Salzmann. Apparently in the original pole’s short tenure as a local landmark, the Sheboygan residents had grown pretty fond of it and came to consider it something of a public possession. Salzman explained in an interview shortly after the collapse, “When it blew down, we got so many phone calls from people saying ‘Are you putting it back up? I miss it. It was so beautiful.” The Acuity CEO was so moved by the public’s enthusiasm that he responded with an order to build the next pole more than twice the size of the original, at 338 feet, which would make his business’ campus home to the tallest flagpole in the United States.

This second version was built with

structural integrity in mind. The six-footdiameter base of the new pole was anchored by a 550 ton block of concrete that extended over 40’ into the ground. They weren’t about to take any risks after what happened the first time. Unfortunately, despite their careful calculations, the new pole did end up suffering from a much more basic problem. The pole was tall enough to require an illuminated beacon at the top to keep low-flying aircraft from running into it, and so it was built with such a beacon. What it was not built with, however, was any means for the bulb in that beacon to be changed. This issue became a concern when a worker was lifted in a construction bucket to change the GeorGia enGineer

bulb and it became evident that this was not an ideal way of going about things.

“When you have somebody being lifted in a bucket to try and change that light— well, that flagpole wavers,” said Acuity spokesman Bret Blizzard. “When you are almost 350 feet above the ground trying to change a light on a moving object, that’s not real safe.” And so the entire pole came down once again, this time voluntarily, in order to address this issue and to re-construct the pole with an internal ladder system and a hatch at the top to allow a worker to change the beacon bulb without being lifted from the outside.

Six months later, in April of 2008, a new flagpole (complete with full beacon bulb access) rose once again in front of the Acuity headquarters. Unfortunately, the new modification got Acuity out of the frying pan and into the fire. Three days after the pole went up, before a flag had even been raised, it began to sway heavily under relatively light winds. Videos shot by concerned locals show the upper ⅔ of the pole whipping back and forth like a metronome. The most obvious source of the problem would seem to be the new weight added to the top section to allow access to the beacon, however the project’s engineers assured local media outlets that this had nothing to do with it.

Whatever the cause, the pole had to come down once again.

After five years and three flagpoles, Acuity almost seemed to call it quits. Sheboygan locals saw almost six years pass with no behemoth flagpole standing in front of the Acuity building off of I-43 and no signs of a new one to come. But Salzman still had something up his sleeve.

While most people conceded that it was probably about time to throw in the towel and admit that wind and gravity had gotten the best of him, Salzman was busy working on an even bigger replacement for his three previous failures. And in April of 2014, he announced his plans for the construction of a new, 400’ pole that would be complete by the 4th of July.

Given all that had happened, the fact that the new pole is 400’ tall is perhaps one of the least impressive facts about it. october | november 2014

Salzman had seen three flagpoles go down in the course of five years and he wasn’t about to have it happen again, so he made absolutely sure that this last attempt would be around for a long, long time. Despite being only about 18 percent taller than the previous pole, this new one was built with a base that is nearly twice the diameter of its predecessor (11’ compared to 6’). The new pole will also outweigh the former by over 300 percent (210 tons compared to 65 tons), again, this despite only an 18 percent height increase.

The reason, or at least a large part of it, behind such a radical change in weight and diameter is that the pole’s designers stopped thinking of the project as simply a flagpole, and started taking cues from industrial applications that make use of large, unsupported poles. Namely, from the wind energy sector. The new pole was made by a local wind turbine manufacturer, Broadwind Energy, who helped impart the same design & manufacturing techniques on Acuity’s 400’ pole that they use to help keep commercial wind generators from falling over. Perhaps the most impressive of these new changes is the addition of pendulum style mass dampers.

These mass dampers will address the problem which caused the 2008 pole to come down: namely the regular, sinusoidal oscillation that causes the pole to sway like a metronome. When the wind picks up and the tower starts to sway, inertia will cause a set of three pendulums to sway in the opposite direction, thus dramatically reducing the magnitude of the oscillation and keeping it from escalating to the point of causing a catastrophic failure. This may seem like an extreme measure to take with a flagpole, but a 400’ freestanding pole doesn’t come without some (significant) complications.

Regardless, all of these changes seem to be working. The new, wider, heavier, mass-dampened pole was unveiled in an official ceremony on July 4th of this year and has shown no signs of distress in the months since then. So it would appear

that Salzmann has finally gotten his wish and built himself a national monument that won’t fall over. One really can’t help but admire his tenacity and his seemingly outrageous battlecry of “build it bigger” even in the face of repeated defeat. Ultimately, his persistence paid off, he hired the right crew, took cues from the right industries, and ended up with a flagpole so large that it has its own internal weather system. v north america’s tallest flagpole dedicated June 16, 2014 420,000 Lbs of steel 400’ tall 7,200 sq.ft. / 4 story flag Pole is 11’ diameter at ground and 5.5’ diameter at top 70’ wide x 10’ deep concrete foundation containing 680 cubic yards of concrete foundation holds about 55 tons of rebar (6 miles long if stretched end-toend) Pole comprised of 6 sections, each is 65’ long 500 Gallons of paint 50 year design life

23

Fear, compliance, and creativity…it's all in the strategy

By Dionitia Cornell, SPHR | Anderson Corporate Solutions Inc. ome feared it, complained about it, supported it, and most prepared for it but regardless of your position, the affordable care act (aca) is almost in full swing. the most impactful provisions began January 1, 2014, however, with many moving parts in employee benefits, one thing has stayed true—engineering firms provide excellent benefits for their employees.

S

Remembering the early 2000s, if you wanted to hire the best employees you grabbed any benefit survey you could find to ensure your firm provided the best benefits in the industry—we are steadily approaching that climate again. The economy is picking up, and employees are on the move. Now, firms are beginning to review their benefits plans for both compliance and creativity. Some may feel that all the creativity has been taken away with all the legislative changes but we are finding that is simply not true.

ACEC has done a great job positioning the life and health plan so it is a benefit for firms who would normally be negatively impacted by the Average Community Rating (ACR). ACR is the process for pricing metal level health care plans into, bronze, silver, gold or platinum by zip code, smoking status, and age brackets.

Therefore, with ACR guidelines, all medical questions are null, and groups are not

24

rated on their individual health. Many of our clients have benefited from ACEC‘s health plans with the ease of an employer application and the added advantage of gaining access to a large employer plan.

Never has there been a time when a 25 person firm could elect a plan designed for a firm with 500 employees.

Due to the ACA, we are seeing benefits emerge such as level funded plans which allow a group to purchase insurance based on their own health and ages in the firm. Wellness programs are becoming increasingly popular with incentives to motivate employees to become healthier —healthier employees is a win-win and not just in relation to health insurance.

Telemedicine is also on the rise for treating common and acute illnesses as well as voluntary benefits to help bridge the gap with high deductibles for employees by adding accident plans, critical illness, and

cancer policies. Private exchanges are also allowing firms the option to offer a catalog of benefits and give their employees the option to choose the benefits that work best for their situations.

As you can see, there are now more choices than ever before for building a strong benefits program for your firm.

The exciting part is all firms are different, and the key is providing what employees feel is important—not the one-size-fitsall approach. It takes time and planning to be both creative and compliant but the tools and products are available—it is simply a matter of putting the right pieces in place. v

GeorGia enGineer

Planning for a smoother FAR audit

By Mindy L. Wall, CPA, CGMA | T. Wayne & Associates, PC. far is easy. far is my friend.” this can be your mantra if you follow a few simple guidelines. adopting a positive attitude about far compliance can go a long way toward making the process go smoothly. the challenges of far compliance are not much different from other difficulties firms face. You can minimize the challenge by being proactive and establishing some systems and routines.

“

it starts With the dreaded timesheet In our experience with A/E firms—which dates back to the mid-’90s—one thing never changes: No one enjoys preparing their timesheet. It’s a chore, we do understand that. But time entry is the most important component of FAR compliance because labor is 1) the highest cost a firm incurs and 2) the least documented. Partners are usually the worst offenders. Labor can be direct or indirect, allowable or unallowable.

A compliant timekeeping system does not need to be difficult once you set it up right. The important components are:

use the comments feature in the software to describe their activities. Often auditors look to the comments to determine if the labor must be disallowed. No notes on trade show labor that might have applied specifically to an educational session? Auditor disal-

lowed! Don’t overlook the notes—if you do, you’ll pay the price at year end. d. include everyone in the tracking. All employees must prepare their own timesheet and it must be approved (signed) by them and their supervisor.

a. assign sufficiently detailed labor codes to identify unallowable and allowable time. Don’t be shy about having a lot of accounts in the chart of accounts. Government auditors look for account names to automatically disallow an entire account from the overhead pool. b. specify marketing activities. Marketing is often a misunderstood function, but the key unallowable areas are entertainment, trade shows, and general marketing. Selling, marketing administration, and proposal writing are allowable and important business development activities to track. c. make good notes. Encourage staff to 26

GeorGia enGineer

expenses: allowable or not?

Management is responsible for the segregation of unallowable costs. These are mostly straight forward but it’s important to be aware of the full list (if you would like our ‘FAR TWO-Do List,’ e-mail me at mwall@twocpa.com). You should have enough accounts (or subaccounts) to segregate these unallowable costs.

Documentation is the key to FAR compliance. Invoices and detailed receipts are critical. The tricky area for documentation is employee expense reports. We suggest requiring detailed receipts with expense reports—the more detail, the merrier. This gives the information necessary to manage allowable travel costs.

Other than costs in excess of per diem, the most common unallowable expenses are alcohol and entertainment. A simple compliance tip: “If it’s fun it’s unallowable.” Also: “If alcohol is involved, then it's doubly unallowable!” Create categories on your expense reports for alcohol and entertainment so the segregation of these costs will occur at the expense report level, and accounting will only have to monitor these accounts.

The key to taking the headache out of meeting annual FAR overhead reporting requirements is to put solid systems in place to capture sufficient information throughout the year. If your overhead rate is audited,

october | november 2014

the key to a happy audit is planning.

Instituting a few modifications to the time reporting, expense reporting, and accounting systems are important to FAR compliance, but the biggest key is education. Educate all staff (especially principals) on proper time and expense reporting, and your FAR audit can be stress free.

Mindy L. Wall, CPA, CGMA is a principal 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: mwall@twocpa.com. v

27

Small business approach to international business

By Donald R. Boyken, CCP, FRICS, FAACE | DRB Consulting LLC

I

nternational work has limitations and challenges. Many firms fail in the global market because they view international business as an extension of working in the United States.

Recognizing the difference between international and American business practices can be a painful lesson. Some examples of common mistakes include: •

•

•

28

us laws do not apply to local countries - Each country is different and has its own set of laws. When working in another country, pay particular attention to the local work laws. Most US companies are familiar with working in multiple states, and each state having similar laws. This is not the case internationally. Violating work visas, visitation visas, tax requirements, and payments can severely impede your success. Just because you have successful operations in the US doesn’t allow a firm to be ignorant to the local country’s work requirements – research them. cultural differences are important Each country has a different tolerance level for Americans doing business in their country. For example, it is common US practice at the end of a meeting to summarize what each party is responsible to complete prior to a deadline or the next meeting. The English culture considers that approach to be bossy and pushy. Should you insult the local participants, they may delay or not perform, often claiming your directions were unclear. do you stand out as a foreigner?

What shocks me is how often Ameri

cans from the Northeast, particularly New York, will go to the Caribbean attempting to conduct business in the same manner as the Northeast. Building relationships is more often more important than the transaction. Becoming impatient or arrogant because of the length of time needed to consummate the deal is not appropriate.

An accent will attract attention to your being from another country. If you feel you do not have an accent, listen to the local countryman. If they sound different, you have an accent. Acquire an etiquette booklet for the local area and study the local characteristics that encourage cooperation.

•

Local tax laws vs. us taxes laws - All governments need revenue and expect to be paid. Ignoring the local tax requirements can result in penalties, double taxation, loss of business, loss of assets or worst, prison. For example, Jamaican tax laws (and many other countries) provide for taxes to be paid on worldwide income. Creating a local entity limits the tax obligation for that business.

• Payment terms may be extended - As a general practice, anticipate a slower pay cycle. If the US payment cycle for services is 60 days, the international pay cycle could extend to over 180 days. The financing of that receivable should be include in the fees.

Obtain a fee advance for goods and services upon signing of the contract. The international client expects this request. We suggest the advance should cover the anticipated costs for 60-90 days of work.

Therefore if there are payment issues the losses are minimized.

We also suggest the advances be credited on the final invoice. Some international entities find it acceptable to skip the final payment. The local collection laws will often make it more costly to pursue the final amount than to write it off.

•

extending credit to an international company or government is not recommended - International companies and governments expect to pay for goods and services before they leave port. This is a common practice around the world and compromising this principle can include a great deal of risk. Extending credit to internationally based companies or governments is risky and must be anticipated.

The risk cost should be factored into the proposal price for goods and services. Remembering the previous point, collecting overdue invoices in a foreign country can be expensive.

We have also found that establishing a joint venture with a local business partner enables us to reduce our exposure to local GeorGia enGineer

business practices and cultural risks. Local business partners should have a similar business philosophy as your firm. Partner recommendations can be found through business associations or the local chamber of commerce. Establishing a local presence on your own can be very expensive.

As a general practice, we seek US clients doing international business. This practice helps reduce our risk in managing their construction programs. This practice enables contracting with US laws and collection processes. If that is not possible, heed the warnings noted above.

GeorGia

The international marketplace can be extremely challenging and rewardingly profitable. Avoiding the common obsta-

cles will increase your firm’s success. We encourage firms to seek guidance when starting work internationally.v

Mr. Boyken was CEO of an international construction project management firm. That firm conducted business on six continents in over 60 countries. After selling that firm in 2009, Mr. Boyken established DRB Consulting, LLC providing similar services to a select list of hotel and casino clients. In addition to the domestic work, DRB Consulting has projects in the Caribbean, North Africa and Latin America. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, DRB Consulting’s staff is available to assist clients worldwide.

ENGINEERING NEWS

thermal integrity Profiling recognized by asce and deep foundations institute the american society of civil engineers, asce, announced on July 24 the thermal integrity Profiler (tiP) as the 2015 winner of the charles Pankow award for innovation. this award celebrates collaboration in innovative design, materials, or construction-related research and development transferred into practice in a sustainable manner. the award also rewards innovative approaches that help achieve at least one of the national construction technology Goals. the award will be presented in march of 2015.

The innovative TIP, which uses the heat generated during cement curing to assess the shape and integrity of concrete foundations, was recognized by ASCE in part due to the collaborative efforts that were key to its development. “The thermal integrity profiling technology was developed initially at the University of South Florida (USF) where it evolved throughout three Florida Department of Transportation funded research projects,” said Gray Mullins, PhD, PE, the USF Professor who led the research team. A fourth study was performed in cooperation with Washington State Department of Transportation. A joint effort was then undertaken by october | november 2014

Gorzad strnisa conducting thermal integrity Profiling in slovenia Foundation & Geotechnical Engineering, LLC (FGE), using the USF-licensed technology, and Pile Dynamics Inc. (PDI).

The 2 firms transformed the thermal integrity profiling technology into the Thermal Integrity Profiler.

Asked about TIP’s contributions to achieve National Construction Technology Goals, Pile Dynamics’s Garland Likins, P.E., focused on the goal of Reduction on Project Delivery Time, explaining that current test methods of evaluating the quality

of cast-in-place foundation elements are performed after the concrete of the foundation has cured, a process that takes several days. Typically, construction cannot proceed until foundations are approved.

An evaluation performed with TIP may yield evaluation result as early as 12 to 24 hours after concrete casting, depending on shaft diameter. This aspect is only one of the advantages of this breakthrough testing procedure. Thermal Integrity Profiling is also less labor intensive than other integrity testing methods, and examines portions of the cross sectional area of the foundation that are in the ‘blind zone’ of those other tests.

Exactly a week prior, on July 18, the Deep Foundations Institute announced that Prof. Mullins and his research team at the University of South Florida, were the recipients of the 2014 Ben C. Gerwick Award for Innovation in the Design and Construction of Marine Foundations. That honor was granted “for practical research on multiple subjects”, among them thermal integrity profiling of drilled shafts.

For more information on the Thermal Integrity Profiler please visit www.pile.com/tip . v 29

alex holbrook Joins Pond & company as new associate and Program director of building systems alex holbrook recently joined Pond & company as associate and Program director of building systems, a robust team of engineers providing mechanical, electrical, fire protection, and energy and commissioning services. alex brings over 24 years of experience in electrical systems design. his most recent position was Principal at exp u.s. services inc. in atlanta, Georgia where he was responsible for strategic planning and company excellence.

While with Exp U.S. Services, Alex was the project manager and lead electrical engineer for a $28M, 180,000 square foot addition to an existing pharmaceutical manufacturer near Minneapolis, Minnesota.

From planning through construction, Alex coordinated the design effort across multiple geographies and fostered trusting relationships with the owner, contractor, and subconsultants.

technic State University in Georgia with a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering Technology and is a registered Professional Engineer. He is a past member of the Board of Directors for the Greater Atlanta Electric League and has presented at a variety of industry society professional development functions.

alex holbrook

“We are excited to add Alex as our new Program Director and Associate. He brings a breadth of invaluable experience managing operations across a wide geographic area and specialized design experience in several niche markets, including Mission Critical and Health Care,” said Pond Executive Vice President Jeff Meier.

Alex is a graduate of Southern Poly-

Pond & Company, founded in 1965, is a progressive, full-service architecture, engineering, planning, and construction firm providing professional solutions to government, corporate, and private sector clients worldwide.

Pond is headquartered in Norcross, Georgia, with branch offices in Jacksonville, Norfolk, Charleston, St. Louis, Phoenix, Huntsville, Dallas | Ft. Worth, New Orleans, Houston, and international locations in St. John, New Brunswick, and Sasebo, Japan. v

HNTB selected for primary management position on Georgia Commute Options the Georgia department of transportation has awarded hntb corporation the overall manager position for an innovative transportation demand management program, Georgia commute options.

GCO was established to give commuters and employers in the state transportation choices beyond driving and to reduce air pollution, saving Georgians more than $500,000 per day on gas and vehicle maintenance expenses.

The program aims to raise awareness of new commuter transportation options, including teleworking, vanpooling, and carpooling. To date, more than 1,600 employers and 100,000 commuters in greater Atlanta have used its services. Greater Atlanta boasts one of the largest TDM markets in the country, with the eighth largest registered vanpool program in the United States and reducing daily Atlanta traffic by an estimated 1.1 million cars.

“Georgia Commute Options is a vitally important program that is prolonging Atlanta’s infrastructure lifespan, 30

Clean Air School Pool.

Jeff Parker preventing large amounts of carbon emissions, saving Georgians thousands of dollars,” said Jeff Parker, HNTB Atlanta office leader and GCO program manager.

“HNTB is proud to support GDOT in its groundbreaking transportation demand management efforts.”

The GCO program management contract, led by HNTB as the prime manager, consists of three units: • awareness/communications unit – This unit oversees advertising, marketing, public relations and other programs, including Smog Alerts and

•

sales/outreach unit – This unit separates lead generation from account management to provide customized attention to employers.

•

implementation/operations unit – This unit is responsible for tracking and distributing the cash incentive programs, ride matching, and vanpool/carpool formation.

HNTB Corporation is an employee-owned infrastructure firm serving public and private owners and contractors. Celebrating a century of service, HNTB understands the life cycle of infrastructure and addresses clients’ most complex technical, financial, and operational challenges. Professionals nationwide deliver a full range of infrastructure-related services, including award-winning planning, design, program delivery, and construction management. For more information, visit www.hntb.com. v GeorGia enGineer

acec Georgia Darrell K. Rochester, PE Chairman ACEC Georgia (678) 450-5161 dkrochester@ rochesterassoc.com

around the state With acec Georgia: We Want to hear from You!

By Darrell Rochester

News Fall is in the air, and football season has begun. ACEC is moving the ball down the field! I’m sure you are like me, I would rather be lucky than good whether in sports, business or life. Because of the great work of those before me, I find myself in the very fortunate position of inheriting a fantastic staff and a great Board of Directors this year. Every time we get together, whether it is a Board Meeting, Annual Event or Program, I am reminded of the tremendously talented group of individuals that so well represent the Business of Engineering and have a true heart for advancing our profession.

One of the things I learned through the ‘Great Recession’ (it was a stinking

depression if you ask me!), is how important it is to listen to your client. You can learn a tremendous amount by simply turning your mouth off and turning your ears on. When I was having a conversation with a member firm earlier this year, a comment was made that gave me pause.

The person said, “We should work toward making ACEC Georgia the ‘American Council of Engineering Companies’ rather than the perceived ‘Atlanta Council of Engineering Companies.’ As I had time to reflect on that comment, I realized perception can become reality, good or bad.

It is important that we understand issues all over Georgia. As such, the Board is represented by several cities around the

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 2014

31

state. We have members from Alpharetta, Atlanta, Columbus, Duluth, Gainesville, Marietta, Norcross, Savannah, Smyrna, Stockbridge, and Suwanee. We have committed to moving our Board meetings around the state this year in an effort to better understand state issues.

In conjunction with these meetings, we plan to coordinate informational gatherings of member firms and potential member firms in each area to discuss issues of interest and importance to you. On September 3rd, ACEC met in Macon with member firms in coordination with the Joint Study Committee on Transportation Infrastructure Funding. The Committee is currently traveling around the state garnering feedback from businesses and local citizens, large and small, regarding the need for long-term transportation funding.

ACEC’s President and CEO, Michael Sullivan, who also serves as the Chairman of the Georgia Transportation Alliance, will be providing updates. But, we will also be seeking input related to issues that are important to you and how ACEC can provide value. As the Board moves around the state, our meetings will be strategic in nature and focused on advancing the engineering profession. Our hope is the information you provide will stimulate

discussion among Board members.

The Board will be in Greensboro in October and Rome in November. In December, the annual Transportation Summit will be held in Athens, rather than Atlanta. The Board also currently has plans to be in Columbus in January 2015. We look forward to hearing from you as we visit your corner of the state.

As Sully and Jennifer Head, our Director of Membership & Programs, have met with some of you to better understand your issues, it has become apparent that there is a continued need to hold focus groups based on your particular area of expertise. One of our longstanding focus groups is the Transportation Forum, which has been tremendously successful. Because of the expressed need in other areas, we plan to start additional forums later this year. We also plan to start or restart the Building Systems Forum (MEP firms), Energy Forum, Environmental Forum, Geotechnical Forum, Land Development Forum, Small Firm Forum, and Structural Engineers Forum.

Our hope is that these forums will provide an immediate Return on Investment for member firms working within those respective practice areas. The primary function of the forums is to bring

together diverse members from each practice area to articulate issues specific to that specialty and propose solutions to common problems.

We also believe there will also be a ROI for the ACEC Georgia staff beyond merely engaging participating firms. By listening to what is discussed in the various forums, ACEC Georgia staff will have a much better sense of membership concerns and be better prepared to provide strategic programming, engaging content, and targeted advocacy efforts. Hopefully, this specifically-tailored programming will provide a great value to ACEC Georgia member firms within each of those practice areas. Depending on the success of each of these forums, we could potentially start other forums in the future.

The important thing for us is to receive feedback from you. We need to hear about issues that you feel are important to your firm. By working together, we can certainly do far more to advance the business and profession of Engineering.

“Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.” Henry Ford. v

ACEC GEORGIA MEMBER FIRMS Board of Directors Darrell K. Rochester, Chairman / Roseana Richards, Chairman-elect / Jay C. Wolverton, Past Chair / Charles Ezelle, Treasurer / John Heath, Secretary / Dave L. Wright, National Director / Jim Case, Vice Chair / Don Harris, Vice Chair / Robert Lewis, Vice Chair / Anita Atkinson, Director / Daveitta Jenkins, Director / Emily Meador, Director / Kevin McOmber, Director / Al Pramuk, Director / Charles ‘Corky’ Welch, Director / Brent Wright, Director / Taylor Wright, Director

Committees Kevin McOmber, 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 Jay Wolverton, Nominating Jay Wolverton, Past Presidents/Chairmen Scott Gero, Transportation Forum

32

Staff Michael ‘Sully’ Sullivan, President & CEO Jennifer Head, Director of Membership & Programs Brittney Love, Director of Finance & Operations Shawna Mercer, Director of Communications and Government Affairs

Forums Bill Griffin, Building Systems Corky Welch, Environmental Chris Marsengill, Transportation Brannen Butts, Leadership dkrochester@rochesterassoc.com (678) 450-5161 GeorGia enGineer

ACEC Georgia’s 2015 legislative agenda

By Michael ‘Sully’ Sullivan | President & CEO, ACEC Georgia

T

he Georgia General Assembly will reconvene on Monday, January 12, 2015 but ACEC Georgia has been hard at work on several legislative initiatives since the summer of 2014, laying the groundwork for what’s to come. Good legislative advocacy starts well before the session begins and the bigger the issue, the more lead time that is usually needed to educate legislators about the problem and the proposed solution.

ACEC Georgia will be working with legislative leaders this session on potential legislation in three main areas. transportation funding Many of you may recall that during the 2014 legislative session, ACEC Georgia worked with the Georgia Transportation Alliance (GTA is the transportation policy and advocacy arm of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce) to create the Joint Study Committee on Critical Transportation Infrastructure Funding that was tasked with studying all of the different options for creating new funding for transportation and with making a recommendation on those funding options to the Governor and General Assembly by November 30, 2014.

The Joint Study Committee is cochaired by Sen. Steve Gooch and Rep. Jay Roberts, the chairs of the Senate and House Transportation Committees. The Committee held eight meetings around the state (in Atlanta, Columbus, Tifton, Macon, Augusta, Savannah, Blue Ridge and Rome) to receive input from local communities about transportation needs as well as possible funding solutions. ACEC Georgia has taken a leading role in the study committee process, working with GTA and the Committee Chairs to set up the meetings around the state, as well coordinated meetings in many of those locations for our ACEC Georgia members to october | november 2014

meet with study committee members and get a private update on how the process was developing. In addition, I was asked to serve as a member of the Study Committee representing Georgia Chamber of Commerce President Chris Clark as well as to make a presentation representing Georgia’s business community at the first Study Committee meeting.

In my discussions with the other Study Committee members, I believe there is a strong desire (particularly among members of the House of Representatives) to create a long-term funding solution that would create approximately $1 billion per year in new transportation funding. This would be achieved by combining existing revenue sources (for example, returning the so-called “fourth penny” of the Georgia motor fuel tax that currently goes to the General Fund back to GDOT, that’s $180 million) with new revenue (such as indexing the motor fuel tax to inflation and perhaps a state-wide sales tax). Study Committee members have stated publicly that they want to offer a plan that is focused on a permanent revenue stream, rather than a short-term solution that would sunset after a few years. Every Study Committee member has been unanimous in the position that whatever solutions are offered, that they should be enacted by the legislature without any referendum or vote by the people. Creating a billion new dollars in transportation funding is not for faint of heart politicians but ACEC Georgia will certainly be doing everything we can to persuade legislators to get behind a bold vision for Georgia’s transportation funding future.

neers sitting for the professional engineer’s exam in Georgia are required by the Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors Board (PELS Board) to take the 16-hour structural engineers exam, rather than the 8-hour exam all other types of professional engineers take. However, they get no additional certification or licensure recognition for that more stringent examination requirement. Moreover, many Georgia structural engineers feel that they are at a competitive disadvantage when trying to compete against licensed structural engineers in other states.

structural engineer Licensing There has been much discussion within the engineering industry about creating a “P.E., S.E.” designation for structural engineers in Georgia. Currently, all structural engi-

the structural engineers association of Georgia (SEAOG ) has proposed legislation that would: •

Create licensed “Structural Engineer” of “S.E.” licensing designation for structural engineers in Georgia. Structural engineers would use the style “John Doe, P.E., S.E.” to denote that they are professional engineers and structural engineers.

•

All currently licensed Georgia professional engineers would be “grandfathered in” and would be licensed as structural engineers by the PELS Board and be able to utilize the “P.E., S.E” designation by filing a simple affidavit that they practice structural engineering.

•

In the future, only those engineers who choose to sit for the 16-hour structural engineer examination would receive the P.E., S.E. designation.

•

Transportation related structures would be exempted from the list of “designated structures” that would require a P.E., S.E. and “designated structures” for non-transportation re33

lated vertical construction would be defined by the PELS Board.

ACEC Georgia is supporting the SEAOG S.E. licensing effort and we will be working with engineers in the legislature on proposed legislation as well as researching best practices from other states to determine the best way to address this important professional licensing issue in Georgia. making engineering a self-regulated Profession Doctors, Lawyers, Pharmacists and Realtors are all self-regulated professions in Georgia. For many years, engineers in Georgia have wanted to attain self-governing status. Many believe that the Profes-

sional Licensing Division of the Secretary of State’s Office is underfunded and overextended, resulting in shared directors and investigators and disciplinary cases that languish unresolved for years. This state of affairs leaves the public health, safety and welfare under protected with regard to professional engineering services and leaves the profession largely powerless to punish bad actors inside and outside the practice of engineering.

ACEC Georgia intends to move forward with a proposal that would allow the practice of professional engineering in Georgia to become self-regulating, with licensure fees sufficient to hire our own executive director, investigators and other staff in order for licensure and discipline

asce Georgia Rebecca Shelton, P.E., President American Society of Civil Engineers, Georgia Section www.ascega.org Rebecca.shelton@gwinnettcounty.com

I am happy to be your 2014-2015 President! It is going to be an active and exciting year! The Georgia Section holds meetings on the first Friday of each month in Norcross with over 80 attendees and a variety of informative speakers. There are numerous student outreach activities planned throughout the year, mainly focused on middle and high school students and STEM programs. In addition, we participate in a variety of engineering programs offered by member organizations of the Georgia Engineering Alliance.

34

to be administered effectively and efficiently in a way that protects both the public and the profession.

While a good deal of work on this subject was done several years ago by Doris Wilmer and others, we will be dealing with an entirely different set of elected officials from that previous effort. We are, therefore, at the earliest stages of this renewed advocacy effort. If you have any thoughts on this matter or would like to be involved in the policy side or advocacy side of this effort, please don’t hesitate to give me a call. It will take the collective efforts of a lot of people to get this accomplished and we will keep you informed about how you can help as things progress. v

News 2014-2015 Goals One of my goals this year is to increase communication and interaction with the Institutes. There are now six ASCE Institutes that have Georgia Chapter – Geo-Institute, Environment and Water Resources, Structural, Transportation & Development, Sustainability and Construction. These Institutes cater to specific focus areas for civil engineers and most hold monthly meetings. Activities have already started with a mixer on September 19th and an upcoming Winter Bash being coordinated by Thomas Baglivo, Vice-Chair of the newly formed Georgia Chapter of the Construction Institute. We are also planning to have some combined Georgia Section and Institute meetings in the upcoming year.

Another goal is to use the 2014 Georgia Infrastructure Report Card to continue to increase awareness of infrastructure issues at the Georgia Legislature. We released the Report Card earlier this year to extensive media coverage, billboards and meetings with Georgia legislators at the local, state and national levels. We even had a few speak at our monthly Section meet-

ings including District 21 Senator Brandon Beach, District 35 Representative Ed Setzler and Seventh District Congressman Rob Woodall. This helped our members understand how the legislative process works and our legislators understand issues important to Georgia civil engineers.

Volunteers Needed The Georgia Section has a number of committees. We have two committees in desperate need of leadership. The Continuing Education committee coordinates continuing education events to provide PDH credits and educational activities for civil engineers. The “What Do Civil Engineers Do?” Contest occurs in the spring and gives middle school students the opportunity to learn about civil engineering and receive cash prizes. If you are interested in either of these committees, please contact me.

2014 annual meeting and awards On September 20, 2014 our 2014-2015 officers were installed at an outstanding event at the 755 Club at Turner Field. We also presented awards including Engineer of GeorGia enGineer

ASCE/GEORGIA SECTION 2014 - 2015 BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENT Rebecca Shelton, PE Gwinnett County DWR rebecca.shelton@gwinnettcounty.com

External Director Shaukat Syed Georgia EPD shaukat.syed@dnr.state.ga.us

Savannah Branch Director Chris Rains, PE Chatham County Dept. of Engineering crains@chathamcounty.org

President-Elect Richard Morales, PE LB Foster Piling rmorales@lbfoster.com

Internal Director Rick Gurney, PE Keck & Wood Inc. rgurney@keckwood.com

South Metro Branch Director Doug Hintz, PE FAA - Retired douglas.hintz@gmail.com

Vice President Daniel Agramonte, PE O'Brien & Gere daniel.agramonte@obg.com

Technical Director Luis Babler, PE Geo-Hydro Engineers Inc. luis@geohydro.com

Past President Katherine Gurd, PE AECOM katherine.gurd@aecom.com

Treasurer Christina Vulova, PE Arcadis US Inc. christina.vulova@arcadis-us.com

Younger Member Director Annie Blissit, EIT Gresham, Smith, and Partners ann_blissit@gspnet.com

Secretary Julie Secrist, PE TY Lin International Group julie.secrist@tylin.com

N.E. Ga. Branch Director J. Matthew Tanner, PE Breedlove Land Planning Inc. mtanner@landplanning.net

the Year to Katherine Gurd, PE of AECOM and Young Engineer of the Year to Christopher “Kit” Hamblen, PE of CH2M Hill. We had some excellent project award submissions this year. Winners are shown in the table. Some impressive projects were nominated which made judging difficult and resulted in honorable

mentions in several categories. Large project honorable mentions included the I85/GA 400 Interchange Design/Build by Heath & Lineback Engineers for Georgia DOT and Truman Parkway Phase V by Jacobs for Chatham County. Natural environment project honorable mentions included the Flat Creek Stream Restora-

tion and Stormwater BMP Project by CH2M Hill for the City of Gainesville and Reconstructing Historical 1942-1987 Drinking-Water Concentrations at U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp in Lejeune, North Caroline by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry for the Department of the Navy.

CATEGORY

PROJECT

ENGINEER

OWNER

Small

Reconstruction of North Broad Street

Richard Gurney, PE Keck & Wood, Inc.

City of Winder

Large

I-20 Eastbound Collector-Distributor

Shamir Poudel, PE Arcadis

Georgia DOT

Natural Env.

Lake Louise Boardwalk

William Kent, PE Innovative Engineering Solutions

Valdosta State University

Georgia section Goes international On October 7-11, 2014 we had five Georgia Section members attend the ASCE Global Engineering Conference in Panama City, Panama. This was an exciting event that allowed us to interact with engineers october | november 2014

from all over the world and included tours of the 100-year-old Panama Canal. upcoming Be sure to check out our award winning Web site at www.ascega.org for upcoming

events including Georgia Section meetings and Institute meetings. I look forward to representing you over the next 12 months.

If you have any questions or are interested in a committee, institute or volunteer activity, please do not hesitate to contact me. v 35

ashe Georgia Michael Bywaletz President American Society of Highway Engineers / Georgia Section

Though the highway trust fund is still an issue, design projects are still hitting the streets. But will they be built? Which yields more questions: How can we do better? How can we not rely so much on the trust fund moving forward? Can we do a better job taxing the use of our highways as vehicles become more efficient and rely

News less upon fossil fuels and more on alternative fuels? I would gladly pay more in gas tax, but that will have less of an effect over time as more vehicles use alternate fuels.

What is the alternate user tax we need? Is it simply mileage based—you use it, you pay for it? Time will only tell. Personally, I am a big proponent of the Fair Tax, but we see where that has gone.

I hope everyone had a great summer – fall is finally here. Seasons change and usher in beautiful cool weather, one of the biggest reasons I left Florida. Nothing against Florida, but while the heat was fun in high school and college, my northern upbringing much prefers cooler weather and shorter summers.

I urge everyone to check our website for our technical and social events. I want to personally thank all those that attended the NPDES Level II Certification and Recertification class.

President ~ Michael Bywaletz, Gresham

Smith and Partners first vice President ~ Brian O’Connor,

T.Y. Lin International second vice President ~ Rob Dell-Ross,

City of Roswell secretary ~ Mindy Sanders, Lowe

Engineers treasurer ~ Richard Meehan, Lowe

Engineers co-treasurer Rick Strickland, Michael

Baker Corporation 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 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 1st Place, interstate division l-r: Brian O’Connor, Chris Haggard, Tyler McIntosh, J. Dean Collins 36

Web site chair ~ Pervez Iqbal, Parsons

GeorGia enGineer

2014 bowling tournament On August 28, ASHE GA held its annual bowling tournament to raise funds for the Babs Abubukari Scholarship Fund. 160 players helped make the tournament a huge success. Thanks to our sponsors and players for your continued support! v

1st Place, highway division l-r: Brandan Crawford, Sean Swierczek, Jonathan Aldea, Frank Quattlebaum

1st Place, Local roads division l-r: Angela Snyder, Ian Maxfield, Todd Devos, Brad Robinson

1st Place, driveways division l-r: Allen Shariett, Sam Wade, Josh Conrad, and Catherine Sorenson october | november 2014

37

Gef

News James R. Crowder, PE President Georgia Engineering Foundation

I am happy to announce our GEF Annual Banquet which supports engineering in Georgia, while helping fund the education of our future engineers . Approximately 35 scholarships and over $60,000 will be given out this year.

I’d like to remind all of you that GEF manages a number of scholarship endowments and awards for many engineers, firms, and engineering societies in Georgia.

GEF is a largely volunteer effort and we have a great group of dedicated people that assist each year. However, we are always looking to add more volunteers each year.

This is a great opportunity for you to men-

tor young engineers and to see how great our crop of young engineers really are. You will be inspired!

To help with the review, evaluation, and selection of scholarship winners contact John Boneberg ( John.Boneberg @obg.com).

To help with Banquet planning, setup, and operations contact Beth Harris (bharris@unitedconsulting.com).

To learn more about becoming a Banquet Sponsor contact Steve Poole (SPoole@conteches.com).

This year’s Banquet will be at the Dunwoody Country Club on the evening of Tuesday, November 18th. Go to the GEF Web site for the latest details (www.GEFinc.org).

Is your Engineering Society or Organization a member of GEF? Will you be represented at the Annual Banquet? If so, we need someone in your organization to volunteer for the GEF Board, the Banquet Committee, the Scholarship Committee, or one of the other GEF Committees listed on our Web site. If your organization is not a member, please consider joining as a way to give back and foster the future of our profession.

in Gatech robotic Lab building and running robots, day 2 of eea 38

GEF sponsors a number of other events during the year, all keyed to mentoring young engineers and benefiting our state and communities. Scholarships can be sponsored by any person or organization with criteria customized based on your preferences. All donations are deductible as charitable donations, as GEF is qualified as a 501(c) (3) organization.

Finally, I want to thank a few of our current volunteers who make the Annual Banquet a grand event each year. These people put in a lot of personal time making the event one that the scholarship awardees remember for a lifetime. So if you see them, please thank them as they deserve it; John boneberg – chairman of the scholarship committee beth harris – banquet chair steve Poole – banquet Projects committee chair roseana richards – treasurer Jim Wallace – Past President I look forward to seeing you at the next GEF event.

checking the marta transit repair shop Yard, day 3 of eea GeorGia enGineer

exploring engineering academy at Georgia tech may 31 - June 5, 2015 The Georgia Engineering Foundation, The Society of American Military Engineers and the Learning for Life Division of the Atlanta Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America announce the 15th Annual Exploring Engineering Academy at Georgia Tech. The academy is open to high school students (boys and girls) in 10th, 11th and 12th grades and is under the direct supervision of professional engineers, scientists and engineering faculty. Sign up at www.atlantabsa.org/openrosters/DocDownload.aspx?id=134246 The goal of the Exploring Engineering Academy is to bring talented students to the Georgia Institute of Technology campus to excite and expose them to the world of engineering in the hopes that they will pursue an engineering career. The experience will open their minds so that they will realize that they will be able to obtain an engineering/scientific degree. Students tour state-of-the-art engineering laboratories on the Ga Tech campus plus research and engineering facilities of major corporations around metro Atlanta.

Participants explore engineering as a career by engaging in hands-on engineering activities, touring engineering facilities, and interacting with engineers and students from all major engineering disciplines. The six day program consisted of a different engineering theme each day and for has been expanded into two distinct and concurrent STEM Tracks featuring ‘traditional engineering’ or ‘technology and science.’ The program not only focuses on

Learning how to create electricity from motion at the Ge Grid iQ experience the important skills needed for success in the fields of engineering and technology such as math and science but also looks at problem solving, design and analysis, team building, project management, communications and leadership.

A steering committee plans this annual camp and is made up of volunteers from the engineer community in the Atlanta area and staff from the Learning for Life Division of the Atlanta Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America. Support is also provided by professional engineer mentors, sponsoring major corporations, the Society of American Military Engineers, Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers, Georgia Engineering Foundation, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Institute of Transportation Engineers, the American Institute of Architects, and the American Society of Civil Engineers.

The Academy receives some donations from local engineering firms throughout the metro Atlanta area which results some scholarships for need based students. We

look forward to another great Exploring Engineering Academy. Applications are available at www.atlantabsa.org/openrosters/DocDownload.aspx?id=134246 v

eea committee members richard morales, m.sc., P.e. executive director of eea david smith, P.e. transportation committee chair – civil engineering day & ite transportation John (Jack) W. seibert, iii, Pe foundation chair exploring engineer academy Kim mullins, P.e.

Program committee member volunteers & member coordinator amy hudnall Program committee member – aeronautical engineering day Jim remich, P.e.

Program committee member electrical engineering day randy & diane brannen Program committee member electrical engineering day & Photographer tony belcher, P.e.

Program committee member – Gadot Jason bowlin, eit Program committee member mechanical engineering day John mcdonald, P.e.

Program committee member electrical & energy day hamilton holmes Program committee member aerospace engineering day

Learning about the treatment of water at the atlanta city Water treatment Plant october | november 2014

angie mcdaniel, Program director, bsa Learning for Life

39

GsPe Georgia Rob MacPherson, P.E., President Georgia Society of Professional Engineers

Are you smarter than a Middle Schooler?

Here is one of the MATHCOUNTS National Competition Problems (which was solved in a matter of seconds) – We know the following five facts about the numbers a, b, c and d. What is the value of a + b?

1) ab = 1 2) b + c = 0 3) b + c + d = 0 4) bc = –9 5) c + a < d As I write this article, I keep going back to my vacation this past summer. It was incredible! My wife, son, daughter and I spent two fabulous weeks in Europe. The first week was with family in Germany; the second with friends in London. Thanks family and friends. It would not have been possible had you not opened your homes for us. As you travel through Europe, you become overwhelmed with the beauty and history of this wonderful area. While walking the streets in London, we came across the Institute of Civil Engineering (ICE) and the Institute of Mechanical Engineering (IMechE). What impressive buildings these two institutes have. What impresses you even more are the efforts they take in inspiring young minds to be-

News come involved in engineering. Well here in the USA, we do the same thing. Why? Because the future of our World depends on it.

In an article in Forbes Magazine by Dan Reich, he wrote, “If we want our country and economy to get back on track we need to fix the education system for math and science related degrees. It’s simple really and everyone knows it. Growth happens when people build and sell things. In an age of high tech innovation those ‘growth’ building blocks rely squarely on the skills acquired in a science, technology, math or engineering curriculum. It’s why the president and other industry groups are advocating for more students to graduate with these degrees.”

How do we get students to graduate in these degrees? Well NSPE/GSPE is trying to do something about it. How? Through a number of methods, but the most significant manner is sponsoring the MATHCOUNTS Foundation. As the founding and national sponsor of MATHCOUNTS, we strive to do at least three things: 1) We cultivate talent in the nation's brightest young minds through the

Competition Series.

2) We inspire curiosity and build confidence in students of all levels through The National Math Club.

MATHCOUNTS

3) We engage students in project-based learning that is innovative and creative through the Math Video Challenge.

What is MATHCOUNTS? MATHCOUNTS is a national math enrichment, coaching, and competition program for middle school students. In existence for over 25 years, MATHCOUNTS is one of the most successful education partnerships involving middle school students, educators, corporate sponsors, and volunteers. The Georgia MATHCOUNTS competition is presented by the Georgia Society of Professional Engineers (GSPE). With a decline in students entering college to major in Engineering and/or Technology fields, the GSPE has become a strong advocate and host of the Georgia MATHCOUNTS to encourage students at the middle school level to strive for excellence in math and science. Enjoying the thrill and excitement of these core academic classes at the middle school level will lay

GsPe Web site www.gspe.org 40

GeorGia enGineer

the ground work for youth to recognize the importance of math and science as they mature into young adults making career choices.

At the local level, we organize and host the local area competitions in advance of the state competition. Last year, we had more than 200 students, teachers, and volunteers participate. In order to cover the cost, we raise funds by hosting a golf tournament (scheduled for October 17th), solicit funds from corporate sponsors (particular thanks to Lockheed and Shell) and from individual donors. However, our state is way behind many other states in the nation. In order to improve, we need more kids involved in this program. To have more kids requires more funding and volunteers. To obtain more funding and volunteers, we need more companies and

engineers sponsoring this event. Therefore, if you can help, regardless of the amount, please consider donating your funds and time to this wonderful program.

One of our main focus’ for GSPE this year is to make MATHCOUNTS in Georgia better than ever. To do so we need your help. That includes both your time and money. If you’re interested in giving back and perhaps encouraging a young man or woman to becoming an engineer, please call (404) 425-7100 or e-mail me (rmacpherson@prime-eng.com). I look forward to hearing from you. And to all those already involved, you are MAKING A DIFFERENCE. Thank you and keep up the good work.

Oh, by the way, the answer is 10/3. chapter representatives: Joe D’Alessandro, P.E.; Henry Lee Everson, P.E.; Ed Fiegle, P.E.; Ryan Peter, P.E.; David Simoneau, P.E.; Farley Wolford, P.E.

ASHRAE Supports Change to NCEES Education Initiative atLanta – A move by United States engineering and surveying licensing boards to remove a requirement for an additional 30 credit hours for obtaining licensure as a Professional Engineer is met with approval by ASHRAE. In 2006, the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) approved language in its model law requiring the additional 30 hours—roughly the equivalent of a master’s degree—to obtain a P.E. license. The requirement was slated to take effect in 2020.

At its 2014 annual meeting held August 20-23, NCEES voted to modify that approach, and instead develop an official NCEES position statement that supports additional engineering education beyond a bachelor’s degree. The move was applauded by ASHRAE and other industry associations who had opposed the effort over the last eight years.

“ASHRAE supports this move by the NCEES,” ASHRAE President Tom Phoenix, P.E., Fellow ASHRAE, BEMP, BEAP, said. “We saw this as a hurdle to becoming an engineer when engineers are already in short supply. We felt that committing an additional year to obtain 30 credit hours would be a very significant deterrent for many engineers who might otherwise pursue an engineering degree. The current system of examinations and supervision in practice are workable, effective, and adaptable resulting in highly competent professional engineers.”

Under the change from NCEES, beginning in 2020, the group’s model law and model rules will continue to require an engineering bachelor’s degree from an EAC/ABET-accredited program to fulfill the education requirement for engineering licensure. “ASHRAE will continue to develop educational programs that ensure its members remain at the forefront of engineering practice and technologies,” Phoenix said.

ASHRAE, founded in 1894, is a global society advancing human well-being through sustainable technology for the built environment. The Society and its more than 50,000 members worldwide focus on building systems, energy efficiency, indoor air quality, refrigeration, and sustainability. Through research, standards writing, publishing, certification, and continuing education, ASHRAE shapes tomorrow’s built environment today. More information can be found at www.ashrae.org/news. v october | november 2014

41

ite Georgia Jonathan Reid, PE Georgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers

Greetings once again from Georgia ITE headquarters in lovely Hopeulikit, Georgia, to all Georgia Engineering Magazine readers! Well, we have learned that my predictive skills are not up to par (Brazil just missed getting into the World Cup by a mere six goals…) but my reflective skills are spot on. So I’ll spend a minute reflecting on our premier Summer Seminar event and the beginnings of our mentoring program.

Our Summer Seminar was another resounding success, thanks to the hours dedicated by our overworked and underpaid Program and Technical Chairs Marco Friend and Kelly Patrick respectively, and their host of committee members. It takes a lot to pull off an event with 143 participants and over 300 total attendees including family, friends and beach tag-alongers.

The technical program was as good as it gets with outstanding technical topics presented and the renovated King and Prince was awesome as always. We raised over $5,000 in our scholarship auction to help with educational costs for our future crop of engineers in Georgia. We even have some socializing fun including a volleyball tournament, 5K run (well, more gasping for air than socializing there) and group activities as part our annual Survivor St. Simons competition! I brag on all of this as a reminder to plan ahead for 2015, where all engineers from any organization and type are welcome to come join us next July.

42

News What better settings to earn virtually all your PDHs for the year and get your tan on at the same time!

List of topics and sessions at our summer seminar: The Transit Session included presentations on: • Atlanta Streetcar • MARTA’s AVIS Project • Cobb County CCT’s Flex Zone Operation A diverging Diamond session captivated members with planning and design lessons learned from the metro area and national implementations. Bicycles and Pedestrians were discussed as part of: • Atlanta Beltline Progress • Atlanta Bike/Ped Improvements & Cycle Atlanta Plan • PATH400 Greenway Trail • Planning and Designing for Pedestrians There was a “hands” on roundabout workshop taught by our best designers from GDOT and the signals roundtable discussion was very ‘illuminating.’

Project updates included: • SR 400 & I-85 Interchange • TIA in Augusta – two Years Later • DRI Rule Changes The CIDs got tighter for a roundtable to discuss common challenges, and design and planning sessions were highlighted by:

• Designing with CSX Railroads • At-Grade Intersection Safety & Design along Commuter Rail • Event Traffic Planning for Augusta • ARC Public Involvement The last day was all traffic: • TMCs of the Future • Operation Shield – Shared Infrastructure • GDOT TMC/Winter Weather Events • Connected Vehicles: Georgia Tech CV/AV Research & Modeling, In-Vehicle Technology Many kudos to our technical committee for all of these session. If you did not come, see what you missed? now for things to come… depending on when you receive this issue, we may have had (or best case best case you might still have time to register for) our annual Technical Exchange. This year we are in Columbus, GA on October 29th and are partnering with our ITE partners across the river in Alabama to provide a day-long smorgasbord of technical presentations.

What a cheap, easy and fun way to gather the last of your PDH hours needed for 2014! Look on the AL or GA ITE Web sites for registration details to come join us.

And last but not least, the year can’t officially end without our Annual Meeting, where we swear in a new cast to run (or right?) the ship in 2015. GDOT commis-

session of Protégés meeting with mentors GeorGia enGineer

Mentors and protégés are formally paired, and pairs are encouraged to get together one additional time per month. In addition to providing some great information, this program fosters and develops relationships with industry peers.

This year’s program was officially kickedoff with the first session titled ‘Communication when Dealing with the Media.’ mentors: Todd Long, Patrece Keeter, Carla Holmes, Meg Pirkle, Betsy Williams, and John Hibbard secretary-treasurer sean coleman rocking at summer seminar sioner Keith Golden will be our guest lunch speaker at Maggiano’s in Buckhead.

It is safe to predict that both events will be enjoyed greatly by all that attend. A schedule of all of our meetings, gatherings, and service opportunities can be found at our Web site at http://www.gaite.org. institute of transportation engineers, Georgia section, mentoring Program To better prepare young engineers for leadership roles, the Georgia Section of ITE established a Mentoring Program in 2009.

The purpose of this effort is for members with 15 or more years of experience to mentor members with two to eight years of experience through a six month program.

Protégés complete a formal application, and successful candidates must satisfy application requirements including demonstrated service to ITE. The mentoring program is modeled after a program run by WTS. The Chairperson and committee plan and organize the overall program, establish a budget, select mentors and protégés, and conduct one formal session per month.

Formal sessions include informative and interactive discussions lead by the subject matter expert. The topics presented include dealing with the media; politics; business etiquette; gender, cultural, and age issues; financial management, and leadership development. This year, we have added a very relevant topic, especially in today’s extremely connected world titled ‘Social Media: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.’ october | november 2014

Protégés: Kate D’Ambrosio, Kyle Huffman, Sue

Ann Decker, Whitney Nottage, Meredith Emory, and Chris Maddox The Institute of Transportation Engineers is an international educational and scientific association of transportation professionals who are responsible for meeting mobility and safety needs. ITE facilitates the application of technology and scientific principles to research, planning, functional design, implementation, operation, policy development, and management for any mode of ground transportation. Through its products and services, ITE promotes professional development of its members, supports and encourages education, stimulates research, develops public awareness programs, and serves as a conduit for the exchange of professional information. v

Board Position President Vice President Secretary/Treasurer Past President District Representative District Representative District Representative Affiliate Director

Member Jonathan Reid Andrew Antweiler Sean Coleman Dwayne Tedder David Low Vern Wilburn Marion Waters Meg Pirkle

E-mail reid@pbworld.com aantweiler@roswellgov.com sean.coleman@kimley-horn.com dwayne.tedder@urs.com dlow@roswellgov.com vwilburn@wilburnengineering.com marion_waters@gspnet.com mpirkle@dot.ga.gov

Phone (404) 364-5225 (678) 639-7540 (404) 419-8700 (404) 406-8791 (770) 594-6422 (678) 423-0050 (770) 754-0755 (404) 631-1025

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/Social Media Membership Monthly Meetings Newsletter Past Presidents Public Officials Education Scholarship Southern Poly Liaison Summer Seminar Technical Web site Winter Workshop

Chair(s) Kate D’Ambrosio David Low Mark Boivin Dwayne Tedder Amy Diaz Elizabeth Scales Jim Pohlman Amy Diaz Charles Bopp Dan Dobry Chris Rome Charles Bopp Meredith Emory Bill Ruhsam Don Gaines Patrick McAtee Sunita Nadella Andrew Antweiler Vern Wilburn Todd Long Scott Mohler Betsy Williams Bryan Sartin Marco Friend France Campbell Vamshi Mudumba Jonathan Wallace

E-mail kdambrosio@dot.ga.gov dlow@roswellgov.com markboivin@alltrafficdata.net dwayne.tedder@urs.com amy.diaz@jacobs.com escales@thompsonengineering.com j.pohlman@icloud.com amy.diaz@jacobs.com charles_bopp@hotmail.com ddobry@croyengineering.com crome@fg-inc.net charles_bopp@hotmail.com meredith.emory@kimley-horn.com bill@jbwr.net dgaines@gcaeng.com pmcatee@thompsonengineering.com sunita.nadella@parsons.com aantweiler@roswellgov.com vwilburn@wilburnengineering.com tlong@dot.ga.gov scott.mohler@urs.com betsy.williams@transcore.com bryan_sartin@gspnet.com marco.friend@jacobs.com france.campbell@aecom.com VamshiM@LAIengineering.com jonathan.wallace@arcadis-us.com

Phone (404) 635-2842 (770) 594-6422 (404) 374-1283 (404) 406-8791 (678) 333-0283 (404) 574-1985 (404) 790-3569 (678) 333-0283 (678) 380-9053 (770) 971-5407 (770) 368-1399 (678) 380-9053 (404) 201-6133 (404) 931-6478 (404) 355-4010 (404) 574-1985 (678) 969-2304 (678) 639-7540 (678) 423-0050 (404) 631-1021 (678) 808-8811 (770) 246-6247 (678) 518-3884 (678) 333-0408 (404) 965-9738 (770) 423-0807 (770) 431-8666

43

its Georgia Tom Sever, P.E. ITS President

Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America) President and Chief Executive Officer Scott Belcher visited the ITS 3c Summit in Mobile in September to congratulate ITS Georgia on being named a 2014 Outstanding State Chapter.

“The ITS America State Chapter Awards are given annually to the State Chapters that have demonstrated a superb level of programming, fostered the highest qualities of leadership among its members, advocated for ITS solutions at the state and regional levels, and provided outstanding value overall to its membership,” said Mr. Belcher. “ITS Georgia exemplifies these tenets and the organization and its members are to be congratulated.”

Immediate Past President Scott Mohler is due special recognition for the award is based on year 2013 activities. This award is a validation of our day-to-day efforts to promote the safety and efficiency benefits of ITS solutions in transportation.

News 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.

The ITS America Outstanding State Chapter Awards are presented to one chapter in each of four divisions. ITS Georgia is in division two which also includes California, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Texas. ITS Georgia last won the award in 2012.

One of the best parts of the ITS Georgia Chapter President’s job is talking about the chapter and the benefits of membership.

First of all is the way membership is structured. Your company, agency or organization is the member, and all your associates and employees enjoy the benefits.

For one yearly fee, everyone in your organization can attend monthly and annual meetings and special events at a discounted

ITS GEORGIA CHAPTER LEADERSHIP President Tom Sever, Gwinnett DOT vice President Grant Waldrop, GDOT secretary Jennifer Johnson, Kimley-Horn treasurer Ashlyn Morgan, Atkins immediate Past President

Scott Mohler, URS directors Mark Demidovich, GDOT Eric Graves, City of Alpharetta Winter Horbal, Temple Inc. Keary Lord, Serco David Smith, DeKalb County Transportation Prasoon Sinha, ARCADIS Mike Holt, Parsons Brinkerhoff, Yancy Bachmann, World Fiber, Kenn Fink, Kimley-Horn, Kristin Turner, Wolverton Associates state chapters representative

Shahram Malek, Arcadis ex officio Greg Morris, Federal Highway Administration Andres Ramirez, FTA

rate. Plus you get a say in chapter affairs and policy by being able to run for, nominate, and elect leadership.

OUR 2013/2014 SPONSORS Control Technologies Utilicom Temple Arcadis Atkins World Fiber Technologies 44

Kimley-Horn & Associates Southern Lighting & Traffic Systems Delcan Gresham Smith & Partners Grice Consulting Jacobs

Parsons Brinkerhoff Quality Traffic Systems URS Transcore

GeorGia enGineer

One of the most rewarding benefits is the monthly meeting. Several things happen at each one. We get to hear a great speaker present on topics of interest to all transportation professionals. The meetings are one of the best networking opportunities available. The food is good, not your ‘rubber chicken.’ You can also promote your company, product or service by sponsoring. These sponsorships are also very valuable to the financial health of the chap-

scan me for complete streets

scan me for its Ga banquet

ter and we appreciate each one.

We have loaded up on special events this year for members. Our annual meeting was held in conjunction with Gulf Region ITS and ITS Florida in Mobile. Pooling our meeting resources encouraged increased turnout and more to see than if each chapter held their meeting individually. october 20 -21 we are co-hosting complete streets atlanta with its america.

In states, cities, and local communities across the country, a movement is underway to make our nation’s transportation network safer, smarter, and more livable for all users—including drivers, bicyclists, commercial vehicle operators, transit operators and riders, and pedestrians of all ages.

Attend the next installment of ITS America’s regional event series, the Atlanta Complete Streets Symposium, to learn

firsthand about the latest developments in Complete Street technology, ITS solutions, and public space applications.

Visit itsga.org to register for Complete Streets today and join fellow ITS Georgia members.

For the first time this year, we will be announcing the winners of the best of ITS awards in Georgia and installing our new directors at a banquet November 6 from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. at the Crowne Plaza Atlanta Perimeter at Ravinia. In addition to recognition, we’ll have networking and live music. Visit itsga.org for more information.

These are some of the benefits enjoyed

by ITS Georgia members. So look out for your membership reminder in the coming months and support your ITS chapter and provide a great benefit for your employees and associates. v

its 3c summit draws transportation engineers from across the nation More than 500 transportation professionals from around the U.S. gathered in Mobile, Alabama September 14 – 17 to learn about the latest in intelligent applications and solutions for surface transportation at the ITS 3C Summit. The ‘3C’ Summit was organized by the three Southeastern Intelligent Transportation Society Chapters, ITS Georgia, ITS Florida, and Gulf Region ITS. It was the first regional meeting of the chapters.

Highlights of the meeting included an exhibit hall with more than 75 companies displaying the latest in ITS hardware and software applications, a state DOT CEO Roundtable, and four-track technical sessions covering planning, deployment, and managing ITS systems.

Organizing Executive Committee Chairman Chris Hilyer said, “The foundation of the meeting was to provide added member value. In these economic times, our private members are better able to leverage their resources at one annual meeting and public sector members get to see a wider selection of solutions.”

Visitors to the ITS 3C Summit - September 15 – 17, 2014 in As evidence of that, Mr. Hilyer quoted some attendance Mobile, Alabama, co-sponsored by ITS Georgia—inspect the demographics in his opening remarks to the latest communications field hardware. attendees.“This delegation represents 37 states and five countries. This includes 31 public sector agencies, 148 companies, and seven universities.”

Representing ITS Georgia was Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Commissioner Keith Golden and GDOT District Traffic Engineer Grant Waldrop.

october | november 2014

45

same Atlanta

Pamela Little, P.E. President, SAME Atlanta Post

SAME Atlanta Post is happy to announce that we raised approximately $13,000 for the SHARE Military Initiative at the Shepherd Center through our 2014 golf tournament at St. Marlo Country Club.

The SHARE Military Initiative is a comprehensive treatment program for our wounded warriors recovering from PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injuries. SAME Atlanta Post will be donating $15,000 in addition to the amount raised through the golf tournament for a total donation of almost $28,000 to the SHARE Initiative.

We are also pleased to announce that our winning team included Brad White, Josh Ayer, John Hunter and Brett Upson. Two members of the winning golf team will be headed to the Hyundai Invitational in Las Vegas. I would like to thank the members of our golf committee for putting together this great eventâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Beth Harris, Howard Ayers, Candice Scale, Bob Marbury, and Bob Beavers did a wonderful job! I'd also like to thank Brooklyn Crenshaw with WB Interiors for stepping in to help with registration at the event and Joan Borchardt for her work on behalf of the Post.

The Post held its annual strategic planning meeting in August and the Board discussed how we will continue to serve our members by providing information on state, local, and federal contracting; supporting STEM programs such as the Exploring Engineering Academy; and 46

News providing educational and professional growth opportunities to our members.

Our events for the remainder of the year are as follows: October 14, 2014 Luncheon at Dunwoody Country Club | Speaker: Brig. Gen. Joseph (Joe) Schroedel, PE, F.SAME, USN (Ret.); Executive Director, SAME November 11, 2014 Luncheon at Dunwoody Country Club | Speaker: Marvin Woodward; Deputy State Property Officer, GSFIC December 9, 2014 Luncheon at Dunwoody Country Club | Speaker: Kirsten Neff, PE, LEED AP, FACP/PM; Branch Chief Under-Prospectus Project

Management, General Services Administration December 9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December 11, 2014 SAME Small Business Conference in Kansas City, MO Candice Scale, a current Board member and Chair of the Communications Committee, will be attending the Emerging Leaders Alliance Conference in November. The conference provides an opportunity for young professionals in the engineering, research, and science-based fields to develop leadership skills. The Post is sponsoring Candice for this conference.v

President Pamela Little, PE, LEED AP

treasurer Brian Dance, PE, SE

vice President Beth Harris, CPSM

assistant treasurer Ronnie Davis

Past President Ray Ramos, PE, RRC

regional vP Bill Bersson, PE, F.SAME

secretary Sherri Smith, CPSM

2013-2015 directors Howard Ayers Phil McHugh, CP, CMS, GISP Steve Poole, PE Cindy Miller, PE

assistant secretary Beth Roby, RID, LEED AP ID+C

2014-2016 directors Bob Marbury, PG Candice Scale Kaysie Glazer, PE Ray Willcocks, PE, F.SAME James Lucas emeritus chairs Sy Liebman, PE (1994) Jim Gilland, PE (1996) Jack Newhard, PE (1997) Roger Austin, PE (2000) Jack Seibert, PE (2003) Dick Scharf (2006) Steve Premo (2009) Scotti Bozeman, PE (2011) Bill Bersson, PE (2011) Ben Glover, PE (2012)

SAME Atlanta Post Annual Golf Tournament Flight B Winning Team - Roddy Thomas, Mike Durbin, Alan Toland, and Tom Troutman (L-R) GeorGia enGineer

Wts Atlanta Angela Snyder, P.E. President, WTS Atlanta

Are you registered for the premier event for WTS Atlanta - the Annual Scholarship Luncheon? If not, there’s still time! This year’s luncheon is to be held at the Georgia Aquarium on October 30th 11:30-1:00.

This event helps raise all of the scholarship funds for the chapter to give away to four college students and one high school student every year. This is also the event that honors professionals in the industry who exemplify the mission of WTS - advancing women in transportation - through several awards: Woman of the Year, Member of the Year, Diversity, and Employer of the Year.

If you are not signed up, please reach out to me and I will be glad to help you register.

You do not want to miss this!

The State Road and Tollway Authority (SRTA) hosted our chapter in July for a lunch and learn to discuss the exciting projects that are coming up now that the GA

News 400 toll has ended. Just in the last year, approximately twenty-five employees of SRTA have joined WTS Atlanta, a record high from one organization! As if that wasn’t exciting enough, we were fortunate enough to have Christopher Tomlinson, Executive Director and Board Secretary for SRTA, accept an honorary membership into WTS International. We presented this membership to him at the lunch and learn and were very pleased with the turn out and program that those at SRTA offered. We are very excited about our new and growing relationship with SRTA. Several chapter members had a great time at the Atlanta Dream basketball game with the Young Professionals in Transportation (YPT). We are also looking forward to our Women’s Empowerment Breakfast that is to be held on September 24th at GDOT for our members and corporate partners only as a benefit to making the commitment to our organization. We have several exciting panelists that will be speaking to us about moving up within our companies or offices and within the industry as a whole. Also upcoming is a new member reception in November, and the annual holiday social in December. Be on the lookout for those announcements.

The current Board of Directors’ twoyear term is coming to an end. As I write this, nominations are being submitted to the Officer Nominations committee and voting will soon begin. I hope that by the

WTS ATLANTA 2014 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Angela Snyder Tonya Saxon Marissa Martin Kirsten Berry Jennifer Stephan Beth Ann Schwartz Helen McSwain Regan Hammond Shelley Lamar Jennifer King

President Vice President – Programs Vice President - Membership Secretary Treasurer Director-at-Large Director-at-Large Director-at-Large Director-at-Large Immediate Past President

october | november 2014

angela.snyder@wolverton-assoc.com tsaxon@itsmarta.com marissa.martin@wolverton-assoc.com kberry@hntb.com jennifer.stephan@tylin.com BSchwartz@mbakerintl.com Helen.McSwain@atkinsglobal.com Regan.Hammond@arcadis-us.com Shelley.Lamar@atlanta-airport.com jjking@hntb.com

time this article is published, I will be announcing the upcoming Officers and Board of Directors for the 2015-2016 term!

Finally, I would like to mention that all of our programming would not be possible without the support of our Corporate Partners. I would like to acknowledge them here and thank all who have provided support to further the WTS Atlanta mission: PLATINUM LEVEL ARCADIS Jacobs JAT Consulting Services Parsons Brinckerhoff MARTA Atkins GOLD LEVEL Edwards-Pitman Environmental Inc. HNTB Corporation Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport KEA Group WeStats SILVER LEVEL PSI Southeastern Engineering T.Y. Lin International C.E.R.M. Kimley-Horn Associates BRONZE LEVEL AECOM Bron Cleveland and Associates CH2M Hill Ecological Solutions Gresham Smith & Partners Grice Consulting Group Heath & Lineback Engineers Lowe Engineers McGee Partners Michael Baker International RS&H The Schapiro Group Stantec STV/Ralph Whitehead Wolverton & Associates, Inc. PUBLIC/IN-KIND LEVEL Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) v 47