The Georgia Engineer October by A4 Inc.

the

GeorgiaEngineer Volume 18, Issue 5 October | November 2011

BUSINESS OF ENGINEERING & EDUCATION

SUMMARY OF GEORGIA’S NEW PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP LAW FOR WATER PROJECTS See story on page 27

The GeorGia enGineer

the

GeorgiaEngineer Publisher: A4 Inc. 1154 Lower Birmingham Road Canton, Georgia 30115 Tel.: 770-521-8877 • Fax: 770-521-0406 E-mail: GeorgiaEngineer@a4inc.com Managing Editor: Roland Petersen-Frey Art Direction/Design: Pamela Petersen-Frey Georgia Engineering Alliance 233 Peachtree Street • Harris Tower, #700 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Tel.: 404.521.2324 • Fax: 404.521.0283 Georgia Engineering Alliance Gwen Brandon, CAE, Executive Director Thomas C. Leslie, PE, Director of External Affairs Carolyn M. Jones, Outreach Services Manager Georgia Engineering Alliance Editorial Board Jeff Dingle, PE, Chairman GSPE Representatives Sam L. Fleming, PE Tim Glover, PE Jimmy St. John, PE ACEC/G Representatives Robin Overstreet Carley Humphreys ASCE/G Representatives Daniel Agramonte, PE Rebecca Shelton, PE GMCEA Representative Birdel F. Jackson, III, PE ITE Representatives Daniel B. Dobry Jr., PE, PTOE John Karnowski ITS/G Representatives Bill Wells Shaun Green, PE WTS Representative Angela Snyder ASHE Representative Ed Culican, PE SEAOG Representative Kurt Swensson, PE

The Georgia Engineer is published bi-monthly by A4 Inc. for the Georgia Engineering Alliance and sent to members of ACEC, ASCE, ASHE, GMCEA, GEF, GSPE, ITE, SEAOG, WTS; local, state, and Federal government officials and agencies; businesses and institutions. Opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of the Alliance or publisher nor do they accept responsibility for errors of content or omission and, as a matter of policy, neither do they endorse products or advertisements appearing herein. Parts of this periodical may be reproduced with the written consent from the Alliance and publisher. Correspondence regarding address changes should be sent to the Alliance at the address above. Correspondence regarding advertising and editorial material should be sent to A4 Inc. at the address listed above.

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

Advertisements AECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 AEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Ayres Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Atkins/PBS&J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Brown & Caldwell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 CDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Columbia Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 CROM Prestressed Concrete Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Cummins Power South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Edwards Pitman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Foley Arch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 G. Ben Turnipseed Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 GCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Georgia Concrete Paving Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Georgia Power Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 32 Geohydro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Geosyntec Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Golder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 GRL Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back Cover Hazen and Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 HDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Heath & Lineback Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 HNTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 MidSouth Machine & Service Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Brien & Gere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 PBS&J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Photo Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Pond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Power Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Prime Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Rosser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 RS&H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Savannah Technical College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Silt-Saver Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back Cover S&ME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Southern Civil Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Southern Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Stantec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 TBE Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Stevenson & Palmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 T. Wayne Owens & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Terrell Hundley Carroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 United Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front Cover Wilburn Engineering LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Wolverton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The GeorGia enGineer

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER

OctOber | nOvember 2011

Beginnings of Atlanta’s Airport

Failure to Act: Can Georgians Afford to Fail?

Year-end Depreciation Considerations

Premium Overtime—Another Side to Compensation

Protecting the Tax Benefits of Employer-owned Life Insurance Policies

Georgia Mining—Working for Georgia

In the Path of Emerging Trends

Raise the Bar

Employment Practices Liability Insurance Update

Georgia DOT Takes on New Role to Deliver Projects Faster

Georgia’s Aggressive New Immigration Law—The Trend in ICE Investigations

Summary of Georgia’s New Public-private Partnership Law for Water Projects

What’s in the News

ACEC/G = Advocay for Georgia Firms

Succession Planning Advice for the Business Owner

RCC for Dam Safety On May 2, 2011, Governor Nathan Deal signed Senate Bill 122 (SB 122) into law. The new law, introduced by Senator Ross Tolleson of Perry, amends Georgia Code sections 36-91100 et seq, and gives local governments and authorities the right to enter into Public-Private Partnerships (P3) for water projects. It is legislation that enables local governments and authorities to develop projects at their discretion, without requiring any mandate to do so. See story on page 27.

GEORGIAENGINEERBLOG.

GEA

ACEC

GEF

GSPE

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

ASCE

ITE

ASHE

GMCEA

ITS

SEAOG

WTS

Beginnings of Atlanta’s Airport By Thomas C. Leslie | Director of External Affairs | Georgia Engineering Alliance

x Some dreamers thought it

would be very important for Atlanta—but surely none thought it would ever be this big. Photographs are courtesy of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. irports don’t just happen. Building one is a struggle; with a surface of clay, sand, gravel, and an asphalt binder. The 1909 auto show was wildly successful. While continuing building a really big one is a really big struggle. But at the beginning, it all seemed so new and different, to be used for automobile races, the speedway hosted air shows in and nobody really expected it would be really big— 1910 and 1911 which featured races among autos, planes, and moin fact the world’s busiest. Some dreamers thought torcycles. In a relay race-type stunt, a pilot carried a mail pouch from it would be very important for Atlanta—but surely the speedway to the Hapeville railroad station (1.25 miles away) where it was transferred to a truck which rushed to downtown for none thought it would ever be this big. So how did Atlanta come to have an airport, and why at its pres- mail delivery. As shown later, mail delivery and air passenger services remained intertwined. A young ent location? It is surprising that the man named William B. Hartsfield atstory of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta tended the 1911 air show and was International Airport begins with Asa thrilled by aviation. Later as a 33-year G. Candler, the founder of the Coca old, he was elected to Atlanta City Cola Company. In 1909 Candler orCouncil, which began a political caganized the Atlanta Automobile Asreer in the Georgia General Assembly, sociation, with his son Asa Jr. as its later as Chair of the City Council Avipresident. Their objective was to ation Committee, and for 22 years Atbuild a speedway along the lines of lanta’s Mayor. It is wholly appropriate the Indianapolis Speedway, which for the airport to bear his name, but had opened just a few years earlier. there are many others that labored in In August 1909, Candler purthese vineyards for many years. chased about 300 acres in Hapeville World War I, 1914-1918, revthat had been assembled from 14 different owners. He paid $77,674.88. 1909 speedway and 1925 runways superimposed on olutionized aviation. For military purUnusual for the rolling hills of the current airport. Delta Airlines Headquarters and sur- poses, many pilots were trained and Piedmont region, the land was al- rounding parking lot are within the speedway oval at its planes built, and a few airfields were most dead level, planted in corn and northern end. Virginia Avenue runs East-West at the constructed. It was a different world in these early days. A popular airplane cotton, and located on top of the very top of the photo. at the time was the Curtiss JN-4H headwaters of the Flint River. Candler’s Atlanta Automobile Association contracted with Trainer, popularly called a “Jenny.” In 1918, a Model-T Ford moNichols Construction Company for a three-month crash project to torcar cost about $500, but a Curtiss Jenny cost $300. Some were complete the speedway by the opening of an extravaganza organ- ‘still in the box,’ never having been used in WW I. Pilots had caught the aviation bug, airplanes were cheap, but ized around the national Automobile Show—the first such exhibit to be held in the South. Employing “1000 laborers, 100 mule aviation jobs were scarce. Pilots cobbled together employment by teams, two steam shovels, and working round the clock”, the barnstorming across the country at air shows, performing stunts in speedway was ready. The oval track was two miles in length, 100 Hollywood films, dropping leaflets and advertising circulars, doing feet wide in the home stretch, and 60 feet wide in the banked turns aerial photography, crop dusting, and/or transporting light cargo.

The GeorGia enGineer

Photo credit: Georgia Department of Industry, Trade, and Tourism OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

Candler Field (Atlanta Airport) 1940. The southern portion of the 1909 Candler speedway oval is still visible as are the original North-South and East-West runways and the later Northwest-Southeast diagonal, crosswind runway—all three unpaved. Virginia Avenue runs East-West at the top of the photo. Within the oval at the north are hangars and the 1936 terminal. At the northwest just outside the oval are the Army Air Corps facilities. As early as 1917, the USPost Office began considering and experimenting with airmail service. As a rail hub, Atlanta leaders understood the benefits of mail cars with frequent train service in providing an economic development advantage. Never missing a chance for a commercial advantage, the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce set up an aviation study committee. To provide airmail service, and perhaps passenger service, in an analogous way as the railroads, it was clear that an airfield was necessary. Cities without an airport simply would not compete, and compete Atlanta surely would do. The chamber’s committee was charged to: “ascertain the size and kind of landing field needed for aviators carrying mail, the size and kind of fields available in or near Atlanta and the probable cost of acquiring such fields and putting them in shape for use when needed.” This was the first of many site selection studies that have continued to the present day. The 1918 chamber committee took its charge seriously, but no site was selected. Interestingly, the racetrack in Piedmont Park was one of the contending sites—such was 8

the thinking in 1918 on airfields. The 1920s brought more serious consideration of airmail routes by the US Post Office, and a few contracts were issued on key routes. These contracts did not restrict the private planes from also carrying paying passengers. Thus, the holder of a federal contract for airmail service could now offer air passenger service. The federal contracts stipulated a route and its termini, and only cities with airports were considered. This led federal agencies to encourage cities to construct airports. At this time, Athens and Augusta, Georgia and Birmingham and Montgomery, Alabama had city-owned airfields. Atlanta did not. The closest Atlanta had was a racetrack, which leased space to a couple of barnstormers trying to create an industry out of an avocation. In 1917, the southern part of the infield of the Candler speedway, not used for aviation, was leased to a resident tenant that farmed a cotton patch on shares with Candler. Another part of the infield was a neighborhood baseball diamond, and other parts were pasture. Advocates for a city-owned airport were

joined by the US Army Air Corps, the US Post Office, and, later, the federal Department of Commerce, which was assigned responsibility to promote and regulate all aspects of aviation. The ultimate question was where would the airport be located. It was a rather unstructured debate. Atlanta City Council and the Fulton County Commission appointed committees, as did the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce. The regional leader of the Army Air Corps evaluated sites suitable for an airfield. Each consulted with federal officials and elected members of Congress to determine the prospects for a mail route into Atlanta and/or lobby for it. At the same time, the attributes of a good airport site were unclear—other than the price of land and cost of grading it. For a time, a 208-acre site on Browns Mill Road in South Atlanta (just East of where I-75 and I-85 split) was preferred. The minimum site size was considered 100 acres. It was referred to as the Nichols Estate, and is now the site of Atlanta’s Browns Mill Park. By 1922, a $300/month lease had been negotiated with a purchase price option of $75,000. The newly elected Atlanta Mayor Sims thought it too expensive. By 1924, Fulton County concluded the Nichols Estate was in fact a good site and recommended it. The Army Air Corps had done its own analysis and eventually concurred with the Nichols Estate site. Mayor Sims remained unconvinced. The purchase price was lowered to $65,000, and by this time the county was offering to share the development cost 50-50 with the city. The City Council approved the purchase, but Mayor Sims vetoed the deal, Fulton County pulled their support, and the option on the land expired at the end of 1924. On February 13, 1925, Asa Candler repeated an offer to Mayor Sims that had previously been rejected. The Candlers were prepared to lease the speedway (which by this time was essentially a private air field) to Atlanta for five years if the city would pay any taxes due (at the time the property taxes for Hapeville and Fulton and Clayton counties amounted to $431.36), with a purchase option of $100,000 at any time during the lease. The very next day, Sen. Walter F. George told the Atlanta Constitution that, The GeorGia enGineer

in essence, a favorable air route through Atlanta to Eastern Florida and possibly to Panama was a strong possibility. Mayor Sims immediately accepted Candler’s offer (the county initially balked, but after a political dust-up eventually agreed). The deal was signed on April 16, 1925, and Atlanta had an airport—of sorts. Within days of acquiring the land for an airport, its construction began. The city and county graded the site to two 1,500-foot dirt runways (one N-S and the other E-W). The work had to be completed in time for an ‘air circus,’ which would serve as a christening event for the new airport, scheduled for July 3, 1925 (just 84 days after closing on the property!). Atlanta City Council Member Hartsfield championed a resolution in 1926 to name the new city airport Candler Field, in honor of Asa Candler. Hartsfield hoped that this honor might prompt Candler to waive the $100,000 purchase price. This strategy failed, although Candler did give a five percent cash discount several years later when he sold the field to the city for $95,000. In 1940, the name Candler Field was changed to Atlanta Municipal Airport. Thus began the remarkable journey of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. William B. Hartsfield continued his advocacy for mail and passenger service routes into and out of the airport and for funding for improvements—more and bigger runways, terminals, lights, airline hangars, and headquarters. Airport managers and airline executives have grown the airport into an economic powerhouse. Companies locate in the Atlanta Region because of it. Mayor Maynard Jackson continued the tradition of nurturing and growing the airport, while at the same time testing his program for involving minority businesses in its design, construction, and operation. The Midfield terminal, a radical reconfiguration of the airport to support service expansion, was completed in 1981 on his watch, ‘on time and on budget.’ It seems that at each step, the ‘world’s busiest airport’ was not an assured outcome. The 1922-25 debates and controversy over the airport’s location seem all too familiar. OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

The Atlanta Mayor, City Council, and Fulton County had differing opinions about what was a good site, whether we really needed an airport right now, how much should it cost, and how it would be paid for. In the end, it seemed that a good idea prevailed. Atlanta just knew that an airport was an essential facility (it is doubtful that ‘infrastructure’ was commonly discussed at the time) to enhance its competitiveness; and they were right. A few individual leaders made big choices and delivered the goods. Persistence seems to be a big part of success at the airport. We have gone from a dirt racetrack in 1909, to two graded dirt runways in 1925, to an airport that covers 4,700 acres with five enormous runways that are 9,000 to 11,890 feet long today and that handles 90 million passengers per year and 950,000 aircraft take-offs/lands per year, and employs 55,000 people. v

Thomas C. Leslie

This article is based on A Dream Takes Flight, Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport and Aviation in Atlanta, Betsy Braden and Paul Hagan, University of Georgia Press in conjunction with the Atlanta Historical Society, 1989.

Failure to Act: Can Georgians Afford to Fail? By L. Elliott Jones, P.E. | Public Relations Chair | ASCE Georgia Section

n July, ASCE released Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation Infrastructure, one of four planned reports assessing impacts of current trends in infrastructure investment across the United States. The reports expand on the findings of ASCE’s Report Card of American Infrastructure, which grades 15 key national infrastructure categories every four years. In 2009, the nation’s roads were given a grade of “D-,” bridges a “C,” and transit systems a “D.” This report estimates the current economic cost of deteriorating roads, bridges, and transit systems in the United States and predicts the economic consequences of underfunded infrastructure over the next ten and 30 years. Deficiencies of the nation’s surfacetransportation infrastructure (STI) cost households and businesses nearly $130 billion in 2010; and if present trends continue the annual cost of these deficiencies would increase to $210 billion by 2020, and would balloon to $520 billion by 2040. Cumulative costs for primary performance areas are summarized in Table 1.

Tom Moreland Interchange, also known as “Spaghetti Junction,” at the intersection of north I85 and I-285 in north DeKalb County, constructed between 1983 and 1987 as part of the Freeing the Freeways program to relieve congestion on Atlanta metro area interstates. (photo courtesy of Georgia Department of Industry, Trade, and Tourism.) down of transit vehicles; and (3) added cost of repairing deteriorated facilities as opposed to maintaining good condition. Exposing more travelers to substandard conditions and requiring vehicles to operate at less efficient

Table 1. The Mounting Cumulative Cost of Deficient and Deteriorating SurfaceTransportation Infrastructure Imposed on Americans

Performance Area Pavement and Bridge Conditions Highway Congestion Rail Transit Conditions Bus Transit Conditions Inter-City Rail Conditions TOTAL COST TO SYSTEM USERS

Cost (in billions of 2010 dollars) in 2010 by 2020 by 2040 $10 $58 $651 27 276 1,272 41 171 370 49 398 659 2 10 20 $130

Economic costs examined in the study include the increased operating costs for trucks, cars, and rail vehicles due to facilities in poor condition. Examples include: (1) damage to vehicles from deteriorated roadway surfaces; (2) additional miles traveled and time expended to avoid unusable or heavily congested roadways or due to break10

$912

$2,972

levels would also increase environmental and safety costs. Increasingly, deteriorating conditions will cost American households and businesses productivity and prosperity at work and at home. The specific economic implications of deteriorating STI are alarming. The cumulative costs would reach nearly $3 trillion,

representing more than $1.1 trillion in added business expenses and nearly $1.9 trillion from household budgets. American businesses, drained of these expenses, would be less productive and less competitive in the global economy. Households would have to curtail discretionary spending such as vacations, education, health care, and other quality-of-life expenditures. The U.S. would lose high-value, high-paying jobs in services and manufacturing. These jobs would be only partially offset by newly generated lower value jobs in transportation and automobilerepair services. Finally, the stressed U.S. economy would lose foreign exports. The Economic Development Research Group of Boston, who prepared the report for ASCE, covered six key topics: • Shortfall of infrastructure investment • Implications of this shortfall for national economic performance • Regional transportation and economic implications • Implications of lower speeds on interstate highways • Funding gaps by mode • Implications of maintenance funding shortfalls The GeorGia enGineer

From 2010 to 2040, the U.S. would need an estimated STI investment of roughly $220 billion annually (2010 dollars), based on unit costs, minimum tolerable conditions, and data consistent with current transportation investment models. This annual funding need includes about $196 billion for highway pavement and bridges and about $25 billion in transit capital infrastructure. If present trends continue, the funding gap for highways, which in 2010 was 48 percent of total investment needed, is expected to increase to 54 percent by 2040. The funding gap for rail and bus transit is expected to increase from 41 percent to 55 percent in the same period. The condition of STI has far reaching effects on the American economy. By 2040, deteriorating STI is expected to cost more than 400,000 jobs. Increased transportation costs will force everyone to reduce spending. Businesses will have to scale back jobs in high-value professional, business, and medical sectors. Households will have less to spend at restaurants, entertainment venues, and other amenities, causing further job losses. Although some job increases are expected in sectors such as auto and bus repair, and retail sales of gasoline, services, and parts, these low-value job gains are not expected to offset the loss of high-value jobs in other sectors. Due to costs imposed by deficient STI, in 2020 the U.S. economy is expected to export $28 billion less in goods than would have been the case with adequate infrastructure, and in 2040, exports are expected to be reduced by $72 billion. To assess regional differences, the report summarizes STI deficiencies in 2010 in eight U.S. regions on the basis of highway pavement and congestion, and interruptions to bus and rail transit. In the Southeast (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia), 14 percent of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were on roads having deficient pavement, and 16 percent on roads of deficient capacity (congestion). Compared to other regions, the Southeast had the lowest percentage of VMT on deficient pavement and was in the middle of the range on congested roads. The Southeast fared among the worst in dependability of OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

both bus and rail transit (1.7 and 1.1 interruptions per million VMT, respectively). Comparing reliance on the modes of transportation on a per capita basis, passengers in the Southeast traveled most by auto and truck (3,289 VMT) and took nearly the fewest bus and rail trips (48 trips). At the other end of the spectrum, passengers in the Middle Atlantic traveled only 2,373 VMT by auto and truck and took 1,704 bus and rail trips. The adage ‘time is money’ speaks to the cost of expected increases in surface-travel times. Interstate capacities have not kept pace with demand in urban areas; speeds on U.S. interstates in urban areas in 2010 were estimated to be ten miles per hour less than they would be if the system were built to minimum tolerable engineering standards for projected traffic levels. This ‘speed deficit’ is forecast to grow to 13 miles per hour by 2010, and to 16 miles per hour by 2040. The reassignment of interstate traffic to lower classified systems created an additional 360 million urban vehicle hours of travel (VHT) and 104 million rural VHT in 2010. At current funding levels, these times will increase to 22 billion urban VHT and six billion rural VHT by 2020, and 34 billion urban VHT and six billion rural VHT by 2040. Most of the routes that would gain traffic, due to congestion and deficient conditions of interstates, are state arterial routes with lower capacities, design speeds, and design standards. The underfunding of U.S. surface transportation needs is not a new problem; the current funding backlog is estimated to be $3 trillion, including $2.2 trillion for highways and bridges and $86 billion for transit capital infrastructure. In 2010, 18 percent of VMT in cars and trucks occurred on congested roads, expected to rise to 36 percent of VMT by 2040. Similarly, 16 percent of VMT in transit buses and seven percent of VMT on light rail systems occurred in suboptimal conditions in 2010, expected to rise to 30 percent and 22 percent of VMT, respectively, by 2040. Overall, deficiencies in bus and rail transit cost the American economy $49 billion and $41 billion, respectively, in 2010. Nationwide, these costs are expected to reach a total cumulative cost of nearly $680 billion and $370 billion, respectively, by 2040. Maintenance needs are a critical aspect

of highway investment requirements and are expected to increase. Unmet maintenance needs accelerate the deterioration of infrastructure and may exacerbate the economic impacts discussed in the report. Annual maintenance needs average about $5.7 billion, whereas the current funding level is only about $4.2 billion, leaving 25 percent of needed maintenance unfunded. By 2040, the cumulative total maintenance need will reach $172 billion, of which only $126 billion would be funded, based on current spending, representing a cumulative maintenance shortfall of $46 billion. The cost of continuing to fund improvements for America’s surface transportation system at current levels produces a mounting burden of deficiency, which shifts economic costs to the next generation of American households and businesses. This burden takes the form of higher costs of doing business, fewer opportunities for firms to invest, and less disposable income for families. The burden also compromises America’s competitive position in the world’s economy and leads to lower overall profitability for most business sectors. The Georgia Section of ASCE also released the 2009 Georgia Infrastructure Report Card, which is similar to the national version on a statewide scale. The grades given Georgia’s bridges were “C-,” roads a “D+,” and transit a “D+,” clearly room for improvement. Next July, Georgia voters will have the opportunity to help address the deficiencies in the State’s STI, by passing the 12 regional referenda that would levy a onecent sales tax for STI maintenance and improvements. The referenda are a provision of the Transportation Investment Act of 2010, which passed the Georgia General Assembly last year in June. Currently, transportation policy makers in each region are whittling down lists of projects for funding which will be finalized in October, 2011. Given the opportunity, will Georgia’s voters fail to act for the State’s STI and their own quality of life? [The subject report is available at http://www.asce.org/Infrastructure/ReportCard/Economic-Study/] v 11

The GeorGia enGineer

Year-end Depreciation Considerations By Chad Reese | Tax Manager | Deemer Dana & Froehle Federal tax law changes frequently and these changes seem to be occurring closer to the end of every calendar tax year. Given the last-second theatrics relating to the tax rates at the end of 2010, nothing is ever certain. However, despite the unpredictability of these changes, the current federal depreciation laws will likely never again be this generous. Section 168(k) “bonus depreciation”— a one-time depreciation deduction taken in the year a new capital asset is purchased— has historically allowed for an immediate 50 percent deduction upon the purchase of newly-manufactured machinery and equipment. The additional depreciation resulting from bonus depreciation can still be taken during a year that already has net losses. For the remainder of 2011: • Bonus depreciation can be used to expense all (100 percent) of the purchase price for qualified assets •

Qualified Assets: g Must be new g Must be depreciable over a period less than 20 years (most non-real estate purchases) g Includes full-business use SUVs rated over 6,000 pounds g Includes qualified leasehold improvement property (restaurant and retail improvement) For assets placed into service after December

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

31, 2011, bonus depreciation is allowed for only 50 percent of the purchase price. Section 179 depreciation is a one-time depreciation deduction taken in the year a capital asset is purchased. Unlike bonus depreciation, section 179 depreciation is available for ‘used’ asset purchases. Unfortunately, section 179 can only be used to offset positive net income. However, if unused, Section 179 can be carried forward for use at a later date. For the remainder of 2011: • Section 179 depreciation can be used to expense up to $500,000 worth of asset purchases •

Phase-outs of eligible depreciation start after an entity has purchased over $2,000,000 worth of capital assets during a year

•

Section 179 depreciation can be used to expense up to $250,000 of qualified real property.

service. Moreover, the purchasing decision should be based on sound business judgment and not just on short-term tax laws. Other factors weigh into if and how to apply the current and future tax laws to business purchases. For example, accelerated depreciation may not make optimal use of soon-to-expire Net Operating Losses. Also, some states disregard different federal statutes, offsetting tax benefits (for example, Georgia does not recognize bonus depreciation). Please consult your Certified Public Accountant in implementing your year-end tax planning strategies and purchases. v

The section 179 depreciation will drop precipitously to $125,000 with a phase-out that starts at $500,000 of overall purchases for all assets bought and placed into service after December 31, 2011. Of course, taking full advantage of the accelerated depreciation available in 2011 does necessitate a business being in position to expand its machinery and equipment in

Premium Overtime-Another Side to Compensation By T. Wayne Owens | CPA Compensation has been a major topic of conversation for the past couple of years between the DOTs and consultants. Typically, people think of executive compensation levels, but there is another side to this compensation discussion: allocation. How is compensation allocated to the different ‘cost objectives’? In other words, how much payroll cost does a project incur for any given hour charged to the job? Uncompensated overtime has been discussed at great lengths, but I have not heard much formal discussion of premium overtime until recently. The premium portion of overtime for hourly employees keeps creeping up in conversations I have with DOT auditors. They are receiving overhead audit reports without any consistency in how premium overtime is treated. This is probably due to a lack of consistency in how firms are treating the cost. The problem begins when firms choose to charge the premium portion of overtime directly to a project. Based upon conversations I have had with multiple principals, it appears there are a multiple of reasons for

T. Wayne Owens this direct charging of the premium portion. They range from a simple “it has to go somewhere” to “we want to accurately charge all jobs” or “we have always done it this way.” The simple truth of premium overtime is we typically do not know which project caused the overtime. People typically work on multiple jobs during the week and it is hard to know if it is the first job or the last job that caused the overtime. Given the choice, most principals believe a cost plus job will create the overtime over a lump sum job. This will create a system of adverse selection

for cost plus jobs. The real problem: will the cost plus contract allow you to charge the premium portion? Typically, these contracts don’t allow the premium portion, thus you are charging dollars to a job for which you will not be reimbursed. The cost stays in the direct labor base and reduces your overhead rate. Not only are you not being reimbursed on the direct labor portion but you are reducing your reimbursement on all jobs. Some firms try to correct this problem by reducing direct labor on their overhead statement by the premium portion of the overtime cost. However, this only fixes part of the problem. Firms are still not being reimbursed for all of their costs. Basically, legitimate costs are being incurred which are not being reimbursed by the government. This is not a case of the government refusing to pay, but simply the consultant not requesting the reimbursement. We (or I) believe you should stay true to your labor costing policy. The two choices are standard cost or average (effective) cost. With standard cost, all employees have a standard cost, and all hours are charged with this cost. Any difference in standard cost and actual payroll cost is charged to the payroll (job cost) variance. In other words premium overtime increases overhead, and uncompensated overtime reduces overhead. With average cost, the total payroll (including premium overtime) is divided by total hours for each employee which creates a cost rate for that period. Premium overtime increases the cost, and uncompensated overtime reduces the cost. The only real problem with the typical costing methods is when a contract reimburses for the premium portion of overtime. This creates a situation where the firm must change their policy for this contract through a forward pricing agreement.The annual overhead statement should reflect the costs incurred by the firm with no adjustments for direct labor. This creates a base that accurately reflects the costs of the firm and allows the consultant to be reimbursed at a fair rate allowing them to recovr all costs. This is the intention of the cost plus contracting method. v The GeorGia enGineer

Protecting the Tax Benefits of Employer-owned Life Insurance Policies—Getting it Right By Corinne Wooden, CPA | Deemer, Dana & Froehle LLP Is your design firm in compliance with the new rules surrounding employer life insurance policies? The consequences for failing to comply are harsh. The tax rules were changed for contracts issued after August 17, 2006, so if you have not changed or entered into an employer-owned life insurance contract since then, you may not be aware of the new requirements. Certain policy proceeds that are normally tax-free can become taxable if proper procedures are not followed. Losing these tax benefits can be costly, but can also be avoided by following certain notification, consent, and reporting procedures. It is important to comply with the rules now to properly preserve the tax benefits of proceeds you may collect later. If your firm plans on entering into any new contract, the time to act is before the policy is issued and at tax reporting time for each year that the policy is in effect. Employer-owned life insurance (EOLI) contracts are policies that are owned by a business and cover individuals, who at the time the policy was issued, were an employee, officer or director of that business. The other key characteristic of an EOLI contract is that the business is the beneficiary of the policy. Often times these are referred to as ‘key-man’ policies and are purchased by design firms to indemnify the firm for the loss of a key employee. They can also be a key ingredient in a buy-sell agreement by serving to fund the buyout of a deceased shareholder or partner by the surviving partners or shareholders. What are the consequences of not following the rules? The tax code does not allow the deductibility of premiums paid for employer-owned life insurance contracts and historically it also allowed businesses to exclude death benefit proceeds from income when collecting on the contracts. In 2006, a rule was placed into effect whereby the income exclusion is limited to an amount equal to the premiums paid for the policy, unless certain requirements are met. Policies that were in place before August 17, 2006 are not affected by the new OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

within a year after the consent was executed or before the employee terminates employment, whichever is earlier. A new notice and consent needs to be issued and obtained if the aggregate face amount of the policy is increased to exceed the amount listed on the original notice and consent.

Corinne Wooden rules but if they are modified the requirements may apply. There are three steps in meeting the requirements: notification, consent, and reporting. If the requirements are not met, the only portion that may be excluded from income is that amount of death benefits equal to the sum of premiums and other amounts paid by the policyholder for the contract. Notification & Consent For policies issued after August 17, 2006, the exclusion of death benefit payments from income will only be allowed for those employers who provide notification and obtain consent from the party they wish to insure. The notification and consent must be in writing and must contain all of the following information. Provide the employee with notice of intent to insure the employee’s life as well as the maximum face amount for which the employee could be insured at the time the contract is issued. The face amount must be in dollars or as a multiple of salary. The notice must state that your firm will be the beneficiary of any proceeds payable upon the death of the employee. The firm must also obtain written consent from the employee and consent to have coverage that may extend after the employee terminates employment.For the consent to be valid, the EOLI contract must be issued

Reporting Additionally, the new rules also require policyholders who own one or more EOLI contracts to report information about them annually. Form 8925 was developed by the Internal Revenue Service to satisfy the reporting requirements and needs to be included with the tax return of any business who owns EOLI contracts. The reporting stipulation requires the employer to disclose their total number of employees, the number of employees insured under EOLI contracts issued after August 17, 2006, and the amount of EOLI insurance in force at the end of the tax year. The form also requires the employer to report whether or not they have obtained a valid consent from the employee. There has been no change in the tax treatment of any interest included in the insurance proceeds. Interest that accrues between the date of death and the date the benefit is paid remains subject to income tax. If your firm already has employer-owned life insurance contracts, make sure you inform your tax professional, and if you plan on entering into any new contract or modifying any existing contracts, consult your insurance and tax professional to make sure you are complying with the new rules regarding notice, consent, and reporting. It can save you from a costly tax consequence.v

See daily videos on: georgiaengineerblog.com

Georgia Mining…Working for Georgia By Lee R. Lemke | Executive Vice President | Georgia Mining Association

inerals provide the basic resources for our homes, appliances, cars, electricity, communication, modern medical care, and even music. Without minerals extracted from the earth, we wouldn’t have the modern necessities that make our lives safe, comfortable, and productive. Few people realize that minerals play a major role in our lives. Each year, Georgia mines and produces significant quantities of minerals to produce cosmetics, medicines, cat litter, soaps, plastics, fertilizer, paint, bricks and building materials, magazines, automobile tires, wall paper, glue, ceramics,

Lee R. Lemke and many other products we enjoy. Minerals are so important in our everyday life that demand for them has grown as our society has become more complex. Each person in the United States needs 38,052 pounds of minerals and energy to maintain their standard of living, according to the statistics compiled by the Mineral Information Institute, an affiliate of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Foundation. With the life expectancy in the U.S. averaging 78 years, the average American will need 2.96 million pounds of resources to provide the products and materials they need in their lifetime.

The state of Georgia is home to over 200 surface mines, and two underground mining operations. In 2008, Georgia’s mineral production was valued at $1.8 billion, based upon annual U.S. Geological Survey data (USGS). This was down 13 percent from the state’s total of $2.1 billion in 2007 mainly due to the economic recession felt throughout the nation. Georgia mines and produces 15 different industrial minerals including mica, fuller’s earth, clay, feldspar, kaolin, shale, dimension granite, marble, umber, barite, sand, granite, limestone, bauxite, and ochre. The mining of minerals is important to the people and economy of Georgia. Georgia’s mining operations provide direct employment to over 6,000 employees, and another 20,000 people indirectly from mining activity both in and outside the state. Employees of mining companies have a better safety record than workers in most other manufacturing sectors. Mining operations are located in over 117 Georgia counties. According to the Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division, there are 322 borrow pits (7,131 acres); 328 Surface mines, such as kaolin, fuller’s earth, and other industrial minerals (54,007 acres); 92 crushed stone quarries (35,353 acres); and 76 dredging operations (3,925 acres). Every mining operation is associated with a processing and/or beneficiation plant. Through hightech extraction and manufacturing processes these industrial minerals like marble, mica, and barite are taken from the land and turned into essential ingredients in a wide range of consumer products. Mining is simply not a ‘pick and shovel’ industry. Each year members

The GeorGia enGineer

of the Georgia Mining Association invest millions of dollars for research and development, state of the art mining equipment, and technological manufacturing processes. Before any minerals can be extracted from the earth, a mining permit must be secured from the state EPD. Company engineers and geologists develop a written mining and reclamation plan with maps and photographs. The plan is submitted to the state for evaluation and approval and contains measures for erosion and sediment control and protection of adjacent land and water resources. With over 100,000 acres of permitted mine land, Georgiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s miners are harvesting minerals that provide the critical raw materials necessary to the foundation of our economy. Since the passage of the

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

Georgia Surface Mining Act of 1968, less than 1/10th of one percent of the stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total land area has ever been touched by mining. Furthermore, every acre of mined land must be reclaimed and restored to a productive use. This process involves contouring and grading the land and stabilizing it with vegetation for wildlife, forest production, and agriculture. The industry is proud of its environmental record and the beautiful examples of mined land reclamation that often include the formation of lakes and wildlife habitat. The Georgia Mining Association and its members have

played an important role in the life of many Georgia communities through their commitment to jobs, education, economic growth, and the environment. The Georgia Mining Association (GMA), founded in 1972, is a Georgia trade association dedicated to assisting mining companies (40+) and trade members (180+) succeed, comply, and function in a complex business and regulatory world. (For further information on Georgia Mining Association or Georgia Mining Foundation Scholarship Program, please visit our Web site: www.georgiamining.org ) v

2010 Georgia Mining Association Land Reclamation Winner- Wilkinson County

In the Path of Emerging Trends Doris I. Willmer, PE | ACEC ETTF Chair & Dr. Ruth Middleton House | ACEC ETTF Member

he macroeconomics of today defines a world stage impacting every decision made here in the U.S. The global economic slowdown, the European Union in financial chaos with several countries close to default, and China’s slowdown in growth monopolize our headlines. At home, the troubles have mounted with the recent downgrading of our bond rating for the first time in history from AAA to AA+ reflecting a federal government that can’t stop spending and leadership gridlock. The Federal Reserve Bank has run out of options and all Federal policies to stimulate the economy have failed leaving a debt solution that will require reducing federal spending, increasing revenue, reforming social security and Medicare, and increasing taxes. With the economists predicting one in three chances to 50/50 that we are going to enter another recession in 20122013, the outlook for growth is uncertain. Amidst the uncertainty, some certainty does exist. With the 2012 election looming, we can expect gridlock in Washington and resulting reduced government spending at all levels. A slow GDP growth of two percent is estimated. Increased taxes are inevitable. And it appears that there will be no new net jobs for years until unemployed workers are retrained for future positions. By 2009, it was clear that ACEC member firms had been hard hit by the economic slowdown and the February 2008 GDOT stop work order. At first, the board saw a tenyear strategic plan for ACEC as the way to help members recover. It chartered the Emerging Trends Task Force (ETTF) to develop that plan. It soon became evident that the uncertain environment made certain long-term planning impossible. So the question before the Task Force was revised: “What trends must ACEC recognize and address to help member firms flourish?” One book on trends that the ETTF reviewed identified 220 trends that will shape the next 50 years. The members of the ETTF 18

identified 47 trends. The ETTF realized the focus needed to be on the most important few to identify concrete, actionable recommendations. Even focusing on the most important few, there were some knotty issues to sort through. What, for example, is the difference between an issue and a trend? Both matter. The ETTF’s role was not to focus on only one static point but to look at the trend line itself. Politics has always been a difficult issue. However, at one time the ground rules were known, and member firms were good at navigating them. Since 2008 in Georgia, however, the ground rules have been in flux. Politics has become less transparent, less predictable, and less friendly. That shift is the trend the ETTF addressed. What about a silver bullet? The ETTF was unable to identify one. Initially, ETTF members thought trends might be identified like: • Computer software will…..To successfully cope with that change, we must…. OR •

Virtual design will….To successfully cope with that change, we must…. OR

•

Our primary clients will be….To navigate this shift in markets, we must….

Instead, the ETTF found that the trends that were most troubling would be viewed by many as much ‘softer;’ but, in reality, the options to deal with them were much harder to develop and much harder to execute. In studying emerging trends, it would be easy to suffer from information overload. The ETTF experienced what the consulted resources were stating. • Information no longer equals power. Most people have more information than they know what to do with.

The GeorGia enGineer

•

Today, attention equals power.

To become successful trend-followers, you must focus your own attention. To become trend setters, you must go even further: you must attract the attention of decision makers before they can be influenced. First, there is too much information to try to analyze it all, all at once. The ETTF focused their attention on the trends they identified as having the most impact on engineering. Second, without looking at the big picture first, addressing one individual trend may limit the ability to deal with another. Examining the interaction of several trends within a cluster allowed the ETTF to look for a clear path to follow. Six trend clusters seemed especially relevant. They are; 1) Politics, 2) Client Expectations: Technology, 3) Profitability, 4) Client Expectations: Other, 5) Globalization and 6) The Economy. Third, even naming a trend is not easy. Different people and different sources used the term ‘trend’ differently. For example in Drivers of Change, Arup sorted facts and events into seven Driver Categories; energy, waste, climate change, water, demographics, urbanization, and poverty. A specific driver could trigger any number of trends depending on its interaction with one or more contexts—social, technological, economic, environmental or political. Instead of focus-

ing on individual facts or events, the ETTF elected to focus on the trends those triggered. Fourth, simply being able to name a trend is not enough: you have to actually do something different to address the trend. What to do? Figuring that out isn’t easy. Each of the six trend clusters has both an external component and an internal one. Often, the internal trend makes the external one more difficult to address. We are left with growing gaps between the demand placed on us by the external environment and our capacity, internally, to respond to these demands. Politics Trend Cluster Politics has become more turbulent and unpredictable. Engineers (and others) are reluctant to change the way they address political issues. The gap between the political environment and our willingness and ability to change has grown wider.

ability to compete has grown wider. The Economy Trend Cluster The weak economy appears to remain weak going forward at least another few years. At the same time the availability of money to help companies ‘wait it out’ has dwindled. Bridging the gap has become more difficult. Comfortable ‘Armchair Management’ that we may have relied on in the past won’t be enough now. We are facing ‘Wicked Problems,’ problems with complex interdependencies and changing (often hidden) requirements. Much of what is happening out there is beyond our control. However, we own our ability and willingness to change. We must recognize the bellwethers and change ourselves accordingly in order to succeed going forward. v

Client Expectations: Technology Trend Cluster Clients increasingly make new technology a requirement but are unwilling to pay for it. Small companies have a limited capacity to invest in the new technology. The gap between client technical expectations and small companies’ ability to meet those expectations has grown wider. Profitability Trend Cluster The cost of doing business has gone up and at the same time client willingness to pay has gone down. Engineering firms are left with a shrinking, sometimes negative, margin.

Doris I. Willmer, PE ACEC ETTF Chair

Client Expectations: Other Trend Cluster. Traditional ways of doing business (DesignBid-Build, Percentage Fees, and so on) are on the decline. They are being replaced with Integrated Delivery, Value-Based Fees and so on. The gap between client expectations and engineer-friendly business practices has grown wider. Globalization Trend Cluster Some of the most promising business opportunities are outside the country. The cost of getting this business, however, is high. The gap between global markets and our OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

Dr. Ruth Middleton House ACEC ETTF Member 19

Raise the Bar By Dan Agramonte, PE

t its annual meeting held in August of 2008, the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) passed several motions that supported the American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) initiative known as ‘raise the bar’ (RTB). At that point, at least two organizations were pushing for this new initiative. The NCEES decision to throw its weight behind RTB actually coincided with the tenth anniversary of the ASCE Board of Direction’s approval of Policy Statement 465, “Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice.” This policy statement was refined in 2001, 2004, and 2007. What is ‘raise the bar’? RTB is an initiative to modify the NCEES model rules for engineers. The model rules set forth the requirements for professional engineer licensure. In additional to engineer internship (also known as engineer in training), model law engineer (MLE) licensing (the benchmark for engineering licensure) requires: (1) graduation from an ABET-accredited educational institution with a four year degree, (2) successful passage of an eight hour examination in the relevant specialty (civil, environmental, electrical engineering, etc.), (3) five professional recommendations (three being from current professional engineers), and (4) four years of documented experience. The RTB initiative modifies the MLE requirement by incorporating the concept of a ‘body of knowledge’ or BOK. The BOK is intended to be the foundation of the profession, which provides the knowledge necessary and a strong common bond among all members of the profession. Incorporating the BOK requirement is the key hallmark to achieving the RTB goal of ensuring that those entering the practice of engineering possess the minimum level of knowledge required for them to practice engineering. Unfortunately, the BOK requirement creates an additional education burden. ASCE believes that the incremental requirement specified in the BOK cannot be com20

pletely accommodated into a traditional four year baccalaureate degree. ASCE cites increases in technical specialization and limits on the number of credits that can be required for graduation. Specifically, the additional requirement will increase the educational load by approximately 30 credit hours, the equivalent of a master’s degree. Thus, the MLE requirement would increase the educational prerequisite for licensure from a fouryear degree to a four-year degree plus a master’s degree in the appropriate coursework. Two additional factors bear consideration: (1) ASCE has established a vision that RTB should be in place by 2020 and (2) a BOK has not been finalized for any other branch of engineering (e.g., mechanical, electrical, etc.). Why is RTB needed? In making its argument for RTB, ASCE points to the increased demands of the profession, as identified through its surveys of ASCE members. Meeting these demands will require

higher standards. The higher standards may be supported by data from the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE), which looked at degrees conferred from 1999 through 2005. While the number of bachelor’s degrees in engineering grew by 19.6 percent, the number of master’s degrees conferred grew by 34.4 percent or nearly double. What are the pros and cons of RTB? The major impact of RTB on engineer interns awaiting licensure is the requirement to obtain 30 credit hours, equivalent to a master’s degree, before being eligible for professional licensing. To date, several organizations, including the aforementioned NCEES and ASCE, as well as the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), and the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) have come out in favor of RTB, citing the changing needs of the profession and the need to ensure licensees remain up to the challenge of the profession. The American

The GeorGia enGineer

Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) has been most vocal against RTB. ACEC believes the BOK requirements should be included within a baccalaureate degree and not separately. The argument for and against RTB has pitted ACEC, ostensibly a business organization, against professional engineering societies (such as ASCE). These societies have also cited the need to support the interests of individual engineers, the engineering profession, as well as the publicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s health, safety, and welfare. ACEC and others point out that the increased educational requirement for licensure will drive otherwise qualified candidates away from engineering toward professions that are perhaps viewed as being more lucrative. Conversely, RTB proponents are quick to point out that the higher standard will also increase the prestige of the organization and make it more lucrative. What is the status of RTB? To date, ASCE has spearheaded changes in licensure, focusing on two states, Nebraska and Louisiana. The effort in Nebraska has been

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

spearheaded by the ASCE Nebraska Section. To date, neither state has finalized plans to implement RTB. While all 50 states recognize the model law engineer as an acceptable common ground for licensure, some states such as Georgia still have a licensing mechanism in place that allows professional engineering licensure without a four-year engineering degree. This wide disparity from state-to-state clearly presents an additional obstacle to nation-wide adoption of RTB. The Georgia Section of ASCE has not taken a position on the RTB issue, but it is clearly in every engineerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interest, whether licensed or not, to at least become aware of the arguments being made for and against adoption of RTB. Increasing awareness at the grassroots level will ensure that each state exercises its professional engineer licensing prerogative in a manner that best serves the key stakeholders: engineers, engineering organizations, clients, and, first and foremost, the public. For more information, visit www.asce.org. v

Employment Practices Liability Insurance Update By Gregg Bundschuh | Partner | Greyling Insurance Brokerage

mployment litigation has been compounded by the macroeconomic contraction of the past several years. There have been anemic wage increases (if not lowered compensation levels); hiring freezes; reduced hours, furloughs, layoffs, and other downsizings; and widespread job losses due to corporate bankruptcies. The resulting risk of employment practice-related claims has been further exacerbated by the lack of alternative job opportunities available to displaced workers and a greater awareness by employees of their rights.

• wrongful termination; • wrongful discipline or demotion; and • wrongful failure to employ or promote. Employers should bear in mind that any work-force interaction—from the hiring process through an employee’s termination—could be a catalyst for a claim, whether the alleged wrongdoing originated with management, a supervisor, or even a coworker.

Gregg Bundschuh Consider these numbers: In 2010, 99,902 complaints were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The most commonly alleged forms of discrimination continued to be race (35.9 percent) and sex (29.1 percent), followed by disability (25.2 percent) and age (23.3 percent) [note: an individual charge can claim multiple types of discrimination; thus, the numbers add to more than 100 percent]. However, for the first time, claims of retaliation exceeded those of race discrimination. Beyond these private actions, the EEOC commenced 271 lawsuits against employers in 2010, with monetary benefits secured by the EEOC totaling $85.1 million (up nearly 10 percent over the previous five years’ average of $77.6 million). Almost 75 percent of all litigation against corporations stems from employment disputes. The average cost of defense exceeds $150,000; the median award is $250,000. The majority of these claims settle, with an average settlement of approximately $310,000. An employee has a 67 percent chance of securing a judgment against his or her employer, and a claim that proceeds to trial has yielded an average award of around $440,000. 22

Legal fees are not the only cost of defending against an employment action; such claims can disrupt business operations, as well as take a toll on management’s time, employee morale, and future hiring. Adverse media attention may arise from these cases. Fear of negative press can push a company to settle a case with little or no merit.

EPLI coverage is written on a ‘claims-made’ basis, meaning that the applicable policy is the one in force at the time the claim is first made against an insured, not the one in force when the wrongful act was alleged to have occurred. Coverage should include all of the following parties as ‘insureds’: 1. the organization; 2. management; 3. other employees; and 4. independent contractors.

Employment practices liability insurance (EPLI)—developed some 20 years ago— guards against alleged violations of such employment statutes as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as more recent laws—such as the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act—plus various workplace torts. The majority of EPLI policies respond to such allegations as: • discrimination;

The policy should include such features as: • prior acts coverage;

• harassment and hostile workplace environment, including bullying; retaliation;

• a post-policy window for reporting claims; and

• breach of employment contract;

• no requirement to provide notice of circumstances that could later give rise to a claim.

• invasion of privacy;

• coverage for back pay and front pay; • coverage for punitive, exemplary, multiplied, and liquidated damages—subject to insurability in the applicable jurisdiction; • coverage for claims brought by leased employees, independent contractors, and/or government agencies (in addition to employees and applicants);

The GeorGia enGineer

An important EPLI coverage option is thirdparty liability coverage, which addresses claims brought by individuals who are neither employees nor applicants—for example, customers and vendors. This coverage grant is routinely limited to discrimination and sexual harassment. Nevertheless, increasing litigation is proving this coverage extension to be quite valuable.

Plaintiff attorneys across the country are bringing class-action lawsuits against employers alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act—principally as respects underpayment of wages. Specifics vary, but common themes are misclassification of certain workers as “exempt” and failure to pay workers for various work activities (such as “donning and doffing”—time spent putting on and taking off special protective equipment and clothing). Very few EPLI insurers will provide coverage for unpaid wages or related fines and penalties, but a number will grant a defense sublimit with which to fight these allegations.

Underwriters look at many factors when considering an account for EPLI, including: • number of employees and independent contractors; • geographic location of work force; employment turnover (voluntary versus involuntary);

value-added services in addition to coverage, either free or at a discount. The objective is to prevent claims or minimize potential damages in the event of a claim. Such services include: • materials to assist in development of internal policies and procedures;

ganization’s policies and procedures. 3. Review job advertisements, job applications, job tests, offer letters, employment contracts, and employment manuals with outside legal counsel.

• a toll-free risk management ‘hotline’ to trained human resources specialists;

4. Prominently publish the firm’s equal employment opportunity policies.

• access to outside legal counsel to discuss pre-claims employment situations and scenarios; and

5. Establish a written policy of ‘zero tolerance’ against sexual harassment and discrimination of all types.

• information through newsletters and Web sites to help employers stay current.

Rather than viewing each employee as a potential litigant, the goal should be to create a positive and fair environment. That, in turn, should help reduce your firm’s exposure to costly and demoralizing employee litigation. Implementing the following practices should help to achieve this goal. 1. Draft and disseminate an employment manual to all employees—securing acknowledgement of, understanding of, and agreement to its policies and procedures. 2. Provide training for all management personnel, as well as to other employees, on employment laws as they relate to the or-

6. Create and consistently enforce a confidential complaint procedure and progressive discipline policy. 7. Thoroughly investigate any charge of discrimination or sexual harassment. 8. Periodically evaluate classifications of employees and compliance with laws.

Against the backdrop of escalating employment litigation, employers with strong risk management procedures in place—and the protection of an EPLI policy—can reduce their chances of facing a loss and mitigate the organization’s balance-sheet risk if a claim does arise. v

• documented employment policies and procedures, including distribution to and acknowledgement by all employees; • financial condition; past or forecasted layoffs; and • loss history. The following table contains examples of EPLI pricing for architecture and engineering firms (by size of work force).

Many insurers provide their insureds with OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

Georgia DOT Takes on New Role to Deliver Projects Faster Gerald Ross | Chief Engineer/Deputy Commissioner & Jeff Baker | State Utilities Engineer | Georgia Department of Transportation

hen trying to finish a job faster, adding more tasks to it wouldn’t seem the best approach. Yet, that’s exactly what the Georgia Department of Transportation is doing, and early results are promising. Each year, the department begins hundreds of millions of dollars in new transportation projects to help keep Georgians moving and our state growing. Hastening the completion of these often multi-year projects is a priority. Building new roads or widening existing ones almost always begins with relocating existing utility lines. Until the pipes, conduit, and wires for services such as gas, water, sewer, electric, phone, and cable are identified and moved out of the construction area, little work can be started. And that’s where Georgia DOT found that project delays often began—at their beginning! Bids would be awarded to a contractor; affected utilities notified; work authorized; sites cleared of trees and vegetation; and nothing happened; time passed...still, nothing happened. One regrettable project actually took four entire months just to get utilities moved, then less than three months to build! Every delay seemed to have its own special circumstance; every participant their own self-absolving rationalization. The end result though remained too common—a finger-pointing exchange among the department, its contractors and the utilities while angry local officials and exasperated citizens looked on and pleaded/demanded that someone just do something. We decided that someone would be us. The fundamental problem was utilities were spending—not making—money in relocations and had no incentive to hurry, while contractors, meanwhile, couldn’t start making money—and in fact were losing it—with men and machines idled waiting on the utilities. 24

Recognizing there had to be a better way, we asked the Georgia General Assembly to help. The result was a new provision that now allows Georgia DOT to include private utility relocations as part of a project contract. The department or contractor can make relocations themselves if the utility has so agreed. If a utility chooses not to allow such relocation of its facilities and instead opts to continue handling them itself, there now are penalties for delays. Damage claims can be filed against utilities for lost time, equipment expenses, and costs assessed for delaying the project’s benefits to the public. While the program is still relatively new, utility companies are warming to the concept. Agreements have been reached with major providers such as Georgia Power and Atlanta Gas Light with more in development. Everyone stands to benefit from the program. Utilities are freed of the need to disrupt schedules and divert crews from paying jobs. Contractors can be more precise in their bidding because they have more confidence in project timelines. And though it may seem counterintuitive, the department believes this approach should actually save taxpayer dollars too as the savings gained by meeting schedules will easily exceed the cost of the additional work. The end result is the elimination of a big roadblock to delivering projects on time and on budget. And that’s the biggest benefit of all—the one legislators, local officials, the public, and the Georgia DOT are seeking. Georgia DOT’s program to reduce utility delays is a model for other transportation departments across the country and has drawn federal recognition. The people behind this program represent just one of many department groups committed to providing a safe, seamless, and sustainable transportation system that supports Georgia’s economy and is sensitive to both its citizens and its environment. v

Jeff Baker the State Utilities Engineer of the Georgia Department of Transportation.

Gerald Ross Chief Engineer/ Deputy Commissioner

The GeorGia enGineer

Georgia’s Aggressive New Immigration Law— the Trend in ICE Investigations By Carrie L. Christie | Partner | Rutherford & Christie LLP. Assisted by Dylan R. Davis | Student | University of Georgia | Political Science Major Since the 2003 creation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency responsible for enforcing immigration laws at the worksite, the construction industry has become a favorite target of government investigations. The U.S. government estimates there are approximately 11 million immigrants living here illegally. With the bulk of these workers believed to be employed in construction, landscape, lodging, and agriculture, these industry employers are often the hardest hit. Upon taking office, President Barack Obama and his administration pledged to punish employers who hire undocumented immigrants, and they have done so by imposing onerous fines and criminal sanctions on employers deemed in violation. In 2009, $1 million in fines was levied on employers found to be using illegal immigrants. In 2010, ICE issued an estimated $7 million in fines. In addition, an internal ICE memorandum was uncovered detailing the agency's strategy to continue worksite investigations and to develop “criminal cases against employers who hire and use illegal workers.” ICE agents are encouraged to prosecute employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers after finding evidence of mistreatment of workers, trafficking, smuggling, harboring, Visa fraud, document fraud, and other violations. Those at risk of prosecution? Management—ranging from business owners to corporate managers to supervisors. Offending employers may be excluded from doing business with the federal government and receiving loans under the Recovery Act; they may also be subjected to criminal sanctions and administrative fines. The memo outlines the use of informants, cooperating witnesses, undercover agents, consensual searches, and Form I-9 audits. According to the memo, ICE’s “most important administrative tool” in conducting investigations is the Notice of Inspection (NOI). These inspections include a detailed OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

review of an employer’s entire employment eligibility verification process, including its I-9 forms, training, and record-keeping procedures. NOIs and ICE audits have resulted in the layoff of 25 percent of one national company’s workforce, fines of $40,000 for Form I-9 violations at one location of a national chain and subjected one company to court supervision for three years, a criminal fine of $250,000 and forfeiture of $1.334 million in assets for harboring unauthorized workers. Arizona’s Immigration Legislation However, when states attempted to curb the hiring of illegal immigrants, the federal government balked and took legal action to prevent state enforcement. In Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting, opponents attacked Arizona's 2007 mandatory E-Verify legislation, arguing the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits states from imposing sanctions for hiring illegal immigrants. But the federal law exempts “licensing and similar laws,” and the issue was whether Arizona’s law fell under that exemption. The five-tothree decision, issued by the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2011, upheld Arizona's right to require employers to check the federal E-Verify system before hiring new workers and to penalize employers who are caught repeatedly hiring illegal immigrants. The Court's decision did not address the closely watched Arizona S.B. 1070, which has spurred considerable controversy. While federal law requires certain aliens to register with the U.S. government and to have registration documents in their possession at all times, the Arizona Act additionally makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents. It further bars state and local officials or agencies from restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws, and cracks down on those sheltering, hiring,

and transporting illegal aliens. Arizona passed the law after years of frustration over problems often associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking and violent kidnappings. That border state is a gateway into the U.S. and, therefore, home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants. The U.S. Department of Justice and several civil rights groups are currently challenging S.B. 1070. Although the E-Verify program generally remains voluntary, by Presidential Executive Order, federal contractors are required to use E-Verify for all new hires and employees assigned to a federal contract. Georgia’s Immigration Reform Similar to Arizona, Georgia is estimated to have 425,000 illegal immigrants who cost state and local taxpayers roughly $2.5 billion a year. This money goes to subsidizing services such as K-12 education, health care, public safety, and other state and local services. Georgia’s construction, landscape, architecture, and restaurant businesses have traditionally relied on unregistered workers to provide low cost labor. The Federation for America Immigration Reform (FAIR US) reports that the average illegal worker makes $5.45 while the current minimum wage for registered workers is $7.45 an hour, plus the usual benefits. On May 13, 2011, less than two weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Arizona's 2007 mandatory E-Verify, Gov. Nathan Deal signed Georgia's own sweeping immigration enforcement measures. The “Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011” is patterned after Arizona's 2007, and more controversial 2010, legislation and requires private employers with more than ten employees and public employers, such as state agencies and counties, to register and participate in E-Verify in order to verify employment eligibility of newly hired employees. 25

Before a county or municipal corporation issues or renews a business license, occupational tax certificate or other document required to operate a business, evidence of compliance with the E-Verify provisions must be submitted in affidavit form. Private contractors and subcontractors wishing to bid on contracts with public employers for the physical performance of services such as construction projects must first provide affidavits of compliance with E-Verify. To assist, the Attorney General will post a standardized form affidavit on the Department of Law’s Web site by January 1, 2012. This legislation has teeth. For example, effective July 1, 2011, it became a felony to use false information or documentation when applying for a job. Criminal or civil action can be issued, including up to 15 years in prison and $250,000 in fines, against an applicant who violates this provision. Further, the Commissioner of Labor is authorized to conduct 100 or more random audits of employers per year. The law allows an employer found to have committed a “good faith” violation 30 days to demonstrate com-

pliance with the law. These requirements become effective on January 1, 2012, for employers with 500 or more employees, on July 1, 2012, for employers with 100 to 499 employees, and on July 1, 2013, for employers with 11 to 99 employees. Private employers with 10 or less employees are exempt. This controversial legislation has already been challenged and on June 27, 2011, a federal judge in Atlanta temporarily blocked portions of the Act, including provisions that allow police officers to check the immigration status of suspects without proper identification and penalize people who knowingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing another crime. It is expected that the ruling will be appealed. Recommendations Employers should conduct internal I-9 audits to identify issues and correct violations. This should include an evaluation of the employers’ current record-keeping practices to determine if new training programs are needed for human resources personnel. Legal counsel should assist in developing best prac-

tices, including establishing protocols for the verification of the identity and work eligibility of new hires, advising employers on safeguards against discrimination in the I-9 process, and advising on the use of E-Verify. Employers who receive an NOI should contact counsel as quickly as possible, since these notices only provide three days for the employer to submit the I-9 to ICE for review. Counsel should review payroll to identify discrepancies between the number of employees and the company’s I-9s. Prior to submission, employers should check I-9s, correcting those with obvious errors. Employers demonstrating good faith efforts to comply with immigration laws may avoid criminal penalties and be assessed lower civil fines if violations are uncovered. The construction industry should pay special attention to Georgia’s new immigration reforms, if the pattern of being a favorite target of federal probes repeats itself at the state level. Consulting legal counsel should be the first step in formulating your company’s best practices for dealing with immigration issues. v

The GeorGia enGineer

Summary of Georgia’s New Public-private Partnership Law for Water Projects By David M. Ashley, RLA | Water Resources Practice Leader | Jacobs Engineering Group Background On May 2, 2011, Governor Nathan Deal signed Senate Bill 122 (SB 122) into law. The new law, introduced by Senator Ross Tolleson of Perry, amends Georgia Code sections 36-91-100 et seq, and gives local governments and authorities the right to enter into Public-Private Partnerships (P3) for water projects. It is legislation that enables local governments and authorities to develop projects at their discretion, without requiring any mandate to do so. Water policy and law in Georgia have been evolving to address the state’s changing water supply conditions and challenges. Contributing factors include a combination of rapid growth, particularly in north Georgia, coupled with a series of droughts and the resulting effects upon water supplies in many piedmont and mountain communities. Legislation was passed in 2004 authorizing the preparation of a State-Wide Water Management Plan. The process got underway in 2009 with the formation of ten Regional Water Councils, whose plans are now finalized and in the process of approval by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD). In July of 2009, US District Court Judge Paul Magnuson issued a ruling pursuant to tri-state litigation that, based on its original Congressional authorization, Lake Lanier was not constructed for water supply. The ruling meant Metro Atlanta and downstream communities could only make use of the water released “incidentally” by Buford Dam operations for water supply, not by withdrawing water directly from Lake Lanier. The ruling, intended to take effect in 2012, would restrict Lake Lanier and Metro Chattahoochee water withdrawals to mid-1970s levels. However, the June 2011 reversal of Judge Magnuson’s ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals may have removed some of the urgency for action on water supply, barOCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

ring the successful petition for rehearing by the states of Alabama and Florida and their cooperating parties. In addition, the effects of the current economy, as well as the passage of the Georgia Water Stewardship Act (SB 370) last year, which mandates statewide water conservation, may slow the growth of water demand. However, with limited water resources in parts of Georgia, many studies have shown that there will be a long-term need for additional water supplies. Legislative Summary Section 1 (Amendments to Code Section 3691-100, et seq.) Section 36-91-101 In summation, SB 122 authorizes local governments and water authorities to enter into contracts with private parties for a wide range of water supply-related purposes, including the following: • Federal and state permits, licenses and permissions; • Planning, financing, construction, acquisition, operation or maintenance of water projects;

• Reimbursement of the private entity for costs or expenses associated with water projects via service payments, user fees, purchase payments or other consideration; • Assumption of projects, permits, licenses or permissions by local governments or authorities at appropriate times. The bill authorizes local governments and authorities to undertake actions to receive federal, state or local assistance and enables them to enter into contracts with private parties to achieve such assistance. Under the provisions of SB 122, local governments or authorities may also fund any portion of a project with federal, state or local grants, and they may agree to make grants to the private parties from those grant funds. A special note: the power of eminent domain is withheld from private entities and exclusively reserved to the existing powers now held by local governments or authorities. Section 36-91-102 This section of the bill details how local gov-

ernments and authorities are authorized to use an alternative method of procurement for planning, finance, construction, acquisition and maintenance of water projects, as summarized below. SB 122 procedures stipulate that one or more local governments or authorities may agree to participate in consideration or implementation of a project. When more than one local government or authority participates, one of them must be designated the lead local authority, with representation by other local parties. The lead local authority may determine the appropriate levels of participation in the project, in consultation with affected local governments and authorities, the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA), planning organizations, and private financial and construction sectors. Only the lead local authority may issue a written Request for Proposals (RFPs) for projects, to include: • The scope of the project; • Proposed financial participation(s); • Factors used in the selection process; and • Other applicable contractual terms and conditions, including unique capabilities or qualifications required by the contractor.

These discussions are not considered to be public meetings unless local government regulations require such. The bill states that at the conclusion of the discussion stage, and based on all of the information developed, the local authority may hold a public meeting to select a preferred respondent “whose qualifications and proposed services are deemed most meritorious.” Negotiations may then be conducted with the selected respondent. Such negotiations are not considered to be public meetings. Based upon contract terms that are determined to be “most satisfactory and advantageous to the participating local governing authorities and local authorities based upon a thorough assessment of value and the final project’s characteristics to meet the goals” of said local governing authorities and local authorities, and consistent with applicable state-wide and regional water plans and local comprehensive plans, the local governing authorities and local authorities must hold an open public meeting with affected local governments. The bill states a local government or authority may then select a respondent or respondents and enter into a contract not to exceed 50 years in length. Any affected local governments must also approve the selection. No public employee or government/authority official may leave

his/her position to work for the private entity for a period of three years following the selection. Section 2 (Amendments to Section 50-23-28.2) Section 2 of SB 122 amends the Georgia Code Section pertaining to the Water Supply Division of GEFA, (Section 50-23-28.2) to allow state participation in P3 projects. GEFA may evaluate projects to determine the appropriate or desirable levels of participation in such projects. Following this evaluation, GEFA must seek the advice and input of affected local governments, and may seek the advice of local authorities, as well as the private financial and construction sectors. GEFA may also propose projects to local governing authorities and local authorities in consultation with them. The amendments also allow local governments/authorities to request that GEFA participate in a P3 project and potentially ask GEFA to act as the lead local authority. SB 122 authorizes GEFA to assume all of the duties and responsibilities of the lead local authority on behalf of local governments/authorities, and when GEFA serves as the lead local authority, certain special provisions apply, including the following: • Public notice of a Request for Proposals

The bill also mandates a 90-day public notice period for RFPs to be received. After proposals are received the lead local authority must accept public comments on the proposals for a 30-day period, beginning at least ten days after receipt of proposals. At least one public hearing on the proposals received must be held during the comment period. Once proposals are received, SB 122 allows the lead local authority, or its designated representative, to engage in one or more individual discussions with each respondent deemed to be fully qualified, responsible, and suitable based on initial submission. Other participating local governments, as well as GEFA or other State agencies, must be notified of these individual discussion sessions and are invited to participate. At the discussion stage, the parties may discuss probable project costs, including life cycle costs and nonbinding estimates of costs for services. 28

The GeorGia enGineer

must be made on the Department of Administrative Services Web site at least 90 days in advance of receipt of the Request for Proposals; • A designated representative of GEFA shall be the director; • Local governments/authorities sponsoring the project and any affected local governments must approve any proposed contract before it becomes operative; GEFA may provide a number of additional services, including management, technical, consultative, training, educational, and other project development and promotional activities, subject to availability of funds from the Georgia Reservoir Fund and with the stipulation that those funds be reimbursed to GEFA. The Section 2 amendments also give GEFA a new set of charges and authorities relative to P3 water supply projects. These include: • To the maximum extent feasible, expediting the issuance of permits, licenses, and permissions from all levels of government as needed;

domain in customary fashion. Approval of a project by local governments or authorities is construed to be an amendment of any service delivery strategy agreement to which that government is a party. Lastly, similar language applies to the restriction of employment of public sector officials with a private entity for a period of three years. Conclusion Simply stated, Georgia’s new law authorizes public-private partnerships for the first time for water projects. SB 122 offers—without requiring—local governments and water authorities an alternative to traditional capital sources. While certain aspects of proposed projects can remain undisclosed during the negotiation phases, there are specific requirements in SB 122 for full disclosure at the Request for Proposal and Contract stages. References: • Senate Bill 122, as passed: www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/sum/s

b122.htm, March 31, 2011. • New Georgia Legislation for Public-Private Partnerships in Water, http://privatewaterlaw.com/2011/05/09/new-geor gia-legislation-for-public-privatepartnerships-in-water/, May 9, 2011. • Reservoir Funding (SB 122), Georgia Water Coalition, www.garivers.org/gawater/legis2011.htm, 2011. About the Author David M. Ashley, RLA, is a Water Resources Practice Leader at Jacobs Engineering Group in Norcross, Georgia, and has led the company’s regional efforts to assist in preparing various Regional Water Plans, served as a project advisor on the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority Interconnection Study, and was a participant on former Governor Sonny Purdue’s Water Task Force, which looked at a broad array of potential water supply options for the Metro area. Contact him at david.ashley@jacobs.com v

• Authority to enter into lease, use or water supply agreements with owners/operators of water supply facilities; • Authority to lease any state-owned facility or property that GEFA is managing in connection with a project; and • Authority to enter into agreements with local governing authorities and local authorities or owners/operators to set fees to be paid to GEFA or the Department of Natural Resources to expedite or enhance the State or federal regulatory process. Also under the Section 2 amendments, the GEFA Director may delegate duties, but final approval of projects and contracts is reserved to the director. As with the Section 1 amendments, no power of eminent domain is granted to any private party; however, the state or local governments may use eminent OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

W h a t ’ s

i n

t h e

NEWS where he plays the inside center position. Harrington Group Inc. is a Fire Protection consulting engineering firm headquartered in Duluth, Georgia, with an additional office in Charlotte, North Carolina. The firm is committed to providing its clients with creative solutions, while optimizing the relationship between cost and benefits. Established in 1986, the firm has become one of the most experienced and respected practices dedicated to fire protection in the southeast. For more information regarding Harrington Group, please visit: www.hgifire.com. v

Robert McFeaters Robert McFeaters, Georgia Tech Graduate, Joins Harrington Group Inc. Harrington Group Inc. is pleased to announce the addition of Robert McFeaters to the engineering team. Mr. McFeaters is a 2010 graduate from Georgia Tech, where he earned his BS in Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering. He has joined Harrington Group as a Fire/Explosion Protection Engineering Consultant. He will be responsible for helping to develop solutions involving the handling, processing, and storage of flammable/combustible liquids and combustible dusts. Prior to Harrington Group, he was employed with Halliburton Energy Services as an Associate Field Engineer, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Mr. McFeaters has recently relocated from Pittsburgh to the metro-Atlanta area to join Harrington Group. In the short time that he has been back in the area, he has been able to reconnect with fellow Georgia Tech alum and join the Ruby Union, Atlanta Old White Rugby Football Club (OWRFC), 30

Golder Associates Inc. Enters Alliance with O’Connell & Lawrence Inc. Golder Associates Inc. and O’Connell & Lawrence Inc. have announced a strategic alliance agreement for mutually beneficial client development and business opportunities in the fields of construction consulting, construction management, and engineering services. The primary objective is to work to-

gether to provide integrated solutions for large capital construction and infrastructure projects. The agreement enables both companies to collaborate and use their combined skills and expertise to broaden client offerings for joint business development pursuits. Golder Associates Inc., with more than 1,300 employees in over 45 offices across the U.S., provides consulting, design, and construction services in the specialist areas of earth, environment, and energy. Mark Swallow, President of Golder Associates Inc., said, "We look forward to working with O'Connell & Lawrence as we continue our focus on building detailed design and construction capabilities that help position us as a full-service provider of integrated solutions, from initial studies and investigation through to construction, operations, and maintenance." O’Connell & Lawrence Inc. (OCL), based in Olney, Maryland is a multidisciplinary civil engineering firm that provides construction consulting, construction management, civil engineering design, and survey-

The GeorGia enGineer

ing services to both public-sector and private-sector clients. Ken O’Connell, President of OCL, said, “We are excited about the opportunities to expand and enhance the services we currently provide to our clients that will arise as a result of this alliance.” v Pile Dynamics, Inc. develops breakthrough test for concrete foundations in partnership with FGE A new solution for integrity evaluation of concrete foundations has been developed by the Pile Dynamics (PDI) - Foundation & Geotechnical Engineering, LLC (FGE) partnership: the Thermal Integrity Profiler (TIP). TIP uses the heat generated by curing cement (hydration energy) to assess the quality of cast in place concrete foundations such as drilled shafts, bored piles, augered cast-inplace, continuous flight auger piles, and drilled displacement piles. Because temperatures within the concrete foundation are dependent on its diameter and distance to the center of the shaft, TIP measurements may be used to estimate the actual shape of the shaft including the previously difficult to determine thickness of concrete cover. The Thermal Integrity Profiler, which is based on research conducted at the University of South Florida and originally implemented by FGE, is attractive in that it assesses the concrete quality of the entire cross-section and along the entire length of the foundation. Another major advantage of the TIP is its early testing time; test results are available as early as 12 hours after concrete is poured, allowing construction to continue. The TIP is available in two types of thermal data acquisition systems: either with an infrared probe that is inserted in Crosshole Sonic Logging-type access tubes, or with thermal wires™ that are attached to the reinforcement cage prior to concreting. Either way, data is collected by Thermal Acquisition Ports, transferred to the TIP, and downloaded to a computer for further analysis and result presentation by the Thermal Analysis Reporter software. In addition to the Thermal Integrity Profiler, Pile Dynamics produces several other quality assurance and quality control OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

products for the deep foundations industry. Its products are recognized throughout the world as the ultimate solutions for testing and monitoring of deep foundations. The company is based in Cleveland, Ohio, and has commercial representatives worldwide. FGE, Foundation and Geotechnical Engineering LLC, is based in Plant City, Florida, and specializes in deep foundation design, capacity enhancement, rehabilitation/remediation, and quality assurance/ verification testing. For more information on the Thermal Integrity Profiler visit www.pile.com/pdi/products/TIP. v Federal Conservation Agency Conducting Statewide Sign-up for the Wetlands Reserve Program James E. Tillman, Sr., State Conservationist for the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Georgia today announced that the NRCS has established a cut-off date for applications seeking financial assistance through the USDA Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). Although participants can apply at any time, in order to be considered for WRP funding during fiscal year 2012, applications must be received by October 28, 2011. Applications received after October 28, 2011 will be deferred to the next funding cycle. Applications received in NRCS offices will be evaluated and ranked according to levels of environmental benefits pending available funds. Participants in WRP voluntarily limit future use of their land, but retain private ownership. Landowners benefit by receiving financial and technical assistance in return for protecting wetlands, reducing problems associated with farming potentially wet and difficult areas, and developing wildlife and recreational opportunities on their land. Wetlands benefit the nation by providing fish and wildlife habitat; improving water quality by filtering sediments and chemicals; reducing flooding; recharging groundwater; protecting biological diversity; as well as providing opportunities for educational, scientific, and recreational activities. The program offers three enrollment options: 1. Permanent Easements: a conservation easement in perpetuity. USDA pays 100

percent of the easement value and 100 percent of the restoration costs.* 2. 30-Year Easement: an easement that expires after 30 years. USDA pays up to 75 percent of the easement value and up to 75 percent of the restoration costs.* 3. Restoration Cost-Share Agreement: an agreement to restore or enhance the wetland functions and values without placing an easement on the enrolled acres. USDA pays up to 75 percent of the restoration costs. * USDA pays costs associated with recording the easement, including legal services, recording of easement, and boundary surveys, No easement shall be created on land that has changed ownership during the preceding seven years. Eligible acres are limited to private and Tribal lands. Easement values are based upon a Geographic Area Rate Cap (GARC) which is valued each year by an independent contractor who performs a market analysis to estimate values of lands that typically enroll in WRP. NRCS publishes the GARC rates after approval. NRCS is USDA’s lead conservation agency and has worked hand-in-hand with farmers and landowners for 75 years to conserve natural resources on private lands. Georgia landowners can learn more about conserving natural resources by contacting NRCS Georgia through USDA Service Centers or by visiting the NRCS Georgia homepage at www.ga.nrcs.usda.gov. For more information, contact Ron Morton Acting State Public Affairs Specialist (706) 546-2312 ron.morton@ga.usda.gov Applications Due by October 28, 2011v

See daily videos on: georgiaengineerblog.com

The GeorGia enGineer

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

ACEC/G = Advocacy for Georgia Firms Twenty-five (+) very smart, gifted, intelligent, bright, and passionate Georgia Engineers met often for three-to-four months to discover one word that captures the meaning of ACEC/G for the best (member) firms in Georgia. Think of it for a moment – can you come up with one word for your firm, your church, your school or even yourself? I challenge you to do this. For Wells Fargo it is courtesy (they even post it on their bank walls), for Coke it’s Coke is it. For ACEC Georgia our word is advocacy. ACEC/G is your firm’s advocate in many aspects of your business. We pledge now more than ever to provide unparalleled value to your business, to provide robust communication of vital information that your firm needs, to continue our quest to be a strategic issues-driven organization, and to be organized to effectively advocate for your firm. ACEC/G is focused on dramatic opportunities in which we can advocate and develop business at the same time: • Transportation SPLOST in Georgia in 2012 • Federal Transportation Reauthorization

• • •

Statewide Water Issues QBS Limits on Liability

• •

For most of our industry the new normal includes: • The market has shrunk. There is less work and greater competition for work. • The margins of worked awarded is less, if, at all (someone said, flat is the new up) • The political ground rules have changed. Basic lobbying is not enough. Our advocacy has ramped up to engaged interaction with our legislators at the government offices and at their district offices. • Advanced technology is demanded of engineering firms and costs real money, yet fees are low.

• •

•

• There are unfolding global opportunities but there are risks involving technology transfer. ACEC/G is very focused on activities that will help engineering firms in Georgia. Recent activities include: • An engaged team promoting the trans-

•

portation investment act (TIA). We are clearly defining our value proposition for member firms ACEC/G transportation ‘think tank’ has been formed to include top ACEC/G transportation engineers. ACEC/G reengaged with our partners in QBS – more on our Web site soon ACECG communications committee has made great strides in a robust communications program getting you the information you need now. ACEC/G membership committee has an engaged membership management program. ACEC/G assembled top attorneys to provide up-to-date information on important legal topics that affect your firm’s interests now and in the future. ACEC/G is kicking off our future leaders program for the future leaders of your firm. The emerging trends task force continues to provide valuable information regarding upcoming trends that will control your business, your success, and your future.

Succession Planning Advice for the Business Owner By Michael Scott, CPA, CFF When should you begin succession planning? Yesterday! As a small business owner, one wears many different hats. From CEO to Chief Sanitary Engineer, it’s hard work and every day is filled with different challenges and opportunities. You may spend years trying to build a successful business that will eventually become a valuable asset. Often, the demands of day-to-day operations can take precedence over succession planning. But, the sooner you develop a plan, the better. Succession planning is unique and customized for the needs of each business. Transferring the management and control of your business can occur in a variety of methods and the ‘plan’ can change after an original plan has been developed. A succession plan may start out with a thought to sell the 34

business outright and could evolve to keeping the business in the family. Only a few weeks ago, my college sophomore daughter, who has wonderful people skills but lacks time management abilities, told me, “Hey Dad, I really like this accounting class I’m taking in college, and I think I may want to major in accounting.” I never dreamed that she wouldn’t want to enter my profession. And as we all know, things in life can change in the blink of an eye. Your succession plan may, too. Be sure your plan includes the flexibility to adapt to changes in the economy, your industry, or personal life. Just remember, if you target nothing you will definitely hit it! So begin working with your CPA today to develop succession planning options. Your CPA has the knowledge and expertise to analyze the specific

strengths and weaknesses of your business and can implement a set of strategies to maximize the value of your exit, whatever it may be. About the author Mike is a licensed CPA in Florida. His career has focused on assisting business clients throughout the South determine and realize the value of their businesses. In some cases, this is a formal valuation of the business, while in others it is consulting with the client on the business value drivers so as to position the client’s business for future sale. Additionally, Mike is a member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) and holds a certification of Certified in Financial Forensics (CFF). He has extensive expertise with measuring, identifying, and preventing fraud in various industries. v The GeorGia enGineer

GEA had the pleasure of working with John Lambert this summer. John is a freshman at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California and plans to major in Civil Engineering. After graduating from the Westminster School, he sought an internship to

learn more about the different dynamics of

The GEA staff cannot begin to express

engineering. Working in the GEA office al-

how valuable John’s hard work and contri-

lowed John the opportunity to meet and

bution of his thoughts and ideas impacted

talk with engineers from a variety of engi-

the office. We wish him well as he prepares

neering associations and companies.

to become tomorrow’s engineer. v

My Time at the Georgia Engineering Alliance By John Lambert, GEA Summer Intern My time at the GEA has been a great learning experience. I have become more disciplined as I’ve gone into the office daily, and I feel like next summer I will be ready for large responsibilities at my next internship. I am now more familiar with today’s business environment and climate, and the pervasiveness of the economic slowdown. Engineering is not easy work, and the engineers I have encountered are ordinary (but talented) people, just trying to balance personal and work life. Working with Tom Leslie has introduced me to a world of politics in Atlanta that I never really knew existed. The TIA bill has enormous potential to jump-start the engineering economy in Georgia, and I have faith it will pass with his help. As it turned out, I would be doing more than just desk work at the GEA. On my first full day at the job, Tom took me with him to brief some architects on the specifics of the TIA bill. He offered to drive, but when we got to the parking garage, he had forgotten what floor he had parked on. The Peachtree Center parking garage seemed like a huge maze as we walked up and down the concrete floors, searching in vain for his pickup. Finally, he asked if I knew where my car was, and I became the chauffeur for the afternoon. When I was working in the office, I had the chance to create a weekly newsletter for GSPE with national engineering news. I looked forward each week to reading articles about brilliant engineering feats and choosing the best for the newsletter. Other parts of the job were not quite as enjoyable: for example, making cold calls to GSPE members who still owed their dues. It might have been a good thing though—I am more inspired than ever to stay in school and never work for a collections agency. Working at the GEA has taught me a lot about the constraints of a business, as well. There are finite resources and manpower here, and business strategy means trimming your organization to create advantage. For example, with hundreds of mailings going out each week from the GEA, it made sense to use bulk mail or e-mail instead of 44¢ postage. When I came into the office in June, I learned another principle: thinking in terms of a long term perspective. I was only going to be here for two months, so it really didn’t make sense to configure a new office phone for me. I could work in an unused cubicle, and for any phone calls, the conference room phone was available. Being fiscally smart means using what you already have if it works. During the course of my internship, I was especially impressed with the teamwork that goes on at the GEA. Good communication among all of the staff starts in staff meetings and continues all week as work is divvied up. Staff members are constantly in and out of each other’s offices, checking on the status of projects and getting input. Consequently, projects and events moved very fluidly. I was amazed at something the ACEC board introduced at a meeting—a ‘value proposition’ they had compiled, with dozens of ‘emerging trends’ in the marketplace for engineering firms to capitalize on. This proposition is sure to benefit ACEC and the GEA in dramatic ways. Once again, I’ve really enjoyed working at the GEA and I’m excited as I start off on my own engineering pursuits. v

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

AsHeNews

Ron Osterloh, P.E., President American Society of Highway Engineers / Georgia Section I’m very excited to become the ASHE Georgia Section President for the 2011-2012 year. The past year has been very dynamic for our organization, and we have been able to create new initiatives to enhance the ‘ASHE experience’ to all of our membership. Although there are many challenges facing our industry these days, these challenges have helped bring our membership together to better serve our mission of providing a forum for members and partners of the highway industry to promote a safe, efficient, and sustainable highway system through education, innovation, and fellowship. Over the past couple of years, we have been fortunate to grow our number of volunteers to foster a core leadership group to sustain the growth of our organization. As we look forward to our new ASHE year, I would like to graciously thank all of our volunteers, officers, and board chairs, and in particular, Tim Matthews for all his hard work and dedication tirelessly serving as president for the past two years. We have a full calendar of events and are working on several new ones, so check the Web site (www.ashega.org) regularly for what’s coming up. Recent Events We are off to an awesome start this year and have already had three very successful events. The first event was a technical training class that allowed many of our GSWCC professionals, many who initially became certified through an ASHE technical program, to renew their certifications. Also, we held our Annual Babs Abubakari Scholarship Fundraiser Bowling Tournament. As always, it was greatly attended with over 160 players and volunteers. We succeeded in raising over $2,300 for our scholarship fund, and fun 36

was had by all. Our most recent event included participation in the 2011 Corporate Challenge, just to prove that we can cover all ends of the athletic spectrum.

dustry upon graduation. If you are interested in helping, please contact any of the board members. We look forward to seeing you at our next ASHE event. v

College Students and ASHE GA Through a grant from our National Board, we are continuing to look to expand our resources to our college students. The ASHE GA Board is working to establish a student chapter. Getting students involved early on not only helps a student during school, but also may spur interest in a career in our in-

Overall Winners “Bowling for Bob,” ASHE Bowling 2011

2011 ASHE Georgia Chapter Officers President 1st Vice President 2nd Vice President Secretary Treasurer Regional Representative Past President

Ron Osterloh Michael Bywaletz Brian O’Connor Karyn Matthews Richard Meehan Nikki Reutlinger Tim Matthews

osterlohr@pondco.com michael_bywaletz@gspnet.com brian_oconnor@gspnet.com kmatthews@dot.ga.gov meehan@loweengineers.com nicole.reutlinger@atkinsglobal.com tmatthews@dot.ga.gov

2011-2012 Calendar of Events November 2011 November 9, 2011 December 2, 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 Spring 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012

General Meeting Transportation Summit 3rd Annual Holiday Social (Toys for Tots Fundraiser) General Meeting Poker Tourney (Scholarship Fundraiser) General Meeting Joint WTS Tennis Tournament (TBD) Technical Seminar Golf Tourney (Scholarship Fundraiser) National Conference, Seven Springs, Pennsylvania

Committee Chairs Social Chair Nominating Chair Membership Chair Program Chair Scholarship Chair Student Chapter Chair Technical Co-Chair Technical Co-Chair ASHE Web site Golf Tournament Chair

Elizabeth Scales Tim Matthews Scott Jordan Rob Dell-Ross Sara Worachek Kevin Riggs Dan Bodycomb Chris Rudd Mindy Sanders Ashley Chan

Elizabeth.scales@hatchmott.com tmatthews@dot.ga.gov scott.jordan@cobbcounty.org rdellross@roswellgov.com sarah_worachek@gspnet.com Kevin_Riggs@gspnet.com dan.bodycomb@CTE-Eng.com crudd@dot.ga.gov mindy.sanders@hatchmott.com aschan@hntb.com

The GeorGia enGineer

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

The GeorGia enGineer

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

iteNews

Mike Holt, PE, PTOE, President Georgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers Georgia Section ITE hosted our Summer Seminar July 17-20 at the King & Prince Hotel on St. Simons Island. We had 130 conference registrants and over 250 participants, including spouses, guests and kids. Our theme, “Efficiency for the Future: Doing More with Less” brought us presentations on such topics as: • Transportation Investment Act • Multi-Modal Transportation • Incident Management and Safety • Public Engagement • Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • Non-Traditional Intersections Our Technical Program included a tour of the Port of Brunswick, where we saw acres and acres of new cars ready for delivery to dealerships throughout the Southeast.

Jonathan Reid demonstrating a Survivor Minute Challenge The golf and volleyball tournaments, as well as our 5k race, were all well attended, and our kids enjoyed bowling, the sandcastle competition, and a trip to the waterslide park. For the second year, we held a Survivor Competition. All participants were divided into six teams that competed in categories such as: Session Attendance, Sports Champions, Team Spirit, Traffic Jeopardy, and Minute Challenges. Congratulations to John Karnowski’s ‘Mellow’ Yellow team for win40

ning the Survivor Competition. If you want to find more about these categories, we’ll look forward to seeing you next year. We raised about $6,000 through the John Moskaluk Scholarship Auction for Georgia’s transportation engineering students. The conference would not have been possible without the generosity of our 27 sponsors. Thanks to Jonathan Reid for chairing the Summer Seminar. Non-Traditional Intersections As intersections become over-saturated, a fundamental solution is to eliminate movements from the intersection. This often involves turn prohibitions or the elimination of movements from the intersection. There are many interesting new developments in non-traditional intersections and interchange designs that are emerging throughout Georgia and the rest of the country. While roundabouts have been gaining in popularity, some of you may not be familiar with the following concepts: Diverging Diamond Interchange Diverging diamond interchange (DDI) design is one of the best examples that address the interchange traffic flow operations in a quicker, cheaper and safer way. This new interchange design forces the two directions of traffic on the arterial road to cross to the opposite side on both sides of the freeway bridge. These movements require traffic on the freeway overpass (or underpass) to drive on the opposite side of the road from what they are accustomed. The DDI design accommodates leftturning movements at signalized, grade-separated interchanges of arterials and limited-access highways while eliminating the need for left-turn phasing. On the arterial, traffic crosses over to the left side of the

roadway between the nodes of the interchange. Two-phase traffic signals are installed at the crossovers. Once on the left side of the arterial roadway, vehicles can turn left onto limited-access ramps without stopping and without conflicting with through traffic. The figure below provides an illustration of the DDI concept. Research indicates that the DDI design also provides a safety benefit because it reduces the number of potential conflict points by eliminating the crossing conflicts between vehicles turning left onto the highway and opposing arterial traffic. As left turns would not need to find gaps in opposing traffic, safety is vastly improved with the DDI. DDIs have been operating in other states for a few years now, primarily in Missouri. DDIs are currently under design at three locations in metro Atlanta: I-285 @ Ashford-Dunwoody Road I-85 @ Jimmy Carter Blvd. I-85 @ Pleasant Hill Road Median U-Turn Intersection The median u-turn Intersection (MUTI) eliminates left turns at intersections and allows the maneuver to be made via median crossovers beyond the intersection. Drivers desiring to turn left from the major road onto an intersecting cross street must first travel through the at-grade, signal-controlled intersection and then execute a u-turn at the median opening downstream of the intersection. These drivers then can turn right at the cross street. For drivers on the side street desiring to turn left onto the major road, they must first turn right at the signal-controlled intersection and then execute a u-turn at the downstream median opening and proceed back through the signalized intersection. The MUTI can be implemented with The GeorGia enGineer

Diverging diamond interchange schematic and without signal control at the median openings on the major road. The figure below shows the schematic for a typical MUTI. This is typically a corridor treatment and has been used for decades throughout Michigan, and more recently in other states. However, the concept is used at isolated intersections to alleviate specific traf-

a bay to the left of the opposing through lanes of travel, and complete the left turn movement under the same signal phase as the through movement. At the main intersection, previously conflicting through and left-turn movements can operate simultaneously as protected movements under the same signal phase. The signal cycle is thus reduced to two phases, enabling a reduction in overall cycle lengths and maximized through-movement green times. The result is a reduction in travel delays and increased intersection capacity. At high-volume intersections, a signal at the crossover intersection is needed to control left turn movement staging. This signal must be coordinated with the main intersec-

tion control so that arterial through-traffic stops no more than once. The CFI design can also improve pedestrian efficiency and safety. Pedestrians can cross the intersection in two stages without left or right-turning conflicts. The shorter cycle lengths typical at a CFI intersection also shorten the pedestriansâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; wait for a walk phase. v

Median u-turn intersection movements fic operational and safety problems. Cobb County has recently begun construction on a MUTI as part of the Barrett Parkway widening at its intersection with Burnt Hickory Road. Continuous Flow Intersection Continuous flow intersection (CFI) require traffic to stop at signals at the intersection. However, the CFI design separates left-turn movements from conflicting throughmovements, allowing opposing left-turns to be made at the same time as through movements. Left-turning vehicles begin their turn several hundred feet prior to the main intersection. They are temporarily stored in OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

its

News

Marion Waters, P.E. ITS President Are we there yet? For those of you with children, you will recognize this question, asked by children on every trip since the beginning of time. For our journey through life in the ‘Business of Engineering,’ this question and one other has relevance. Where are we going? and Are we there yet? It has been said that for practitioners in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and Traffic Engineering the journey is endless because our destination is the future. Former Department of Transportation Commissioner Wayne Shackelford was famous for his saying that if ITS was ever finished we would have lost our vision for the future. However there are some milestones we can reach, and this article is about two that are significant and which should be shared as good news in the ‘Business of Engineering.’ The traffic signal is a device that we see every day but give little thought to. Nevertheless it is arguably one of the most impactful devices in the nation’s transportation system. Collectively, traffic signals provide control over virtually every trip we make in

a surface transportation vehicle. When poorly operated, traffic signals will most certainly cause massive amounts of unneeded delay. At their very best operational level, they add order to congestion and reduce some types of crashes. Without question, traffic signals are part of the ITS family of devices since significant numbers of them are now monitored and managed in real time. Just as they have the potential to cause delay, they can improve trip safety and minimize delay if maintained and operated properly. The great news is that in Georgia, the ‘Business of Engineering’ as far as traffic signals are concerned is alive and doing quite well. In this time of dismal news reports and economic doldrums, news of success comes from the Office of Traffic. With only a small amount of arm twisting to overcome their humble personalities, two outstanding program managers for the Georgia Department of Transportation contributed to this article. Both are in responsible charge of programs that are making an economic impact in Georgia. Jim Tolson is the State Traffic Signal Engineer, and Grant Waldrop is the Regional Traffic Operations

Program Engineer. Both are registered professional engineers in Georgia. These guys work together in the Office of Traffic Operations, but are responsible for different programs that complement each other. The first success story began more than a decade ago. The Georgia Department of Transportation is nearing the completion of a traffic signal equipment management plan that is based on implementing a single controller hardware platform and a uniform statewide operation program. Under the direction of Jim Tolson, this traffic signal maintenance program is one of the most ambitious and potentially significant traffic signal efforts ever undertaken by a state in the United States. It is called the Advanced Traffic Controller or ATC Program. That program began in the late 1990s with an anticipated ten year program completion. It was an ambitious goal (some said impossible) when it began, and indeed, it has taken longer, but it is oh so close now. The ATC Program goal is to upgrade every traffic signal controller in Georgia. The new traffic signal controllers are of a standard type, computer controlled, operat-

OUR SPONSORS Thanks to our sponsors, who provide valuable financial assistance to the organization: DIAMOND SPONSOR Temple PLATINUM SPONSORS World Fiber Utilicom URS PBS&J GS&P Arcadis Serco Delcan Sensys 42

GOLD SPONSORS Control Technologies AECOM Transdyn Kimley-Horn Iteris Traficon Garrettcom

Daktronics Cambridge Systematics Intelligent Devices Midasco Grice and Associates Videolarm Gannett Fleming Quality Traffic Citilog

SILVER SPONSORS Southern Lighting & Traffic Systems Multilink Maxcell The GeorGia enGineer

ing on a statewide firmware platform, and system (interconnection) ready. I suspect that the majority of the readers of this article will not have any idea of the magnitude of this goal. Let me help you understand. Prior to the inception of this signal upgrade program, there was every imaginable brand and model of traffic signal control systems used in the state. Almost every jurisdiction had several generations of low bid equipment deployed in the field. With 159 counties and an even larger number of cities in the state buying signals from private vendors, there were literally hundreds of models of signal controllers on the ground. Due to industry standards (National Electrical Manufacturers Association, or NEMA), most controllers had some degree of compatibility and interchangeability, but not at the system level (i.e., two or more signals that are physically interconnected are considered to be a system). At isolated signal locations on local streets, it was not uncommon to find controllers that were 25 to 35 years old. Traffic signal maintenance was a nightmare. Can you imagine the effort and resources required to maintain and repair dozens of different types of equipment and stocking parts for hundreds of different models? The Georgia DOT did a lot of research about this topic. It had begun its expanded signal maintenance program beginning in late 1984, and had struggled with the issue of procuring signals. Prior to 1984, all traffic signals in Georgia, with only one or two exceptions, were maintained by local jurisdictions. Beginning in 1985, GDOT added technicians and equipment in each of the seven district offices to maintain traffic signals on atate routes. The plan was for GDOT to take over the maintenance and operation of those traffic signals in those areas of the state where there was an absence of agencies dedicated to signal maintenance and an absence of dedicated personnel for performing traffic engineering and signal timing tasks. The focus of the program was in the more rural areas of the state where signal maintenance was at its lowest levels. Urban areas of the state with established traffic engineering agencies and professional traffic engineers were provided financial assistance and equipment support through the GDOT program that came to be known as TSEF (which stood for Traffic Signal ElecOCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

trical Facility). An extensive signal equipment and materials warehouse was established to support both the GDOT program and local jurisdictions for emergencies and priority installations. By switching to a standard controller and cabinet that functioned independently of proprietary firmware, the low bid process could be maintained, while uniformity of function was assured. Over the next ten years, GDOT standardized the signal equipment types, investigated and eventually purchased a statewide standard signal software/ firmware license to encourage every jurisdiction to join a Georgia coalition of users to support the standards. During this same time, GDOT upgraded more than 1500 signal controllers and assisted local governments with the upgrading of an additional 1400. Still, there were a lot of signals that were not interconnected and that were functionally obsolete. Today, this program is mature and is nearly at its goal. Grant Waldrop, the GDOT Regional Traffic Operations Engineer was quoted recently, “Today, the GDOT Advanced Traffic Signal program is nearing completion. This state has achieved an unprecedented accomplishment by getting nearly all of the over 8,000 traffic signals onto one common hardware/firmware platform.” Grant is the program manager for the second of the two major traffic signal initiatives. In 2010, GDOT initiated a cutting edge regional arterial management program. Working with the GDOT Planning Office, the Atlanta Regional Commission, all of the metro Atlanta region counties, and the city of Atlanta, the arterial corridors of regional significance were identified and prioritized using criteria including the density of development, opportunities for multimodal travel, and other regionally significant inputs. Each of these corridors extend through multiple jurisdictions and serve diverse population groups to connect centers of business and residents throughout the Atlanta region. Twelve corridors have been included in the program thus far. Each of these corridors is now under the day-to-day monitoring and management of a team of consultants selected and managed by Grant and supported by Jim Tolson and the TSEF group. The early results have shown a

savings of over 155 person-years of delay and over 635,000 gallons of fuel. Perhaps the most impressive of all the results of this program is that all of the corridors are monitored every day both by the local jurisdictions through which they pass and by the consultant team hired by GDOT. Automated monitoring is used where possible, but there is a lot of regular ‘rubber meeting road’ type of labor. Time delay runs document the status of the timing and provide the basis for continual adjustment and fine tuning to squeeze the most efficiency possible from these corridors and the routes that cross them. Because of changing conditions, this is a continual and on-going process that will not ever be finished. The philosophy is the same as cooking. You have to do it every meal and unless it is constantly monitored, the result will be less than desirable. Ultimate responsibility for maintenance and operations still remains with the local jurisdictions, but with support from GDOT and the consultant team. It is cooperation at its highest level, and all of the parties in the system are to be commended. It is time to acknowledge these two wonderfully successful programs. Did I mention that no other state in the U.S. has accomplished programs like these to the extent being done in Georgia? If this isn’t intelligent transportation, I don’t know what is. So the next time you hear the question, “Are we there yet?” Your answer should be, “Not yet, but we are much closer in Georgia.”v

Celebrating the Engineering Profession 2012 Georgia Engineers Week February 19–25, 2012 The Georgia Engineers Week is a cooperative effort of the professional engineering organizations in the state of Georgia, and is coordinated through the Georgia Engineering Alliance. This week is dedicated to the annual Engineers Week programs in the state of Georgia and additional programs across the nation. These programs are designed to promote the engineering disciplines to students, help expand public recognition of the engineering profession, and celebrate engineering accomplishments. Call for Nominations for the 2012 Engineer of the Year Awards Georgia’s Engineer of the Year competition recognizes deserving and dedicated engineers who have made valuable contributions to their profession and who have impacted our engineering community. The competition is open to all professional engineers throughout the state of Georgia and to students enrolled in a Georgia ABET accredited engineering or engineering technology school.

conjunction with Engineers Week. Engineering Excellence recognizes engineering achievements demonstrating the highest degree of merit and ingenuity. Entries are rated on the basis of uniqueness and originality; future value to the engineering profession; social, economic, and sustainable development considerations; complexity; and successful fulfillment of client/owner’s needs, including schedule and budget. Engineering Excellence offers all competition entrants a valuable opportunity to be recognized by showcasing their talent, their experience, and their profession. The following Engineering Excellence Awards will be presented on Saturday, February 25, 2012, at the Engineers Week Awards Gala: Grand Prize Award 5 State Awards Honor Awards

The Engineering Excellence Awards Program is about much more than just winning! It is a marketing tool, promotion for the engineering profession, and recognition of your client, project team, and staff. Visit www.engineersweek.com to download the Engineering Excellence Call for Entries form. For information on Georgia Engineers Week, please contact Carolyn Jones at the Georgia Engineering Alliance at (404) 5212324 or via e-mail at carolyn.jones@gaengineers.org. v

There are multiple categories for the Engineer of the Year Awards: • Georgia Engineer of the Year • Lifetime Achievement in Engineering • Engineer of the Year in Industry • Engineer of the Year in Education • Engineer of the Year in Government • Engineer of the Year in Construction • Engineer of the Year in Private Practice • Young Engineer of the Year • Engineering Student of the Year • Engineering Technology Student of the Year Visit www.engineersweek.com to download a form to submit your Engineer of the Year Nominees. Call for the 2012 Engineering Excellence Entries Engineering Excellence is an annual design competition provided by the Georgia Engineering Alliance and held in 44

The GeorGia enGineer

seAOGNews

Kurt Swensson, PE, SE President The Structural Engineers Association of Georgia It has been a busy summer for the SEAOG Board of Directors. In addition to planning for fall membership meetings and a seminar on existing buildings, we have passed a budget for 2011-2012, made changes in our board membership, and worked with CRSI and AIA to support a golf tournament to raise money for architecture and engineering scholarships. From looking at our membership numbers, you have been busy as well. As I write this article in late August we have 100 new and renewing members. This response is ahead of past years’ tallies and hopefully points to a sustained and active membership even in these tough economic times. For those who have joined, we thank-you for your support and ask you to invite other engineers you know to join. Many have volunteered to help with specific functions of the board. We thank you for your interest and will be contacting you to discuss how you can help SEAOG serve our members more effectively. For those who have not yet joined, please go to our Web site at www.seaog.org and join so you can enjoy discounts on our dinner meetings and seminars, NCSEA products and seminars, as well as many other benefits. By the time this article is printed, SEAOG will have had two membership meetings. In September, Dr. Roberto Leon, an award winning professor of structural engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, will have presented his first hand experiences of the February 22, 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquake. October will be a busy month for us. In our membership meeting, Jeff Speck from Big River Industries will present information OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

concerning the internal curing of concrete. Internal concrete curing can be used to reduce cracking and improve the performance of high-performance concrete mixes. PDH day will be held at Georgia Tech on October 16. As in years past, SEAOG is supporting this event sponsored and organized by the Georgia Engineering Alliance. Board members Rob Weilacher and John Hutton will be representing SEAOG at the NCSEA conference in Oklahoma City October 20 thru 22. We anticipate a lively discussion concerning separate or specialty licensing for structural engineers as a new NCSEA policy statement on the issue will come up for a vote. Also during October, in a new effort to raise the visibility of SEAOG in the construction industry, we are joining with the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute and the American Institute of Architects to support a golf tournament to raise funds for engineering and architecture scholarships. The AEC Collegiate Cup will be held on October 13th in conjunction with the AIA Georgia State Convention. November will be a big month for SEAOG. On November 3rd, we will sponsor a full day seminar discussing the issues facing structural engineers when they are asked to evaluate, reinforce, alter or expand an existing structure. An aging building inventory combined with the need to conserve and reuse material in existing structures has significantly increased the percentage of rehabilitation, evaluation, and expansion work in a structural engineer’s practice. So we believe this seminar will provide information that the practicing engineer can apply in their everyday practice. At our November membership meeting,

Don Allen, of the Steel Framing Alliance, will discuss the use of cold-formed steel in low rise structures as well as new information on thermal transfer and sustainable aspects of exterior wall systems using cold formed steel framing. The board has begun planning for spring 2012 and seeks input from our members and other structural engineers in Georgia concerning topics for seminars or membership meetings as well as speakers of interest. You can send any recommendations or suggestions to us by going to the SEAOG Web site ( www.seaog.org ) and clicking the “Contact Us” link. Finally, we have had some changes to the make-up of the Board of Directors. In the late spring, Vice President George Kelly notified the Board that he had accepted a position with the Tennessee Valley Authority and would be unable to complete his term on the board. This was truly bad news for the board and SEAOG, we had enjoyed his active participation in the SEAOG and his leadership in the SE Licensing Committee. He has been missed. In response to George’s resignation, and as specified by the SEAOG By-Laws, a special election was held in July to provide another board member and to fill the position of Vice-President. As a result of the special ballot, the Board is pleased to welcome Eric Hagberg as a new and active member of the SEAOG board of Directors. We are also happy that Robert Weilacher has agreed to serve as Vice President during the second year of his tenure. We invite you to visit our Web site to learn more about Eric, Robert, and all of your board members. v 45

WtsNews

President

Jennifer King, PE, President Women in Transportation Seminar The WTS Atlanta Chapter has been busy over the last several months planning exciting programs for its membership and is always look for new ideas and fresh faces to join our organization. If you are not familiar with WTS you should visit the WTS Internataional Web site to learn more (www.wtsinternational.org) WTS was formed over 30 years ago by 40 women in Washington DC. Today the organization has grown to over 4000 members with 42 chapters in three countries. The Atlanta Chapter was formed in 1979 and currently has over 100 members and is growing. Our membership is diverse, including both private and public sectors as well as engineers, planners, environmentalists, and everything in between. We offer a variety of programs, both technical and social, luncheons and evenings to provide oppurtunities for our members to get involved no matter how hectic their personal and work schedules may be. Please visit our Web site for information about becoming a member of WTS and to stay up to date on our programs and events. www.wtsinternational.org\atlanta Upcoming Events It’s not too late to participate in the Annual WTS Scholarship Luncheon and Silent Auction. This year’s luncheon will be held on Tuesday, October 18, 2009 at the Fox Theatre. Our featured keynote speaker will be Tad Leithead, Chairman of the Atlanta Regional Commission. Please come early to bid on some of the great silent auction items and help raise money for the Atlanta Chapter’s two scholarships, the Sharon D. Banks Memorial Undergraduate Scholarship and the Helene M. Overly Memorial Graduate Scholarship. In addition to our Annual Scholarship Luncheon, we will be hosting the following 46

events. Please visit our Web site (www.wtsinternational.org\atlanta) for additional information: Braves Game Please join us to root on the home team on Tuesday, September 27th against the Phillies. Technical Tour WTS Atlanta members and corporate sponsors will be invited to tour Hartsfield Jackson International Airport’s new International Terminal on November 17 Holiday Party in December Our annual holiday happy hour will be held in December, please stay tuned for more details. WTS Takes on Social Media In keeping up with today’s ever-evolving communication methods, WTS Atlanta has made it a mission to explore social media and all it has to offer. In August, our chapter held a joint event with our Georgia Tech Chapter on the use of social media in transportation. A panel of experts on the subject presented on the opportunities and issues with using social media to promote transit, to keep the public informed, and other efficient uses related to transportation. To enhance our presence and facilitate more efficient communication with our members and potential members, WTS has now joined the world of social media. Please check our WTS Atlanta Facebook page and stay tuned for more information on our upcoming Twitter account. v For up to date information about upcoming WTS Programs please visit the WTS Atlanta Chapter Web site at www.wtsinternational.org\atlanta or contact Jennifer King at jjking@hntb.com. Look forward to seeing you at our next program!

Jennifer King, PE HNTB

jjking@hntb.com Vice President-Programs lreed@hntb.com

Laurie Reed, PE HNTB

Vice President-Membership tsaxon@itsmarta.com

Tonya Saxon MARTA

Secretary Angela Snyder, PE angela.snyder@wolverton-assoc.com Wolverton and Assoc Treasurer Marissa Martin, PE marissa_martin@gspnet.com Gresham Smith Partners Director at Large

Beth Ann Schwartz, P.E.

bschwartz@lpagroup.com The LPA Group Director at Large Heather Alhadeff, AICP heather.alhadeff@perkinswill.com Perkins + Will Director at Large Jennifer Harper, PE Jennifer_harper@urscorp.com URS Corporation Director at Large Helen McSwain, PE hmcswain@matcjv.com PBS&J Immediate Past President Emily Swearingen, PE URS Corporation Emily_swearingen@urscorp.com Thanks to our 2011 Corporate Sponsors: Platinum Level

Bronze Level

Gold Level

Atkins

Cubic

CH2MHill

Edwards-Pittman

Kimley Horn

Environmental

KYS Communication

HNTB

McGee Partners

JAT Consulting

Reynolds, Smith &

Thompson Engineering

Hill Southeastern Engineering Inc. (SEI)

Silver Level

Stantec

Croy

STV/RalphWhitehead

PSI

Associates

URS

Wolverton & Associates

The GeorGia enGineer