The Georgia Engineer October

Volume 18, Issue 5 October | November 2011BUSINESS OF ENGINEERING & EDUCATION

GeorgiaEngineerthe

SUMMARY OF GEORGIA’S NEW PUBLIC-PRIVATEPARTNERSHIP LAW FOR WATER PROJECTSSee story on page 27

www.thegeorgiaengineer.com

2 The GeorGia enGineer

www.unitedconsulting.com

OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011 3

Publisher: A4 Inc.1154 Lower Birmingham Road

Canton, Georgia 30115Tel.: 770-521-8877 • Fax: 770-521-0406

E-mail: [email protected]

Managing Editor: Roland Petersen-FreyArt Direction/Design: Pamela Petersen-Frey

Georgia Engineering Alliance233 Peachtree Street • Harris Tower, #700

Atlanta, Georgia 30303Tel.: 404.521.2324 • Fax: 404.521.0283

Georgia Engineering AllianceGwen Brandon, CAE, Executive Director

Thomas C. Leslie, PE, Director of External AffairsCarolyn M. Jones, Outreach Services Manager

Georgia Engineering Alliance Editorial BoardJeff Dingle, PE, Chairman

GSPE RepresentativesSam L. Fleming, PE

Tim Glover, PEJimmy St. John, PE

ACEC/G RepresentativesRobin Overstreet

Carley Humphreys

ASCE/G RepresentativesDaniel Agramonte, PERebecca Shelton, PE

GMCEA RepresentativeBirdel F. Jackson, III, PE

ITE RepresentativesDaniel B. Dobry Jr., PE, PTOE

John Karnowski

ITS/G RepresentativesBill Wells

Shaun Green, PE

WTS RepresentativeAngela Snyder

ASHE RepresentativeEd Culican, PE

SEAOG RepresentativeKurt Swensson, PE

GeorgiaEngineerthe

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

www.willmerengineering.com

www.prime-eng.com


Advert isementsAECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14AEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Ayres Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Atkins/PBS&J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Burns & McDonnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Brown & Caldwell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44CDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Columbia Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Cardno TBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31CROM Prestressed Concrete Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Cummins Power South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Edwards Pitman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Engineered Restorations Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Foley Arch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27G. Ben Turnipseed Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44GCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Georgia Concrete Paving Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Georgia Power Company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 32Geohydro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Geosyntec Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Golder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16GRL Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back CoverHazen and Sawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4HDR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Heath & Lineback Engineers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39HNTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29JAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Middleton-House & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19MidSouth Machine & Service Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28O’Brien & Gere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9PBS&J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Photo Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Pond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Power Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Prime Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3RHD Utility Locating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Rosser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9RS&H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Savannah Technical College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Schnabel Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Silt-Saver Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Back CoverS&ME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Southern Civil Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Southern Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Stantec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21TBE Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Stevenson & Palmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21T. Wayne Owens & Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Terrell Hundley Carroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18United Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside Front CoverWilburn Engineering LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Willmer Engineering Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Wolverton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

www.hazenandsawyer.com

www.photoscience.com

5OCTOBER | NOVEMBER 2011

THE GEORGIA ENGINEER OctOber | nOvember 2011

GSPE38

ASCE

ITE40

ACEC

ITS42

ASHE36

SEAOG45

GMCEAGEA35

GEF WTS46

6 Beginnings of Atlanta’s Airport

10 Failure to Act: Can Georgians Afford to Fail?

13 Year-end Depreciation Considerations

14 Premium Overtime—Another Side to Compensation

15 Protecting the Tax Benefits of Employer-owned Life Insurance Policies

16 Georgia Mining—Working for Georgia

18 In the Path of Emerging Trends

20 Raise the Bar

22 Employment Practices Liability Insurance Update

24 Georgia DOT Takes on New Role to Deliver Projects Faster

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

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

30 What’s in the News

34 ACEC/G = Advocay for Georgia Firms

34 Succession Planning Advice for the Business Owner

GEORGIAENGINEERBLOG.

RCC for Dam SafetyOn May 2, 2011, Governor NathanDeal signed Senate Bill 122 (SB 122)into law. The new law, introduced bySenator Ross Tolleson of Perry,amends Georgia Code sections 36-91-100 et seq, and gives local govern-ments and authorities the right toenter into Public-Private Partnerships(P3) for water projects. It is legislationthat enables local governments and au-thorities to develop projects at theirdiscretion, without requiring anymandate to do so.

See story on page 27.


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

irports don’t just happen. Building one is a struggle;building a really big one is a really big struggle. Butat the beginning, it all seemed so new and different,and nobody really expected it would be really big—in fact the world’s busiest. Some dreamers thoughtit would be very important for Atlanta—but surelynone thought it would ever be this big.

So how did Atlanta come to have an airport, and why at its pres-ent location? It is surprising that thestory of Hartsfield-Jackson AtlantaInternational Airport begins with AsaG. Candler, the founder of the CocaCola Company. In 1909 Candler or-ganized the Atlanta Automobile As-sociation, with his son Asa Jr. as itspresident. Their objective was tobuild a speedway along the lines ofthe Indianapolis Speedway, whichhad opened just a few years earlier.

In August 1909, Candler pur-chased about 300 acres in Hapevillethat had been assembled from 14 dif-ferent owners. He paid $77,674.88.Unusual for the rolling hills of thePiedmont region, the land was al-most dead level, planted in corn andcotton, and located on top of theheadwaters of the Flint River.

Candler’s Atlanta Automobile Association contracted withNichols Construction Company for a three-month crash project tocomplete the speedway by the opening of an extravaganza organ-ized around the national Automobile Show—the first such exhibitto be held in the South. Employing “1000 laborers, 100 muleteams, two steam shovels, and working round the clock”, thespeedway was ready. The oval track was two miles in length, 100feet wide in the home stretch, and 60 feet wide in the banked turns

with a surface of clay, sand, gravel, and an asphalt binder.The 1909 auto show was wildly successful. While continuing

to be used for automobile races, the speedway hosted air shows in1910 and 1911 which featured races among autos, planes, and mo-torcycles. In a relay race-type stunt, a pilot carried a mail pouch fromthe speedway to the Hapeville railroad station (1.25 miles away)where it was transferred to a truck which rushed to downtown formail delivery. As shown later, mail delivery and air passenger serv-

ices remained intertwined. A youngman named William B. Hartsfield at-tended the 1911 air show and wasthrilled by aviation. Later as a 33-yearold, he was elected to Atlanta CityCouncil, which began a political ca-reer in the Georgia General Assembly,later as Chair of the City Council Avi-ation Committee, and for 22 years At-lanta’s Mayor. It is wholly appropriatefor the airport to bear his name, butthere are many others that labored inthese vineyards for many years.

World War I, 1914-1918, rev-olutionized aviation. For military pur-poses, many pilots were trained andplanes built, and a few airfields wereconstructed. It was a different worldin these early days. A popular airplaneat the time was the Curtiss JN-4H

Trainer, popularly called a “Jenny.” In 1918, a Model-T Ford mo-torcar cost about $500, but a Curtiss Jenny cost $300. Some were‘still in the box,’ never having been used in WW I.

Pilots had caught the aviation bug, airplanes were cheap, butaviation jobs were scarce. Pilots cobbled together employment bybarnstorming across the country at air shows, performing stunts inHollywood films, dropping leaflets and advertising circulars, doingaerial photography, crop dusting, and/or transporting light cargo.

x Some dreamers thought itwould be very important for At-lanta—but surely none thought it

would ever be this big.

APhotographs are courtesy of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

1909 speedway and 1925 runways superimposed oncurrent airport. Delta Airlines Headquarters and sur-rounding parking lot are within the speedway oval at itsnorthern end. Virginia Avenue runs East-West at thevery top of the photo.


Photo credit: Georgia Department of Industry, Trade, and Tourism


As early as 1917, the USPost Officebegan considering and experimenting withairmail service. As a rail hub, Atlanta leadersunderstood the benefits of mail cars with fre-quent train service in providing an economicdevelopment advantage. Never missing achance for a commercial advantage, the At-lanta Chamber of Commerce set up an avia-tion study committee. To provide airmailservice, and perhaps passenger service, in ananalogous way as the railroads, it was clearthat an airfield was necessary. Cities withoutan airport simply would not compete, andcompete Atlanta surely would do. The cham-ber’s committee was charged to: “ascertain thesize and kind of landing field needed for avi-ators carrying mail, the size and kind of fieldsavailable in or near Atlanta and the probablecost of acquiring such fields and putting themin shape for use when needed.”

This was the first of many site selectionstudies that have continued to the presentday. The 1918 chamber committee took itscharge seriously, but no site was selected. In-terestingly, the racetrack in Piedmont Parkwas one of the contending sites—such was

the thinking in 1918 on airfields.The 1920s brought more serious con-

sideration of airmail routes by the US PostOffice, and a few contracts were issued onkey routes. These contracts did not restrictthe private planes from also carrying payingpassengers. Thus, the holder of a federal con-tract for airmail service could now offer airpassenger service. The federal contracts stip-ulated a route and its termini, and only citieswith airports were considered. This led fed-eral agencies to encourage cities to constructairports. At this time, Athens and Augusta,Georgia and Birmingham and Montgomery,Alabama had city-owned airfields. Atlantadid not. The closest Atlanta had was a race-track, which leased space to a couple of barn-stormers trying to create an industry out ofan avocation. In 1917, the southern part ofthe infield of the Candler speedway, not usedfor aviation, was leased to a resident tenantthat farmed a cotton patch on shares withCandler. Another part of the infield was aneighborhood baseball diamond, and otherparts were pasture.

Advocates for a city-owned airport were

joined by the US Army Air Corps, the USPost Office, and, later, the federal Depart-ment of Commerce, which was assigned re-sponsibility to promote and regulate allaspects of aviation. The ultimate questionwas where would the airport be located. Itwas a rather unstructured debate. AtlantaCity Council and the Fulton County Com-mission appointed committees, as did theAtlanta Chamber of Commerce. The re-gional leader of the Army Air Corps evalu-ated sites suitable for an airfield. Eachconsulted with federal officials and electedmembers of Congress to determine theprospects for a mail route into Atlanta and/orlobby for it. At the same time, the attributesof a good airport site were unclear—otherthan the price of land and cost of grading it.

For a time, a 208-acre site on BrownsMill Road in South Atlanta (just East ofwhere I-75 and I-85 split) was preferred.The minimum site size was considered 100acres. It was referred to as the Nichols Es-tate, and is now the site of Atlanta’s BrownsMill Park. By 1922, a $300/month lease hadbeen negotiated with a purchase price optionof $75,000. The newly elected AtlantaMayor Sims thought it too expensive. By1924, Fulton County concluded the NicholsEstate was in fact a good site and recom-mended it. The Army Air Corps had doneits own analysis and eventually concurredwith the Nichols Estate site. Mayor Sims re-mained unconvinced. The purchase pricewas lowered to $65,000, and by this time thecounty was offering to share the develop-ment cost 50-50 with the city. The CityCouncil approved the purchase, but MayorSims vetoed the deal, Fulton County pulledtheir support, and the option on the land ex-pired at the end of 1924.

On February 13, 1925, Asa Candler re-peated an offer to Mayor Sims that had pre-viously been rejected. The Candlers wereprepared to lease the speedway (which by thistime was essentially a private air field) to At-lanta for five years if the city would pay anytaxes due (at the time the property taxes forHapeville and Fulton and Clayton countiesamounted to $431.36), with a purchase op-tion of $100,000 at any time during thelease. The very next day, Sen. Walter F.George told the Atlanta Constitution that,

Candler Field (Atlanta Airport) 1940. The southern portion of the 1909 Candlerspeedway oval is still visible as are the original North-South and East-West runwaysand 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 northare hangars and the 1936 terminal. At the northwest just outside the oval are theArmy Air Corps facilities.

in essence, a favorable air route through At-lanta to Eastern Florida and possibly toPanama was a strong possibility. Mayor Simsimmediately accepted Candler’s offer (thecounty initially balked, but after a politicaldust-up eventually agreed). The deal wassigned on April 16, 1925, and Atlanta hadan airport—of sorts.

Within days of acquiring the land for anairport, its construction began. The city andcounty graded the site to two 1,500-foot dirtrunways (one N-S and the other E-W). Thework had to be completed in time for an ‘aircircus,’ which would serve as a christeningevent for the new airport, scheduled for July3, 1925 (just 84 days after closing on theproperty!).

Atlanta City Council Member Harts-field championed a resolution in 1926 toname the new city airport Candler Field, inhonor of Asa Candler. Hartsfield hoped thatthis honor might prompt Candler to waivethe $100,000 purchase price. This strategyfailed, although Candler did give a five per-cent cash discount several years later whenhe sold the field to the city for $95,000. In1940, the name Candler Field was changedto Atlanta Municipal Airport.

Thus began the remarkable journey ofHartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Air-port. William B. Hartsfield continued hisadvocacy for mail and passenger serviceroutes into and out of the airport and forfunding for improvements—more and big-ger runways, terminals, lights, airlinehangars, and headquarters. Airport managersand airline executives have grown the airportinto an economic powerhouse. Companieslocate in the Atlanta Region because of it.Mayor Maynard Jackson continued the tra-dition of nurturing and growing the airport,while at the same time testing his programfor involving minority businesses in its de-sign, construction, and operation. The Mid-field terminal, a radical reconfiguration ofthe airport to support service expansion, wascompleted in 1981 on his watch, ‘on timeand on budget.’

It seems that at each step, the ‘world’sbusiest airport’ was not an assured outcome.The 1922-25 debates and controversy overthe airport’s location seem all too familiar.

The Atlanta Mayor, City Council, and Ful-ton County had differing opinions aboutwhat was a good site, whether we reallyneeded an airport right now, how muchshould it cost, and how it would be paid for.In the end, it seemed that a good idea pre-vailed. Atlanta just knew that an airport wasan essential facility (it is doubtful that ‘infra-structure’ was commonly discussed at thetime) to enhance its competitiveness; andthey were right. A few individual leadersmade big choices and delivered the goods.Persistence seems to be a big part of successat the airport. We have gone from a dirt race-track in 1909, to two graded dirt runways in1925, to an airport that covers 4,700 acreswith five enormous runways that are 9,000to 11,890 feet long today and that handles90 million passengers per year and 950,000aircraft take-offs/lands per year, and employs55,000 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 con-

junction with the Atlanta Historical Society,

1989.

www.geohydro.com

www.rosser.com

www.edwards-pitman.com

www.obg.com


n July, ASCE released Failure to Act:The Economic Impact of CurrentInvestment Trends in Surface Trans-portation Infrastructure, one of fourplanned reports assessing impacts ofcurrent trends in infrastructure in-vestment across the United States.

The reports expand on the findings ofASCE’s Report Card of American Infra-structure, which grades 15 key national in-frastructure categories every four years. In2009, the nation’s roads were given a grade of“D-,” bridges a “C,” and transit systems a“D.” This report estimates the current eco-nomic cost of deteriorating roads, bridges,and transit systems in the United States andpredicts the economic consequences of un-derfunded infrastructure over the next tenand 30 years.

Deficiencies of the nation’s surface-transportation infrastructure (STI) costhouseholds and businesses nearly $130 bil-lion in 2010; and if present trends continuethe annual cost of these deficiencies wouldincrease to $210 billion by 2020, and wouldballoon to $520 billion by 2040. Cumula-tive costs for primary performance areas aresummarized in Table 1.

Economic costs examined in the study in-clude the increased operating costs fortrucks, cars, and rail vehicles due to facilitiesin poor condition. Examples include: (1)damage to vehicles from deteriorated road-way surfaces; (2) additional miles traveledand time expended to avoid unusable orheavily congested roadways or due to break-

down of transit vehicles; and (3) added costof repairing deteriorated facilities as opposedto maintaining good condition. Exposingmore travelers to substandard conditions andrequiring vehicles to operate at less efficient

levels would also increase environmental andsafety costs. Increasingly, deteriorating con-ditions will cost American households andbusinesses productivity and prosperity atwork and at home.

The specific economic implications ofdeteriorating STI are alarming. The cumu-lative costs would reach nearly $3 trillion,

representing more than $1.1 trillion in addedbusiness expenses and nearly $1.9 trillionfrom household budgets. American busi-nesses, drained of these expenses, would beless productive and less competitive in theglobal economy. Households would have tocurtail discretionary spending such as vaca-tions, education, health care, and other qual-ity-of-life expenditures. The U.S. would losehigh-value, high-paying jobs in services andmanufacturing. These jobs would be onlypartially offset by newly generated lowervalue jobs in transportation and automobile-repair services. Finally, the stressed U.S.economy would lose foreign exports.

The Economic Development ResearchGroup of Boston, who prepared the reportfor 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 inter-

state highways• Funding gaps by mode• Implications of maintenance funding

shortfalls

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

Tom Moreland Interchange, also known as “Spaghetti Junction,” at the intersection of north I-85 and I-285 in north DeKalb County, constructed between 1983 and 1987 as part of theFreeing the Freeways program to relieve congestion on Atlanta metro area interstates. (photo

courtesy of Georgia Department of Industry, Trade, and Tourism.)

Table 1. The Mounting Cumulative Cost of Deficient and Deteriorating Surface-Transportation Infrastructure Imposed on Americans

Cost (in billions of 2010 dollars)Performance Area in 2010 by 2020 by 2040Pavement and Bridge Conditions $10 $58 $651 Highway Congestion 27 276 1,272 Rail Transit Conditions 41 171 370 Bus Transit Conditions 49 398 659 Inter-City Rail Conditions 2 10 20 TOTAL COST TO SYSTEM USERS $130 $912 $2,972

I


From 2010 to 2040, the U.S. would need anestimated STI investment of roughly $220billion annually (2010 dollars), based on unitcosts, minimum tolerable conditions, anddata consistent with current transportationinvestment models. This annual fundingneed includes about $196 billion for high-way pavement and bridges and about $25billion in transit capital infrastructure. Ifpresent trends continue, the funding gap forhighways, which in 2010 was 48 percent oftotal investment needed, is expected to in-crease to 54 percent by 2040. The fundinggap for rail and bus transit is expected to in-crease from 41 percent to 55 percent in thesame period.

The condition of STI has far reachingeffects on the American economy. By 2040,deteriorating STI is expected to cost morethan 400,000 jobs. Increased transportationcosts will force everyone to reduce spending.Businesses will have to scale back jobs inhigh-value professional, business, and med-ical sectors. Households will have less tospend at restaurants, entertainment venues,and other amenities, causing further joblosses. Although some job increases are ex-pected in sectors such as auto and bus repair,and retail sales of gasoline, services, andparts, these low-value job gains are not ex-pected to offset the loss of high-value jobs inother sectors. Due to costs imposed by defi-cient STI, in 2020 the U.S. economy is ex-pected to export $28 billion less in goodsthan would have been the case with adequateinfrastructure, and in 2040, exports are ex-pected to be reduced by $72 billion.

To assess regional differences, the reportsummarizes STI deficiencies in 2010 in eightU.S. regions on the basis of highway pave-ment and congestion, and interruptions tobus and rail transit. In the Southeast (Al-abama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Ken-tucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, NorthCarolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vir-ginia, and West Virginia), 14 percent of ve-hicle miles traveled (VMT) were on roadshaving deficient pavement, and 16 percenton roads of deficient capacity (congestion).Compared to other regions, the Southeasthad the lowest percentage of VMT on defi-cient pavement and was in the middle of therange on congested roads. The Southeastfared among the worst in dependability of

both bus and rail transit (1.7 and 1.1 inter-ruptions per million VMT, respectively).Comparing reliance on the modes of trans-portation on a per capita basis, passengers inthe Southeast traveled most by auto andtruck (3,289 VMT) and took nearly thefewest bus and rail trips (48 trips). At theother end of the spectrum, passengers in theMiddle Atlantic traveled only 2,373 VMTby auto and truck and took 1,704 bus andrail trips.

The adage ‘time is money’ speaks to thecost of expected increases in surface-traveltimes. Interstate capacities have not keptpace with demand in urban areas; speeds onU.S. interstates in urban areas in 2010 wereestimated to be ten miles per hour less thanthey would be if the system were built tominimum tolerable engineering standardsfor projected traffic levels. This ‘speed deficit’is forecast to grow to 13 miles per hour by2010, and to 16 miles per hour by 2040. Thereassignment of interstate traffic to lowerclassified systems created an additional 360million urban vehicle hours of travel (VHT)and 104 million rural VHT in 2010. At cur-rent funding levels, these times will increaseto 22 billion urban VHT and six billion ruralVHT by 2020, and 34 billion urban VHTand six billion rural VHT by 2040. Most ofthe routes that would gain traffic, due tocongestion and deficient conditions of inter-states, are state arterial routes with lower ca-pacities, design speeds, and design standards.

The underfunding of U.S. surface trans-portation needs is not a new problem; the cur-rent funding backlog is estimated to be $3trillion, including $2.2 trillion for highwaysand bridges and $86 billion for transit capitalinfrastructure. In 2010, 18 percent of VMTin cars and trucks occurred on congestedroads, expected to rise to 36 percent of VMTby 2040. Similarly, 16 percent of VMT intransit buses and seven percent of VMT onlight rail systems occurred in suboptimal con-ditions in 2010, expected to rise to 30 percentand 22 percent of VMT, respectively, by 2040.Overall, deficiencies in bus and rail transit costthe American economy $49 billion and $41billion, respectively, in 2010. Nationwide,these costs are expected to reach a total cu-mulative cost of nearly $680 billion and $370billion, respectively, by 2040.

Maintenance needs are a critical aspect

of highway investment requirements and areexpected to increase. Unmet maintenanceneeds accelerate the deterioration of infra-structure and may exacerbate the economicimpacts discussed in the report. Annualmaintenance needs average about $5.7 bil-lion, whereas the current funding level isonly about $4.2 billion, leaving 25 percentof needed maintenance unfunded. By 2040,the cumulative total maintenance need willreach $172 billion, of which only $126 bil-lion would be funded, based on currentspending, representing a cumulative mainte-nance shortfall of $46 billion.

The cost of continuing to fund im-provements for America’s surface transporta-tion system at current levels produces amounting burden of deficiency, which shiftseconomic costs to the next generation ofAmerican households and businesses. Thisburden takes the form of higher costs ofdoing business, fewer opportunities for firmsto invest, and less disposable income for fam-ilies. The burden also compromises America’scompetitive position in the world’s economyand leads to lower overall profitability formost business sectors.

The Georgia Section of ASCE also re-leased the 2009 Georgia Infrastructure Re-port Card, which is similar to the nationalversion on a statewide scale. The grades givenGeorgia’s bridges were “C-,” roads a “D+,”and transit a “D+,” clearly room for im-provement. Next July, Georgia voters willhave the opportunity to help address the de-ficiencies in the State’s STI, by passing the12 regional referenda that would levy a one-cent sales tax for STI maintenance and im-provements. The referenda are a provision ofthe Transportation Investment Act of 2010,which passed the Georgia General Assemblylast year in June. Currently, transportationpolicy makers in each region are whittlingdown lists of projects for funding which willbe finalized in October, 2011. Given the op-portunity, will Georgia’s voters fail to act forthe State’s STI and their own quality of life?[The subject report is available athttp://www.asce.org/Infrastructure/Report-Card/Economic-Study/] v


www.georgiapower.com/AandE

Federal tax law changes frequently and thesechanges seem to be occurring closer to the endof every calendar tax year. Given the last-sec-ond theatrics relating to the tax rates at theend of 2010, nothing is ever certain. However,despite the unpredictability of these changes,the current federal depreciation laws will likelynever again be this generous.

Section 168(k) “bonus depreciation”—a one-time depreciation deduction taken inthe year a new capital asset is purchased—has historically allowed for an immediate 50percent deduction upon the purchase ofnewly-manufactured machinery and equip-ment. The additional depreciation resultingfrom bonus depreciation can still be takenduring a year that already has net losses. Forthe remainder of 2011:• Bonus depreciation can be used to ex-

pense all (100 percent) of the purchaseprice for qualified assets

• Qualified Assets:g Must be newg Must be depreciable over a period

less than 20 years (most non-realestate purchases)

g Includes full-business use SUVsrated over 6,000 pounds

g Includes qualified leasehold im-provement property (restaurantand retail improvement)

For assets placed into service after December

31, 2011, bonus depreciation is allowed foronly 50 percent of the purchase price.

Section 179 depreciation is a one-timedepreciation deduction taken in the year acapital asset is purchased. Unlike bonus de-preciation, section 179 depreciation is avail-able for ‘used’ asset purchases. Unfortun-ately, section 179 can only be used to offsetpositive net income. However, if unused,Section 179 can be carried forward for use ata later date. For the remainder of 2011:• Section 179 depreciation can be used to

expense up to $500,000 worth of assetpurchases

• Phase-outs of eligible depreciation startafter an entity has purchased over$2,000,000 worth of capital assets dur-ing a year

• Section 179 depreciation can be used toexpense up to $250,000 of qualified realproperty.

The section 179 depreciation will drop pre-cipitously to $125,000 with a phase-out thatstarts at $500,000 of overall purchases for allassets bought and placed into service afterDecember 31, 2011.

Of course, taking full advantage of theaccelerated depreciation available in 2011does necessitate a business being in positionto expand its machinery and equipment in

service. Moreover, the purchasing decisionshould be based on sound business judgmentand not just on short-term tax laws. Otherfactors weigh into if and how to apply thecurrent and future tax laws to business pur-chases. For example, accelerated deprecia-tion may not make optimal use ofsoon-to-expire Net Operating Losses. Also,some states disregard different federalstatutes, offsetting tax benefits (for example,Georgia does not recognize bonus deprecia-tion). Please consult your Certified PublicAccountant in implementing your year-endtax planning strategies and purchases. v


Year-end Depreciation ConsiderationsBy Chad Reese | Tax Manager | Deemer Dana & Froehle

www.aei.cc

www.smeinc.com

www.wolverton-assoc.com


Compensation has been a major topic ofconversation for the past couple of years be-tween the DOTs and consultants. Typically,people think of executive compensation lev-els, but there is another side to this compen-sation discussion: allocation. How iscompensation allocated to the different ‘costobjectives’? In other words, how much pay-roll cost does a project incur for any givenhour charged to the job?

Uncompensated overtime has been dis-cussed at great lengths, but I have not heardmuch formal discussion of premium over-time until recently. The premium portion ofovertime for hourly employees keeps creep-ing up in conversations I have with DOTauditors. They are receiving overhead auditreports without any consistency in how pre-mium overtime is treated. This is probablydue to a lack of consistency in how firms aretreating the cost.

The problem begins when firms chooseto charge the premium portion of overtimedirectly to a project. Based upon conversa-tions I have had with multiple principals, itappears there are a multiple of reasons for

this direct charging of the premium portion.They range from a simple “it has to go some-where” to “we want to accurately charge alljobs” or “we have always done it this way.”

The simple truth of premium overtimeis we typically do not know which projectcaused the overtime. People typically workon multiple jobs during the week and it ishard to know if it is the first job or the lastjob that caused the overtime. Given thechoice, most principals believe a cost plus jobwill 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 premiumportion? Typically, these contracts don’tallow the premium portion, thus you arecharging dollars to a job for which you willnot be reimbursed. The cost stays in the di-rect labor base and reduces your overheadrate. Not only are you not being reimbursedon the direct labor portion but you are re-ducing your reimbursement on all jobs.

Some firms try to correct this problemby reducing direct labor on their overheadstatement by the premium portion of theovertime cost. However, this only fixes partof the problem. Firms are still not being re-imbursed for all of their costs. Basically, le-gitimate costs are being incurred which arenot being reimbursed by the government.This is not a case of the government refusingto pay, but simply the consultant not re-questing the reimbursement.

We (or I) believe you should stay trueto your labor costing policy. The two choicesare standard cost or average (effective) cost.With standard cost, all employees have astandard cost, and all hours are charged withthis cost. Any difference in standard costand actual payroll cost is charged to the pay-roll (job cost) variance. In other words pre-mium overtime increases overhead, anduncompensated overtime reduces overhead.With average cost, the total payroll (includ-ing premium overtime) is divided by totalhours for each employee which creates a costrate for that period. Premium overtime in-creases the cost, and uncompensated over-time reduces the cost.

The only real problem with the typicalcosting methods is when a contract reimbursesfor the premium portion of overtime. Thiscreates a situation where the firm must changetheir policy for this contract through a for-ward pricing agreement.The annual overheadstatement should reflect the costs incurred bythe firm with no adjustments for direct labor.This creates a base that accurately reflects thecosts of the firm and allows the consultant tobe reimbursed at a fair rate allowing them torecovr all costs. This is the intention of the costplus contracting method. v

Premium Overtime-Another Side to CompensationBy T. Wayne Owens | CPA

T. WayneOwens

www.aecom.com


Is your design firm in compliance with thenew rules surrounding employer life insur-ance policies? The consequences for failingto comply are harsh. The tax rules werechanged for contracts issued after August 17,2006, so if you have not changed or enteredinto an employer-owned life insurance con-tract since then, you may not be aware of thenew requirements. Certain policy proceedsthat are normally tax-free can become tax-able if proper procedures are not followed.Losing these tax benefits can be costly, butcan also be avoided by following certain no-tification, consent, and reporting proce-dures. It is important to comply with therules now to properly preserve the tax bene-fits of proceeds you may collect later. If yourfirm plans on entering into any new con-tract, the time to act is before the policy isissued and at tax reporting time for each yearthat the policy is in effect.

Employer-owned life insurance (EOLI)contracts are policies that are owned by abusiness and cover individuals, who at thetime the policy was issued, were an em-ployee, officer or director of that business.The other key characteristic of an EOLI con-tract is that the business is the beneficiary ofthe policy. Often times these are referred toas ‘key-man’ policies and are purchased bydesign firms to indemnify the firm for theloss of a key employee. They can also be akey ingredient in a buy-sell agreement byserving to fund the buyout of a deceasedshareholder or partner by the surviving part-ners or shareholders. What are the conse-quences of not following the rules? The taxcode does not allow the deductibility of pre-miums paid for employer-owned life insur-ance contracts and historically it also allowedbusinesses to exclude death benefit proceedsfrom income when collecting on the con-tracts. In 2006, a rule was placed into effectwhereby the income exclusion is limited toan amount equal to the premiums paid forthe policy, unless certain requirements aremet. Policies that were in place before Au-gust 17, 2006 are not affected by the new

rules but if they are modified the require-ments may apply. There are three steps inmeeting the requirements: notification, con-sent, and reporting. If the requirements arenot met, the only portion that may be ex-cluded from income is that amount of deathbenefits equal to the sum of premiums andother amounts paid by the policyholder forthe contract.

Notification & ConsentFor policies issued after August 17, 2006, theexclusion of death benefit payments from in-come will only be allowed for those employ-ers who provide notification and obtainconsent from the party they wish to insure.The notification and consent must be inwriting and must contain all of the followinginformation.

Provide the employee with notice of in-tent to insure the employee’s life as well asthe maximum face amount for which theemployee could be insured at the time thecontract is issued. The face amount must bein dollars or as a multiple of salary.

The notice must state that your firmwill be the beneficiary of any proceedspayable upon the death of the employee. Thefirm must also obtain written consent fromthe employee and consent to have coveragethat may extend after the employee termi-nates employment.For the consent to bevalid, the EOLI contract must be issued

within a year after the consent was executedor before the employee terminates employ-ment, whichever is earlier. A new notice andconsent needs to be issued and obtained ifthe aggregate face amount of the policy is in-creased to exceed the amount listed on theoriginal notice and consent.

ReportingAdditionally, the new rules also require poli-cyholders who own one or more EOLI con-tracts to report information about themannually. Form 8925 was developed by theInternal Revenue Service to satisfy the report-ing requirements and needs to be includedwith the tax return of any business who ownsEOLI contracts. The reporting stipulation re-quires the employer to disclose their totalnumber of employees, the number of em-ployees insured under EOLI contracts issuedafter August 17, 2006, and the amount ofEOLI insurance in force at the end of the taxyear. The form also requires the employer toreport whether or not they have obtained avalid consent from the employee.

There has been no change in the taxtreatment of any interest included in the in-surance proceeds. Interest that accrues be-tween the date of death and the date thebenefit is paid remains subject to income tax.

If your firm already has employer-ownedlife insurance contracts, make sure you in-form your tax professional, and if you planon entering into any new contract or modi-fying any existing contracts, consult your in-surance and tax professional to make sure youare complying with the new rules regardingnotice, consent, and reporting. It can saveyou from a costly tax consequence.v

Protecting the Tax Benefits of Employer-owned Life Insurance Policies—Getting it Right

By Corinne Wooden, CPA | Deemer, Dana & Froehle LLP

CorinneWooden

See daily videos on:

georgiaengineerblog.com


inerals provide thebasic resources forour homes, appli-ances, cars, electric-ity, communication,modern medical

care, and even music. Without minerals ex-tracted from the earth, we wouldn’t have themodern necessities that make our lives safe,comfortable, and productive.

Few people realize that minerals play amajor role in our lives. Each year, Georgiamines and produces significant quantities ofminerals to produce cosmetics, medicines,cat litter, soaps, plastics, fertilizer, paint,bricks and building materials, magazines, au-tomobile tires, wall paper, glue, ceramics,

and many other products we enjoy. Minerals are so important in our every-

day life that demand for them has grown asour society has become more complex. Eachperson in the United States needs 38,052pounds of minerals and energy to maintaintheir standard of living, according to the sta-tistics compiled by the Mineral InformationInstitute, an affiliate of the Society for Min-ing, Metallurgy, and Exploration Founda-tion. With the life expectancy in the U.S.averaging 78 years, the average American willneed 2.96 million pounds of resources toprovide the products and materials they needin their lifetime.

The state of Georgia is home to over200 surface mines, and two undergroundmining operations. In 2008, Georgia’s min-eral production was valued at $1.8 billion,based upon annual U.S. Geological Surveydata (USGS). This was down 13 percentfrom the state’s total of $2.1 billion in 2007mainly due to the economic recession feltthroughout the nation. Georgia mines andproduces 15 different industrial minerals in-cluding 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 tothe people and economy of Georgia. Geor-gia’s mining operations provide direct em-ployment to over 6,000 employees, andanother 20,000 people indirectly from min-ing activity both in and outside the state.Employees of mining companies have a bet-ter safety record than workers in most othermanufacturing sectors.

Mining operations are located in over117 Georgia counties. According to the Geor-gia’s Environmental Protection Division, thereare 322 borrow pits (7,131 acres); 328 Sur-face mines, such as kaolin, fuller’s earth, andother industrial minerals (54,007 acres); 92crushed stone quarries (35,353 acres); and 76dredging operations (3,925 acres). Every min-ing operation is associated with a processingand/or beneficiation plant. Through high-tech extraction and manufacturing processesthese industrial minerals like marble, mica,and barite are taken from the land and turnedinto essential ingredients in a wide range ofconsumer products. Mining is simply not a‘pick and shovel’ industry. Each year members

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

Lee R. Lemke

M

www.akinsglobal.com/northamerica

www.golder.com

of the Georgia Mining Association invest mil-lions of dollars for research and development,state of the art mining equipment, and tech-nological manufacturing processes.

Before any minerals can be extractedfrom the earth, a mining permit must be se-cured from the state EPD. Company engi-neers and geologists develop a writtenmining and reclamation plan with mapsand photographs. The plan is submitted tothe state for evaluation and approval andcontains measures for erosion and sedimentcontrol and protection of adjacent land andwater resources. With over 100,000 acres ofpermitted mine land, Georgia’s miners areharvesting minerals that provide the criticalraw materials necessary to the foundationof our economy. Since the passage of the

Georgia Surface Mining Act of 1968, lessthan 1/10th of one percent of the state’stotal land area has ever been touched bymining. Furthermore, every acre of minedland must be reclaimed and restored to aproductive use. This process involves con-touring and grading the land and stabiliz-ing it with vegetation for wildlife, forestproduction, and agriculture. The industryis proud of its environmental record and thebeautiful examples of mined land reclama-tion that often include the formation oflakes and wildlife habitat. The GeorgiaMining Association and its members have

played an important role in the life of manyGeorgia communities through their com-mitment to jobs, education, economicgrowth, and the environment.

The Georgia Mining Association(GMA), founded in 1972, is a Georgia tradeassociation dedicated to assisting miningcompanies (40+) and trade members (180+)succeed, comply, and function in a complexbusiness and regulatory world.

(For further information on Georgia Min-ing Association or Georgia Mining FoundationScholarship Program, please visit our Web site:www.georgiamining.org ) v


2010 Georgia Mining Association Land Reclamation Winner- Wilkinson County

www.rsandh.com


he macroeconomics oftoday defines a world

stage impacting every deci-sion made here in the U.S.

The global economic slow-down, the European Union in

financial chaos with several countries close todefault, and China’s slowdown in growth mo-nopolize our headlines. At home, the troubleshave mounted with the recent downgradingof our bond rating for the first time in his-tory from AAA to AA+ reflecting a federalgovernment that can’t stop spending andleadership gridlock. The Federal ReserveBank has run out of options and all Federalpolicies to stimulate the economy have failedleaving a debt solution that will require re-ducing federal spending, increasing revenue,reforming social security and Medicare, andincreasing taxes. With the economists pre-dicting one in three chances to 50/50 that weare going to enter another recession in 2012-2013, the outlook for growth is uncertain.

Amidst the uncertainty, some certaintydoes exist. With the 2012 election looming,we can expect gridlock in Washington andresulting reduced government spending at alllevels. A slow GDP growth of two percent isestimated. Increased taxes are inevitable. Andit appears that there will be no new net jobsfor years until unemployed workers are re-trained for future positions.

By 2009, it was clear that ACEC mem-ber firms had been hard hit by the economicslowdown and the February 2008 GDOTstop work order. At first, the board saw a ten-year strategic plan for ACEC as the way tohelp members recover. It chartered theEmerging Trends Task Force (ETTF) to de-velop that plan. It soon became evident thatthe uncertain environment made certainlong-term planning impossible. So the ques-tion before the Task Force was revised:“What trends must ACEC recognize and ad-dress to help member firms flourish?”

One book on trends that the ETTF re-viewed identified 220 trends that will shapethe next 50 years. The members of the ETTF

identified 47 trends. The ETTF realized thefocus needed to be on the most importantfew to identify concrete, actionable recom-mendations. Even focusing on the most im-portant few, there were some knotty issues tosort through.

What, for example, is the difference be-tween an issue and a trend? Both matter. TheETTF’s role was not to focus on only onestatic point but to look at the trend line itself.Politics has always been a difficult issue.However, at one time the ground rules wereknown, and member firms were good at nav-igating them. Since 2008 in Georgia, how-ever, the ground rules have been in flux.Politics has become less transparent, less pre-dictable, and less friendly. That shift is thetrend the ETTF addressed.

What about a silver bullet? The ETTFwas unable to identify one. Initially, ETTFmembers thought trends might be identi-fied like:• Computer software will…..To success-

fully cope with that change, we must….OR

• Virtual design will….To successfullycope with that change, we must…. OR

• Our primary clients will be….To navi-gate this shift in markets, we must….

Instead, the ETTF found that the trends thatwere most troubling would be viewed bymany as much ‘softer;’ but, in reality, the op-tions to deal with them were much harder todevelop and much harder to execute.

In studying emerging trends, it wouldbe easy to suffer from information overload.The ETTF experienced what the consultedresources were stating.• Information no longer equals power.

Most people have more informationthan they know what to do with.

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

T

www.powereng.com

www.thc-rwsi.com/

www.pondco.com

• Today, attention equals power.

To become successful trend-followers, youmust focus your own attention. To becometrend setters, you must go even further: youmust attract the attention of decision makersbefore they can be influenced.

First, there is too much information totry to analyze it all, all at once. The ETTFfocused their attention on the trends theyidentified as having the most impact on en-gineering.

Second, without looking at the big pic-ture first, addressing one individual trendmay limit the ability to deal with another.Examining the interaction of several trendswithin a cluster allowed the ETTF to lookfor a clear path to follow. Six trend clustersseemed especially relevant. They are; 1) Pol-itics, 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 usedthe term ‘trend’ differently. For example inDrivers of Change, Arup sorted facts andevents into seven Driver Categories; energy,waste, climate change, water, demographics,urbanization, and poverty. A specific drivercould trigger any number of trends depend-ing on its interaction with one or more con-texts—social, technological, economic,environmental or political. Instead of focus-

ing on individual facts or events, the ETTFelected to focus on the trends those triggered. Fourth, simply being able to name a trend isnot enough: you have to actually do some-thing different to address the trend. What todo? Figuring that out isn’t easy. Each of thesix trend clusters has both an external com-ponent and an internal one. Often, the in-ternal trend makes the external one moredifficult to address. We are left with growinggaps between the demand placed on us bythe external environment and our capacity,internally, to respond to these demands.

Politics Trend ClusterPolitics has become more turbulent and un-predictable. Engineers (and others) are re-luctant to change the way they addresspolitical issues. The gap between the politi-cal environment and our willingness andability to change has grown wider.

Client Expectations: Technology Trend ClusterClients increasingly make new technology arequirement but are unwilling to pay for it.Small companies have a limited capacity toinvest in the new technology. The gap be-tween client technical expectations and smallcompanies’ ability to meet those expectationshas grown wider.

Profitability Trend ClusterThe cost of doing business has gone up andat the same time client willingness to pay hasgone down. Engineering firms are left witha shrinking, sometimes negative, margin.

Client Expectations: Other Trend Cluster. Traditional ways of doing business (Design-Bid-Build, Percentage Fees, and so on) are onthe decline. They are being replaced with In-tegrated Delivery, Value-Based Fees and soon. The gap between client expectations andengineer-friendly business practices hasgrown wider.

Globalization Trend ClusterSome of the most promising business op-portunities are outside the country. The costof getting this business, however, is high.The gap between global markets and our

ability to compete has grown wider.

The Economy Trend ClusterThe weak economy appears to remain weakgoing forward at least another few years. Atthe same time the availability of money tohelp 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’tbe enough now. We are facing ‘Wicked Prob-lems,’ problems with complex interdepen-dencies and changing (often hidden)requirements. Much of what is happeningout there is beyond our control. However, weown our ability and willingness to change.We must recognize the bellwethers andchange ourselves accordingly in order to suc-ceed going forward. v


Doris I. Willmer, PEACEC ETTF Chair

Dr. Ruth Middleton HouseACEC ETTF Member

www.middleton-house.com

t its annual meeting heldin August of 2008, theNational Council of Ex-aminers for Engineeringand Surveying (NCEES)passed several motions

that supported the American Society of CivilEngineering (ASCE) initiative known as‘raise the bar’ (RTB). At that point, at leasttwo organizations were pushing for this newinitiative. The NCEES decision to throw itsweight behind RTB actually coincided withthe tenth anniversary of the ASCE Board ofDirection’s approval of Policy Statement 465,“Academic Prerequisites for Licensure andProfessional Practice.” This policy statementwas refined in 2001, 2004, and 2007.

What is ‘raise the bar’? RTB is an initia-tive to modify the NCEES model rules forengineers. The model rules set forth the re-quirements for professional engineer licen-sure. In additional to engineer internship(also known as engineer in training), modellaw engineer (MLE) licensing (the bench-mark for engineering licensure) requires: (1)graduation from an ABET-accredited educa-tional institution with a four year degree, (2)successful passage of an eight hour examina-tion in the relevant specialty (civil, environ-mental, electrical engineering, etc.), (3) fiveprofessional recommendations (three beingfrom current professional engineers), and (4)four years of documented experience. TheRTB initiative modifies the MLE require-ment by incorporating the concept of a‘body of knowledge’ or BOK. The BOK isintended to be the foundation of the profes-sion, which provides the knowledge neces-sary and a strong common bond among allmembers of the profession. Incorporatingthe BOK requirement is the key hallmark toachieving the RTB goal of ensuring thatthose entering the practice of engineeringpossess the minimum level of knowledge re-quired for them to practice engineering.

Unfortunately, the BOK requirementcreates an additional education burden.ASCE believes that the incremental require-ment specified in the BOK cannot be com-

pletely accommodated into a traditional fouryear baccalaureate degree. ASCE cites in-creases in technical specialization and limitson the number of credits that can be requiredfor graduation. Specifically, the additionalrequirement will increase the educationalload by approximately 30 credit hours, theequivalent of a master’s degree. Thus, theMLE requirement would increase the educa-tional prerequisite for licensure from a four-year degree to a four-year degree plus amaster’s degree in the appropriate course-work. Two additional factors bear consider-ation: (1) ASCE has established a vision thatRTB should be in place by 2020 and (2) aBOK has not been finalized for any otherbranch of engineering (e.g., mechanical, elec-trical, etc.).

Why is RTB needed? In making its ar-gument for RTB, ASCE points to the in-creased demands of the profession, asidentified through its surveys of ASCE mem-bers. Meeting these demands will require

higher standards. The higher standards maybe supported by data from the American So-ciety of Engineering Education (ASEE),which looked at degrees conferred from1999 through 2005. While the number ofbachelor’s degrees in engineering grew by19.6 percent, the number of master’s degreesconferred grew by 34.4 percent or nearlydouble.

What are the pros and cons of RTB?The major impact of RTB on engineer in-terns awaiting licensure is the requirementto obtain 30 credit hours, equivalent to amaster’s degree, before being eligible for pro-fessional licensing. To date, several organi-zations, including the aforementionedNCEES and ASCE, as well as the NationalSociety of Professional Engineers (NSPE),and the National Academy of Engineering(NAE) have come out in favor of RTB, cit-ing the changing needs of the profession andthe need to ensure licensees remain up to thechallenge of the profession. The American


Raise the BarBy Dan Agramonte, PE

A

www.twocpa.com


Council of Engineering Companies(ACEC) has been most vocal against RTB.ACEC believes the BOK requirementsshould be included within a baccalaureatedegree and not separately. The argument forand against RTB has pitted ACEC, ostensi-bly a business organization, against profes-sional engineering societies (such as ASCE).These societies have also cited the need tosupport the interests of individual engineers,the engineering profession, as well as thepublic’s health, safety, and welfare. ACECand others point out that the increased ed-ucational requirement for licensure willdrive otherwise qualified candidates awayfrom engineering toward professions that areperhaps viewed as being more lucrative.Conversely, RTB proponents are quick topoint out that the higher standard will alsoincrease the prestige of the organization andmake it more lucrative.

What is the status of RTB? To date,ASCE has spearheaded changes in licensure,focusing on two states, Nebraska andLouisiana. The effort in Nebraska has been

spearheaded by the ASCE Nebraska Sec-tion. To date, neither state has finalizedplans to implement RTB. While all 50states recognize the model law engineer asan acceptable common ground for licen-sure, some states such as Georgia still havea licensing mechanism in place that allowsprofessional engineering licensure withouta four-year engineering degree. This widedisparity from state-to-state clearly presentsan additional obstacle to nation-wide adop-tion of RTB.

The Georgia Section of ASCE has nottaken a position on the RTB issue, but it isclearly in every engineer’s interest, whetherlicensed or not, to at least become aware ofthe arguments being made for and againstadoption of RTB. Increasing awareness at thegrassroots level will ensure that each state ex-ercises its professional engineer licensing pre-rogative in a manner that best serves the keystakeholders: engineers, engineering organ-izations, clients, and, first and foremost, thepublic. For more information, visitwww.asce.org. v

www.cdm.com

www.speng.com

www.er.inc.net


mployment litigation hasbeen compounded by themacroeconomic contractionof the past several years.There have been anemicwage increases (if not low-

ered compensation levels); hiring freezes; re-duced hours, furloughs, layoffs, and otherdownsizings; and widespread job losses dueto corporate bankruptcies. The resulting riskof employment practice-related claims hasbeen further exacerbated by the lack of al-ternative job opportunities available to dis-placed workers and a greater awareness byemployees of their rights.

Consider these numbers:In 2010, 99,902 complaints were filed withthe Equal Employment Opportunity Com-mission (EEOC). The most commonly al-leged forms of discrimination continued tobe race (35.9 percent) and sex (29.1 per-cent), followed by disability (25.2 percent)and age (23.3 percent) [note: an individualcharge can claim multiple types of discrimi-nation; thus, the numbers add to more than100 percent]. However, for the first time,claims of retaliation exceeded those of racediscrimination.

Beyond these private actions, theEEOC commenced 271 lawsuits against em-ployers in 2010, with monetary benefits se-cured by the EEOC totaling $85.1 million(up nearly 10 percent over the previous fiveyears’ average of $77.6 million). Almost 75percent of all litigation against corporationsstems from employment disputes.

The average cost of defense exceeds$150,000; the median award is $250,000.The majority of these claims settle, with anaverage settlement of approximately$310,000.

An employee has a 67 percent chance ofsecuring a judgment against his or her em-ployer, and a claim that proceeds to trial hasyielded an average award of around$440,000.

Legal fees are not the only cost of de-fending against an employment action; suchclaims can disrupt business operations, aswell as take a toll on management’s time, em-ployee morale, and future hiring. Adversemedia attention may arise from these cases.Fear of negative press can push a company tosettle a case with little or no merit.

Employment practices liability insurance(EPLI)—developed some 20 years ago—guards against alleged violations of such em-ployment statutes as Title VII of the CivilRights Act, the Age Discrimination in Em-ployment Act, and the Americans with Dis-abilities Act, as well as more recentlaws—such as the Family and Medical LeaveAct and the Genetic Information Nondis-crimination Act—plus various workplacetorts. The majority of EPLI policies respondto such allegations as:• discrimination;

• harassment and hostile workplace envi-ronment, including bullying; retaliation;

• breach of employment contract;

• invasion of privacy;

• wrongful termination;

• wrongful discipline or demotion; and

• wrongful failure to employ or promote.

Employers should bear in mind that anywork-force interaction—from the hiringprocess through an employee’s termina-tion—could be a catalyst for a claim,whether the alleged wrongdoing originatedwith management, a supervisor, or even a co-worker.

EPLI coverage is written on a ‘claims-made’basis, meaning that the applicable policy isthe one in force at the time the claim is firstmade against an insured, not the one in forcewhen the wrongful act was alleged to haveoccurred. Coverage should include all of thefollowing parties as ‘insureds’:1. the organization;

2. management;

3. other employees; and

4. independent contractors.

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

• coverage for back pay and front pay;

• coverage for punitive, exemplary, multi-plied, and liquidated damages—subject toinsurability in the applicable jurisdiction;

• coverage for claims brought by leasedemployees, independent contractors,and/or government agencies (in additionto employees and applicants);

• a post-policy window for reportingclaims; and

• no requirement to provide notice of cir-cumstances that could later give rise to aclaim.

Employment Practices Liability Insurance Update

EBy Gregg Bundschuh | Partner | Greyling Insurance Brokerage

Gregg Bundschuh


An important EPLI coverage option is third-party liability coverage, which addressesclaims brought by individuals who are nei-ther employees nor applicants—for example,customers and vendors. This coverage grantis routinely limited to discrimination andsexual harassment. Nevertheless, increasinglitigation is proving this coverage extensionto be quite valuable.

Plaintiff attorneys across the country arebringing class-action lawsuits against em-ployers alleging violations of the Fair LaborStandards Act—principally as respects un-derpayment of wages. Specifics vary, butcommon themes are misclassification of cer-tain workers as “exempt” and failure to payworkers for various work activities (such as“donning and doffing”—time spent puttingon and taking off special protective equip-ment and clothing). Very few EPLI insurerswill provide coverage for unpaid wages or re-lated fines and penalties, but a number willgrant a defense sublimit with which to fightthese allegations.

Underwriters look at many factors whenconsidering an account for EPLI, including:• number of employees and independent

contractors;

• geographic location of work force; em-ployment turnover (voluntary versus in-voluntary);

• documented employment policies andprocedures, including distribution to andacknowledgement by all employees;

• financial condition; past or forecastedlayoffs; and

• loss history.

The following table contains examples ofEPLI pricing for architecture and engineer-ing firms (by size of work force).

Many insurers provide their insureds with

value-added services in addition to coverage,either free or at a discount. The objective isto prevent claims or minimize potentialdamages in the event of a claim. Such serv-ices include:• materials to assist in development of in-

ternal policies and procedures;

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

• access to outside legal counsel to discusspre-claims employment situations andscenarios; and

• information through newsletters and Websites to help employers stay current.

Rather than viewing each employee as a po-tential litigant, the goal should be to create apositive and fair environment. That, in turn,should help reduce your firm’s exposure tocostly and demoralizing employee litigation.Implementing the following practices shouldhelp to achieve this goal.1. Draft and disseminate an employment

manual to all employees—securing ac-knowledgement of, understanding of,and agreement to its policies and proce-dures.

2. Provide training for all management per-sonnel, as well as to other employees, onemployment laws as they relate to the or-

ganization’s policies and procedures.

3. Review job advertisements, job applica-tions, job tests, offer letters, employmentcontracts, and employment manuals withoutside legal counsel.

4. Prominently publish the firm’s equal em-ployment opportunity policies.

5. Establish a written policy of ‘zero toler-ance’ against sexual harassment and dis-crimination of all types.

6. Create and consistently enforce a confi-dential complaint procedure and pro-gressive discipline policy.

7. Thoroughly investigate any charge of dis-crimination or sexual harassment.

8. Periodically evaluate classifications of em-ployees and compliance with laws.

Against the backdrop of escalating employ-ment litigation, employers with strong riskmanagement procedures in place—and theprotection of an EPLI policy—can reducetheir chances of facing a loss and mitigate theorganization’s balance-sheet risk if a claimdoes arise. v

www.pavementse.com


hen trying to fin-ish a job faster,

adding more tasks toit wouldn’t seem the

best approach. Yet, that’sexactly what the Georgia Department ofTransportation is doing, and early results arepromising.

Each year, the department begins hun-dreds of millions of dollars in new trans-portation projects to help keep Georgiansmoving and our state growing. Hastening thecompletion of these often multi-year projectsis a priority. Building new roads or wideningexisting ones almost always begins with relo-cating existing utility lines. Until the pipes,conduit, and wires for services such as gas,water, sewer, electric, phone, and cable areidentified and moved out of the constructionarea, little work can be started.

And that’s where Georgia DOT foundthat project delays often began—at their be-ginning! Bids would be awarded to a con-tractor; affected utilities notified; workauthorized; sites cleared of trees and vegeta-tion; and nothing happened; timepassed...still, nothing happened. One re-grettable project actually took four entiremonths just to get utilities moved, then lessthan three months to build!

Every delay seemed to have its own spe-cial circumstance; every participant theirown self-absolving rationalization. The endresult though remained too common—a fin-ger-pointing exchange among the depart-ment, its contractors and the utilities whileangry local officials and exasperated citizenslooked on and pleaded/demanded thatsomeone just do something. We decided thatsomeone would be us. The fundamentalproblem was utilities were spending—notmaking—money in relocations and had noincentive to hurry, while contractors, mean-while, couldn’t start making money—and infact were losing it—with men and machinesidled waiting on the utilities.

Recognizing there had to be a betterway, we asked the Georgia General Assem-bly to help. The result was a new provisionthat now allows Georgia DOT to includeprivate utility relocations as part of a projectcontract. The department or contractor canmake relocations themselves if the utility hasso agreed. If a utility chooses not to allowsuch relocation of its facilities and insteadopts to continue handling them itself, therenow are penalties for delays. Damage claimscan be filed against utilities for lost time,equipment expenses, and costs assessed fordelaying 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 majorproviders such as Georgia Power and AtlantaGas Light with more in development.

Everyone stands to benefit from theprogram. Utilities are freed of the need todisrupt schedules and divert crews from pay-ing jobs. Contractors can be more precise intheir bidding because they have more confi-dence in project timelines. And though itmay seem counterintuitive, the departmentbelieves this approach should actually savetaxpayer dollars too as the savings gained bymeeting schedules will easily exceed the costof the additional work.

The end result is the elimination of a bigroadblock to delivering projects on time andon budget. And that’s the biggest benefit ofall—the one legislators, local officials, thepublic, and the Georgia DOT are seeking.

Georgia DOT’s program to reduce util-ity delays is a model for other transportationdepartments across the country and hasdrawn federal recognition. The people be-hind this program represent just one ofmany department groups committed to pro-viding a safe, seamless, and sustainable trans-portation system that supports Georgia’seconomy and is sensitive to both its citizensand its environment. v

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

WGerald Ross Chief Engineer/Deputy Commissioner

Jeff Baker the StateUtilities Engineer of the Georgia Department of Transportation.

www.columbia-engineering.com

www.gcaeng.com/


Since the 2003 creation of Immigration andCustoms Enforcement (ICE), the federalagency responsible for enforcing immigra-tion laws at the worksite, the constructionindustry has become a favorite target of gov-ernment investigations. The U.S. govern-ment estimates there are approximately 11million immigrants living here illegally. Withthe bulk of these workers believed to be em-ployed in construction, landscape, lodging,and agriculture, these industry employers areoften the hardest hit.

Upon taking office, President BarackObama and his administration pledged topunish employers who hire undocumentedimmigrants, and they have done so by im-posing onerous fines and criminal sanctionson employers deemed in violation. In 2009,$1 million in fines was levied on employersfound to be using illegal immigrants. In2010, ICE issued an estimated $7 million infines. In addition, an internal ICE memo-randum was uncovered detailing the agency'sstrategy to continue worksite investigationsand to develop “criminal cases against em-ployers who hire and use illegal workers.”

ICE agents are encouraged to prosecuteemployers who knowingly hire unauthorizedworkers after finding evidence of mistreat-ment of workers, trafficking, smuggling, har-boring, Visa fraud, document fraud, andother violations. Those at risk of prosecu-tion? Management—ranging from businessowners to corporate managers to supervisors.Offending employers may be excluded fromdoing business with the federal governmentand receiving loans under the Recovery Act;they may also be subjected to criminal sanc-tions and administrative fines. The memooutlines the use of informants, cooperatingwitnesses, undercover agents, consensualsearches, and Form I-9 audits.

According to the memo, ICE’s “mostimportant administrative tool” in conduct-ing investigations is the Notice of Inspection(NOI). These inspections include a detailed

review of an employer’s entire employmenteligibility verification process, including itsI-9 forms, training, and record-keeping pro-cedures. NOIs and ICE audits have resultedin the layoff of 25 percent of one nationalcompany’s workforce, fines of $40,000 forForm I-9 violations at one location of a na-tional chain and subjected one company tocourt supervision for three years, a criminalfine of $250,000 and forfeiture of $1.334million in assets for harboring unauthorizedworkers.

Arizona’s Immigration LegislationHowever, when states attempted to curb thehiring of illegal immigrants, the federal gov-ernment balked and took legal action to pre-vent state enforcement. In Chamber ofCommerce of the United States v. Whiting,opponents attacked Arizona's 2007 manda-tory E-Verify legislation, arguing the federalImmigration Reform and Control Act of1986 prohibits states from imposing sanc-tions for hiring illegal immigrants. But thefederal law exempts “licensing and similarlaws,” and the issue was whether Arizona’slaw fell under that exemption. The five-to-three decision, issued by the U.S. SupremeCourt on May 26, 2011, upheld Arizona'sright to require employers to check the fed-eral E-Verify system before hiring new work-ers and to penalize employers who are caughtrepeatedly hiring illegal immigrants.

The Court's decision did not addressthe closely watched Arizona S.B. 1070,which has spurred considerable controversy.While federal law requires certain aliens toregister with the U.S. government and tohave registration documents in their posses-sion at all times, the Arizona Act addition-ally makes it a state misdemeanor crime foran alien to be in Arizona without carryingthe required documents. It further bars stateand local officials or agencies from restrict-ing enforcement of federal immigration laws,and cracks down on those sheltering, hiring,

and transporting illegal aliens. Arizonapassed the law after years of frustration overproblems often associated with illegal immi-gration, including drug trafficking and vio-lent kidnappings. That border state is agateway into the U.S. and, therefore, hometo an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.The U.S. Department of Justice and severalcivil rights groups are currently challengingS.B. 1070.

Although the E-Verify program gener-ally remains voluntary, by Presidential Exec-utive Order, federal contractors are requiredto use E-Verify for all new hires and em-ployees assigned to a federal contract.

Georgia’s Immigration ReformSimilar to Arizona, Georgia is estimated tohave 425,000 illegal immigrants who coststate and local taxpayers roughly $2.5 billiona year. This money goes to subsidizing serv-ices such as K-12 education, health care,public safety, and other state and local serv-ices. Georgia’s construction, landscape, ar-chitecture, and restaurant businesses havetraditionally relied on unregistered workersto provide low cost labor. The Federation forAmerica Immigration Reform (FAIR US) re-ports that the average illegal worker makes$5.45 while the current minimum wage forregistered workers is $7.45 an hour, plus theusual benefits.

On May 13, 2011, less than two weeksbefore the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Ari-zona's 2007 mandatory E-Verify, Gov.Nathan Deal signed Georgia's own sweepingimmigration enforcement measures. The “Il-legal Immigration Reform and EnforcementAct of 2011” is patterned after Arizona's2007, and more controversial 2010, legisla-tion and requires private employers withmore than ten employees and public em-ployers, such as state agencies and counties,to register and participate in E-Verify inorder to verify employment eligibility ofnewly hired employees.

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


Before a county or municipal corpora-tion issues or renews a business license, oc-cupational tax certificate or other documentrequired to operate a business, evidence ofcompliance with the E-Verify provisionsmust be submitted in affidavit form. Privatecontractors and subcontractors wishing tobid on contracts with public employers forthe physical performance of services such asconstruction projects must first provide affi-davits of compliance with E-Verify. To as-sist, the Attorney General will post astandardized form affidavit on the Depart-ment of Law’s Web site by January 1, 2012.

This legislation has teeth. For example,effective July 1, 2011, it became a felony touse false information or documentationwhen applying for a job. Criminal or civilaction can be issued, including up to 15 yearsin prison and $250,000 in fines, against anapplicant who violates this provision. Fur-ther, the Commissioner of Labor is author-ized to conduct 100 or more random auditsof employers per year. The law allows an em-ployer found to have committed a “goodfaith” violation 30 days to demonstrate com-

pliance with the law. These requirements be-come effective on January 1, 2012, for em-ployers with 500 or more employees, on July1, 2012, for employers with 100 to 499 em-ployees, and on July 1, 2013, for employerswith 11 to 99 employees. Private employerswith 10 or less employees are exempt.

This controversial legislation has alreadybeen challenged and on June 27, 2011, a fed-eral judge in Atlanta temporarily blockedportions of the Act, including provisions thatallow police officers to check the immigra-tion status of suspects without proper iden-tification and penalize people whoknowingly transport or harbor illegal immi-grants while committing another crime. Itis expected that the ruling will be appealed.

Recommendations Employers should conduct internal I-9 au-dits to identify issues and correct violations.This should include an evaluation of the em-ployers’ current record-keeping practices todetermine if new training programs areneeded for human resources personnel. Legalcounsel should assist in developing best prac-

tices, including establishing protocols for theverification of the identity and work eligibil-ity of new hires, advising employers on safe-guards against discrimination in the I-9process, and advising on the use of E-Verify.

Employers who receive an NOI shouldcontact counsel as quickly as possible, sincethese notices only provide three days for theemployer to submit the I-9 to ICE for re-view. Counsel should review payroll to iden-tify discrepancies between the number ofemployees and the company’s I-9s. Prior tosubmission, employers should check I-9s,correcting those with obvious errors. Em-ployers demonstrating good faith efforts tocomply with immigration laws may avoidcriminal penalties and be assessed lower civilfines if violations are uncovered.

The construction industry should payspecial attention to Georgia’s new immigra-tion reforms, if the pattern of being a favoritetarget of federal probes repeats itself at thestate level. Consulting legal counsel shouldbe the first step in formulating your com-pany’s best practices for dealing with immi-gration issues. v

www.geosyntec.com

www.cromcorp.com


BackgroundOn May 2, 2011, Governor Nathan Dealsigned Senate Bill 122 (SB 122) into law.The new law, introduced by Senator RossTolleson of Perry, amends Georgia Code sec-tions 36-91-100 et seq, and gives local gov-ernments and authorities the right to enterinto Public-Private Partnerships (P3) forwater projects. It is legislation that enableslocal governments and authorities to developprojects at their discretion, without requir-ing any mandate to do so.

Water policy and law in Georgia havebeen evolving to address the state’s chang-ing water supply conditions and challenges.Contributing factors include a combinationof rapid growth, particularly in north Geor-gia, coupled with a series of droughts andthe resulting effects upon water supplies inmany piedmont and mountain communi-ties. Legislation was passed in 2004 au-thorizing the preparation of a State-WideWater Management Plan. The process gotunderway in 2009 with the formation often Regional Water Councils, whose plansare now finalized and in the process of ap-proval by the Georgia Environmental Pro-tection Division (EPD).

In July of 2009, US District CourtJudge Paul Magnuson issued a ruling pur-suant to tri-state litigation that, based on itsoriginal Congressional authorization, LakeLanier was not constructed for water supply.The ruling meant Metro Atlanta and down-stream communities could only make use ofthe water released “incidentally” by BufordDam operations for water supply, not bywithdrawing water directly from LakeLanier. The ruling, intended to take effectin 2012, would restrict Lake Lanier andMetro Chattahoochee water withdrawals tomid-1970s levels.

However, the June 2011 reversal ofJudge Magnuson’s ruling by the 11th CircuitCourt of Appeals may have removed some ofthe urgency for action on water supply, bar-

ring the successful petition for rehearing bythe states of Alabama and Florida and theircooperating parties. In addition, the effectsof the current economy, as well as the pas-sage of the Georgia Water Stewardship Act(SB 370) last year, which mandates state-wide water conservation, may slow thegrowth of water demand. However, withlimited water resources in parts of Georgia,many studies have shown that there will be along-term need for additional water supplies.

Legislative SummarySection 1 (Amendments to Code Section 36-91-100, et seq.) Section 36-91-101In summation, SB 122 authorizes local gov-ernments and water authorities to enter intocontracts with private parties for a widerange of water supply-related purposes, in-cluding the following:• Federal and state permits, licenses and

permissions;

• Planning, financing, construction, ac-quisition, operation or maintenance ofwater projects;

• Reimbursement of the private entity forcosts or expenses associated with waterprojects via service payments, user fees,purchase payments or other consideration;

• Assumption of projects, permits, licensesor permissions by local governments orauthorities at appropriate times.

The bill authorizes local governments and au-thorities to undertake actions to receive fed-eral, state or local assistance and enables themto enter into contracts with private parties toachieve such assistance. Under the provisionsof SB 122, local governments or authoritiesmay also fund any portion of a project withfederal, state or local grants, and they mayagree to make grants to the private partiesfrom those grant funds. A special note: thepower of eminent domain is withheld fromprivate entities and exclusively reserved to theexisting powers now held by local govern-ments or authorities.

Section 36-91-102This section of the bill details how local gov-

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

By David M. Ashley, RLA | Water Resources Practice Leader | Jacobs Engineering Group

www.foleyarch.com


ernments and authorities are authorized touse an alternative method of procurementfor planning, finance, construction, acquisi-tion and maintenance of water projects, assummarized below.

SB 122 procedures stipulate that one ormore local governments or authorities mayagree to participate in consideration or im-plementation of a project. When more thanone local government or authority partici-pates, one of them must be designated thelead local authority, with representation byother local parties. The lead local authoritymay determine the appropriate levels of par-ticipation in the project, in consultation withaffected local governments and authorities,the Georgia Environmental Finance Author-ity (GEFA), planning organizations, and pri-vate financial and construction sectors.Only the lead local authority may issue awritten Request for Proposals (RFPs) forprojects, to include:• The scope of the project;

• Proposed financial participation(s);

• Factors used in the selection process; and

• Other applicable contractual terms andconditions, including unique capabilities orqualifications required by the contractor.

The bill also mandates a 90-day public no-tice period for RFPs to be received. Afterproposals are received the lead local author-ity must accept public comments on the pro-posals for a 30-day period, beginning at leastten days after receipt of proposals. At leastone public hearing on the proposals receivedmust be held during the comment period.Once proposals are received, SB 122 allowsthe lead local authority, or its designated rep-resentative, to engage in one or more indi-vidual discussions with each respondentdeemed to be fully qualified, responsible, andsuitable based on initial submission. Otherparticipating local governments, as well asGEFA or other State agencies, must be noti-fied of these individual discussion sessionsand are invited to participate. At the discus-sion stage, the parties may discuss probableproject costs, including life cycle costs andnonbinding estimates of costs for services.

These discussions are not considered to bepublic meetings unless local government reg-ulations require such.

The bill states that at the conclusion ofthe discussion stage, and based on all of theinformation developed, the local authoritymay hold a public meeting to select a preferredrespondent “whose qualifications and pro-posed services are deemed most meritorious.”Negotiations may then be conducted with theselected respondent. Such negotiations are notconsidered to be public meetings.

Based upon contract terms that are de-termined to be “most satisfactory and ad-vantageous to the participating localgoverning authorities and local authoritiesbased upon a thorough assessment of valueand the final project’s characteristics to meetthe goals” of said local governing authoritiesand local authorities, and consistent with ap-plicable state-wide and regional water plansand local comprehensive plans, the local gov-erning authorities and local authorities musthold an open public meeting with affectedlocal governments. The bill states a local gov-ernment or authority may then select a re-spondent or respondents and enter into acontract not to exceed 50 years in length.Any affected local governments must also ap-prove the selection. No public employee orgovernment/authority official may leave

his/her position to work for the private entityfor a period of three years following the se-lection.

Section 2 (Amendments to Section 50-23-28.2)Section 2 of SB 122 amends the GeorgiaCode Section pertaining to the Water Sup-ply Division of GEFA, (Section 50-23-28.2)to allow state participation in P3 projects.GEFA may evaluate projects to determinethe appropriate or desirable levels of partici-pation in such projects. Following this eval-uation, GEFA must seek the advice andinput of affected local governments, and mayseek the advice of local authorities, as well asthe private financial and construction sec-tors. GEFA may also propose projects tolocal governing authorities and local author-ities in consultation with them.

The amendments also allow local gov-ernments/authorities to request that GEFAparticipate in a P3 project and potentially askGEFA to act as the lead local authority. SB122 authorizes GEFA to assume all of theduties and responsibilities of the lead localauthority on behalf of local governments/au-thorities, and when GEFA serves as the leadlocal authority, certain special provisionsapply, including the following:• Public notice of a Request for Proposals

www.tbegroup.com

must be made on the Department of Ad-ministrative Services Web site at least 90days in advance of receipt of the Requestfor Proposals;

• A designated representative of GEFAshall be the director;

• Local governments/authorities sponsor-ing the project and any affected local gov-ernments must approve any proposedcontract before it becomes operative;

GEFA may provide a number of additionalservices, including management, technical,consultative, training, educational, and otherproject development and promotional activ-ities, subject to availability of funds from theGeorgia Reservoir Fund and with the stipu-lation that those funds be reimbursed toGEFA.

The Section 2 amendments also giveGEFA a new set of charges and authoritiesrelative to P3 water supply projects. Theseinclude:• To the maximum extent feasible, expe-

diting the issuance of permits, licenses,and permissions from all levels of gov-ernment as needed;

• Authority to enter into lease, use or watersupply agreements with owners/operatorsof water supply facilities;

• Authority to lease any state-owned facil-ity or property that GEFA is managingin connection with a project; and

• Authority to enter into agreements withlocal governing authorities and local au-thorities or owners/operators to set feesto be paid to GEFA or the Departmentof Natural Resources to expedite or en-hance the State or federal regulatoryprocess.

Also under the Section 2 amendments, theGEFA Director may delegate duties, butfinal approval of projects and contracts is re-served to the director. As with the Section 1amendments, no power of eminent domainis granted to any private party; however, thestate or local governments may use eminent

domain in customary fashion. Approval of aproject by local governments or authoritiesis construed to be an amendment of anyservice delivery strategy agreement to whichthat government is a party. Lastly, similarlanguage applies to the restriction of em-ployment of public sector officials with a pri-vate entity for a period of three years.

ConclusionSimply stated, Georgia’s new law authorizespublic-private partnerships for the first timefor water projects. SB 122 offers—withoutrequiring—local governments and water au-thorities an alternative to traditional capitalsources. While certain aspects of proposedprojects can remain undisclosed during thenegotiation phases, there are specific require-ments in SB 122 for full disclosure at the Re-quest 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-Pri-

vate Partnerships in Water, http://pri-vatewaterlaw.com/2011/05/09/new-georgia-legislation-for-public-private-partnerships-in-water/, May 9, 2011.

• Reservoir Funding (SB 122), GeorgiaWater Coalition, www.garivers.org/gawa-ter/legis2011.htm, 2011.

About the AuthorDavid M. Ashley, RLA, is a Water ResourcesPractice Leader at Jacobs Engineering Groupin Norcross, Georgia, and has led the com-pany’s regional efforts to assist in preparingvarious Regional Water Plans, served as aproject advisor on the Georgia Environmen-tal Finance Authority Interconnection Study,and was a participant on former GovernorSonny Purdue’s Water Task Force, whichlooked at a broad array of potential watersupply options for the Metro area. Contacthim at [email protected] v


www.hntb.com


W h a t ’ s i n t h e

N E W S

Robert McFeaters, Georgia Tech Gradu-ate, Joins Harrington Group Inc.Harrington Group Inc. is pleased to an-nounce the addition of Robert McFeaters tothe engineering team. Mr. McFeaters is a2010 graduate from Georgia Tech, where heearned his BS in Chemical and Biomolecu-lar Engineering. He has joined HarringtonGroup as a Fire/Explosion Protection Engi-neering Consultant. He will be responsiblefor helping to develop solutions involvingthe handling, processing, and storage offlammable/combustible liquids and com-bustible dusts.

Prior to Harrington Group, he was em-ployed with Halliburton Energy Services asan Associate Field Engineer, in Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania. Mr. McFeaters has recently re-located from Pittsburgh to the metro-Atlantaarea to join Harrington Group. In the shorttime that he has been back in the area, he hasbeen able to reconnect with fellow GeorgiaTech alum and join the Ruby Union, AtlantaOld White Rugby Football Club (OWRFC),

where he plays the inside center position.Harrington Group Inc. is a Fire Protec-

tion consulting engineering firm headquar-tered in Duluth, Georgia, with an additionaloffice in Charlotte, North Carolina. Thefirm is committed to providing its clientswith creative solutions, while optimizing therelationship between cost and benefits. Es-tablished in 1986, the firm has become oneof the most experienced and respected prac-tices dedicated to fire protection in thesoutheast. For more information regardingHarrington Group, please visit: www.hgi-fire.com. v

Golder Associates Inc. Enters Alliancewith O’Connell & Lawrence Inc.Golder Associates Inc. and O’Connell &Lawrence Inc. have announced a strategic al-liance agreement for mutually beneficialclient development and business opportuni-ties in the fields of construction consulting,construction management, and engineeringservices.

The primary objective is to work to-

gether to provide integrated solutions forlarge capital construction and infrastructureprojects. The agreement enables both com-panies to collaborate and use their combinedskills and expertise to broaden client offer-ings for joint business development pursuits.

Golder Associates Inc., with more than1,300 employees in over 45 offices across theU.S., provides consulting, design, and con-struction services in the specialist areas ofearth, environment, and energy.

Mark Swallow, President of Golder As-sociates Inc., said, "We look forward toworking with O'Connell & Lawrence as wecontinue our focus on building detailed de-sign and construction capabilities that helpposition us as a full-service provider of inte-grated solutions, from initial studies and in-vestigation through to construction,operations, and maintenance."

O’Connell & Lawrence Inc. (OCL),based in Olney, Maryland is a multidiscipli-nary civil engineering firm that provides con-struction consulting, construction manage-ment, civil engineering design, and survey-

Robert McFeaters

www.rhdlocating.com


ing services to both public-sector and pri-vate-sector clients.

Ken O’Connell, President of OCL, said,“We are excited about the opportunities toexpand and enhance the services we currentlyprovide to our clients that will arise as a resultof this alliance.” v

Pile Dynamics, Inc. develops break-through test for concrete foundations inpartnership with FGEA new solution for integrity evaluation of con-crete foundations has been developed by the PileDynamics (PDI) - Foundation & Geotechni-cal Engineering, LLC (FGE) partnership: theThermal Integrity Profiler (TIP).

TIP uses the heat generated by curingcement (hydration energy) to assess the qual-ity of cast in place concrete foundations suchas drilled shafts, bored piles, augered cast-in-place, continuous flight auger piles, anddrilled displacement piles. Because tempera-tures within the concrete foundation are de-pendent on its diameter and distance to thecenter of the shaft, TIP measurements maybe used to estimate the actual shape of theshaft including the previously difficult to de-termine thickness of concrete cover.

The Thermal Integrity Profiler, which isbased on research conducted at the Univer-sity of South Florida and originally imple-mented by FGE, is attractive in that itassesses the concrete quality of the entirecross-section and along the entire length ofthe foundation. Another major advantage ofthe TIP is its early testing time; test resultsare available as early as 12 hours after con-crete is poured, allowing construction tocontinue.

The TIP is available in two types ofthermal data acquisition systems: either withan infrared probe that is inserted in Cross-hole Sonic Logging-type access tubes, or withthermal wires™ that are attached to the rein-forcement cage prior to concreting. Eitherway, data is collected by Thermal AcquisitionPorts, transferred to the TIP, and down-loaded to a computer for further analysis andresult presentation by the Thermal AnalysisReporter software.

In addition to the Thermal IntegrityProfiler, Pile Dynamics produces severalother quality assurance and quality control

products for the deep foundations industry.Its products are recognized throughout theworld as the ultimate solutions for testingand monitoring of deep foundations. Thecompany is based in Cleveland, Ohio, andhas commercial representatives worldwide.

FGE, Foundation and Geotechnical En-gineering LLC, is based in Plant City,Florida, and specializes in deep foundationdesign, capacity enhancement, rehabilita-tion/remediation, and quality assurance/ ver-ification testing. For more information onthe Thermal Integrity Profiler visitwww.pile.com/pdi/products/TIP. v

Federal Conservation AgencyConducting Statewide Sign-up for theWetlands Reserve ProgramJames E. Tillman, Sr., State Conservationistfor the USDA-Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service (NRCS) in Georgia today an-nounced that the NRCS has established acut-off date for applications seeking financialassistance through the USDA Wetlands Re-serve Program (WRP). Although partici-pants can apply at any time, in order to beconsidered for WRP funding during fiscalyear 2012, applications must be received byOctober 28, 2011. Applications receivedafter October 28, 2011 will be deferred tothe next funding cycle. Applications receivedin NRCS offices will be evaluated andranked according to levels of environmentalbenefits pending available funds.

Participants in WRP voluntarily limitfuture use of their land, but retain privateownership. Landowners benefit by receivingfinancial and technical assistance in returnfor protecting wetlands, reducing problemsassociated with farming potentially wet anddifficult areas, and developing wildlife andrecreational opportunities on their land.

Wetlands benefit the nation by provid-ing fish and wildlife habitat; improving waterquality by filtering sediments and chemicals;reducing flooding; recharging groundwater;protecting biological diversity; as well as pro-viding opportunities for educational, scien-tific, and recreational activities.

The program offers three enrollmentoptions: 1. Permanent Easements: a conservation

easement in perpetuity. USDA pays 100

percent of the easement value and 100percent of the restoration costs.*

2. 30-Year Easement: an easement that ex-pires after 30 years. USDA pays up to75 percent of the easement value and upto 75 percent of the restoration costs.*

3. Restoration Cost-Share Agreement: anagreement to restore or enhance thewetland functions and values withoutplacing an easement on the enrolledacres. USDA pays up to 75 percent ofthe restoration costs.

* USDA pays costs associated with recordingthe easement, including legal services,recording of easement, and boundary sur-veys,

No easement shall be created on landthat has changed ownership during the pre-ceding seven years. Eligible acres are limitedto private and Tribal lands. Easement valuesare based upon a Geographic Area Rate Cap(GARC) which is valued each year by an in-dependent contractor who performs a mar-ket analysis to estimate values of lands thattypically enroll in WRP. NRCS publishesthe GARC rates after approval.

NRCS is USDA’s lead conservationagency and has worked hand-in-hand withfarmers and landowners for 75 years to con-serve natural resources on private lands.Georgia landowners can learn more aboutconserving natural resources by contactingNRCS Georgia through USDA Service Cen-ters or by visiting the NRCS Georgia home-page at www.ga.nrcs.usda.gov.

For more information, contact Ron Morton Acting State Public Affairs Specialist(706) 546-2312 [email protected]

Applications Due by October 28, 2011v

See daily videos on:

georgiaengineerblog.com


www.georgiapower.com/commercialsavings


www.gaengineers.org


Twenty-five (+) very smart, gifted, intelli-gent, bright, and passionate Georgia Engi-neers met often for three-to-four months todiscover one word that captures the meaningof ACEC/G for the best (member) firms inGeorgia. Think of it for a moment – can youcome up with one word for your firm, yourchurch, your school or even yourself? I chal-lenge you to do this. For Wells Fargo it iscourtesy (they even post it on their bankwalls), for Coke it’s Coke is it.

For ACEC Georgia our word is advocacy.ACEC/G is your firm’s advocate in many as-pects of your business. We pledge now morethan ever to provide unparalleled value to yourbusiness, to provide robust communication ofvital information that your firm needs, to con-tinue our quest to be a strategic issues-drivenorganization, and to be organized to effec-tively advocate for your firm.

ACEC/G is focused on dramatic op-portunities in which we can advocate and de-velop 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 in-cludes: • 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 en-gaged interaction with our legislators atthe government offices and at their dis-trict offices.

• Advanced technology is demanded ofengineering firms and costs real money,yet fees are low.

There are unfolding global opportunitiesbut there are risks involving technologytransfer.

ACEC/G is very focused on activitiesthat 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 propo-

sition for member firms• ACEC/G transportation ‘think tank’

has been formed to include topACEC/G transportation engineers.

• ACEC/G reengaged with our partnersin QBS – more on our Web site soon

• ACECG communications committeehas made great strides in a robust com-munications program getting you theinformation you need now.

• ACEC/G membership committee hasan engaged membership managementprogram.

• ACEC/G assembled top attorneys toprovide up-to-date information on im-portant legal topics that affect yourfirm’s interests now and in the future.

• ACEC/G is kicking off our future lead-ers program for the future leaders ofyour firm.

• The emerging trends task force contin-ues to provide valuable information re-garding upcoming trends that willcontrol your business, your success, andyour future.

ACEC/G = Advocacy for Georgia Firms

When should you begin succession plan-ning? Yesterday! As a small business owner, one wears manydifferent hats. From CEO to Chief SanitaryEngineer, it’s hard work and every day isfilled with different challenges and opportu-nities. You may spend years trying to build asuccessful business that will eventually be-come a valuable asset. Often, the demandsof day-to-day operations can take precedenceover succession planning. But, the sooneryou develop a plan, the better.

Succession planning is unique and cus-tomized for the needs of each business.Transferring the management and control ofyour business can occur in a variety of meth-ods and the ‘plan’ can change after an origi-nal plan has been developed. A successionplan may start out with a thought to sell the

business outright and could evolve to keep-ing the business in the family.

Only a few weeks ago, my college soph-omore daughter, who has wonderful peopleskills but lacks time management abilities,told me, “Hey Dad, I really like this ac-counting class I’m taking in college, and Ithink I may want to major in accounting.” Inever dreamed that she wouldn’t want toenter my profession. And as we all know,things in life can change in the blink of aneye. Your succession plan may, too. Be sureyour plan includes the flexibility to adapt tochanges in the economy, your industry, orpersonal life.

Just remember, if you target nothingyou will definitely hit it! So begin workingwith your CPA today to develop successionplanning options. Your CPA has the knowl-edge and expertise to analyze the specific

strengths and weaknesses of your businessand can implement a set of strategies tomaximize the value of your exit, whatever itmay be.

About the authorMike is a licensed CPA in Florida. His careerhas focused on assisting business clientsthroughout the South determine and realizethe value of their businesses. In some cases,this is a formal valuation of the business,while in others it is consulting with the clienton the business value drivers so as to positionthe client’s business for future sale. Addi-tionally, Mike is a member of the Associationof Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) andholds a certification of Certified in FinancialForensics (CFF). He has extensive expertisewith measuring, identifying, and preventingfraud in various industries. v

Succession Planning Advice for the Business OwnerBy Michael Scott, CPA, CFF


GEA had the pleasure of working withJohn Lambert this summer. John is a fresh-man at Stanford University in Palo Alto,California and plans to major in Civil En-gineering. After graduating from the West-minster School, he sought an internship to

learn more about the different dynamics of

engineering. Working in the GEA office al-

lowed John the opportunity to meet and

talk with engineers from a variety of engi-

neering associations and companies.

The GEA staff cannot begin to express

how valuable John’s hard work and contri-

bution of his thoughts and ideas impacted

the office. We wish him well as he prepares

to become tomorrow’s engineer. v

My Time at the Georgia Engineering AllianceBy John Lambert, GEA Summer Intern

My time at the GEA has been a great learning experience. I have become moredisciplined as I’ve gone into the office daily, and I feel like next summer I will beready for large responsibilities at my next internship. I am now more familiarwith today’s business environment and climate, and the pervasiveness of the eco-nomic slowdown. Engineering is not easy work, and the engineers I have en-countered are ordinary (but talented) people, just trying to balance personal andwork life. Working with Tom Leslie has introduced me to a world of politics inAtlanta that I never really knew existed. The TIA bill has enormous potential tojump-start the engineering economy in Georgia, and I have faith it will pass withhis 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 architectson 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 wewalked up and down the concrete floors, searching in vain for his pickup. Finally, he asked if I knew where my car was, and I be-came 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. Ilooked forward each week to reading articles about brilliant engineering feats and choosing the best for the newsletter. Other partsof the job were not quite as enjoyable: for example, making cold calls to GSPE members who still owed their dues. It might havebeen 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 manpowerhere, and business strategy means trimming your organization to create advantage. For example, with hundreds of mailings goingout 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 reallydidn’t make sense to configure a new office phone for me. I could work in an unused cubicle, and for any phone calls, the confer-ence 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 communi-cation among all of the staff starts in staff meetings and continues all week as work is divvied up. Staff members are constantly inand out of each other’s offices, checking on the status of projects and getting input. Consequently, projects and events moved veryfluidly. I was amazed at something the ACEC board introduced at a meeting—a ‘value proposition’ they had compiled, with dozensof ‘emerging trends’ in the marketplace for engineering firms to capitalize on. This proposition is sure to benefit ACEC and the GEAin 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


I’m very excited to become the ASHE Geor-gia Section President for the 2011-2012 year.The past year has been very dynamic for ourorganization, and we have been able to createnew initiatives to enhance the ‘ASHE experi-ence’ to all of our membership. Althoughthere are many challenges facing our industrythese days, these challenges have helped bringour membership together to better serve ourmission of providing a forum for membersand partners of the highway industry to pro-mote a safe, efficient, and sustainable high-way system through education, innovation,and fellowship.

Over the past couple of years, we havebeen fortunate to grow our number of vol-unteers to foster a core leadership group tosustain the growth of our organization. Aswe look forward to our new ASHE year, Iwould like to graciously thank all of our vol-unteers, officers, and board chairs, and inparticular, Tim Matthews for all his hardwork and dedication tirelessly serving aspresident for the past two years.

We have a full calendar of events andare working on several new ones, so checkthe Web site (www.ashega.org) regularly forwhat’s coming up.

Recent Events We are off to an awesome start this year andhave already had three very successful events.The first event was a technical training classthat allowed many of our GSWCC profes-sionals, many who initially became certifiedthrough an ASHE technical program, torenew their certifications. Also, we held ourAnnual Babs Abubakari ScholarshipFundraiser Bowling Tournament. As always,it was greatly attended with over 160 playersand volunteers. We succeeded in raising over$2,300 for our scholarship fund, and fun

AsHeNews

Ron Osterloh, P.E., PresidentAmerican Society of Highway Engineers / Georgia Section

November 2011 General MeetingNovember 9, 2011 Transportation SummitDecember 2, 2011 3rd Annual Holiday Social (Toys for Tots Fundraiser)January 2012 General MeetingFebruary 2012 Poker Tourney (Scholarship Fundraiser)March 2012 General MeetingSpring 2012 Joint WTS Tennis Tournament (TBD)April 2012 Technical SeminarMay 2012 Golf Tourney (Scholarship Fundraiser)June 2012 National Conference, Seven Springs, Pennsylvania

2011 ASHE Georgia Chapter OfficersPresident Ron Osterloh [email protected] Vice President Michael Bywaletz [email protected] Vice President Brian O’Connor [email protected] Secretary Karyn Matthews [email protected] Richard Meehan [email protected] Representative Nikki Reutlinger [email protected] President Tim Matthews [email protected]

Committee ChairsSocial Chair Elizabeth Scales [email protected] Chair Tim Matthews [email protected] Chair Scott Jordan [email protected] Chair Rob Dell-Ross [email protected] Chair Sara Worachek [email protected] Chapter Chair Kevin Riggs [email protected] Co-Chair Dan Bodycomb [email protected] Co-Chair Chris Rudd [email protected] ASHE Web site Mindy Sanders [email protected] Golf Tournament Chair Ashley Chan [email protected]

was had by all. Our most recent event in-cluded participation in the 2011 CorporateChallenge, just to prove that we can cover allends of the athletic spectrum.

College Students and ASHE GA Through a grant from our National Board,we are continuing to look to expand our re-sources to our college students. The ASHEGA Board is working to establish a studentchapter. Getting students involved early onnot only helps a student during school, butalso may spur interest in a career in our in-

dustry upon graduation. If you are interestedin helping, please contact any of the boardmembers. We look forward to seeing you atour next ASHE event. v

2011-2012 Calendar of Events

Overall Winners “Bowling for Bob,” ASHE Bowling 2011


www.mathcounts.org


www.gspe.org


www.schnabel-eng.com

www.heath-lineback.com

www.pile.com/grl/grlweap

www.burnsmcd.com/atlanta

www.AyresAssociates.com

www.hdrinc.com


Georgia Section ITE hosted our SummerSeminar July 17-20 at the King & PrinceHotel on St. Simons Island. We had 130conference registrants and over 250 partici-pants, including spouses, guests and kids.Our theme, “Efficiency for the Future:Doing More with Less” brought us presen-tations 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 ofthe Port of Brunswick, where we saw acresand acres of new cars ready for delivery todealerships throughout the Southeast.

The golf and volleyball tournaments, aswell as our 5k race, were all well attended, andour kids enjoyed bowling, the sandcastle com-petition, and a trip to the waterslide park.

For the second year, we held a SurvivorCompetition. All participants were dividedinto six teams that competed in categoriessuch as: Session Attendance, Sports Cham-pions, Team Spirit, Traffic Jeopardy, andMinute Challenges. Congratulations to JohnKarnowski’s ‘Mellow’ Yellow team for win-

iteNews

Mike Holt, PE, PTOE, PresidentGeorgia Section, Institute of Transportation Engineers

ning the Survivor Competition. If you wantto find more about these categories, we’lllook forward to seeing you next year.

We raised about $6,000 through theJohn Moskaluk Scholarship Auction forGeorgia’s transportation engineering stu-dents. The conference would not have beenpossible without the generosity of our 27sponsors. Thanks to Jonathan Reid for chair-ing the Summer Seminar.

Non-Traditional IntersectionsAs intersections become over-saturated, afundamental solution is to eliminate move-ments from the intersection. This often in-volves turn prohibitions or the eliminationof movements from the intersection. Thereare many interesting new developments innon-traditional intersections and interchangedesigns that are emerging throughout Geor-gia and the rest of the country. While round-abouts have been gaining in popularity, someof you may not be familiar with the follow-ing concepts:

Diverging Diamond InterchangeDiverging diamond interchange (DDI) de-sign is one of the best examples that addressthe interchange traffic flow operations in aquicker, cheaper and safer way. This new in-terchange design forces the two directions oftraffic on the arterial road to cross to the op-posite side on both sides of the freewaybridge. These movements require traffic onthe freeway overpass (or underpass) to driveon the opposite side of the road from whatthey are accustomed.

The DDI design accommodates left-turning movements at signalized, grade-sep-arated interchanges of arterials andlimited-access highways while eliminatingthe need for left-turn phasing. On the arte-rial, traffic crosses over to the left side of the

roadway between the nodes of the inter-change. Two-phase traffic signals are installedat the crossovers. Once on the left side of thearterial roadway, vehicles can turn left ontolimited-access ramps without stopping andwithout conflicting with through traffic. Thefigure below provides an illustration of theDDI concept.

Research indicates that the DDI designalso provides a safety benefit because it re-duces the number of potential conflict pointsby eliminating the crossing conflicts betweenvehicles turning left onto the highway andopposing arterial traffic. As left turns wouldnot need to find gaps in opposing traffic,safety is vastly improved with the DDI.

DDIs have been operating in other states fora few years now, primarily in Missouri. DDIsare currently under design at three locationsin metro Atlanta:I-285 @ Ashford-Dunwoody RoadI-85 @ Jimmy Carter Blvd.I-85 @ Pleasant Hill Road

Median U-Turn IntersectionThe median u-turn Intersection (MUTI)eliminates left turns at intersections and al-lows the maneuver to be made via mediancrossovers beyond the intersection. Driversdesiring to turn left from the major roadonto an intersecting cross street must firsttravel through the at-grade, signal-controlledintersection and then execute a u-turn at themedian opening downstream of the inter-section. These drivers then can turn right atthe cross street. For drivers on the side streetdesiring to turn left onto the major road,they must first turn right at the signal-con-trolled intersection and then execute a u-turnat the downstream median opening and pro-ceed back through the signalized intersec-tion. The MUTI can be implemented with

Jonathan Reid demonstrating a SurvivorMinute Challenge


and without signal control at the medianopenings on the major road.

The figure below shows the schematicfor a typical MUTI. This is typically a corri-dor treatment and has been used for decadesthroughout Michigan, and more recently inother states. However, the concept is used atisolated intersections to alleviate specific traf-

Diverging diamond interchange schematic

Median u-turn intersection movements

fic operational and safety problems. Cobb County has recently begun con-

struction on a MUTI as part of the BarrettParkway widening at its intersection withBurnt Hickory Road.

Continuous Flow IntersectionContinuous flow intersection (CFI) requiretraffic to stop at signals at the intersection.However, the CFI design separates left-turnmovements from conflicting through-movements, allowing opposing left-turns tobe made at the same time as through move-ments. Left-turning vehicles begin theirturn several hundred feet prior to the mainintersection. They are temporarily stored in

a bay to the left of the opposing throughlanes of travel, and complete the left turnmovement under the same signal phase asthe through movement. At the main inter-section, previously conflicting through andleft-turn movements can operate simulta-neously as protected movements under thesame signal phase. The signal cycle is thusreduced to two phases, enabling a reductionin overall cycle lengths and maximizedthrough-movement green times. The resultis a reduction in travel delays and increasedintersection capacity.

At high-volume intersections, a signal atthe crossover intersection is needed to con-trol left turn movement staging. This signalmust be coordinated with the main intersec-

tion control so that arterial through-trafficstops no more than once. The CFI design canalso improve pedestrian efficiency and safety.Pedestrians can cross the intersection in twostages without left or right-turning conflicts.The shorter cycle lengths typical at a CFI in-tersection also shorten the pedestrians’ waitfor a walk phase. v

www.kimley-horn.com

www.wilburnengineering.com

www.cumminspowersouth.com


Marion Waters, P.E.ITS President

its News

DIAMOND SPONSORTemple

PLATINUM SPONSORSWorld FiberUtilicomURSPBS&JGS&PArcadisSercoDelcanSensys

GOLD SPONSORSControl TechnologiesAECOMTransdynKimley-HornIterisTraficonGarrettcom

SILVER SPONSORSSouthern Lighting & Traffic SystemsMultilinkMaxcell

DaktronicsCambridge SystematicsIntelligent DevicesMidascoGrice and AssociatesVideolarmGannett FlemingQuality TrafficCitilog

OUR SPONSORS Thanks to our sponsors, who provide valuable financial assistance to the organization:

Are we there yet? For those of you with children, you will rec-ognize this question, asked by children onevery trip since the beginning of time. Forour journey through life in the ‘Business ofEngineering,’ this question and one other hasrelevance. Where are we going? and Are wethere yet?

It has been said that for practitioners inIntelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) andTraffic Engineering the journey is endless be-cause our destination is the future. FormerDepartment of Transportation Commis-sioner Wayne Shackelford was famous for hissaying that if ITS was ever finished we wouldhave lost our vision for the future. Howeverthere are some milestones we can reach, andthis article is about two that are significantand which should be shared as good news inthe ‘Business of Engineering.’

The traffic signal is a device that we seeevery day but give little thought to. Never-theless it is arguably one of the most im-pactful devices in the nation’s transportationsystem. Collectively, traffic signals providecontrol over virtually every trip we make in

a surface transportation vehicle. Whenpoorly operated, traffic signals will most cer-tainly cause massive amounts of unneededdelay. At their very best operational level,they add order to congestion and reducesome types of crashes. Without question,traffic signals are part of the ITS family ofdevices since significant numbers of them arenow monitored and managed in real time.Just as they have the potential to cause delay,they can improve trip safety and minimizedelay if maintained and operated properly.

The great news is that in Georgia, the‘Business of Engineering’ as far as traffic sig-nals are concerned is alive and doing quitewell. In this time of dismal news reports andeconomic doldrums, news of success comesfrom the Office of Traffic.

With only a small amount of arm twist-ing to overcome their humble personalities,two outstanding program managers for theGeorgia Department of Transportation con-tributed to this article. Both are in responsi-ble charge of programs that are making aneconomic impact in Georgia. Jim Tolson isthe State Traffic Signal Engineer, and GrantWaldrop is the Regional Traffic Operations

Program Engineer. Both are registered pro-fessional engineers in Georgia. These guyswork together in the Office of Traffic Oper-ations, but are responsible for different pro-grams that complement each other.

The first success story began more thana decade ago. The Georgia Department ofTransportation is nearing the completion ofa traffic signal equipment management planthat is based on implementing a single con-troller hardware platform and a uniformstatewide operation program. Under the di-rection of Jim Tolson, this traffic signalmaintenance program is one of the most am-bitious and potentially significant traffic sig-nal efforts ever undertaken by a state in theUnited States. It is called the Advanced Traf-fic Controller or ATC Program. That pro-gram began in the late 1990s with ananticipated ten year program completion. Itwas an ambitious goal (some said impossi-ble) when it began, and indeed, it has takenlonger, but it is oh so close now.

The ATC Program goal is to upgradeevery traffic signal controller in Georgia.The new traffic signal controllers are of astandard type, computer controlled, operat-


ing on a statewide firmware platform, andsystem (interconnection) ready. I suspect thatthe majority of the readers of this article willnot have any idea of the magnitude of thisgoal. Let me help you understand.

Prior to the inception of this signal up-grade program, there was every imaginablebrand and model of traffic signal control sys-tems used in the state. Almost every juris-diction had several generations of low bidequipment deployed in the field. With 159counties and an even larger number of citiesin the state buying signals from private ven-dors, there were literally hundreds of modelsof signal controllers on the ground. Due toindustry standards (National Electrical Man-ufacturers Association, or NEMA), mostcontrollers had some degree of compatibilityand interchangeability, but not at the systemlevel (i.e., two or more signals that are phys-ically interconnected are considered to be asystem). At isolated signal locations on localstreets, it was not uncommon to find con-trollers that were 25 to 35 years old. Trafficsignal maintenance was a nightmare.

Can you imagine the effort and re-sources required to maintain and repairdozens of different types of equipment andstocking parts for hundreds of different mod-els? The Georgia DOT did a lot of researchabout this topic. It had begun its expandedsignal maintenance program beginning inlate 1984, and had struggled with the issue ofprocuring signals. Prior to 1984, all trafficsignals in Georgia, with only one or two ex-ceptions, were maintained by local jurisdic-tions. Beginning in 1985, GDOT addedtechnicians and equipment in each of theseven district offices to maintain traffic sig-nals on atate routes. The plan was forGDOT to take over the maintenance andoperation of those traffic signals in thoseareas of the state where there was an absenceof agencies dedicated to signal maintenanceand an absence of dedicated personnel forperforming traffic engineering and signaltiming tasks. The focus of the program wasin the more rural areas of the state where sig-nal maintenance was at its lowest levels.

Urban areas of the state with establishedtraffic engineering agencies and professionaltraffic engineers were provided financial as-sistance and equipment support through theGDOT program that came to be known asTSEF (which stood for Traffic Signal Elec-

trical Facility). An extensive signal equip-ment and materials warehouse was estab-lished to support both the GDOT programand local jurisdictions for emergencies andpriority installations.

By switching to a standard controllerand cabinet that functioned independentlyof proprietary firmware, the low bid processcould be maintained, while uniformity offunction was assured. Over the next tenyears, GDOT standardized the signal equip-ment types, investigated and eventually pur-chased a statewide standard signal software/firmware license to encourage every jurisdic-tion to join a Georgia coalition of users tosupport the standards. During this sametime, GDOT upgraded more than 1500 sig-nal controllers and assisted local governmentswith the upgrading of an additional 1400.Still, there were a lot of signals that were notinterconnected and that were functionallyobsolete.

Today, this program is mature and isnearly at its goal. Grant Waldrop, theGDOT Regional Traffic Operations Engi-neer was quoted recently, “Today, theGDOT Advanced Traffic Signal program isnearing completion. This state has achievedan unprecedented accomplishment by get-ting nearly all of the over 8,000 traffic sig-nals onto one common hardware/firmwareplatform.”

Grant is the program manager for thesecond of the two major traffic signal initia-tives. In 2010, GDOT initiated a cuttingedge regional arterial management program.Working with the GDOT Planning Office,the Atlanta Regional Commission, all of themetro Atlanta region counties, and the cityof Atlanta, the arterial corridors of regionalsignificance were identified and prioritizedusing criteria including the density of devel-opment, opportunities for multimodaltravel, and other regionally significant in-puts. Each of these corridors extend throughmultiple jurisdictions and serve diverse pop-ulation groups to connect centers of businessand residents throughout the Atlanta region.Twelve corridors have been included in theprogram thus far.

Each of these corridors is now under theday-to-day monitoring and management of ateam of consultants selected and managed byGrant and supported by Jim Tolson and theTSEF group. The early results have shown a

savings of over 155 person-years of delay andover 635,000 gallons of fuel.

Perhaps the most impressive of all the re-sults of this program is that all of the corri-dors are monitored every day both by thelocal jurisdictions through which they passand by the consultant team hired by GDOT.Automated monitoring is used where possi-ble, but there is a lot of regular ‘rubber meet-ing road’ type of labor. Time delay runsdocument the status of the timing and pro-vide the basis for continual adjustment andfine tuning to squeeze the most efficiencypossible from these corridors and the routesthat cross them. Because of changing condi-tions, this is a continual and on-going processthat will not ever be finished. The philoso-phy is the same as cooking. You have to do itevery meal and unless it is constantly moni-tored, the result will be less than desirable.

Ultimate responsibility for maintenanceand operations still remains with the local ju-risdictions, but with support from GDOTand the consultant team. It is cooperation atits highest level, and all of the parties in thesystem are to be commended.

It is time to acknowledge these twowonderfully successful programs.

Did I mention that no other state in theU.S. has accomplished programs like theseto the extent being done in Georgia? If thisisn’t intelligent transportation, I don’t knowwhat 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

www.jatconsulting.net/


The Georgia Engineers Week is a coopera-tive effort of the professional engineering or-ganizations in the state of Georgia, and iscoordinated through the Georgia Engineer-ing Alliance. This week is dedicated to theannual Engineers Week programs in the stateof Georgia and additional programs acrossthe nation. These programs are designed topromote the engineering disciplines to stu-dents, help expand public recognition of theengineering profession, and celebrate engi-neering accomplishments.

Call for Nominations for the 2012 Engineer of the Year AwardsGeorgia’s Engineer of the Year competitionrecognizes deserving and dedicated engineerswho have made valuable contributions totheir profession and who have impacted ourengineering community. The competition isopen to all professional engineers throughoutthe state of Georgia and to students enrolledin a Georgia ABET accredited engineering orengineering technology school.

There are multiple categories for the Engi-neer 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 downloada form to submit your Engineer of the YearNominees.

Call for the 2012 Engineering Excel-lence Entries Engineering Excellence is anannual design competition provided by theGeorgia Engineering Alliance and held in

conjunction with Engineers Week. Engi-neering Excellence recognizes engineeringachievements demonstrating the highest de-gree of merit and ingenuity. Entries are ratedon the basis of uniqueness and originality;future value to the engineering profession;social, economic, and sustainable develop-ment considerations; complexity; and suc-cessful fulfillment of client/owner’s needs,including schedule and budget. EngineeringExcellence offers all competition entrants avaluable opportunity to be recognized byshowcasing their talent, their experience, andtheir profession.

The following Engineering ExcellenceAwards will be presented on Saturday, Feb-ruary 25, 2012, at the Engineers WeekAwards Gala:Grand Prize Award5 State AwardsHonor Awards

The Engineering Excellence Awards Programis about much more than just winning! It isa marketing tool, promotion for the engi-neering profession, and recognition of yourclient, project team, and staff. Visit www.en-gineersweek.com to download the Engineer-ing Excellence Call for Entries form.

For information on Georgia EngineersWeek, please contact Carolyn Jones at theGeorgia Engineering Alliance at (404) 521-2324 or via e-mail at [email protected]. v

Celebrating the Engineering Profession2012 Georgia Engineers Week

February 19–25, 2012

www.sce-atlanta.com

www.brownandcaldwell.com

www.gbtengineers.com

www.southres.com


seAOGNews

Kurt Swensson, PE, SE PresidentThe Structural Engineers Association of Georgia

It has been a busy summer for the SEAOGBoard of Directors. In addition to planningfor fall membership meetings and a seminaron existing buildings, we have passed abudget for 2011-2012, made changes in ourboard membership, and worked with CRSIand AIA to support a golf tournament toraise money for architecture and engineeringscholarships.

From looking at our membership num-bers, you have been busy as well. As I writethis article in late August we have 100 newand renewing members. This response isahead of past years’ tallies and hopefullypoints to a sustained and active membershipeven in these tough economic times. Forthose who have joined, we thank-you foryour support and ask you to invite other en-gineers you know to join. Many have volun-teered to help with specific functions of theboard. We thank you for your interest andwill be contacting you to discuss how youcan help SEAOG serve our members moreeffectively. For those who have not yetjoined, please go to our Web site atwww.seaog.org and join so you can enjoydiscounts on our dinner meetings and sem-inars, NCSEA products and seminars, aswell as many other benefits.

By the time this article is printed,SEAOG will have had two membershipmeetings. In September, Dr. Roberto Leon,an award winning professor of structural en-gineering at the Georgia Institute of Tech-nology, will have presented his first handexperiences of the February 22, 2011Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquake.

October will be a busy month for us. Inour membership meeting, Jeff Speck fromBig River Industries will present information

concerning the internal curing of concrete.Internal concrete curing can be used to re-duce cracking and improve the performanceof high-performance concrete mixes. PDHday will be held at Georgia Tech on October16. As in years past, SEAOG is supportingthis event sponsored and organized by theGeorgia Engineering Alliance. Board mem-bers Rob Weilacher and John Hutton will berepresenting SEAOG at the NCSEA confer-ence in Oklahoma City October 20 thru 22.We anticipate a lively discussion concerningseparate or specialty licensing for structuralengineers as a new NCSEA policy statementon the issue will come up for a vote.

Also during October, in a new effort toraise the visibility of SEAOG in the con-struction industry, we are joining with theConcrete Reinforcing Steel Institute and theAmerican Institute of Architects to support agolf tournament to raise funds for engineer-ing and architecture scholarships. The AECCollegiate Cup will be held on October 13thin conjunction with the AIA Georgia StateConvention.

November will be a big month forSEAOG. On November 3rd, we will sponsora full day seminar discussing the issues facingstructural engineers when they are asked toevaluate, reinforce, alter or expand an exist-ing structure. An aging building inventorycombined with the need to conserve andreuse material in existing structures has sig-nificantly increased the percentage of reha-bilitation, evaluation, and expansion work ina structural engineer’s practice. So we believethis seminar will provide information thatthe practicing engineer can apply in theireveryday practice.

At our November membership meeting,

Don Allen, of the Steel Framing Alliance,will discuss the use of cold-formed steel inlow rise structures as well as new informa-tion on thermal transfer and sustainable as-pects of exterior wall systems using coldformed steel framing.

The board has begun planning forspring 2012 and seeks input from our mem-bers and other structural engineers in Geor-gia concerning topics for seminars ormembership meetings as well as speakers ofinterest. You can send any recommendationsor suggestions to us by going to the SEAOGWeb site ( www.seaog.org ) and clicking the“Contact Us” link.

Finally, we have had some changes tothe make-up of the Board of Directors. Inthe late spring, Vice President George Kellynotified the Board that he had accepted a po-sition with the Tennessee Valley Authorityand would be unable to complete his termon the board. This was truly bad news forthe board and SEAOG, we had enjoyed hisactive participation in the SEAOG and hisleadership in the SE Licensing Committee.He has been missed. In response to George’sresignation, and as specified by the SEAOGBy-Laws, a special election was held in Julyto provide another board member and to fillthe position of Vice-President. As a result ofthe special ballot, the Board is pleased to wel-come Eric Hagberg as a new and activemember of the SEAOG board of Directors.We are also happy that Robert Weilacher hasagreed to serve as Vice President during thesecond year of his tenure. We invite you tovisit our Web site to learn more about Eric,Robert, and all of your board members. v


The WTS Atlanta Chapter has been busyover the last several months planning excit-ing programs for its membership and is al-ways look for new ideas and fresh faces tojoin our organization. If you are not familiarwith WTS you should visit the WTS Inter-nataional Web site to learn more(www.wtsinternational.org) WTS wasformed over 30 years ago by 40 women inWashington DC. Today the organization hasgrown to over 4000 members with 42 chap-ters in three countries. The Atlanta Chapterwas formed in 1979 and currently has over100 members and is growing. Our mem-bership is diverse, including both privateand public sectors as well as engineers, plan-ners, environmentalists, and everything inbetween. We offer a variety of programs,both technical and social, luncheons andevenings to provide oppurtunities for ourmembers to get involved no matter how hec-tic their personal and work schedules may be.Please visit our Web site for informationabout becoming a member of WTS and tostay up to date on our programs and events.www.wtsinternational.org\atlanta

Upcoming EventsIt’s not too late to participate in the AnnualWTS Scholarship Luncheon and Silent Auc-tion. This year’s luncheon will be held onTuesday, October 18, 2009 at the Fox The-atre. Our featured keynote speaker will beTad Leithead, Chairman of the Atlanta Re-gional Commission. Please come early tobid on some of the great silent auction itemsand help raise money for the Atlanta Chap-ter’s two scholarships, the Sharon D. BanksMemorial Undergraduate Scholarship andthe Helene M. Overly Memorial GraduateScholarship.

In addition to our Annual ScholarshipLuncheon, we will be hosting the following

events. Please visit our Web site (www.wtsin-ternational.org\atlanta) for additional infor-mation:

Braves GamePlease join us to root on the home team onTuesday, September 27th against the Phillies.

Technical TourWTS Atlanta members and corporate spon-sors will be invited to tour Hartsfield Jack-son International Airport’s new InternationalTerminal on November 17

Holiday Party in DecemberOur annual holiday happy hour will be heldin December, please stay tuned for more de-tails.

WTS Takes on Social MediaIn keeping up with today’s ever-evolvingcommunication methods, WTS Atlanta hasmade it a mission to explore social media andall it has to offer. In August, our chapter helda joint event with our Georgia Tech Chapteron the use of social media in transportation.A panel of experts on the subject presentedon the opportunities and issues with usingsocial media to promote transit, to keep thepublic informed, and other efficient uses re-lated to transportation.

To enhance our presence and facilitatemore efficient communication with ourmembers and potential members, WTS hasnow joined the world of social media. Pleasecheck our WTS Atlanta Facebook page andstay tuned for more information on our up-coming Twitter account. v

WtsNews

Jennifer King, PE, PresidentWomen in Transportation Seminar

President Jennifer King, [email protected] HNTB

Vice President-Programs Laurie Reed, [email protected] HNTB

Vice President-Membership Tonya [email protected] MARTA

Secretary Angela Snyder, [email protected] and Assoc

Treasurer Marissa Martin, [email protected] Smith Partners

Director at Large Beth Ann Schwartz, [email protected] The LPA Group

Director at Large Heather Alhadeff, [email protected] + Will

Director at Large Jennifer Harper, [email protected] Corporation

Director at Large Helen McSwain, [email protected] PBS&J

Immediate Past PresidentEmily Swearingen, PE URS [email protected]

Platinum LevelGold LevelCubicEdwards-Pittman Environmental

HNTBJAT ConsultingThompson

Engineering

Silver LevelCroyPSIURS

Bronze LevelAtkins CH2MHillKimley Horn KYS CommunicationMcGee PartnersReynolds, Smith & Hill

Southeastern Engineering Inc. (SEI)

StantecSTV/RalphWhitehead Associates

Wolverton & Associates

Thanks to our 2011 Corporate Sponsors:

For up to date information about upcomingWTS Programs please visit the WTS Atlanta

Chapter Web site atwww.wtsinternational.org\atlanta or contact

Jennifer King at [email protected]. Look forwardto seeing you at our next program!

www.siltsaver.com

www.haywardbaker.com

Documents

The Georgia Engineer October