Newsletter | San Diego Section

Legislative Update

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

By Richard Markuson

Region 9 Legislative Advocate

May saw the return of committee hearings in the State Capitol – but in an entirely new format. Eschewing the usual setting in multiple hearing rooms, the Legislature met exclusively in 4202 and 4203 and on the floor of the two houses. While some in-person witnesses were accommodated – most testifying occurred via telephone.

Assemblyman Jim Frazier, chair of Assembly Transportation Committee, responded to the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2020 Business Plan — “Once again, it seems the High-Speed Rail Authority has released in the 2020 Draft Business Plan a proposal for its future that it can’t afford and that won’t deliver what is promised. Every version of the Business Plan has increased costs and reduced scope and no longer resembles the vision promised in the 2008 ballot measure. Despite efforts by myself and some of my colleagues, the Authority continues to propose electrifying a segment of a train line in the Central Valley that will add billions of dollars to the project and provide little or no benefit. I believe there is a way to rescue this project from failure, but I think it requires honest evaluation and true cost-benefit analysis, neither of which the Authority has ever been able to provide. Every iteration of the business plan comes with new promises without results. It is going to take a lot of explanation for me to believe that, this time, the Authority’s cost and ridership estimates are legitimate and this is something the state should continue to invest in.”

Legislation update

AB 2038 (Committee on Transportation) Transportation: omnibus bill. Transportation omnibus bill. This bill makes several non-substantive, non-controversial changes to provisions of law related to transportation. Specifically, this bill: 1) Makes conforming changes in language related to parking offenses; 2) Removes a reference to an obsolete code section and replaces it with a relevant reference; 3) Deletes an obsolete reporting requirement; 4) Repeals provisions related to a two-year pilot program. Approved by Assembly Transportation. (Y:15 N:0 A:0)

AB 2285 (Committee on Transportation) Transportation. Makes various non-controversial changes to transportation-related statutes. Specifically, this bill: 1) Extends the requirement for a person driving a vehicle to slow down and move over for certain stationary vehicles displaying flashing amber or emergency lights on the freeway to also apply on local streets and roads; 2) Extends the pilot program for alternative license plates and vehicle registrations issued by the DMV until January 1, 2023; 3) Continuously appropriates interest earnings derived from revenues deposited in the RMRA to Caltrans for maintenance of the state highway system or purposes of the SHOPP; 4)Extends by one year, until January 1, 2022, the requirement that CARB dedicates 20% of California Clean Truck, Bus, and Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Technology Program (Clean Truck Program) to support early commercial deployment of existing zero- and near-zero-emission heavy-duty trucks. Approved by Assembly Transportation. (Y:15 N:0 A:0) (P)

AB 2560 (Quirk D) Water quality: notification and response levels: procedures. Requires the State Water Resources Control Board to post on its internet website and distribute through e-mail that it has initiated the development of a Notification Level (NL) or Response Level (RL) for a contaminant and the draft NL or RL along with supporting documentation. Approved by Assembly E.S. & T.M. (Y:9 N:0 A:0)

AB 2800 (Quirk D) Climate change: infrastructure planning. Existing law requires the Natural Resources Agency to update its climate adaptation strategy, known as the Safeguarding California Plan by July 1, 2017, and every three years after that, by coordinating adaptation activities among lead state agencies in each sector. This bill eliminates the sunset on the Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working Group. Approved by Assembly Natural Resources Committee (Y:8 N:3 A:0) ASCE position: Support

AB 3213 (Rivas, Luz D) High-Speed Rail Authority: high-speed rail service: priorities. This bill would require the High-Speed Rail Authority, in directing the development and implementation of intercity high-speed rail service, to prioritize projects based on specified criteria. Approved by Assembly Transportation Committee (Y:15 N:0 A:0)

AB 3256 (Garcia, Eduardo D) Economic Recovery, Wildfire Prevention, Safe Drinking Water, Drought Preparation, and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2020. Proposes the Wildfire Prevention, Safe Drinking Water, Climate Resilience, Drought Preparation and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2020 (Bond), subject to voter approval in the November 3, 2020, statewide general election. This bill proposes the issuance of $6.98 billion in general obligation bonds to implement its provisions. Approved by Assembly Natural Resources Committee (Y:7 N:1 A:3)

AB 3278 (Patterson R) High-Speed Rail Authority: passenger train service. Clarifies that the prohibition contained in Proposition 1A of 2008 on operating subsidies for passenger train service applies to high-speed train service using the high-speed train system owned by the CHSRA, regardless of whether the service is provided directly by HSRA or provided by a third party under a lease agreement with HSRA. Approved by Assembly Transportation Committee (Y:12 N:1 A:2)

SB 795 (Beall D) Economic development: housing: workforce development: climate change infrastructure. This bill allocates $10 billion over five years to several existing housing, homelessness, and pre-apprenticeship programs, as well as creating two new infrastructure financing programs at the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (Go-Biz) Approved by Senate Housing Committee (Y:8 N:2 A:1)

SB 974 (Hurtado D) California Environmental Quality Act: small disadvantaged community water system: exemption. Exempts from CEQA projects that primarily benefit a small disadvantaged community water system by improving the water system’s water quality, water supply, or water supply reliability; by encouraging water conservation; or by providing drinking water service to existing residences within a disadvantaged community where there is evidence of contaminated or depleted drinking water wells. Approved by Senate EQ Committee (Y:6 N:0 A:1)

SB 1238 (Hueso D) Department of Transportation: highways and roads: recycled plastics study and specifications. This bill requires Caltrans to conduct a study to assess the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and life-cycle environmental benefits of including recycled plastics in asphalt used as paving materials, and, depending on the findings, authorizes Caltrans to develop specifications for the use of recycled plastics in asphalt. Approved by Senate Transportation Committee (Y:12 N:0 A:2)

New Reports of Interest

Caltrans released a report on the Business Logo Sign Program, that evaluates the program, which was established in 1978 to allow businesses to place their logos on freeway signs in rural areas, “defined as populations of less than 5000.” Once the population surpasses 10,000, Caltrans replaces business logos with generic signs unless the logos were placed before January 1, 2003, or were placed through legislation. The report finds there are 38 areas in the state with populations over 10,000 where logos for 236 businesses are on freeway signs and two of those areas, one along Hwy. 65 in Lincoln and the other along Hwy. 80 in Truckee, were established by legislative exemption. The report recommends allowing the areas established through legislation to sunset on January 21, 2021, and to not expand the program to other areas.

The Legislative Analyst released “The 2020-21 Budget: California’s Spring Fiscal Outlook,” that presents “two potential scenarios – a somewhat optimistic ‘U-shaped’ recession and a somewhat pessimistic ‘L-shaped’ recession – and assumes a baseline level of expenditures.” The report finds there would be an $18.1 billion deficit under U-shaped recession and a $31.4 billion deficit under L-shaped recession; either way, “budget deficits persist until at least 2023-24 with multiyear deficits summing to $64 billion in the U-shaped recession and $126 billion in the L-shaped recession.”

The DWR released its’ final Agreement in Principle for the State Water Project Contract Amendment for the Delta tunnel. It sets forth terms of an agreement between state water project public water agencies and DWR for amending supply contracts to pay for construction and maintenance of tunnel; topics include how public water agencies may opt-out of costs and benefits and how an agency may assume additional costs and benefits.

The California Energy Commission released “Energy Insights” to show “changes in supply and demand since March.” The findings include: “1) Average weekday demand for electricity in California declined by more than 4 percent in late March and 9 percent in April compared to the same time last year. 2) Residential energy use by customers in the three investor-owned utilities increased by 8.9 to 12.4 percent for 2020 year-to-date compared to the same period last year, but this was offset by substantial reductions in commercial and industrial demand. 3) Natural gas demand during April 2020 was up about 6 percent, compared to April 2019. 4) In the Pacific Gas & Electricity service territory, natural gas demand for electricity generation was up about 12 percent for April 2020 compared to April 2019. 5) Gasoline production declined 47.5 percent; jet fuel production dropped 68.3 percent; and diesel production decreased 33.2 percent.”

Pacific Research Institute released a study titled “Legislating Energy Prosperity.” It finds “California implements 218 different energy efficiency regulations, incentives, and tax programs that reduce job and income growth across the state,” also finds CO2 emissions “peaked in 2007” and have since “fallen over 14 percent nationally but only by 9 percent in California;” recommends changing California’s approach to “unlock potential economic opportunities that include more affordable gasoline, more affordable electricity, badly-needed new job opportunities, and higher family incomes while still achieving the same goal of lowering GHG emissions.”

Appointments of Interest

By Governor:

As deputy director of the State Water Project at the California Department of Water Resources: Ted Craddock, El Dorado Hills, acting deputy director since 2019.

The Committee on Preparing the Future Civil Engineer and the Engineer Tomorrow Initiative

By Kenneth H. Rosenfield, P.E., F.ASCE

Vice-Chair, ASCE Region 9 Board of Board of Governors

Region 9 Director-Elect, ASCE Board of Direction

Member, ASCE Committee on Preparing the Future Civil Engineer

There is an awareness among many that the knowledge base civil engineers must now acquire to keep up with the world’s complexity and increasing regulatory and standards growth cannot be accomplished in a four-year baccalaureate degree. While mentored experience and on the job training is a significant contributor to enhancing knowledge, postgraduate education is typically required in order to meet several of the recommended outcomes in the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge, third edition (CEBOK3). This advanced level of education may be obtained through a master’s degree program or through alternative learning options. In either case, we, as a profession, must recognize that the future of the profession will require more education.

The ASCE Board of Direction (BOD) has approved the following definition of this issue:

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), as the acknowledged leader of the civil engineering profession, has a responsibility to establish and advance standards to fulfill its mission to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. This responsibility includes the establishment of a body of knowledge (BOK) to describe the minimum knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for the future professional practice of civil engineering. ASCE has determined there is a gap between the CEBOK and the current educational and experiential requirements for professional licensure in civil engineering. Additional education and relevant experience is required for the future civil engineer. Otherwise, civil engineering is at risk of losing relevance and its place as a learned profession.

To address the issues identified in this statement, the BOD designated a new committee, the “Committee on Preparing the Future Civil Engineer” (CPFCE). Encompassing the former Raise the Bar committee and its associated initiative, the new charge statement is the Committee “shall advance the Society’s educational qualifications and professional standards for the practice of civil engineering.” This Committee's function is fully aligned with ASCE Goal No. 4 which states, “ASCE advances the educational and professional standards for civil engineers.” The BOD has refreshed the efforts on the importance of all civil engineers striving to meet the outcomes of the CEBOK3
(see https://www.asce.org/Civil_Engineering_Body_of_Knowledge/) and to identify new pathways for future civil engineers to be recognized for the attainment of those outcomes. Among the specific tasks assigned to the CPFCE were updating Policy Statement 465 (see https://www.asce.org/issues-and-advocacy/public-policy/policy-statement-465---the-civil-engineering-body-of-knowledge-and-the-practice-of-civil-engineering/), developing a new brand and creating a communications plan to inform the membership of this new direction. It is an exciting time of new energy being invested into this important effort, recently branded as “Engineer Tomorrow.”

The Engineer Tomorrow initiative has an emphasis on early outreach to all student and younger members and, as well, to inform all membership levels. CPFCE members are available to speak with your group and to share the goals and benefits of the Engineer Tomorrow initiative.

Informed by the services of a marketing consultant, the CPFCE communications team finalized a formal communications plan in late 2019 to build awareness around the evolving initiative.

Within this plan, The CPFCE has identified the following objectives as essential to fulfilling its purpose:

• Increase awareness of the need for post‐graduate education and mentored experience for CEs to fulfill the necessary body of knowledge

• Increase the percentage of CEs enrolling in post‐graduate educational programs

• Underscore the positive impact of higher educational standards on the profession as a whole

• Empower individuals to take responsibility for the future of the CE profession

• Highlight the opportunities and successes of ASCE members with advanced education

• Prompt members with advanced degrees to mentor and encourage others to gain additional skills, knowledge, and education

A task committee of CPFCE has also completed a robust evaluation of if and how professional certification could be used to acknowledge attainment of the CEBOK3. In 2019, the task committee presented an interim report to the BOD which included research on certification processes and programs offered in other fields and how aspects of these systems may be applied to credentialing within the civil engineering profession. The committee also reviewed the available certifications relevant to civil engineering practice, including those offered by ASCE via Civil Engineering Certification, Inc. (CEC) and by other organizations. Data gathered confirmed that no single existing certification is universally recognized as the qualifier of the appropriate knowledge, skills, and attitudes for the practice of civil engineering, including its specialty areas, at the professional level, and meeting the outcomes of the CEBOK3. The task committee has concluded that this may present an opportunity for ASCE to develop such a system, informed by the success primarily evidenced in the medical profession’s model. More recently, the task committee worked with a market research consultant to gather data from various stakeholders within the engineering industry related to the desirability, feasibility, and viability of a certification program. The results of this research are currently being evaluated and will be presented to the BOD before any decision is made on creating a certification program.

For more information on the Engineer Tomorrow initiative and to schedule a presentation to your group, please contact ASCE’s Manager of Professional Advancement, Jennifer Hofmann at JHofmann@asce.org, or you may contact me, Kenneth Rosenfield, Region 9 Director-Elect, at krosenfield@lagunahillsca.gov.

ASCE’s Battle of the California Sections

By Chuck Spinks, P.E., M. ASCE,

Chair, Region 9 History & Heritage Committee

And Dan Cronquist, P.E., M. ASCE,

President, Los Angeles Section

Did you ever wonder why Fresno is part of the San Francisco Section and not the Sacramento Section? The story starts on October 5, 1937, when the ASCE Board of Direction adopted new by-laws that stated all of North America was to be divided into Sections. The By-laws stated in Article VII:

“All existing Sections shall re-define the boundaries of their areas of influence with due attention to covering all the natural or state areas so that all members within these areas may come within suitable zones of influence…”

California had four sections in the principal cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sacramento. The sticky question became, what was the “zone of influence” for each city? A “battle” ensued between the Sacramento and San Francisco Sections over who had the zone of influence over and controlled the San Joaquin Valley.

The battle opened with letters on October 11, 1937 from George Seabury, representing the ASCE Board of Direction, to each of the four Section Presidents in California. The first shot was fired by the Sacramento Section, which opposed the recommendation that the new Sacramento Section boundaries be “All of California north of the south lines of Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Sacramento, Amador and Alpine Counties.” All of San Joaquin Valley was to go to the San Francisco Section. Sacramento claimed that their area of influence included the San Joaquin Valley, and that San Francisco Section should take all of the North Coast counties.

Thomas Stanton, District 13 Director, recommended that the Los Angeles Section boundary be Latitude 36 with the addition of Inyo and Mono Counties and southern Nevada with the small town of Las Vegas (about 7,000 people). Los Angeles Section accepted those boundaries.

That left the two northern California Sections to work it out. The issue centered not just on the areas of influence of each section, but also the number of members to be gained with the new boundaries. San Francisco Section claimed that the Sacramento Section was going to get a huge influx of new members because, quoted from a letter:

1. When the Bay Bridge work is completed, quite a group of Engineers will undoubtedly return to Sacramento.

2. The trend is to concentrate all state offices in Sacramento.

3. The headquarters of the Central Valley Project will be in Sacramento.

4. If the PG&E Feather River Project goes ahead it will place many engineers on this job.

Thomas Waddell, the Sacramento Section President, responded with Sacramento’s own arguments. First, they noted that if the San Joaquin Valley was added to the San Francisco Section, they would have 710 members, compared to Sacramento Section’s 233 members. Sacramento also noted that “all points in the San Joaquin Valley counties in question are closer to Sacramento than they are to San Francisco.” Also, the employees working on the Central Valley Project in the San Joaquin Valley will be tied closer to Sacramento, the project’s headquarters. Finally, Waddell said that civil engineers in San Joaquin Valley would “derive as much or more from this Section as they would from San Francisco Section,” because Sacramento Section holds weekly meetings, about 50 each year, while San Francisco Section holds only quarterly meetings.

In the end, the two Sections could not come to an agreement. Thomas Stanton, the District 13 Director, wrote a letter dated November 19, 1937 to ASCE Headquarters suggesting the approval of the San Diego and Los Angeles Section boundaries, but added:

“The balance of California to be divided between San Francisco and Sacramento Sections along lines to be decided upon after thorough discussion before the Board of Directors at its January meeting.”

Looking at today’s Section boundaries, the Board apparently decided to split the difference, and give about half of San Joaquin Valley to Sacramento and half to San Francisco. And that’s why today the Fresno Branch is part of the San Francisco Section. Figure 1 depicts the disputed areas in 1937 and Figure 2 depicts the current Section boundaries in California.

Disaster Preparedness Update

by Doug Taylor, P.E., M.ASCE

Chair, ASCE Region 9 Disaster Preparedness Committee

What do COVID-19 and Earthquakes Have in Common?

You can hardly watch an hour of television these days without some mention of the heroes (doctors, nurses… even grocery store workers!) who are working to help us all despite risking their health and even their lives. Well guess what… someday California is going to have another big earthquake and YOU are going to be the hero of the day. That is IF you get trained and certified as a Safety Assessment Program (SAP) Evaluator. Hundreds of licensed civil engineers will be needed to rapidly assess homes and commercial buildings so people and businesses can get back to normal life (sound familiar?). If you think “stay at home” orders make life difficult, imagine the hardship when families can’t go back into their homes and have to live in FEMA shelters until their home is inspected (rapidly assessed)!

It’s SO easy to get trained and certified… once the COVID-19 orders to stay home are lifted, that is. Right now, there are no training sessions due to the “stay at home” orders.

But wait! Cal OES just approved online training so you can participate in a webinar to get certified. SAP Trainers can now set up these webinars and give them in one, 6-hour session, or two, 3-hour sessions or… you get the idea. Following the webinar training, Cal OES will send an exam to participants. Once they have completed the exam, they will scan and email the exam back to Cal OES who will grade and process the certificates. The exam is open book so the odds of passing are pretty good (but you have to pass with a 70% score or better, and no re-takes allowed).

Now I’m going to make this really easy for you. I’m setting up a webinar for Saturday, June 20th from 9 am to 3:30 pm (a half hour for lunch) and you can be one of the 30 people to register. Best of all… IT’S FREE. And you get to take it from the comfort of wherever. Just email me at dtaylor@outbackmaterials.com and give me your full name and cell phone number. I’m only registering licensed PEs for this session (no EITs for now).

I hope you’ll take advantage of this opportunity. Then you’ll be ready to help when people who don’t have your skills will need you desperately.

Region 9 Water Committee Hot Topics –

Water and Wastewater in the Time of Covid-19

By Xavier Irias, P.E., M. ASCE

Chair, ASCE Region 9 Water and Environment Committee

It’s simply not possible to write this year’s Water article without talking about the coronavirus pandemic which continues to impact us. February seems a distant memory: a time when we all commuted to work, when grocery stores were fully stocked, when the news was about something besides a virus and its impacts on society, when we weren’t all wearing masks.

While relatively few of us have been sickened by the virus, many of us know somebody’s who’s been sick and a few of us have lost a loved one to the virus. All of us have been greatly affected in our personal and professional lives by the many changes brought about by the shelter-in-place mandates.

These difficult times have a way of reminding people which things are really important; Health care, Food and Water. In fact, while water is essential in its own right, it’s also essential to the function of all 15 of the other “critical sectors”. Without water, you can’t produce food, power, or fuel. And you can’t run a hospital. Note that when we say water, we mean wastewater too; what good is a truckload of toilet paper unless there’s a way to flush?

In accordance with their essential nature, water and wastewater utilities throughout the State have remained open during the pandemic even though many other activities have been shut down to control the virus’ spread. While some water sector workers can telecommute to a degree, the basic work of running treatment plants and repairing pipes requires a physical presence. Those front-line workers in the water and wastewater sectors are fulfilling a role every bit as important as that of medical workers, i.e., keeping the basic underpinnings of modern society intact. For some water sector workers, this means coming to work more or less as usual; for others, it requires juggling home-school duties or elder care; and for still others, it’s a more drastic change in lifestyle. For example, the operators of the San Diego County Carlsbad desalination plant are living in rented RV’s at the plant, seeing their families only by web chat; this isolation ensures that the plant can stay running and keep water flowing to customers.

So far, the complex engine that is our economy continues to run, albeit with a sputter. And thus, with the exception of a brief hiccup in carbon dioxide availability, the basic staples needed to keep water flowing have continued: fuel, treatment chemicals, electrical power, financial services. However, as the pandemic continues, there is growing concern about the economic impact of the pandemic. In a recent AWWA survey, most water utilities reported either experiencing a financial pinch or expecting to do so as a result of the pandemic. These survey results came as no surprise, given the hardships being endured by individuals and businesses that will continue to ripple through the economy. In California, water (and power) utilities have generally announced that they are suspending disconnections for failure to pay; while this is an appropriate step, it will not be without impact.

Even before the pandemic, affordability of water and wastewater service was a top-tier issue facing the industry, as rate pressure caused by aging infrastructure, combined with other economic pressures such as the high cost of housing, posed a huge challenge to industry professionals tasked with somehow providing safe, reliable service while controlling rate increases. The pandemic will exacerbate that affordability challenge, as it places greater pressure on individuals who were already struggling, which in turn places pressure on water and wastewater utilities. One doesn’t have to be Nostradamus to foresee that utilities might face some pushback if they seek even “normal” rate increases in the next several months. That’s even if the State “reopens” in the very near future, i.e., eases the many restrictions put in place since March.

As I write this column, there are indeed high hopes for a rapid reopening of the State. Opinions vary as to exactly how this ought to be done, and how quickly, reflecting the basic fact that rebooting an economy is a tricky thing, and trickier still with a virus still at large. The stakes – our lives and livelihoods – couldn’t be higher. Historical analogues are always an imperfect match, but they certainly suggest that challenges lie ahead. Fortunately, on one hand, Covid-19 has a far lower case mortality rate than that of the bubonic plagues – those plagues not only shut down, but utterly transformed, medieval European society. On the other hand, our highly interconnected modern society has a fragility that a medieval community didn’t have. The speed of economic recovery will not be all about government action or lack thereof, regardless of how quickly the government moves, it may be some time before we see full restaurants, ballgames, concert halls, etc., and even when we do, we need to remember that Mother Nature bats last and may upend our recovery plans.

Fitting Covid-19 into the appropriate historical context will take some time; if it’s typical of most major events, the lessons observed from the same basic set of facts will vary greatly among observers, as each person’s unique circumstances, expertise, and perspectives color their interpretation of events. For some water/wastewater utilities and consultants, the pandemic may confirm the validity of lessons already learned well. Those organizations and individuals that had taken to heart the many pandemic wake-up calls of the past twenty years, and made appropriate investments in telecommuting capability, respirator stockpiles, and continuity planning have seen those strategies resoundingly vindicated. Some organizations, even if caught flat-footed by Covid-19, will learn the value of preparedness and will face future crises on surer footing. But there will no doubt be others that learn the wrong lessons, whether it’s a blame transferal (“other people should have planned better”), a false sense of invincibility (“we got through this, we can get through anything”), or an overly narrow learning (“let’s refocus our emergency plans on pandemics and de-emphasize other hazards”).

Even as we’re still trying to interpret the lessons of Covid-19, many of us in the water industry have been, or will be involved, in compliance with America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA). AWIA requires drinking water utilities to update their vulnerability assessments by specific due dates, and then within six months update their emergency response plans. Large utilities have already updated their vulnerability assessments (due date was March 31), while mid-size utilities have until December 31, and small utilities have until June 30, 2021. This means that utilities of all sizes are at some stage of assessing their vulnerabilities and-or updating their emergency plans.

No doubt the lessons of Covid-19 will inform the ongoing AWIA work; the challenge will be learning the right lessons. As we assess a utility’s readiness and response to Covid-19, at most utilities we will see some hits and some misses. The most disciplined among us will be able to perceive gaps in our readiness and outline remedial measures that not only improve our resilience for future pandemics, but for other hazards as well. Those other hazards – the ones that, but for Covid-19, might have been a feature in this article – are still important to us as water professionals. Hazards like earthquakes, climate change, power outages, wildfires. Economic shock; oh, that one’s included with Covid-19, never mind.

Here’s looking forward to next year’s article when we get to return to talking about hazards other than Covid-19, along hopefully with progress on advancing infrastructure funding, and continuing discourse on water and environment policy.

If you wish to learn more about the Region 9 Water & Environment Committee please contact me at XIrias@woodardcurran.com .