What got us here won't get us there: Building Alignment around a (One) Water Resiliency Strategy to Prioritize, Fund, and Communicate Capital Project Needs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
What got us here won't get us there: Building Alignment around a (One) Water Resiliency Strategy to Prioritize, Fund, and Communicate Capital Project NeedsAbstractThe rapidly growing City of Vancouver, Washington, serves more than 200,000 wastewater, drinking water and stormwater customers. Until recently, utility finance staff used a six-year project planning horizon, financing projects with a 'pay as you go' model. In the face of new challenges such as aging infrastructure, changes in regulations, new PFAS concentration data, wastewater solids handling needs, and surface water quality protection needs, the old project planning and funding model no longer held up. Public works developed a new 30-year project planning and financing vision but needed to build understanding and alignment with City leadership and Council to change course. High-level support was needed for significant investments to improve and maintain service, update infrastructure to achieve economic, climate, safety, and seismic resiliency goals, and safeguard community health and livability. The City worked with Brown and Caldwell (BC) to develop a coordinated internal approach that applied outreach and strategic planning best practices. With input from a cross-functional team including finance, communications, utility department leaders, and City leadership, BC developed a Water Resiliency Strategy and Framework that aligned the City's three utilities around shared goals and needs. The Water Resiliency Strategy and Framework has guided Public Works' updated Capital Improvement Program (CIP), community engagement planning, and Council communications, and has informed the City's strategic planning processes. The Framework has bolstered Council and broader support for long-term infrastructure investments and led to clear financing strategies and rate stabilization recommendations. The City also created a framework of four Financial Levers to guide a series of Council workshops on financing strategy. These levers included bonding, SDC changes, rate multipliers for customers outside City boundaries , and utility tax rates. Through these focused discussions, Council made critical and time sensitive rate model decisions. Through this progressive series of workshops over eight months, Council adopted policies to adjust system development charges, modestly increase utility rates, and adjust rates for customers outside of City boundaries. These changes set the City in a better position to meet the demands and achieve results needed. The presentation will provide an overview of: -Internal multi-department alignment tactics -Internal communications approach that supported Council decision-making -External communications approach that builds upon the Water Resiliency Framework and will build community trust Benefits of the work include: Bring value and visibility to utility services Improve internal alignment Build community trust Support decision-making by elected officials Make needed investments affordable for ratepayersThis paper was presented at the WEF/AWWA Utility Management Conference, February 13-16, 2024.SpeakerTichenor, HollyPresentation time16:30:0017:00:00Session time15:30:0017:00:00SessionUtility Financing - A Multi-Faceted and Long Term EffortSession number27Session locationOregon Convention Center, Portland, OregonTopicStrategic Planning and ImplementationTopicStrategic Planning and ImplementationAuthor(s)Tichenor, HollyAuthor(s)H. Tichenor1, F. Dick2, R. Garrett1Author affiliation(s)Brown and Caldwell 1; City of Vancouver Public Works 2;SourceProceedings of the Water Environment FederationDocument typeConference PaperPublisherWater Environment FederationPrint publication date Feb 2024DOI10.2175/193864718825159309Volume / Issue Content sourceUtility Management ConferenceWord count25
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».