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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".