HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.19 SMART ReportCITY CLERK
FILE # 0150-10
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 20, 2000
SUBJECT:
Informational report regarding the 2000 SMART
Communities Progress Report
Report Prepared by: Steve Pappa, Information
Systems Manager
ATTACHMENTS: 1998 SMART Communities Progress Report
RECOMMENDATION: ~1. Receive Report
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION:
The City of Dublin received a letter of thanks from the Bay Area Council~ dated April 21,
2000 for completing the 1998 Smart Communities Progress Report last year. The
accompanying report did not accurately reflect the state of technology currently at the
City of Dublin. The report ranked Dublin near the bottom of the 45 local jurisdictions
polled with a score of 1 out of a possible 12.
After reviewing the 1998 report the Information Systems Manager updated Dublin's
information for the year 2000. Currently Dublin scores 10 out of a possible 12 points and
is characterized as "a model in Smart technology."
Dublin's technology has developed over the last few years enabling the City to improve
its score. The current self-assessment score however shows room for improvement -
Dublin is not yet perfect and has not attained the "Smarter Community" label.
The two areas where Dublin did not score a point in the survey are:
~ Founded in 1945, the Bay Area Council is a business-sponsored organization that acts on public policy
issues affecting the economy and quality of life in the Bay Area. The Council's Executive Committee is
currently comprised of 20 chief executives from private industry, 2 from public utilities, and 1 from the
Federal Reserve Bank. The Council also co-sponsors the Bay Area Economic Forum.
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO.
Dublin is not involved with the Bay Area Telecommunications Infrastructure
Parmership (TIP) or a similar local broad-based collaborative group focused
on telecommunications policy
· The City of Dublin does not have an approved policy promoting
telecommuting
Currently efforts are underway to find out more about the Bay Area Telecommunication
Infrastructure Partnership and other such organizations to determine if Dublin's
participation would be beneficial. An inquiry was made to the Bay Area Council about
TIP participation and at this time the group is not active.
To summarize how Dublin's year 2000 survey result of 10 points was derived, one point
was received for each of the following bulleted groups:
Established a committee/process to develop a.n information technology plan.
Created a mechanism to create, track and update a technology plan.
Identified a manager for the information technology strategy or process who reports
to the CAO/City Manager/Superintendent.
· Dublin has an information technology plan.
The planning process includes representatives from consultants (technology planners,
etc.), economic development planners, local government administrators, MIS
managers/CAO managers, and non-management employees.
Dublin's information technology plan includes goals and/or applications related to
civic involvement, commerce, economic and community development, sustainability,
and other (customer service, interagency cooperation).
· Dublin has conducted a technology inventory to determine its technical capabilities
(bandwidth, penetration, and access).
Dublin establishes goals and objectives from which technology related Capital
Improvement Projects are created. Many of these are priority projects for the
community and Dublin's Capital Improvement Projects are funded.
The following transactions and services are available to residents of Dublin using the
Internet: Crime prevention-statistical information and reporting, information and
reservations about public facilities or classes, and other (City Council meeting
agendas and minutes, requests for proposals, contact information and feedback).
· Dublin has a website with information about itself and the services it provides.
· Dublin accepts e-mail as a way of communicating or receiving feedback.
Dublin implemented an information technology application which has led to a
specific instance of increased productivity and/or efficiency (document imaging and
electronic storage, automated building permits system).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report.
BAY AREA COUNCIL
1998 SMART COMMUNITIES PROGRESS REPORT
Summary of Self-Assessment Scores from All Reporting Jurisdictions
Counties and cities generated their own self-assessment scores through answering questions on the
Smart Communities Progress Report. The questionnaire is a tool to help guide local jurisdictions in the
process of becoming a Smart Community that deploys advanced telecommunications and information
technology to better serve the public.
SMART COMMUNITIES SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY
Elements crucial for success:
Leadership
Planning/Project management
Follow-through
Community and government support
Assessment of current strengths and weaknesses
Connecting the community: thinking big-picture and long-term
integration (of technology, ideas, goals, etc.)
Training/Education
Brief Summary of Results:
Planning:
· Only 38% of respondents currently have an information technology plan. A comprehensive, long-term
plan is crucial to the evolution of a smart community.
Community awareness and support:
· Only 20% of respondents included representatives from at least five of the groups listed under the
policy and planning section (e.g. businesses, citizens and parents groups, consultants/technology
planners, local government administrators, etc.) Less than a third of the technology plans (30%)
included goals and applications related to at least five areas within their communities. (This list
included civic involvement, commerce, cultural programs, economic and community development,
education, environmental health, health, libraries, public access to the internet, sustainability and
public safety.)
More than half (63%) of the surveyed organizations are not involved with the Bay Area
Telecommunications Infrastructure Partnership (TIP) or similar telecommunications organization. A
total of 70% of respondents either do not have an approved policy promoting telecommuting (68%) or
are currently unaware if one exists (2%).
Needs and capabilities assessment:
· A mere 23% of the communities surveyed have taken the necessary steps to determine its technical
capabilities. 13% are unaware if any such steps have been taken. Implementing a 24 hour city hall,
GIS systems, secure transactions, improved library services, providing better crime data and
upgrading infrastructure were all sighted as public policy issue and/or program priorities.
Current use of technology:
· The majodty of the respondents appear to be net savvy. 93% indicated that their organizations have
websites and 98% use email as a means of communication. 68% said that the implementation of an
information technology application has lead to a specific instance of increased productivity and/or efficiency.
BAY AREAVCOUNCIL ges Smart Communities Progress Report
Summary of Self-Assessment Scores from All Reporting Jurisdictions
I Key
i ! = 1-3 "Good Start" III = 8-11
~ II= 4-7 "Well On YourWay" IV = 12-13
"Role Model Community"
"Smart Community"
By Alphabetical Listing
., County Self-Assessment Score
' Alame(~a CoUnty: Alameda [I 4
Contra Costa County: Contra Costa trir 4
Marin County: Marin !ir! 8
San Mateo County: San Mateo !! 4
,Alameda Alameda !V 12
, Contra Costa Concord Irir 4
Sonoma Cotati Ir 1
Alameda Dublin ! 1
San Mateo East Paio Alto 0 0
Contra Costa El Cerrito Ir! 4
Alameda Emeryville IIrI 8
Alameda Fremont 11ir 8
Santa Clara Gilroy ! 1
San Mateo Half Moon Bay !ir 4
Contra Costa Lafayette ! 1
Alameda Livermore Irlir
Santa Clara Los Altos Hills Ir 1
Santa Clara Milpitas Irir 4
San Mateo Millbrae
Santa Clara Mountain View !ir 4
Alameda Newark ! 1
Alameda Oakland Irir 4
San Mateo Pacifica !ir 4
Contra Costa Pittsbur,q Ir!ir 8
Contra Costa Pleasant Hill Ir! 4
San Mateo Redwood City !ir 4
Contra COsta Richmond [! 4
Sonoma Rohnert Park !ir 4
San Mateo San Cados !ir! 8
Santa Clara San Jose !fir 8
Alameda San Leandro ! 1
Contra Costa San Pablo !ir 4
Contra Costa San Ramon Ir 1
Sonoma Santa Rosa !ir 4
Sonoma Sebastopol ! 1
Sonoma Sonoma !irir 8
Santa Clara Sunnyvale !V 12
Marin Tiburon [ 1
Alameda Union City Ir 1
Contra Costa Walnut Creek !!! 8
- Page 2 of 9 -
BAY AREA COUNCIL
1998 Smart Communities Progress Report
Summary of Self-Assessment Scores from All Reporting Jurisdictions
'Key
J I = 1-3 "Good Start"
I Il = 4-7 "Well On Your Way"
8-11 ~Role Model Community"
12-13 "Smart Community"
By Cities Within Counties
County City Score
Alam a Alameda: County II 4
Alameda Alameda IV 12
Alameda Dublin ! 1
Alameda Emeryville III 8
Alameda Fremont III 8
Alameda Livermore III 8
Alameda Newark I 1
Alameda Oakland II 4
Alameda San Leandro ! 1
Alameda Union City I 1
Contra Costa County: Contra Costa [I 4
Contra Costa Concord II 4
Contra Costa El Cerrito II 4
Contra Costa Lafayette ! 1
Contra Costa Pittsbur.q III 8
Contra Costa Pleasant Hill I! 4
Contra Costa Richmond !! 4
Contra Costa San Pablo !! 4
Contra Costa San Ramon ! 1
Contra Costa Walnut Creek H! 8
Matin County: Marin !!! 8
Marin Tiburon I 1
San Mateo County: San Mateo II 4
San Mateo East Palo Alto 0 0
San Mateo Half Moon Bay II 4
San Mateo Millbrae ! 1
San Mateo Pacifica II 4
San Mateo Redwood City !1 4
San Mateo San Cados !!1 8
Santa Clara County: Santa Clara
Santa Clare Gilroy I 1
Santa Clare Los Altos Hills ! 1
Santa Clare Milpitas 11 4
Santa Clare San Jose III 8
Santa Clara Mountain View !1 4
Santa Clara Sunnyvale IV 12
Sonoma County: Sonoma
Sonoma Cotati ! 1
Sonoma Rohnert Park I! 4
Sonoma Santa Rosa II 4
Sonoma Sebastopol I 1
Sonoma Sonoma III 8
- Page 3 of 9 -
BAY AREA COUNCIL
1998 Smart Communities Progress Report
Summary of Self-Assessment Scores from All Reporting Jurisdictions
.I = 1-3 "Good Start"
!! = 4-7 "Well On Your Way"
Key
I1! = 8-11
IV= 12-13
"Role Model Community"
"Smart Community"
By Self-Assessment Scores
County City Self-Assessment Score
San M~teo Ea;t Palo Alto 0 (~ ......................
Sonoma Cotati ! 1
Alameda Dublin I 1
Santa Clara Gilroy I 1
Contra Costa Lafayette I 1
Santa Clara Los Altos Hills I 1
San Mateo Millbrae ! 1
Alameda Newark ! 1
Alameda San Leandro ! 1
Contra Costa San Ramon I 1
Sonoma Sebastopol ! 1
Marin Tiburon ! 1
Alameda Union City ! 1
Alameda County: Alameda ]! 4
Contra Costa Concord 1! 4
Contra Costa County: Contra Costa II 4
San Mateo County: San Mateo II 4
Contra Costa El Cerrito !! 4
San Mateo Half Moon Bay II 4
Santa Clara Milpitas II 4
Santa Clara Mountain View II 4
Alameda Oakland I! 4
San Mateo Pacifica II 4
Contra Costa Pleasant Hill II 4
San Mateo Redwood City II 4
Contra Costa Richmond II 4
Sonoma Rohnert Park II 4
Contra Costa San Pablo !I 4
Sonoma Santa Rosa !I 4
Marin County: Marin III 8
Alameda Emeryville III 8
Alameda Fremont III 8
Alameda Livermore !II 8
Contra Costa Pittsbur,q III 8
San Mateo San Carlos III 8
Santa Clara San Jose III 8
Sonoma Sonoma III 8
Contra Costa Walnut Creek III 8
Alameda Alameda IV 12
Santa Clara Sunnyvale IV 12
- Page 4 of 9 -
BAY AREA COUNCIL
t998 Smart Communities Progress Report
Summary of Self-Assessment Scores from All Reporting Jurisdictions
SMART COMMUNITIES SELF-ASSESSMENT SCORE
I
1-3
32%
You have a good start, there's plenty more to do.
Cotati
Dublin
East Palo Alto
Gilroy
Lafayette
Millbrae
Newark
San Leandro
San Ramon
Sebastopol
Tiburon
Town of Los Altos Hills
Union City
4-7
4O%
You are well on your way to becoming a "Smart Community".
Alameda County
Concord
Contra Costa County
El Cerrito
Half Moon Bay
Pacifica
Richmond
Rohnert Park
Milpitas
Mountain View
Oakland
Pleasant Hill
Redwood City
San Mateo County
San Pablo
Santa Rosa
III
8-11
23%
Your community is a leader in "Smart" technology.
Emeryville
Fremont
Livermore
Marin County
Pittsburg
San Carlos
San Jose
Sonoma
Walnut Creek
IV
12-13
5%
Congratulations, you're a "Smart Community"l
City of Alameda
City of Sunnyvale
- Page 5 of 9 -
BAY AREA COUNCIL
1998 Smart Communities Progress Report
Summary of Self-Assessment Scores from All Reporting Jurisdictions
POLICY AND PLANNING
1. Has your community taken or participated in any the following steps?
Established a committee/process to develop an information technology plan.
Created a mechanism to create, track and update a technology plan.
Identified a manager for the information technology strategy or process who reports to
the CAO/City Manager/Superintendent.
Designated an elected official or committee responsible for the plan.
The elected body approved a resolution supporting rapid technology deployment that
benefits the community as a whole.
Answer yes if you have checked three of the five boxes.
~i i~/* Yes
2. Does your community have an information technology plan? If no, skip to question 5.
3. Did the planning process include representatives from any of the following groups?
Check the appropriate boxes.
'. i~'?~: !0¥d Business and Employer Organizations
~' ::.~% Businesses
· .2:., ~ Citizen and Parent Groups
~.~i,~:3~% Consultants-Technology Planners
5% Colleges and Universities Reps.
~fl:0% Community Organizations
~3~/~ Economic Development Planners
30P/d Elected Officials
10%: Librarians
!1301;
Local Government Administrators
MIS Managers/CAO Managers
Non-Management Employees
Other Local Governments
Schools (K-12) Reps.
Small Businesses
Social Services Providers
Transportation Planners
Others, Please Specify
Answer yes if you have checked at least five.
8:[200/0 Yes
4 I;100,~ DK
- Page 6 of 9 -
BAY AREA COUNCIL
1998 Smart Communities Progress Report
Summary of Self-Assessment Scores from. All Reporting Jurisdictions
4. Does your community's information technology plan include goals and/or applications related
to any of the following areas? Check the segments included in the plan.
Civic Involvement ii:ii~ !i~iii~/~ Health
Commerce iili~i ..!8~/~ Libraries
Cultural Programs =~!'~!iiii~i.:i~'~/~ Public Access to the Internet
Economic & Community Development ~!!~.!~!!ili?~i~ Sustainability
Education ~ ii:~ii?iiii~ Public Safety
Environmental Health ?;iiii!i!~i~ i!:ii!:~iii!iii! Other, please specify
Answer yes if you have checked at least five boxes.
Is your organization involved with the Bay Area Telecommunications Infrastructure
Partnership (TIP) or a similar local broad-based collaborative group focused on
telecommunications policy? Please specify,
6. Does your organization have an approved policy promoting telecommuting?
USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION
7. Has your community conducted a technology inventory to determine its technical capabilities
(bandwidth, penetration and access)?
~, i~,~9i I!~~ Yes
8. What are your community's top three programs or public policy issue priorities? See attached.
9. Is your community funding applications in 1/5% one, 4/20% two, or 5/25% three of these
areas? Answer yes to question if two or mom of the areas are funded.
~6 [47% Yes
;iS153% No
- Page 7 of 9 -
BAY AREA COUNCIL
1998 Smart Communities Progress Report
Summary of Self-Assessment Scores from All Reporting Jurisdictions
10. What transactions and services are available to residents in your organization using the Internet?
Crime prevention-statistical information and reporting
Homework help and/or scheduling parenting teacher meetings
Information and reservations about public facilities or classes
Library services-locating titles, renewing books
Licensing and permitting-building permits, business licenses
Public health information from local dept or sChools
Voter registration-checking polling places, results
Other, please specify any other applications on a separate page (city web page)
Answer yes if you have checked three examples.
i~,i~ 91iI~0 ~ Yes
11. Does your organization have a website with information about itself and the services it provides?
12. Does your organization accept email as way of communicating or receiving feedback?
13.
Has your community implemented an information technology application which
has lead to a specific instance of increased productivity and/or efficiency?
Please specify,
- Page 8 of 9 -
BAY AREA COUNCIL
1998 Smart Communities Progress Report
Summary of Self-Assessment Scores from All Reporting Jurisdictions
TOP THREE PROGRAM AND PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES FROM JURISDICTIONS
'1 - 3 Self-Assessment Score
1. Provide citizens Internet access to information and services.
2. Promote economic development.
3. Advance community preservation.
4 - 7 Self-Assessment Score
1. Improve telecommunications infrastructure.
2. Promote economic development.
3. Increase public safety.
8 - 11 Self-Assessment Score
1. Improve telecommunications infrastructure.
2. Promote economic development.
3. Support countywide planning process for infrastructure and promulgation of regulations affecting
business, employment, and health.
12 - 13 Self-Assessment Score
1. Improve telecommunications services.
2. Improve city government services to community.
3. Improve access and services.
- Page 9 of 9 -