Loading...
02-14-12 Workshop MeetingCITY COMMISSION CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA WORKSHOP MEETING -TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2012 6:00 P.M. DELRAY BEACH CITY HALL FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM The City will furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the City. Contact Doug Smith at 243-7010, 24 hours prior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are available for meetings in the Commission Chambers. WORKSHOP AGENDA 1. National Civic League 3rdGrade Reading Campaign 2. Automatic Meter Reading and Advanced Metering Infrastructure Study 3. Presentation of 2011 Citizen Survey Results 4. Commission Comments Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The City neither provides nor prepares such record. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH: David Harden, City Manager DATE: February 10, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM WS.1 -WORKSHOP MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012 NATIONAL CIVIC LEAGUE 3RD GRADE READING CAMPAIGN ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Update on the City’s development of the Community Solutions Action Plan (CSAP) that will serve as the City’s application for the 2012 All-America City Award and Charter Membership in the Grade-Level Reading Network of leading communities. The campaign, sponsored by the National Civic League, is a national effort to address a persistent challenge in education: increasing the number of lowincome children reading at grade-level by the end of third grade. The City’s CSAP must be submitted by March 12, 2012. BACKGROUND Staff, after presenting this initiative to the Commission back in August, 2011, submitted its Letter of Intent to submit a CSAP by the established deadline of October 14, 2011. The National Civic League accepted the City's letter of intent, providing the opportunity for us to initiate the Campaign on Grade-Level Reading Initiative. Over the past two (2) months, staff along with our volunteers have established a collaborative committee that meets monthly, collected a diversity of data required to document current conditions, consulted with key staff from the school district, and have successfully gained the support and engagement of local principals. The CSAP review and assessment will include how effective the process was at providing elected officials and other key leaders of public, business, civic and philanthropic organizations with a meaningful opportunity to share in the development of the plan and commit to its implementation. In this regard, staff will share the current status of the CSAP inclusive of what is working, share our challenges and discuss how our Mayor and Commission can assist and support this initiative. It is critical to have elected official support and commitment to the Grade-Level Reading Campaign since the program will be on-going up through 2020. Dr. Debbie Kaiser, Janet Meeks and I will share our findings, elements of the CSAP, critical timelines that must be met and some recommended actions and assistance that the Mayor and Commission can help us with. I have attached some general information on the Grade-Level Reading Campaign as background information. RECOMMENDATION Commission input and direction. GTHIRDO GRADAE READLING SUCCESS MATTERS The Campaign for GRADE-LEVEL READING The Campaign is a collaborative effort by dozens of funders and nonprofit partners across the nation to ensure that more of our low-income children succeed in school and graduate prepared for college, a career, and active citizenship. The Campaign focuses on the most important predictor of school success and high school graduation—grade-level reading by the end of third grade. Education research recognizes that proficiency in reading by the end of third grade enables students to shift from just learning to read to also reading to learn, and to master the more complex subject matter they encounter in the fourth grade curriculum. Most students who fail to reach this critical milestone falter in the later grades and often drop out before earning a high school diploma. Yet two-thirds of U.S. fourth graders are not proficient readers, according to national assessment data. This disturbing statistic is made even worse by the fact that more than four out of every five low-income students miss this critical milestone. The Campaign is based on the belief that schools must be accountable for helping all children achieve. This means schools must provide quality teachers and effective teaching for all children in every classroom every day. But schools cannot succeed alone. Ensuring the academic success of children from low-income families will require a focus beyond school. It will require engaged communities mobilized to remove barriers, expand opportunities, and assist parents in fulfilling their roles and responsibilities to serve as full partners in the success of their children. With this in mind—in addition to insisting on quality teaching and a more seamless system of care, services, and support—the Campaign for Grade-Level Reading has targeted three challenges to students’ reading success that are widespread, consequential, and amenable to community solutions. 74% of students who fail to read proficiently by the end of third grade falter in the later grades and often drop out before earning a high school diploma. THE CAMPAIGN FOR GRADE-LEVEL READING 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percentage of Children Ages 3–6 With Selected School Readiness Skills, by Poverty Status PERCENT Recognizes all letters Counts to 20 or higher Writes name Reads words in a book SELECTED SCHOOL READINESS SKILLS Source: O'Donnell, Kevin. Parents’ Reports of the School Readiness of Young Children from the National Household Education Surveys Program of 2007, Table 2. National Center for Education Statistics. August 2008. www.childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/291 above poverty threshold below poverty threshold 90 100 The Readiness Gap: Too many children from lowincome families begin school already far behind. The research also shows that these children are less likely to be read or spoken to regularly or to have access to books, literacy-rich environments, highquality early care, and prekindergarten programs. SCHOOL READINESS By age three, higher-income children have heard more words than low-income children. 30 MILLION The Attendance Gap (Chronic Absence): Too many children from low-income families miss too many days of school. Research has found that one in 10 kindergarten and first grade students nationwide misses nearly a month of school each year in excused and unexcused absences. SCHOOL ATTENDANCE Source: Cooper, H., Borman, G., & Fairchild, R. (2010). “School Calendars and Academic Achievement.” In J. Meece & J. Eccles (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Schools, Schooling, and Human Development (pp. 342-355). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. The Summer Slide (Summer Learning Loss): Too many children lose ground over the summer months. Without access to the enriching activities available to more-affluent peers, research shows that children from low-income families lose as much as three months of reading comprehension skills over the summer. By the end of fifth grade, they are nearly three grade levels behind their peers. SUMMER LEARNING K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th GRADE YEARS 543210 SUMMER SUMMER SUMMER SUMMER Middle-Class Student Low-Income Student Advanced by One Month Fall Behind by 2-3 Months Same Rate of Progression During School Year SUMMER Low-Income Students Fall 2.5 to 3 Years Behind By Fifth Grade AVERAGE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 52 50 44 42 40 48 46 Chronic Kindergarten Absence Lowers 5th Grade Reading Success for Low-Income Students 0-3.3% 3.3-6.6% 6.6-10% >10% KINDERGARTEN ABSENCE RATE Source: ECLS-K data analyzed by National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP). GOA L : By 2020 a dozen states or more will increase by at least 100% the number of low-income children reading proficiently at the end of third grade. Quality teaching of the whole child for every child in every setting every day. Locally owned community solutions for improving school readiness, attendance, and summer learning. A seamless, outcomes-accountable system of care, services, and family supports for children, from birth through third grade. CORE ASSURANCES ASSURANCE #1 ASSURANCE #2 ASSURANCE #3 THE THREE ARENAS Early Childhood Programs & Schools Campaign Win: Broad-based support for and investment in “on track” child development, learning, and literacy across the early years and early grades. Core Strategy: Help to tilt more of the public, private, and philanthropic dollars spent on early care, development, and education toward supporting interventions that work and toward efforts that are more aligned, coordinated, and sequenced to yield better outcomes and greater impact. The Civic Space Around Schools Campaign Win: Widespread community engagement, civic action, and citizen service to find and implement community solutions to current barriers to student success. Core Strategy: Focus the attention, energy, and imagination of civic leaders, parents, and community organizations on three important, consequential, and solvable problems—too many students not ready for school, too many students absent from school, and too many students losing ground academically over the summer months. Federal, State & Local Policy Campaign Win: Local, state, and federal policy reforms to strengthen, scale, and sustain improved child outcomes and school success for children in low-income families. Core Strategy: Combine effective advocacy and place-based investing to generate public support, political will, proof points, models, and momentum for systems of care, services, and supports for expectant parents and children from birth through third grade. The Campaign for Grade-Level Reading will operate within and at the intersections of three important arenas: 1 2 3 For more information, please contact Ralph Smith, Managing Director, rsmith@gradelevelreading.net. Grade-Level Reading Overview Video R/T 4:14 minutes Grade-Level Reading Overview Video (Short) R/T 1:44 minutes Grade-Level Reading :60 second PSA The Campaign for GRADE-LEVEL READING WWW.GRADELEVELREADING.NET Design & Production: Shagas Design /Photos: © Dana Edmunds, Susie Fitzhugh, Jason Miczek The Campaign for GRADE-LEVEL READING COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS ACTION PLAN (CSAP) FRAMEWORK draft 2 PART ONE: COMMUNITY OVERVIEW (Maximum 2 PAGES) Please summarize your community’s story. It would help to provide the demographics. It would also help to illuminate the history, character, strengths, and challenges of your community. PART TWO: THE CSAP (15 PAGES, plus up to a 5-page Appendix for data and/or other explanatory information) ASSURANCE #1 The Problem: Please provide a data-rich description of the current situation and recent trend lines for high school graduation, grade-level reading (3rd and/or 4th grade), school readiness, student attendance, and summer learning (summer school/program participation). Where possible, please disaggregate the data to illuminate the performance of children from low-income families, including race/ethnicity and English language learners, if available, and to spot outliers, dropout factories, trends, and anomalies that could inform the thinking and work. Please provide an overview of the range of services and supports currently focused on addressing aspects of the problems described above. Where possible, it would be helpful to identify where key supports and services are missing and/or unavailable. What conclusions have you drawn about the extent to which some, most, or all of the following contribute to the performance gaps between children from low-income families and their peers? • Too little attention • Too little information about what works • Insuficient coordination among the key stakeholders and actors • Inadequate resources • Ineffective use of available resources • Insuficient access to otherwise available resources • Mismatch between the interventions and the needs ASSURANCE #2 Destination (Desired Outcomes and Impact): Please identify what your community has set as ambitious but achievable goals, targets, and milestones for school years 2012–2013, 2013–2014, and 2014–2015 and for 2016 through 2020, please provide a vision for where your community will be for school readiness, student attendance, summer learning, and third grade reading. THE CSAP IS DUE MARCH 12, 2012 The Community Solutions Action Plan (CSAP) will serve as the application for the 2012 All-America City Award. draft 3 ASSURANCE #3 Strategy (Integrated and Intertwined): Please outline the set(s) of coordinated activities, programs, and initiatives designed to respond to each of the core challenges (readiness, attendance, summer learning loss, and grade-level reading) and indicate the extent to which the efforts focus on: • Strengthening, expanding, scaling, and coordinating existing programs and interventions; • Importing, replicating, and adapting promising practices and model programs from outside the community; and • Developing and inventing new and innovative approaches. ASSURANCE #4 (Connecting for Synergy): Please describe how your community’s grade-level reading campaign will connect with, beneit from, and/or support other ongoing efforts and initiatives. Depending on your community, these could include some or all of the following: • Local school improvement, education reform, and/or family support efforts supported by members of the Sponsoring Coalition; • Initiatives by local school districts and state-level policy and/or initiatives; and • Initiatives responding to the Promise Neighborhoods, Choice Neighborhoods, Striving Readers, Early Learning Challenge Fund, etc. ASSURANCE #5 Data (Holders to Data Contributors): Please explain the steps taken to ensure ongoing availability of and access to the data needed to set baselines, track progress, and ensure accountability. It would help to provide speciics on the following: • Who has what data? • What understandings have been reached and what agreements have been made to ensure ongoing access to needed data? ASSURANCE #6 (Success and Sustainability): Please explain the steps taken to ensure confidence that this effort will have the broad-based support, capacity, and resources to succeed and endure. Considerations include: • Mobilizing key stakeholders and important constituencies; • Identifying the tables, venues, and forums for conversation, ongoing joint planning, tracking progress/making improvements, and collective action; and • New and re-directed public, private, and philanthropic dollars as well as dedicated citizen service and volunteer contributions. draft 4 (c) Creative ways to align and/or integrate different programs and interventions? (d) New approaches to braiding and blending resources and funding streams? (e) Promising models for deploying and using technology? CSAP Process Considerations Cross-Sector Collaboration—How effective was the CSAP process at providing elected oficials and other key leaders of public, business, civic, and philanthropic organizations with a meaningful opportunity to share in the development of the plan and commit to its implementation? Stakeholder Engagement—How effective was the CSAP process at providing parents and caregivers, service providers, program operators, and funders with a meaningful opportunity to share in the development of the plan and commit to its implementation? Community Outreach and Involvement (with special attention to diversity and inclusion)—How effective was the CSAP process at providing the community as a whole (including English language learners and hard-to-reach families) with a meaningful opportunity to learn about the process and have their views and voices heard on the framing of the problem and the solutions proposed? CSAP REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES IMPACT SUSTAINABILITY How likely is it that this plan will work? How likely is it that this plan will work at scale? How likely is it that this plan will work at scale at least through 2020? Does the plan propose: (a) One or more “out-of-the-box” but replicable solutions? (b) Especially energizing ideas, new formulations, or more compelling re-framing? PART THREE: OVERVIEW OF THE CSAP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (2 PAGES) (The National Civic League’s All-America City Award recognizes community accomplishment through civic engagement. With that in mind, the review criteria will accord considerable weight to cross-sector collaboration, stakeholder engagement, and community outreach.) Please describe the process utilized to develop the CSAP. It would help to provide examples of special success, particular challenges, and lessons learned. Shagas Design /photos: © Susie Fitzhugh, Jason Miczek INNOVATION MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Victor Majtenyi; Deputy Director of Public Utilities Richard C. Hasko, P.E.; Director of Environmental Services Department THROUGH: David Harden; City Manager DATE: February 8, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM WS.2 -WORKSHOP MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012 AUTOMATIC METER READING AND ADVANCED METERING INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is a presentation by Mathews Consulting, Inc. and City staff summarizing the findings of a “Water Meter Replacement Program and AMR /AMI System Evaluation”. BACKGROUND In March 2011, City Commission approved a Service Authorization to Mathews Consulting, Inc. for professional services in conducting a Water Meter Replacement Program and AMR (Automatic Meter Reading) /AMI (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) System Evaluation, P/N 2011-091. The study and system evaluation is now complete. The consultant will present the conclusions and make recommendations regarding future strategic planning. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH WATER METER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM EVALUATION Project No. 11-091 February 14, 2012 CITY’S CURRENT METER CITY S READING SYSTEM 1-way communication  20,732 total water meters (3/4” to 10”)  Touch Read (approx. 19,000)  Mobile Radio Drive-by Reading (1,800-2,000) 2010 Water Audit Results  Typical “life expectancy” for meters is 15-20 years  On average, 80% of City’s existing residential meters are 15+ years old  Average accuracy is 96%, losing $300K/yr revenue (in 5 years, increases to $500K/yr)  Further revenue losses due to inoperable meters &water theft  Limitations w/data access Time for a meter replacement program! MAIN GOALS OF METER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM  Provide an Effective & Reliable Meter Reading System  Produce “User-Friendly” Data that is Easily Accessible AMR VS. AMI  “AMR” = Automatic Meter Reading  Touch Read systems  Mobile Radio Read Systems  “AMI” = Advanced Metering Infrastructure  Fixed networks systems (radio towers or mesh) AUTOMATIC METER READING (AMR)  Drive-by Read – typically once/month  Simpler system but only 1-way communication MOBILE RADIO SYSTEM p y y y  Cannot read meters from Utility Office  Non-reads can be addressed at site by meter reader Reader Software Mobile Data Collection Third Party Billing Software 900 MHz 900 MHz  Download data from receiver to server Water meters  Interface w/billing software ADVANCED METERING INFRASTRUCTURE (AMI)  Latest technology  Meters read hourly & info transmitted multiple times per day or on demand via radio signal  Two-way communication – can access meter information from office Host (Server) Third Party Billing Software Cellular/Broadband/Private Network Web Based Cell Phone 900 MHz User Interface Collectors PDA 900 MHz  Information read at host server software & Water Meter Transmitters alerts on computer or cellphones  Interface w/billing software ADVANCED METERING INFRASTRUCTURE (AMI) Typical Requirements to Implement:  Transmitter/encoder on each meter  Collectors mounted on towers or City facilities  Server & Software for data downloads & interface  Interface reading software w/billing software  Optional hand-held device for initiation of transmitters ADVANCED METERING INFRASTRUCTURE (AMI)  Data available at the office for Customer Service  Overall system analytics  Real-time alerts & notification  Tampering detection  Backflow Host (Server)  Leak detection  On-demand/hourly reads PDA Cell Phone  Meter shut-off capabilities (integrated solenoid valve)  Late payments  Move-in/move-outs  Emergency shut-off Example p Computer Screens Example p Computer Screens Example p Computer Screens AMI versus AMR I dit Mt R d t “I DON’T BELIEVE MY BILL” Immediate Meter Reads at Customer Service Week 1 Week 2 Monthly Week 3 Nonitemized Bill Week 4 Immediate, hourly read information at customer service creates a transparent bill that customers can believe SYSTEM OPTIONS What were the HOT buttons? Criteria High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority Cost Consideration √ Data Management Options:  Immediate availability to consumption data  Account alerts /“no reads” /“leaks”  Generate /track work orders  Evaluate meter sizing /“low flow” alerts E h t f ill l ti f t √  Enhancement of illegal connection enforcement program  Synchronized meter reads Technology Hardware/Software Options:  User friendly software (for Customer Service & Utilities)  Implement latest technology  Utility interface graphics √  Compatible w/Finance Software  Backhaul method (cellular)  Remote water shutoff option Technology Hardware/Software Options:  Customer portal √  Type of communication (licensed RF vs. unlicensed RF) Staffing Requirements /Maximize use of available resources √ System Reliability:  Meter accuracy  Meter reading coverage √  Equipment reliability (incl. battery replacement options)  Compatible with existing meters System Experience √ Warranty Options (10 yr. + 10 yr. prorated vs. 20 yr.) √ AMI VENDOR SYSTEMS  Received budget level proposals from six system vendors  Five were responsive for an AMI system  Shortlisted based upon qualifications VENDOR OPTIONS EQUAL CRITERIA  Costs comparable between vendors  Immediate access to data  Provide account alerts for leaks, no reads, etc.  Offer enhancement of City’s illegal connection enforcement program  Data backhaul via cellular or ethernet  Maximize use of staff  Compatible with other meter brands  Compatible with Sungard HTE billing software (programming of interface required)  Meter reading coverage over 95% VENDOR OPTIONS SHORTLIST  Badger  Mueller-Hersey  Best software for analytics, reports, database management  Can support remote shut off valve y  “Self healing” mesh system  Excellent screen graphics  Uses hydrant caps for repeaters  Menu driven customized dashboard  Weather/rainfall data link  Neptune  Offers meter with remote shut off valve S  Overall system health data screens  Multiple in-state references  Sensus  Experienced in AMI systems  Recently upgraded software  Familiar with City  Records # of days leak has occurred  Can support remote shut off valve  Licensed frequency  Licensed frequency AMR/AMI SYSTEM INSTALLATION BUDGET COST ESTIMATES  AMR:  Furnish & Install: $5.4-$6.7 Million  AMI:  Furnish & Install: $6.3 -$6.9 Million  Add shut off valves @$100-$240/meter AMR/AMI SYSTEM INSTALLATION Net Present Value SAVINGS & PAYBACK System Net Savings over 15 years 1-Year Program 5-Year Program AMR $3.46M $2.38M AMI $3.83M $2.75M Average Payback (all options) 8-9 years  Savings associated with:  Revenue recovery from increased meter accuracies  Overall Operating Cost Reduction STRATEGIC PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS  Recommend AMI system – Latest technology  Standard bid selection process inviting shortlisted vendors only  Bid materials and installation under separate but coordinated contracts  5-year maximum deployment period  Geographical deployment method with server & software installed first and then group by areas  Utilize dedicated project manager to oversee dayto-day project operations and database construction Thank You! (Questions?) MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Commissioners FROM: Douglas E. Smith, Assistant City Manager THROUGH: David T. Harden, City Manager DATE: February 10, 2012 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM WS.3 -WORKSHOP MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012 PRESENTATION OF 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY RESULTS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is a presentation of the 2011 Citizen Survey results. BACKGROUND The City has been conducting a Citizen Survey for the past five years through the National Research Center. The survey provides feedback from residents on their perspective of the community and their view of City services. The survey also provides benchmark data to compare many of our results to other cities. Last fall the 2011 survey was mailed to 1,200 randomly selected households. The response rate for the 2011 survey was 29% for a margin of error of plus or minus 6%. The City has received the draft results from the survey. The attached presentation provides highlights of the survey results with selected responses grouped under related City Commission goals. The 2011 survey included some parking related questions; highlights from some of these questions are included in the presentation. Once the Citizen Survey report is finalized, staff will distribute it to the Commission and on the City website. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY RESULTS CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY BACKGROUND INFORMATION • Fifth Consecutive Year of Conducting the Citizen Survey • Survey Conducted by National Research Center • Mailed to random sample of households • 2011 Response Rate: 29%; Margin of error +/-6% • Survey enables us to compare ratings to previous years and to compare our results to other communities 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Top Quality Services Valued by Citizens 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Top Quality Services Valued by Citizens 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Expanded/Diversified Local Economy 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Expanded/Diversified Local Economy 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Expanded Downtown: A1A to I-95 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Expanded Downtown: A1A to I-95 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Quality Neighborhoods Where People Want to Live 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Quality Neighborhoods Where People Want to Live 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Community Unity 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Quality Educational Opportunities 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Parking Questions 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Parking Questions MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement THROUGH:David Harden, City Manager DATE:February 10, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM WS.1 - WORKSHOP MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012 NATIONAL CIVIC LEAGUE 3RD GRADE READING CAMPAIGN ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION Update on the City’s development of the Community Solutions Action Pla n (CSAP) that will serve as the City’s application for the 2012 All-America Cit y Award and Charter Membership in the Grade- Level Reading Network of leading communities. The c ampaign, sponsored by the National Civic League, is a national effort to address a persisten t challenge in education: increasing the number of low- income children reading at grade-level by the end o f third grade. The City’s CSAP must be submitted by March 12, 2012. BACKGROUND Staff, after presenting this initiative to the Comm ission back in August, 2011, submitted its Letter o f Intent to submit a CSAP by the established deadline of October 14, 2011. The National Civic League accepted the City's letter of intent, providing the opportunity for us to initiate the Campaign on Gra de- Level Reading Initiative. Over the past two (2) mon ths, staff along with our volunteers have establish ed a collaborative committee that meets monthly, colle cted a diversity of data required to document curre nt conditions, consulted with key staff from the schoo l district, and have successfully gained the suppor t and engagement of local principals. The CSAP review and assessment will include how effective the process was at providing elected officials and othe r key leaders of public, business, civic and philanthropic organizations with a meaningful oppor tunity to share in the development of the plan and commit to its implementation. In this regard, staff will share the current status of the CSAP inclusiv e of what is working, share our challenges and discuss h ow our Mayor and Commission can assist and support this initiative. It is critical to have ele cted official support and commitment to the Grade-Level Reading Campaign since the program will be on-going up through 2020. Dr. Debbie Kaiser, Janet Meeks and I will share our findings, elements of the CSAP, critical timelines that must be met and some recommended actions and a ssistance that the Mayor and Commission can help us with. I have attached some general informat ion on the Grade-Level Reading Campaign as background information. RECOMMENDATION Commission input and direction. GOAL THIRD GRADE READING SUCCESS MATTERS The Campaign for GRADE-LEVEL READING The Campaign is a collaborative effort by dozens of funders and nonprofit partners across the nation to ensure that more of our low-income children succeed in school and graduate prepared for college, a career, and active citizenship. The Campaign focuses on the most important predic - tor of school success and high school graduation—grade-level reading by the end of third grade. Education research recognizes that proficiency in reading by the end of third grade enables stu - dents to shift from just learning to read to also reading to learn, and to master the more complex subject matter they encounter in the fourth grade curriculum. Most students who fail to reach this critical milestone falter in the later grades and often drop out before earning a high school diploma. Yet two-thirds of U.S. fourth graders are not proficient readers, according to national assessment data. This disturbing statistic is made even worse by the fact that more than four out of every five low-income students miss this critical milestone. The Campaign is based on the belief that schools must be accountable for helping all children achieve. This means schools must provide quality teachers and effective teaching for all children in every classroom every day. But schools cannot succeed alone. Ensuring the academic success of children from low-income families will require a focus beyond school. It will require engaged communities mobilized to remove barriers, expand opportunities, and assist parents in fulfilling their roles and responsibilities to serve as full partners in the success of their children. With this in mind—in addition to insisting on quality teaching and a more seamless system of care, services, and support—the Campaign for Grade-Level Reading has targeted three challenges to students’ reading success that are widespread, consequential, and amenable to community solutions. 74% of students who fail to read proficiently by the end of third grade falter in the later grades and often drop out before earning a high school diploma. THE CAMPAIGN FOR GRADE-LEVEL READING 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percentage of Children Ages 3–6 With Selected School Readiness Skills , by Poverty Status PE R C E N T Recognizes all letters Counts to 20 or higher Writes name Reads words in a book SELECTED SCHOOL READINESS SKILLS Source: O'Do nn ell, Kevin. Par en ts’ R epo rts of the Sc hoo l R ea di ne ss of Yo ung Childr en from t he Nati ona l Hous eho ld Educati on Surve ys Pr og ram of 2007 , T ab le 2. Natio na l Center for Educati on Statistics . August 2008 . www.childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/291 above poverty threshold below poverty threshold 90 100 The Readiness Gap: Too many children from low- income families begin school already far behind. The research also shows that these children are less likely to be read or spoken to regularly or to have access to books, literacy-rich environments, high- quality early care, and prekindergarten programs. SCHOOL READINESS By age three, higher-income children have heard more words than low-income children. 30 MILLION The Attendance Gap (Chronic Absence): Too many children from low-income families miss too many days of school. Research has found that one in 10 kindergarten and first grade students nation - wide misses nearly a month of school each year in excused and unexcused absences. SCHOOL ATTENDANCE Source: Cooper, H., Borman, G., & Fairchild, R. (2010). “School Calendars and Academic Achievement.” In J. Meece & J. Eccles (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Schools, Schooling, and Human Development (pp. 342-355). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. The Summer Slide (Summer Learning Loss): Too many children lose ground over the summer months. Without access to the enriching activities available to more-affluent peers, research shows that children from low-income families lose as much as three months of reading comprehension skills over the summer. By the end of fifth grade, they are nearly three grade levels behind their peers. SUMMER LEARNING K 1 st 2n d 3rd 4t h 5th GR ADE YE A RS 5 4 3 2 1 0 SU M ME R SU M M E R SU M M E R SU M M E R Middle-Class Student Low-Income Student Advanced by One Month Fall Behind by 2-3 Months Same Rate of Progression During School Year SU M ME R Low-Income Students Fall 2.5 to 3 Years Behind By Fifth Grade AV E R A G E A C A D E M I C P E R F O R M A N C E 52 50 44 42 40 48 46 Chronic Kindergarten Absence Lowers 5th Grade Reading Success for Low-Income Students 0-3.3% 3.3-6.6% 6.6-10%>10% KINDERGARTEN ABSENCE RATE Source: ECLS-K data analyzed by National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP). GOAL: By 2020 a dozen states or more will increase by at least 100% the number of low-income children reading proficiently at the end of third grade. Quality teaching of the whole child for every child in every setting every day. Locally owned community solutions for improving school readiness, attendance, and summer learning. A seamless, outcomes-accountable system of care, services, and family supports for children, from birth through third grade. CORE ASSURANCES ASSURANCE #1 ASSURANCE #2 ASSURANCE #3 THE THREE ARENAS Early Childhood Programs & Schools Campaign Win: Broad-based support for and investment in “on track” child development, learning, and literacy across the early years and early grades. Core Strategy: Help to tilt more of the public, private, and philan- thropic dollars spent on early care, development, and education toward supporting interventions that work and toward efforts that are more aligned, coordinated, and sequenced to yield better outcomes and greater impact. The Civic Space Around Schools Campaign Win: Widespread community engagement, civic action, and citizen service to find and implement community solu - tions to current barriers to student success. Core Strategy: Focus the attention, energy, and imagination of civic leaders, parents, and community organizations on three important, consequential, and solvable prob - lems—too many students not ready for school, too many students absent from school, and too many students losing ground academically over the summer months. Federal, State & Local Policy Campaign Win: Local, state, and federal policy reforms to strengthen, scale, and sustain improved child outcomes and school success for children in low-income families. Core Strategy: Combine effective advocacy and place-based investing to generate public support, politi - cal will, proof points, models, and momentum for systems of care, services, and supports for expectant parents and children from birth through third grade. The Campaign for Grade-Level Reading will operate within and at the intersections of three important arenas: 123 For more information, please contact Ralph Smith, Managing Director, rsmith@gradelevelreading.net. G r a d e -L e v e l R e a d i n g O v e r v i e w V i d e o R / T 4 :1 4 m i n u t e s G r a d e -L e v e l R e a d i n g O v e r v i e w V i d e o (S h o r t ) R /T 1 :4 4 m i n u t e s G r a d e -L e v e l R e a d i n g : 6 0 s e c o n d P S A The Campaign for GRADE-LEVEL READING WWW.GRADELEVELREADING.NET De s i g n & P r o d u c t i o n : S h a g a s D e s i g n / P h o t o s : © D a n a E d m u n d s , S u s i e F i t z h u g h , J a s o n M i c z e k The Campaign for GRADE-LEVEL READING COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS ACTION PLAN (CSAP) FRAMEWORK dr a f t 2 PART ONE: COMMUNITY OVERVIEW (Maximum 2 PAGES) Please summarize your community’s story. It would help to provide the demographics. It would also help to illuminate the history, character, strengths, and challeng es of your community. PART TWO: THE CSAP (15 PAGES, plus up to a 5-page Appendix for data and/or other explanatory information ) ASSURANCE #1 The Problem: Please provide a data-rich description of the current situation a nd recent trend lines for high school graduation, grade-level reading (3rd and/or 4th g rade), school readiness, student atten - dance, and summer learning (summer school/program participation). Where possible, please disaggre - gate the data to illuminate the performance of children fro m low-income families, including race/ethnicity and English language learners, if available, and to spot o utliers, dropout factories, trends, and anomalies that could inform the thinking and work. Please provide an overview of the range of services and supports curre ntly focused on addressing aspects of the problems described above. Where possible, it woul d be helpful to identify where key supports and services are missing and/or unavailable. What conclusions have you drawn about the extent to which some , most, or all of the following contribute to the performance gaps between children from low-income familie s and their peers? ‡Too little attention ‡Too little information about what works ‡,QVXI¿FLHQWFRRUGLQDWLRQDPRQJWKHNH\VWDNHKROGHUVDQGDFWRUV ‡Inadequate resources ‡Ineffective use of available resources ‡,QVXI¿FLHQWDFFHVVWRRWKHUZLVHDYDLODEOHUHVRXUFHV ‡Mismatch between the interventions and the needs ASSURANCE #2 Destination (Desired Outcomes and Impact): Please identify what your community has set as ambitious but achievable goals, targets, and milestones for school years 20 12–2013, 2013–2014, and 2014–2015 and for 2016 through 2020, please provide a vision for where your community will be for school readiness, student attendance, summer learning, and third grade reading. THE CSAP IS DUE MARCH 12, 2012 The Community Solutions Action Plan (CSAP) will serve as the application for the 2012 All-America City Award. dr a f t 3 ASSURANCE #3 Strategy (Integrated and Intertwined): Please outline the set(s) of coordinated activities, programs, an d initiatives designed to respond to each of the core challeng es (readiness, attendance, summer learning loss, and grade-level reading) and indicate the extent to wh ich the efforts focus on: ‡Strengthening, expanding, scaling, and coordinating existing programs and interventions; ‡Importing, replicating, and adapting promising practices and mo del programs from outside the community; and ‡Developing and inventing new and innovative approaches. ASSURANCE #4 (Connecting for Synergy): Please describe how your community’s grade-level reading campaign ZLOOFRQQHFWZLWKEHQH¿WIURPDQGRUVXSSRUWRWKHURQJRLQJ HIIRUWVDQGLQLWLDWLYHV'HSHQGLQJRQ\RXU community, these could include some or all of the following: ‡Local school improvement, education reform, and/or family support e fforts supported by members of the Sponsoring Coalition; ‡Initiatives by local school districts and state-level policy and/o r initiatives; and ‡Initiatives responding to the Promise Neighborhoods, Choice Ne ighborhoods, Striving Readers, Early Learning Challenge Fund, etc. ASSURANCE #5 Data (Holders to Data Contributors): Please explain the steps taken to ensure ongoing availabili ty of and access to the data needed to set baselines, track progress, a nd ensure accountability. It would help WRSURYLGHVSHFL¿FVRQWKHIROORZLQJ ‡Who has what data? ‡What understandings have been reached and what agreements h ave been made to ensure ongoing access to needed data? ASSURANCE #6 (Success and Sustainability): Please explain the steps taken to ensure confidence that thi s effort will have the broad-based support, capacity, and resources to succe ed and endure. Considerations include: ‡Mobilizing key stakeholders and important constituencies; ‡Identifying the tables, venues, and forums for conversation, on going joint planning, tracking progress/ making improvements, and collective action; and ‡New and re-directed public, private, and philanthropic doll ars as well as dedicated citizen service and volunteer contributions. dr a f t 4 (c) Creative ways to align and/or integrate different programs an d interventions? (d) New approaches to braiding and blending resources and funding streams? (e) Promisi ng models for deploying and using technology? CSAP Process Considerations Cross-Sector Collaboration—+RZHIIHFWLYHZDVWKH&6$3SURFHVVDWSURYLGLQJHOHFWHGRI¿FLDOVD QG other key leaders of public, business, civic, and philanthropic o rganizations with a meaningful opportu - nity to share in the development of the plan and commit to its implementation? Stakeholder Engagement—How effective was the CSAP process at providing parents and caregi vers, service providers, program operators, and funders with a meaningful opportunity to share in the develop - ment of the plan and commit to its implementation? Community Outreach and Involvement (with special attention to diversity and inclusion)—How effective was the CSAP process at providing the community as a whole (includi ng English language learners and hard-to-reach families) with a meaningful opportunity to learn about the process and have their views and voices heard on the framing of the problem and the solut ions proposed? CSAP REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES IMPACT SUSTAINABILITY How likely is it that this plan will work? How likely is it that this plan will work at scale? How likely is it that this plan will work at scale at lea st through 2020? Does the plan propose: (a) One or more “out-of-the-box” but replicable solutions? (b) Especially energizing ideas, new formulations, or more compellin g re-framing? PART THREE: OVERVIEW OF THE CSAP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (2 PAGES) (The National Civic League’s All-America City Award recognizes communi ty accomplishment through civic engagement. With that in mind, the review criteria will accord considerable weight to cross-sector collaboration, stakeholder engagement, and community outreach.) Please describe the process utilized to develop the CSAP. It wou ld help to provide examples of special success, particular challenges, and lessons learned. Sh a g a s D e s i g n / p h o t o s : © S u s i e F i t z h u g h , J a s o n M i c z e k INNOVATION MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Victor Majtenyi; Deputy Director of Public Uti lities Richard C. Hasko, P.E.; Director of Environmental S ervices Department THROUGH:David Harden; City Manager DATE:February 8, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM WS.2 - WORKSHOP MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012 AUTOMATIC METER READING AND ADVANCED METERING INFRA STRUCTURE STUDY ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is a presentation by Mat hews Consulting, Inc. and City staff summarizing the findings of a “Water Meter Replacement Program and AMR /AMI System Evaluation”. BACKGROUND In March 2011, City Commission approved a Service A uthorization to Mathews Consulting, Inc. for professional services in conducting a Water Meter R eplacement Program and AMR (Automatic Meter Reading) / AMI (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) S ystem Evaluation, P/N 2011-091. The study and system evaluation is now complete. Th e consultant will present the conclusions and make recommendations regarding future strategic planning . C D B C ITYOF D ELRAY B EACH W ATER M ETER W ATER M ETER R EPLACEMENT P ROGRAM E VALUATION Project No. 11-091 February 14, 2012 CITY ’S CURRENT METER READING SYSTEM CITYS CURRENT METER READING SYSTEM 1-way communication |20,732 total water meters (3/4” to 10”) |Touch Read (approx. 19,000) MbilRdiDi bRdi(1800 2000)|M o bil e R a di o D r i ve-b y R ea di ng (1 ,800 -2 ,000) 2010 Water Audit Results 2010 Water Audit Results Til“lift”fti15 20 |T yp i ca l “lif e expec t ancy ” f or me t ers i s 15 -20 years |On average, 80% of City’s existing residential metersare15+yearsold meters are 15+ years old |Average accuracy is 96%, losing $300K/yr revenue (in 5 years, increases to $500K/yr) |Further revenue losses due to inoperable meters &water theft |Limitationsw/dataaccess |Limitations w/ data access Tiftlt!Ti me f or a me t er rep l acemen t program ! MAIN GOALS OF METER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM |Provide an Effective & Reliable Meter Reading System |Produce “User-Friendly” Data that is Easily Accessible Accessible AMR VS . AMI AMR VS . AMI |“AMR” = Automatic Meter Readin g g y Touch Read systems y Mobile Radio Read Systems “AMI”AddMiIf |“AMI” = Ad vance d M eter i ng I n f rastructure y Fixed networks systems (radio towers or mesh) AUTOMATIC METER READING (AMR) |Drive-by Read –typically once/month |Sim p ler s y stem but onl y 1-wa y communication MOBILE RADIO SYSTEM pyy y |Cannot read meters from Utility Office |Non-reads can be addressed at site by meter reader Reader Software Mobile Data Collection Third Party Billing Software 900 MHz 900 MHz |Download data from receiver to server Water meters |Interface w/ billing software A DVANCED M ETERING I NFRASTRUCTURE (AMI) |Latest technology |Meters read hourly & info transmitted multiple times per day or on demand via radio signal |Two-way communication –can access meter information from office Host (Server) Third Party Billing Software Cellular/ Broadband/ Private Network Web Based Cell Phone 900 MHz User Interface PDA Collectors 900 MHz |Information read at host server software & Water Meter Transmitters alerts on computer or cellphones |Interface w/ billing software A DVANCED M ETERING I NFRASTRUCTURE (AMI) Typical Requirements to Implement: |Transmitter/encoder on each meter |Collectors mounted on towers or City facilities |Server & Software for data downloads & interface |Interface reading software w/ billing software |Optional hand-held device for initiation of transmitters A DVANCED M ETERING I NFRASTRUCTURE (AMI)A DVANCED M ETERING I NFRASTRUCTURE (AMI) |Data available at the office for Customer Service |Overall system analytics |Real-time alerts & notification |Tampering detection |Backflow Host (Server) |Backflow |Leak detection |On-demand/hourly reads PDA Cell Phone |Meter shut-off capabilities (integrated solenoid valve) |Late payments |Move-in/move-outs |Emergencyshut off |Emergency shut -off Exam p le Com p uter Screens pp Exam p le Com p uter Screens pp Exam p le Com p uter Screens pp AMI versus AMR AMI versus AMR Id i t M t R dt “I DON ’TBELIEVE MYBILL ” I mme di a t e M e t er R ea d s a t Customer Service Week1 Week 1 Week 2 Monthly Week 3 Non- itemized Bill Week 4 Immediate, hourly read information at customer serv ice creates a transparent bill that customers can believe SYSTEM OPTIONS What were the HOT buttons? Criteria High PriorityMedium PriorityLow Priority Cost Consideration ¥ Data Management Options: x Immediate availability to consumption data x Account alerts / “no reads” / “leaks” x Generate / track work orders x Evaluate meter sizing / “low flow” alerts Ehtfillltift ¥ x E n h ancemen t o f ill ega l connec ti on en f orcemen t progra m x Synchronized meter reads Technology Hardware/Software Options: x User friendly software (for Customer Service & Utilities) x Implement latest technology x Utilityinterfacegraphics ¥x Utility interface graphics x Compatible w/ Finance Software x Backhaul method (cellular) x Remote water shutoff option ¥ Technology Hardware/Software Options: x Customer p ortal ¥p x Type of communication (li censed RF vs. unlicensed RF) Staffing Requirements / Maximize use of available resour ces ¥ System Reliability: x Meter accuracy x Meterreadingcoverage ¥Meter reading coverage x Equipment reliability (incl. battery replacement options) x Compatible with existing meters ¥ System Experience ¥ Warranty Options (10 yr. + 10 yr. prorated vs. 20 yr.)¥ AMI VENDOR SYSTEMS AMI VENDOR SYSTEMS |Receivedbudgetlevel |Received budget level proposals from six system vendors |Five were responsive for an AMI system |Shortlisted based upon qualifications qualifications VENDOR OPTIONS EQUAL CRITERIA |Costscomparablebetweenvendors |Costs comparable between vendors |Immediate access to data |Provide account alerts for leaks , no reads , etc.,, |Offer enhancement of City’s illegal connection enforcement program |Data backhaul via cellular or ethernet |Maximize use of staff |Compatiblewithothermeterbrands |Compatible with other meter brands |Compatible with SungardHTE billing software (p ro g rammin g of interface re q uired )(pggq) |Meter reading coverage over 95% VENDOR OPTIONS SHORTLIST |Bad g e r |Muelle r -Herse y g y Best software for analytics, reports, database management y Can support remote shut off valve y y “Self healing” mesh system y Excellent screen graphics y Uses hydrant caps for repeaters y Menu driven customized dashboard y Weather/rainfall data link |Neptune repeaters y Offers meter with remote shut off valve S |Neptune y Overall system health data screens y Multiple in-state references |S ensus y Experienced in AMI systems y Recently upgraded software y FamiliarwithCity y Records # of days leak has occurred y Can support remote shut off valve y Familiar with City y Licensed frequency y Licensed frequency AMR/AMI SYSTEM INSTALLATION BUDGET COST ESTIMATES AMR |AMR : y Furnish & Install: $5.4 -$6.7Million $5.4 $6.7 Million |AMI: y Furnish & Install: $6.3 -$6.9 Million y Addshut offvalves@$100 y Add shut off valves @ $100 - $240/meter AMR/AMI SYSTEM INSTALLATION AMR/AMI SYSTEM INSTALLATION Net Present Value SAVINGS & PAYBACK Net Savings over 15 years System 1-Year Program 5-Year Program AMR $3.46M$2.38M AMI $3.83M $2.75M Average Payback (all options) 8-9 years |Savings associated with: Rf i d t i y R evenue recovery f rom i ncrease d me t er accurac i es y Overall Operating Cost Reduction STRATEGIC PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS |RecommendAMIsystem –Latesttechnology |Recommend AMI system Latest technology |Standard bid selection process inviting shortlisted vendors only |Bid materials and installation under separate but coordinated contracts 5 earmaimmdeplomentperiod |5 -y ear ma x im u m deplo y ment period |Geographical deployment method with server & software installed first and then g rou p b y areas gpy |Utilize dedicated project manager to oversee day- to-day project operations and database tt i cons t ruc ti on Thank You! (Questions?)(Questions?) MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Commissioners FROM:Douglas E. Smith, Assistant City Manager THROUGH:David T. Harden, City Manager DATE:February 10, 2012 SUBJECT:AGENDA ITEM WS.3 - WORKSHOP MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012 PRESENTATION OF 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY RESULTS ITEM BEFORE COMMISSION The item before Commission is a presentation of the 2011 Citizen Survey results. BACKGROUND The City has been conducting a Citizen Survey for t he past five years through the National Research Center. The survey provides feedback from resident s on their perspective of the community and their view of City services. The survey also provides be nchmark data to compare many of our results to other cities. Last fall the 2011 survey was mailed to 1,200 rando mly selected households. The response rate for the 2011 survey was 29% for a margin of error of plus o r minus 6%. The City has received the draft result s from the survey. The attached presentation provide s highlights of the survey results with selected responses grouped under related City Commission goa ls. The 2011 survey included some parking related questions; highlights from some of these qu estions are included in the presentation. Once the Citizen Survey report is finalized, staff will distribute it to the Commission and on the Cit y website. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY RESULTS CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 2012 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY BACKGROUND INFORMATION •FifthConsecutiveYearofConductingtheCitizen Survey •SurveyConductedbyNationalResearchCenter •Mailedtorandomsampleofhouseholds •2011ResponseRate:29%;Marginoferror+/-6% •Surveyenablesustocompareratingstoprevious yearsandtocompareourresultstoother communities 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Top Quality Services Valued by Citizens 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Top Quality Services Valued by Citizens 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Expanded/Diversified Local Economy 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Expanded/Diversified Local Economy 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Expanded Downtown: A1A to I-95 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Expanded Downtown: A1A to I-95 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Quality Neighborhoods Where People Want to Live 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Quality Neighborhoods Where People Want to Live 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Community Unity 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Quality Educational Opportunities 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Parking Questions 2011 CITIZEN SURVEY Parking Questions