The Center for Digital Government's Digital Cities Survey is conducted annually in the summer: July - August. All United States cities, towns, villages and consolidated city/county governments with populations of 30,000 or greater are invited to participate in this survey. The awards are presented concurrently with the NLC conference held each November.
Top-Ranking U.S. Digital Cities Named for 2008
e.Republic's Center for Digital Government and Digital Communities magazine released results of the eighth annual survey which examines how cities use technology to create a seamless environment between local government and constituents.
"This year's winners reflect that even with budgetary challenges, cities are placing a high value on citizen engagement and improved services," said Cathilea Robinett, executive director for the Center for Digital Government. "Cities are incorporating newer technologies such as Webcasting, podcasts and blogs while continuing to use IT to enhance delivery options for citizens and businesses."
The survey is open to all U.S. cities with a population of 30,000 or more and respondent cities are classified into four size-based categories.
The first-place winners in each of the four population categories are:
• Aurora, Colo. (250,000 or more population)
• Lincoln, Neb. (125,000 - 249,999 population)
• Roanoke, Va. (75,000 - 124,999 population)
• Lynchburg, Va. (30,000 - 74,999 population)
This year's survey was underwritten by Alcatel-Lucent, AT&T, Blackberry, and Hyland Software, developers of OnBase. All companies are proud partners of city governments across America.
Winners will be honored at a special awards ceremony in Orlando, Fla.
Following are the top 10 cities for each population category.
Congratulations, Digital Cities Top Ten!
Center for Digital Government's 2008 Digital Cities Survey winners:
250,000 or more population category:
1st City of Aurora, Colo.
2nd City of Virginia Beach, Va.
3rd City of Miami, Fla.
4th City of Tucson, Ariz.
5th City of Tampa, Fla.
6th City of Riverside, Calif.
7th City of Mesa, Ariz.
8th City of Corpus Christi, Texas
9th Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tenn.
10th City of Honolulu, Hawaii (tie)
10th City of Houston, Texas (tie)
125,000-249,999 population category:
1st City of Lincoln, Neb.
2nd City of Winston-Salem, N.C. (tie)
2nd Salt Lake City, Utah (tie)
3rd City of Madison, Wisc.
4th City of Alexandria, Va.
5th City of Norfolk, Va.
6th City of Irving, Texas
7th City of Hampton, Va. (tie)
7th City of Hollywood, Fla. (tie)
8th City of Cape Coral, Fla. (tie)
8th City of Richmond, Va. (tie)
9th City of Chesapeake, Va. (tie)
9th City of Lakewood, Colo. (tie)
10th City of Durham, N.C.
75,000 - 124,999 population category:
1st City of Roanoke, Va.
2nd City of Independence, Mo. (tie)
2nd City of West Palm Beach, Fla. (tie)
3rd City of Richardson, Texas (tie)
3rd City of Santa Monica, Calif. (tie)
4th City of Arvada, Colo.
5th City of Orem, Utah
6th City of Lawrence, Kan.
7th City of Ann Arbor, Mich. (tie)
7th City of Westminster, Colo. (tie)
8th City of Boulder, Colo.
9th City of Lee's Summit, Mo.
10th City of Pueblo, Colo.
30,000 - 74,999 population category:
1st City of Lynchburg, Va.
2nd Town of Flower Mound, Texas
3rd Town of Jupiter, Fla.
4th Town of Blacksburg, Va.
5th City of Charlottesville, Va.
6th City of Annapolis, Md.
7th City of Medford, Ore.
8th City of Delray Beach, Fla.
9th Town of Manchester, Conn.
10th City of Boynton Beach, Fla.
This Digital Communities white paper highlights discussions with IT officials in four counties that have adopted shared services models. Our aim was to learn about the obstacles these governments have faced when it comes to shared services and what it takes to overcome those roadblocks. We also spoke with several members of the IT industry who have thought long and hard about these issues. The paper offers some best practices for shared government-to-government services, but also points out challenges that government and industry still must overcome before this model gains widespread adoption.