Everybody, this is Jonathan Hopkins, Map Administrator.

It's 1 32 p.m.

And good afternoon to everybody, the board members and members of the community.

Thank you for joining for our October 30th board workshop on performance dashboard best practices.

Today's meeting is part of our initiative to share peer spotlights from around the country on key topics for the Oversight Board so the board can make recommendations informed by a range of practices.

Today's presentation is possible thanks to the work of the Performant Metrics and Evaluation Team, which includes Neil Lynn, Mai Tran, Tiffany Rowe, Marlene Bruneau, and with assistance of Carol Munamera.

Presenting today is the lead in this research evaluation project, Tiffany Rowe.

I'll turn it over to her shortly with the team's research findings.

After she presents, we will open the floor to questions and comments from the board, which will help inform our team's next steps in developing our next generation performance dashboard.

So with that, Tiffany, it's all yours.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

My name is Tiffany Rowe, program project coordinator.

Thank you for joining today.

Today I'll share findings from our research on 18 pair transportation measures.

We reviewed how these programs report progress and performance to the public and how their practices can inform MAPS public dashboard and formal reporting.

To frame our discussion, here's a brief overview of today's agenda.

We'll begin with our current public dashboard, then review the peer measures we researched, and the six key insights from that review.

From there, we'll take a closer look at three peer programs, review a conceptual design for MAPS dashboard, and close with questions and discussion.

We ask that you hold your feedback and questions until the end of the presentation.

With that, let's begin with where we are today.

This is our current public dashboard.

It offers a project level view of transportation surtax projects from 2019 through 2031.

Residents can search by address, project name or ID, and filter by project type and phase.

Residents can also filter projects by municipal and commission district boundaries.

Selecting a project displays its description, location, phase, fiscal year of award, and total surtax funding.

With that baseline in mind, we looked at how peer programs across the country report their progress.

We reviewed 18 voter approved transportation measures across nine states, ranging from Los Angeles County's 120 billion dollar Measure M to Seattle's 930 million dollar levy.

Of these 18, we'll look at five measures in more detail later in the presentation.

Santa Clana Coward Santa Clara County and Nashville serve as dashboard examples within the key insights.

And Seattle, Phoenix, and Columbus are the peer spotlights.

Across these programs, six key insights emerge consistently.

Here they are at a glance.

Organize around the voter promise, lead with a map, budget versus spending transparency, list targets and show progress, show outputs and impact separately, and build layers of detail.

The first insight starts with the foundation of any SERTAX program, the voter promise.

Organizing the dashboard around the voter promise means structuring it by the same categories listed in the ballot language.

This allows residents to trace their tax dollars directly to the commitments approved by voters.

Santa Clara County's Measure B is an example.

The Measure B dashboard is organized entirely by the measure's ballot categories, such as local streets and roads, bicycle and pedestrian projects, and transit operations.

So each investment is presented within the commitment it supports.

Once the dashboard reflects what was promised, the next consideration is to help residents see where those investments are taking place.

Leading with a map can address that directly.

An interactive map allows residents to view projects by location, such as their neighborhood or district, and connect the program to the places they know.

Nashville's Choose How You Move program is an example.

Residents select a planning area or council district, and the map displays capital investments to date with layers for traffic signals, sidewalks, complete streets, and transit service upgrades.

Beyond where investments are located, it's equally important to show how program funds are being managed.

That's the focus of budget versus spending transparency, which presents budgeted amounts alongside actual spending over the life of the program.

The

Move Seattle levy is an example.

For each program area, the dashboard compares spending to date against the levy's total budget, and an annual spending chart that shows the pace of investment over time.

While financial reporting shows how funds are spent, targets show what those funds are intended to achieve.

Listing targets and showing progress puts each result next to an established goal, such as miles of sidewalk built, signals upgraded, or bridges rehabilitated.

A target gives each number context that it wouldn't have on its own.

It shows whether project delivery is ahead of schedule, on track or behind, sets clear expectations for what the program will achieve, and allows progress to be measured consistently over time.

Seattle's dashboard is an example.

Each deliverable shows the number of projects planned next to the number completed, with the status indicator of exceeded met or behind plan.

Tracking targets shows what has been delivered.

The next insight distinguishes that delivery from the difference it makes.

Outputs measure what was delivered.

Impacts measure how the system changes as a result of layered investments.

For transit, an output could be the number of bus stops and shelters improved, and the related impact would be increased boardings at those stops.