Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Strategic Plan Kpis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boca Raton council reviews proposed KPIs for 2024–25 strategic plan
Summary
Deputy City Manager Lukasick presented proposed key performance indicators — from crime reporting under NIBRS to tree‑canopy goals and transit metrics — and council members pressed staff on data sources, measurement methods and realistic benchmarks.
Deputy City Manager Lukasick walked Boca Raton’s City Council through staff‑recommended key performance indicators for the 2024–25 strategic plan on Monday, proposing measures intended to track public safety, quality of life, financial sustainability and multimodal mobility.
Lukasick said the aim is to move from anecdote to objective measurement. “What gets measured gets done,” he said, explaining staff plans to use the FBI’s NIBRS data to report crime incidents, a citizen perception survey to capture how safe residents feel, and a focused count of pedestrian and bicycle crashes to support the city’s Vision Zero goals.
Why it matters: the KPIs are intended to give council and staff a consistent way to check whether programs and investments are producing the intended results and to align departmental work with the strategic priorities the council approved earlier this year.
Council members pushed staff on specifics. Several asked that the safety metrics capture not only reported crashes but also “near misses” and localized conflict points so the city can identify problem intersections even if overall averages don’t change. Lukasick said staff would evaluate available sources — including regional crash maps and advisory‑board input — and determine what data can be reliably collected.
On quality of life, Lukasick recommended tracking tree‑canopy growth, resident responses in the planned January perception survey and participation at city‑sponsored events, with follow‑up feedback to assess event quality. Council members noted that many event attendees are nonresidents and suggested survey questions and household‑level items that would better capture resident participation rates.
Financial metrics proposed included recurring revenue relative to recurring expenses, a fund‑balance target (staff cited the commonly used 25–30 percent standard) and maintaining a strong bond rating as a lagging indicator of fiscal health. Mayor Singer urged staff to adopt a single fund‑balance target rather than a range and to provide historical percentages so the council can see trends.
Transportation measures under consideration ranged from modal share (auto miles versus other modes) and transit ridership to the number of quick‑build safety projects and intersection level‑of‑service. Lukasick noted some data — such as mobile‑device aggregates and regional rail zip‑code trip patterns — exist but may raise privacy concerns or require vendor partnerships; council members asked staff to weigh trade‑offs between data richness and resident privacy.
Staff also proposed growth‑management indicators (pedestrian/bicycle counts, affordable units delivered, linear feet of new pedestrian/bicycle facilities) and recommended measuring timeliness (application to occupancy) for affordable housing projects to identify bottlenecks in getting units built.
Council direction and next steps: staff will refine the KPI list, consider data‑collection feasibility, and return with a proposed reporting framework. The presentation emphasized picking measures that are easy to collect and manage so the city can sustain monitoring over time.
