LTC 035-2012 Cleanliness Index m MIAMI BEACH
. ry rF. V
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 2012 F'EB - 6 qI , 55
LTC # 035 -2012 LETTER TO �Q1 I S ON
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: February 3, 2012
SUBJECT: Cleanliness Index & Assessment Program Results for FY 2011/12 Quarter 1
The purpose of this Letter to Commission is to communicate the results of the award
winning Cleanliness Index and Assessment program from FY2011/12 Quarter 1 (October 1,
2011 to December 31, 2011).
Background
The Miami Beach Public Area Cleanliness Index is an objective measurement of
performance ranging from 1.0 (Very Clean) to 6.0 (Very Dirty) and includes assessments of
litter, litter/ garbage cans /dumpsters, organic material, and fecal matter. The results of the
assessments are used to monitor the impacts of recently implemented initiatives to target
areas for future improvements, and assure the quality of services.
During FY 2006/07, the City tightened the target for the Citywide and area - specific
cleanliness indices from 2.0 to 1.5 — the lower the score on the cleanliness index indicates a
cleaner area. This target continues to be the same through FY 2007/08, FY 2008/09, FY
2009/10, FY 2010/11, and FY 2011/12. As important, the City also has a goal to ensure that
90 percent of assessments score 2.0 or better.
Summary of the Cleanliness Assessment Results FY 2011/12 Quarter 1
Overall, the citywide cleanliness index improved during FY 2011/11 Quarter 1 by 25.5%
when compared to the same quarter in FY2005/06 (the first year the program was
implemented) and remained steady when compared to the same quarter in FY2010/11. In
general, the City's cleanliness has steadily progressed as evidenced by the index, anecdotal
information, and results of our most recent resident survey.
Positive and Improved Areas in FY 2011/12 Quarter 1
• Parks Scores improved by 2.7% when compared to the same quarter in FY2010/11,
with a 30.8% improvement when compared to the same quarter in FY2005/06.
Parks will continue to work with sanitation to address any issues, as well as waste
hauler responsibilities. Three vacancies will also be filled during this quarter.
• Beaches - Scores improved by 34.7% for areas covered by Miami Beach staff and
16.3% for areas covered by MDC compared to the same quarter in FY2005/06, with
a 13.2% improvement in Miami Beach areas of responsibility from same quarter in
FY 2011/12. Cleanliness of beaches remains a priority, with multiple departments
collaborating to address prior issues. Miami -Dade County personnel participate in
quarterly meetings. A proposed ordinance has been drafted to eliminate flyer
distribution on the beaches, as well as increased code enforcement.
• Sidewalks Sidewalks across the Beach improved by 13.7% when compared to the
same quarter in FY 2005/06, with an improvement in litter of 2.8% when compared to
the same quarter in FY 2010/11. Scores this quarter are the best scores to date,
with an overall quarter four score for streets of 1.47 and sidewalks of 1.41. The
percentage of sidewalk assessments scoring 2.0 was 91.6% with all areas exceeding
the target.
Areas of Focus
• Waterways - Overall scores improved by 18.4% when compared the same quarter in
FY 2005/06, but this continues to be an area of focus as scores were the poorest for
all assessment areas. Non - hotspot waterways assessment scores were 28.4% and
25.6% poorer, respectively when compared to same quarter in base year and same
quarter in prior year. The main factor affecting the score is litter accumulation on the
edge of the water and debris coming down as a result of the high tide. Sanitation will
reach out to Miami Dade County to discuss areas of responsibility and cleaning cycle
dates. County staff will also be invited to all future cleanliness meetings and
provided cleanliness program data. Areas of responsibility will be more clearly
defined including private and public waterways with service levels adjusted
accordingly. Once identified, code will increase enforcement of waterway shoreline
cleaning.
• Alleys Overall scores in alleys improved by 22.0% when compared to the same
quarter in FY 2005/06, but declined 12.3% when compared to the same quarter in
FY 2010/11. Alley cleanliness ratings at 1.92 remain among the poorest citywide.
Graffiti and overflowing garbage cans appear to be the issue. Sanitation will contact
the wasted haulers to address the spray painting of addresses on dumpsters, which
presents as graffiti. Code has increased enforcement as well.
• Parking Lots - Parking lots have improved 24.0% when compared to the same
quarter in FY 2005/06. Despite this improvement, the score is still below our target
with sanitation continuing to work with the waste hauler to increase service for
garbage cans and has submitted a cure letter to the vendor for immediate attention.
Cleanliness Key Intended Outcome
Cleanliness was identified in our community surveys as a key driver affecting overall quality
of life. In addition, in the 2009 survey, residents and businesses rated cleanliness as the
number one service the City should strive not to reduce. The City has implemented
increases in service levels and community satisfaction levels have improved. Overall scores
have improved by 23.8% from FY2005/06 to FY2010/11.
Next Quarter Assessments
City employees and Neighborhood Leadership Academy alumni and students are
conducting cleanliness assessments every quarter. If you or any member of your staff is
interested in participating in the City's Public Area Cleanliness Program, please contact
Leslie Rosenfeld with the Office of Budget and Performance Improvement Organizational
Development Division at extension 6923.
If you have any. furth r questions, please feel free to contact me.
P ik
JMG /DRB/ LD
MIAMI BEACH
PdMA N w 04 FY7
191 2.21 203 210
Akwk
Not ncuang ateys 1.99 its 2.16 1.74 154
Cor^s s- EMetan -eiri -
Comrwcal- Nay-£merbn^enl I.E9 1.117 '. 4.75 183
Rt-ii'ntal 275 1.93 2.71 1.74 2Dt
Nei
akwisliks 202 205 2.33 6: 206
Co- ,Woo - =_merbrr em 1. 1-
Ca ocai - tun- Enterbn -cM 1.9? g _ ._ 1 S
ReJ:1Wt11 e-
p� 2c8 15, __ 204 1�9c
Pmkim
277 212 2.93 2M 259
8pa�.Ameli
r.lam: Bead RespormVf5 r Cn i FA _
Mam: Daft Oaf* ReW"bily i % I '8 204 11.9E 122
rr.Yd rv411m rrrlar. fteMm r1AW1 r'+im
Wept Am FY 84ore FY Sam FY Som. FY S.orr FY gem FY 8em. .� =V' .w.`�Fr
= CRY Stare 210 1 -z 1 ^3 1.60 I V
y 2033 f s. 1.74 s.66
NV i! -orq ak', I.9. .. 1.66 1.66 1.34
Cam ma - Ertrbnmrt 1.15 1.66 '.65 1.69 135
:tr -rac ad -hor Erten !rnrt 1.83 I6C 1.63 7.63 1.57
-- R ,*erta 211 1.64 1.58 t.65 1.31
Airy- 260 2.07 1.47 1-99 1.89
Sidewalks is 1.72 1.73 US 11.43
Cmro*+eerca - Ertertallmet 206 t.Po 1.7 1.59 1.77 11.14
:4(rmer Nmr tan
ErtCrn t 1.% 1.75 1.79 1.77
Re.idenea 2M 5 1.77 1.71 1.59
pad& t_90 1.4 1.56 1.57
hs= 221 1.87 1.96 200 1.81
td 11 t.fi
�.A10ffi
Wa-.l 9eatb RespwNblty Orly Im 1m S.S: I.59
'Ma- -Dade :0^ F ,PoMbltti 1.93 1.70 7.61 f..3
Mani
1rYt� Y<frrp
Nft .4y- G1 SIZ 0 w tr tlrw fs .aw twM fY
Owrap CRY Seat 1.63 tir 1.69 1.49 1.60
y f� 1.59 1.6c 1.9= 1.47 11.65 i!% -':97%
Not Irtoven0 alrf- 1.94 1.51 1. 1.36 11.64 -?1%
Cow -ercm - Erterov v rt ':;:.. 1.54 1.75 1.41 Am -53% - E1--").4
Carmecal- NaTErterb MWI 1.56 1.96. -.._ t5' -36% -142%
Resrarca 1.59 1.51 1.6: 131 -94% -248%
A1ry- 1.71 1.ffi ZIS L?S 1.ffi -50% - 2734e.
Sreevra.c t.68 1.66 1.76 11.43 i8% - 20.16%
CanntlCm- Ertermnwt 1.63 1 '73% - *36%
Caeclal- Na Wl
rErlerlrert 1.64 1 �'9 .95 1.43 -79% -'6A76
nnr
Resatma 1.79 '.9c 1.3 1 _T.0% -25
Fi9a 1 '.3- 1.33 •11.476 -25854
1.7? 232 2.03 1.48 Im -95% - -s 14
1.76 1.59 1.53 1.80 IL -1-476 -34 R.,
�Bffi8E
1 . 1 1 19e3M - ?eW- wslbt4 Crli 1.52 -10.0% -..
'.nrFDaae:arf7 Fe,Wcd lti 1.54 1 -32%
Y arpe
wrrar.. a of of 6
ov" Cbr Sucre t.64 - -
� 1.64 17.516 31%
NDt lnc:Jarp aky- 1.4 11.991 -1396 -216%
Carrerc& - Ertetanrm1 1.57 7 `% 1.3%
Carmecal- Non -ErteW rrWt 11.59 tG2% 13% -%4%
Fcderca 14.2% •92% -336%
AWr 192 9.7% '23% - =0%
Eii>ems" 28% -13.74! -28.2%
C4nr*ercm- F3tertmmffwt 0.7% -11.7% -'30%
Cartarerclal - Man- j1te"1 rrwt 4.2% -13% -23.9%
RGtIlr6b 11.5% -24n% •C4%
�i
16% -2.7% -3D.8%
MOW 1.71 16.9% -3b4t -3&0%
2811ENK MG% 29.4% -1114%
J�90i
Wlart Beam Respoftr1610' Drily -3b7► - 13�'9k -31.7%
V1 w *IFOafe Daxd pa. parsEdty 1-64 113.4% 65*.ti
4' MIAMI BEACH
575% 71.1% 567% "5551 6S2%
i4anao
Com-- i- Entenanmmt 66.1% ": 67.3%
Camntercml - NorhEntertsnment
Rr. oertla S62% 3:6% 662%
t ey
62b% 681% 56A% 667%
ConrCCa - Enitxn^ .t 69- 71)% 31.7K 63.6%
Comnletcml - NUrEnlrtanment 71.
Rroertla 52A% '2.1% 52.1% 66.2%
Palo
Ems= 48D% 595% 49.2% 56.4%
1C
%Aar; Beach Re=mn b ty Crti Was
vla " -CUOe, t5Re4)DMN*j 753% BA% 63.9% 7720 T1.2%
ITaM� I11~N
PION AM r'1'teen ryfog
Y, B1 D% 79A%
Atwd& 87.1% ASA%
CamaeCal- Enittanmmt BB.1% $7.3%
coff"m ml -kvrr tenanment Bab% 873%
ReSOerila
ti ey 673m WAS
310taBB� 95 -
C*,Y-erca - Entananment BBAN CA%
Cemmdeml - Non-Erft tenant
R-md"s B39% 79t%
EUSL 84.1% 49.1%
y t 71AIA
Bomb Arum
Vltm Beah Re=ancb '4 Crfi as Mk 8e.7X
�.na- rt]oae :aa+b Rr�e:ottr ..
"Iml
PaCN AM on w m u rr aew n.. In. ti an.
swim
s.
3 793% 15.1% IILN%
Com-�rea - Enterbnment
[cm^ercal- NDrEnlnanmeflt 7S $Lim B.7%
Resacna
AoeYs t7..A% ZLWA
;tali 86.7% Ski% $2:.
Con -eaar - Enlrtanment
Co lrtsmm
mrgff=l- Non- Enent KJ% tt.7%
Resoetla
E�4 h.t%
P3�IY
Y all - 1% Y5% Ill B3.!% - 7 - 6%
BawhA@
"asm Beam %- wmn b '4" Orel
+/b� -WOe ::ouibRe'.00!Gbib 2% a.e% 4pti
mws
l4eN Alamo a m m or rr s r. I M. ba r en.ar.
01 .
T
lk"a 9t9% f.i A .6.7% •'2.�4
Um a - Entensnment JW
Cammeteal- ton- Enlrtmnmmt 67A% -72% A.116 1C.`G
Resm"s LA% D.^ 54_
keys r. t
liammm -137i 12% 1 � -
Cmraea - En*ftwTent
Ccmmneal- NDTEnIRanmmt -1.716 B.t1Y :e?.d+c
Rmsetts
Ea%6 -2A% 4.0% 4@.F!
Pam S3, -&7% &A% 1 3 e
BBaB4B @ai
, .Wm Bean ReWm b A. Ord
Ma^rDaoe C "4 Rrpahsttb i4A91 1 -7A% *AM t Si