LTC 081-2010 Cleanliness Index & Assessment Program Results for FY 2009/10 Quarter 1m- MIAMlBEACH
~~f ~ ~.., ._ a ,,~' I_
_ ~..
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER ZQIQ NAR ] O ~t~ 2; 44
LTC # osi-2oio LETTER TO CO I:O111..
~~c..~•~r, ~ iJf=FIL
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manage
DATE: March15, 2010
SUBJECT: Cleanliness Index & Assessment P gram Results for FY 2009/10 Quarter 1
The purpose of this Letter to Commission is to communicate the results of the award winning
Cleanliness Index and Assessment program from FY2009/10 Quarter 1 (October 1, 2009 to
December 31, 2009).
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 FY2006/07, 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 FY2007/08, FY 2008/09, and FY2009/10. 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 2009/10 Quarter 1
Overall, the citywide cleanliness index improved by 22% during FY09/10 Quarter 1 when
compared to the same quarter in Fy2005/06 (the first year the program was implemented), but
remained steady when compared to the same quarter in FY2008/09. In general, the City's
cleanliness has steadily progressed as evidenced by the index, anecdotal information, and
results of our most recent resident surveys.
Positive and Improved Areas in FY 2009/10 Quarter 1
• Streets and Sidewalks -Sanitation observed the correlation between an increase in the
scores during FY 2008/09 Q1 and key personnel going on vacation during the holiday
season. As a result, last Q1, supervisors were asked to stagger their vacation time so
that key personnel would be available throughout the quarter. Overall scores improved
by 7% for streets and 2% for sidewalks when compared to the same quarter in FY
2008/09.
• Parks -Scores improved by 33% when compared to the same quarter in FY2005/06 and
3% when compared to the same quarter in FY2008/09.
• Alleys -Scores improved by 15% when compared to FY 2008/09 Q1 and by 24% when
compared to the same quarter in FY 2005/06. This is one of the best scores achieved by
alleys through the life of the program and it has been due to the efforts of Sanitation and
Code working together and reestablishing their monthly meetings.
Areas of Focus
• Waterways -Overall scores improved when compared to FY 2008/09 Q1 and the same
quarter in FY 2005/06, but this continues to be an area of focus, especially in the waterway
hotspots. 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.
• Parkins Lots -This area appeared as an area of focus mostly due to litter and illegal
dumping, especially in Mid Beach and North Beach. After some research, Public Works
realized that the scores continue to be affected because the haulers are not picking-up
garbage regularly. Sanitation is currently working to address this issue with the haulers.
Also, some of the blue receptacles in these parking lots will need to be replaced with the
larger green receptacles in order to increase their capacity.
Cleanliness Kev Intended Outcome
Cleanliness was identified in our community surveys as a key driver impacting overall quality of
life. Also, in the 2009 survey, residents and businesses rated cleanliness as the number one
service the City should strive not to reduce. Although additional improvement remains good,
since the inception of the cleanliness assessment program, the City has seen noted increases in
overall service levels and satisfaction in the community in this important service area.
III
Overall Ci Score
1.78
1.73
Sveets' 1. 1.
Nor i~wivtlmv .uey. 1.37 1.
commarciai-Enwminmenr 1, 1,yg
commercial-NOrvEntertainment 1,51 1,80
Reaitlennat
aieya~ 1,
= `
~- 1,
v--:
6idewalks 1.58 L72
commemiai-Entenainment 1,81 1,
Commercial-NOmentenainmenr 1.6q 1,75
Residenoai 1.74 1.75
Parks 1.7 1.
Parkin
Waterwa 1. 1 1. 7
Beach Areas
Ciryaf M'mmi Beach Rasponaibilil 1.7 1.59
Miami-patle County Responaibilh i,gi 1,7g
Overall Ci Score 7.69 1.76 1.83 1.91 1.T3 0.4% •76.6%
Streets' 1.80 1.84 1.82 1.88 1.73 2.7% -14.5%
Nor inaivaina ways 1.88 1.59 1.59 1.79 1.88 3.9% -14.4%
commemmi-Ent.nammem 1.88 1.81 1.59 1.73 1.85 5.8X •75.3%
Commemial-Nan-Enbnainmem 1.74 1.51 1.52 1.62 1.85 .1% -10.0%
Reaiaenmt
diem'-
Sidewalks 1.57
=r-'-'-
.~ 1.77 1.63
7.83
1.70 1.85
1.72
1.81 1.87
1.82 1.88
1.97
1.73 2.0%
-4.9%
0.1X •16.5%
-24.3%
-16.2%
commerct.i-Ente.wnmem 1.73 7.68 1.82 1.74 1.89 0.7% -17.5%
Commercial-Non-Entertainment 1.88 1.73 1.55 "L±i+
~~ 1.79 2.2% -8.3%
Reakential
Parks
Parking
Waterway
Beall Areas 1.80
1.98 1.77
1.58
1.92
T-`X.~ 1.88
1.61
1.98 1.85
1.79 1.77
1.55
1.98 1.4%
1.9%
4.9%
0.8% -17.3%
-18.1%
-11.1%
•78.8%
Clty of Miami Beath Responsibility 1.BB 1.87 1Ai 1.81 1.82 2.0% •12.5%
MiamFDade County Responsibility 1.71 1.54 1.77 1.81 -5.1% -16.7%
Overall Ci Swre 1.71 -10.0% 1.]% -22.1%
Streets' 1.88 -10.5% -8.3% -18.7%
Nat mawairw aiieye 1.83 -9.0% -2.0% -18A%
cammemiai-Emerumment 1,70 -1.9% 1.0% -7.5%
commerciaLNOn-Enredeinment 1.81 -11.6% -7.7% -16.0%
RaaidenLel 1.55 -17.3% -1.2% -37.4%
elan" 1.68 -10.6% •14.9% -23,6%
Sidewalks 1.74 4.5% -2.0% -74.0%
Commecial-Entertainment 1,62 0.S% 5.]% -2.4%
Commercial-Non-Ente.lainment 1,72 -14.4% -8.8% -12.6%
ReeiaenEai
Parks
Parkin 1.88
-
X
~ -9.3%
-21.6%
-6.6% -7.1%
-2.3%
20X -26.5%
-32.6%
-10.9%
Waterwa 1.91 -13.1% -12.7% -31.2%
Beach Areas
Ci W Miami Beach Res onsibili 1.58 -3.5% -7.3% -22.8%
Miami-Dade DOBn Res onsibili 1.63 -8.3% -5.1% -17.1%
' Pmate /Business garbage dumpsters scores are not used in the calculation of this score.
" Private /Business garbage dumpsters were not assessed in FY05 04 and FVOB 01.
Note: 7atget in FV2005lO6 was 2.0 and was changed to 1.5 in FY2006/07
Cleanliness Index Score Per Public Area (target = 1.5)
Cit ide 82.4% 80.3%
Streets
Commercal-EMertainme
Commercal-Non-Entertainment 89. % 87.4%
66.2%
88.5%
ReeMeMial 65.6% 88.1%
Sidewalks 87.6% 80.8%
Commerde4Entenainme 89.8% 84.8%
commerdal-NOo-EntertainmeM 86.0% 77.7%
R.abeneai &1.1% 78.3%
Alle
~
~
Parks 76.8% 88.2%
Parkin 76.4%
W aterwa
Beach CMB
81.4%~
~~86.2%
Beach MDC 84.5%
Cit ide 76.2% 80.9X 88.8% 78.0X 81.0% 0.7% 18.8%
Streets 82.4% 89.8X 84.1X 67.1% -0.4% 13.7%
CommerciaFEMertainment 80.5% 88.5% 88.1% 0.0% 20.8%
Commercial-Non-Entertainment 77.8% 77.4X 84.8% 3.9% 2.3%
Reaidentiai 89.7% 88.5X 88.0% 84.0% 87.0% 0.9% 13.6%
Sidewalks 79.7% 88.2% 80.9X 85.2X 4.4% 18.4%
CommercieLEMeneinmeM 82.7% 85.9% 88.8% 3.8% 25.0%
Commercial-NOn~rHerteinmeM `''-r~
~1 82.9% 78.3% 0.6% 6.6%
Reai4ermei 83.1% 85.7% 88.6% 80.0% 83.9% 5.5% 17.6%
Alle s' ...y 78.5% 77.8%
:
~
~
~ 3.1% 25.0%
Parks 75.7%
75.7X 84.1% $.0% 17.6%
Parkin _ - 84.2X .~
~ -0.8% 16.4%
Waterwa
N =- 75.9%
=
~ -
:~^~ 2.4% 17.4%
Beach CMB 80.3%
~ -,.~
a~
`'= 84.4% -1.8X 11.3%
Beach MOC 75.8% 89.3% 84.2X B5.8% 1.4% 14.6%
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 Isabel Stillone with
the Office of Budget and Performance Improvement at extension 6354.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
JMG/J'FG/IAS