LTC 308-2010 Cleanliness Index & Assessment MIAMIBEACH
rEIVF
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MO $ 3
LTC *308-2010 l LETTER TO eMMISSIONcE
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager f JAG
DATE: November 18, 2010
SUBJECT: Cleanliness Index &Assessment Program Results for FY 2009/10 Quarter 4
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 4 (July 1, 2010 to
September 30, 2010)
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, and FY 2009/10. 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 4
Overall, the citywide cleanliness index improved during FY 2009/10 Quarter 4 by 14% when
compared to the same quarter in FY2005/06 (the first year the program was implemented) and
improved by 9.0% 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 4
• Alleys- Alleys across the Beach remained steady with a slight improvement. Community
outreach by community outreach regarding dumping days was increased as of August
2010 in an effort to further improve this area . In addition, a full -time code officer is now
dedicated to sanitation to assist with enforcement in the alleys.
• Sidewalks/ Residential Sidewalks- Scores improved by 9.7% when compared to the
prior quarter and by 9.0% when compared to the same quarter in FY2008/09 along with
outreach efforts to resident gardeners regarding excessive organic material not
removed. Code Compliance will continue to provide outreach to neighborhoods
regarding illegal dumping of organic materials. M1
Areas of Focus
• Parking Lots Overall scores in parking lots improved by 9.3% when compared to the
prior quarter and 15.9% when compared to the same quarter in FY2008/09.. Despite this
improvement, Parking cleanliness rating remain among the lowest Citywide, primarily
due to due to trash collecting underneath the trash liner and not being removed.
Sanitation will continue to work with the haulers to reinforce their role and will begin to
charge September 1 for non - compliance.
• Parks - Scores decreased by 3.6% compared to the prior quarter with trash collecting
underneath the trash liner and not being removed being a driving factor. Parks and
sanitation personnel will develop a plan to replace the liners, addressing the most critical
areas first. In addition, the trash liners will be cleaned on a regular basis, with parks -
personnel notifying sanitation of any issues with the dumping of the garbage by the
contractor. Sanitation no longer enters the parks and will need to work closely with
Parks personnel to ensure waste hauler compliance.
Cleanliness Key Intended Outcome
Cleanliness was identified in our community surveys as a key driver affecting 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. The City has implemented increases in service
levels and community satisfaction levels have improved. Overall scores have improved by
14.6% since the inception of the program, although this past fiscal year did not rate quite as well
(2.4 %) when compared to the prior year.
•
Cleanliness Index Score Per Public Area target = 1.51
NM
Pubbe Area FY2005/06 1 - Emerley clear
Q1 02 43 44 FY Score 2.Ow
Overall C Cy Score 2.20 1.94 2.24 2.03 2.10 3- Utenee1Z Cleat
Streets' 2.07 1.98 222 1.84 2.03 a- Damietta Dirty
me 1.99 1.85 2.16 1.74 1.04 5- Dirty
Camwder - Metalware 1.84 178 244 1.74 1.05 6- gmetrieir Din
CO MM= -Noe-EmMar i n 1.89 1.87 1.81 1.75 1.83
11isanml 2.25 1.03 2 11 1.74 2.01
Alm11 •• 2.46 280 275 2.49 210
3 :eleia acs 2.02 2.05 2.33 1.84 2.06
Co me: a • Erretarrnen 1.87 1.95 250 1.86 2.04
C ntmecir - ewl- 8eetare cur 1.97 2.15 1.91 1.79 1.05
i400emal 2.28 2.11 2.35 1.83 2.14
Parks 2.08 1.53 1.93 2.04 1.00
Parting 225 2.26 2.30 2.01 .
15'aterway 2.77 112 213 2.53 2.5
Beach Areas
Geyer Mal Dean Respareet 2.02 1.68 1.80 1.31 1.85
kaane -0ade Canty to .pone! 1.96 1 78 2.04 1 35 1.03
FY188eit FY2006107 FY 28008 FY 2008109 FY 2001710
Public Area FY Score FY Score FY Score FY Score FY Score % change % change % change
BASE trea23aaaff ham PDF/FY iaailestFY
Overall City Score 2.10 1 78 1 75 1.75 1.8D -144% 2.4% 2A%
Streets' 2.83 168 1 1.73 1.74 -14-1% 0.4% 48%
sa nwtlrgatml '.94 1 57 1 59 1.56 1.66 -14216 0.4% 91%
Committal - Eteetarrnrf • 95 1 58 1 56 1.85 1 89 -134% 23% 8.5%
Cmrtarda- Na.Emetanmer '.d3 1 51 1 80 1.65 1.63 -10.616 -0216 IA%
Rei0erdal 2.01 163 164 1.68 1.85 -17.6% -1.4% 1.5%
Ater" 2.86 228 2.07 1,37 1.99 -23.3% 1.3% 1.3%
Sidewalks 226 186 172 1.73 1.75 -14.9% 1.5% 5.4%
Cameras - Erertrvnn' 2.04 161 162 1.54 1.77 -13.6% 4.7% 9.4%
Co medal - NUeErrertanrr^.' •.35 164 175 1.73 177 -9.4% -12% 7.8%
I4renrrval 2.14 174 175 1.7 1.71 -20.0% -3.3% -1.6%
Parks '.9C 175 152 1.55 1.57 -171% 1.2% 32%
Parking 2.21 1 81 1 87 1.35 2.00 -9.1% 2.2% 10.7%
Wanes, 2.20 2 08 2 0' 2.10 2.11 -182% 0.4% 1.5%
Beach Ana
My or kern Dead)RtlpaWG '.35 175 159 1.82 - .52 -13816 -1.5% 0.5%
Mwrl -0atte Canty Rwpamdi 5 •.93 191 1 7C 1.5' . 63 -15.8% 1.1% 1.1%
FY2008191
Pubis Ares 41 42 03 44
Overall Cty : 1.69 1 76 1 65 1.0' 1.75 0.4% -16.6%
Streets' 1.80 104 162 1.88 1.73 2.7% -14.5%
rot ncudrn3 ale' 1.68 1 50 1 59 1.70 1.66 3.9% - 14.4%
Camwda - Er1rrfartteMt 1.68 1 81 1 50 1.73 1.65 5.8% -15.3%
cmmeraai - Nr lr n 1.74 1 51 1.52 1.92 1.65 3.1% -10.016
Resdraal 1.57 1 63 1 55 1.87 1.68 2.016 -165%
Ares" 221 183 172 110 1.07 4.9% -24.3%
Sioewaks 1.77 1 70 1 81 1.82 1.73 0.1% -16.2%
Commas!. EntertaermY 1.73 166 1 62 1.74 1.60 87% -17.5%
Dcemrda •Nm- Eroehanmm 1.88 1 73 1 55 2.01 170 2.2% -83%
Reoderaal 1,80 177 1 86 1.85 177 14% -17.3%
Parts 158 1. 1.55 1.911 -18.1%
Parking '_96 192 181 2.14 1.96 4.914 -11.1%
Waterway 2.18 2.06 1 06 2.19 2.10 0.6% -18.814
Beach Ana
City of Mans Brach Responsrb45y 1.68 1 67 1.51 1.51 1.62 2.014 -12.5%
Miam -Deoe County Responsibility 171 1 54 1.77 181 -51% -16.716
% change
FY 2009110 from same
Public Area Qt 132 Q3 Q4 FY Score
% change %change in quarter in
trees prior Qt prior FY Qtr base year
Overall Cty 1:c•e ' 71 1 32 1 80 1.74 '. -3.596 -8.6% -14.1%
Streets' ' 62 1 95 1 70 1.53 ' 34 -43% -13.216 -11.5%
ra neuarg aims 1.63 1 83 1 85 1.54 • 88 -6.5% -11.7% -11.3%
Cmewdai- erMtarrrwl 1.70 102 1 1.5: '. -7.9% -13.1% -13.6%
Carnwda- Ner Eteonmel 1.61 104 156 1.54 63 - 1.5% - 15.5% - 123%
Rrafema 1.55 167 176 1.53 - .6 `.. -7.2% -12.5% 4.0%
MCA" 1.88 237 188 1.95 '..99 -0.7% - 12.0% -25.616
Sidewalks 1.74 192 1 76 1.50 1.75 -9.716 -12.6% -13.7%
Camwcia - 5rernarrrert 1.82 1 98 1 70 1.68 1.77 -12% -10.4% -161%
Clxnnrcia+aa*Eraertanmrl 172 193 180 1.53 1.77 -9.5% -18.8% -9.2%
1.88 174 185 1.52 1.71 -14.5% -14.216 -132%
Parks 161 161 1.5 157 3.6% -6.7% -182%
Parking 2.22 199 1.83 2.00 -9.3% -15.966 -102%
Waterway 1.91 227 2.10 2.15 2.11 3.0% -1.4% -14.4%
Beach Areas
City of Miami Beach Responvbility ' 58 1 58 1 87 1.53 160 1.3% -1.316 -164%
Miami -Dace County Responsbility '. 1 55 1 65 1.57 123 1.014 -5.8% -14.414
' Prvate . Business garbage dumpsters scores are not uses n the calculator 04 this score
Pnvate r Business garbage 0umpsters were not assessed in FY05 04 and FY06 01.
Nora. Target n FY2005108 was 2.0 and was changed to 1.5 n 5Y2006 07
Percentage of Assessments scoring 2.0 or better rage: = 20 %1
P12005,36 Cie Year)
Public Area Q1 fa,. Q3 Q4 FY Score
Crywde 7 1.1% 55 7 7 5.5.
Streets - 79.2% 63 27. 84.8% S 4',
Cv^ r
rtarer
rc� 81.1% 47 5% 74.0'. 57.3:-:
Ccrrea a, - ncr erta:nrxr 72.2% 824% 27.9% 82.3%
ReJaenta 5 E.% 84.8% 0021 85.11 73.51
Sidewalks 08. • 58.4% 79.3% 56.7%
.. ^ ^e2 arEnern rrer 71.8% 41.7% 717'. 53.6%
Cdr -,ca - rice.- aneemonTer :3 `. 50.456 791% 07 4 71.81
RevSenta .14 78.156 521% 82 8621
ABcys' 3. •
318% 37.0% 502% 41.9%
Parks 4% 3°, 88.01 082% 03.8'. 56.6%
Paring 46 50.5E 402% awn 50.4%
W,le,wry 4= :°, 53.7% 345% 508% 54.5%
Bead+(Cllb1 '4'':, 91E% 660% 785% r3.1%
Bead 'MDC: ` 5 7 8.4°, 53.9% 7725: 71.2%
•
FY200S06 FY200647 FY 2001111 FY 2008108 FY2009)10 Difference Difference Difference
Public Area FY Score FY Score FY Score FY Score FY Score from Base FY from Prior FY from Best FY
BASE
Citywide 65.1% E24% 9: 3'. E 1 : 9.4': 142% -
Streets 7 34': 6 4'. 57 ' ': 86.4': 13.0% -67% -3.4%
canmecel-Enesbr ,'en 5 3', , Z1•44 95 ': 88.1:. 87.8'1 205% -0.3% -22%
Ccmme rcni,tsutnner : •BS_ 848'. 87.3'1 5.0% 2.7% -5.2%
Residents 7 3 5':: 85 85 87.m i 82.5% 9.1% i A..5% .4.5%
Sidewalks 557% E7..° 8, 5% W.2% 80.9% 14.2% -.42% -6.7%
com,neca`Enertarwer 53 51 56.5°. 84 5" 88.6% 81.4% 17.8'% -72% -8.41
Commode - Non-lb,Oe+Wnner. 7 ' S':. 5a.: ° •. 78.3% 81.45: 9.6% 10% - 6.6%
Residents 55 2 54. °, 78 3% 839% 79.61 13.4% 42% -4.5%
Alleys' 4' 9°. 59.8% 03.81 67.0% 09.0% 27.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Parks 5 5', 75.8% 8521 84.1% 89.1'1 22.5% 4.9% 29%
Paling 564°:: 78.4'. 74.4% 722% 65.7% 92% -7.1% -10.7%
W 54 5': 99.4% 09.5% 71.9% 71.0% 172% -0.3% -0.3%
Beam i0MBI 73 51.4': 85 844% 87.31 142% 2.9% 1.1%
Beach iMDC: _ - 74 . 3'. 84 5`. 5.5 0 1. 88.7% 17.5% 2.9% 2.9%
FY2008109
Public Area Difference Difference
front prior FY from Base
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY Score Year
GtVw,ce - 51.2% 86.8% 780% 81.01 0.7% '.6 8
Streets 624% 89.8:. 84.1% 87.1`: -0.4% 13.7%
Ce sreneN ewer 80.5% 89.5'. 88.1'', 0.0% 20.8%
Ur - nan-eidewnmer 77 7741 84.6'. 3.9% 2.3%
Resaenta 6971 80.5% 0% 84.0" 87.0': 09% 13.6%
Sidewalks 797% 88.2% 809% 85.3': 44% 18.4'6
Canmerc a.Enbtare-en 82 85.95. 88.6''. 3.8% 25.0%
Cu^mercm - r .-re ra,nmer 6004% 82.9% 67.7% 78.33% 0.6% 6.6%
Reedental 63.11 96.71 808% 80.0:. 85.9`, 5.5% 17.6%
Alleys' 500% 78.5.. 77.8% 835% 57.0% 11% 25.0%
Parks 75.7% 757% 84.1': -2.0% 17.6%
Parking 70. 57.91 842% 690% 72.8% -1.61 16.4%
Waterway 88.3% 71.2% 759% 722% 71.9% 24% 17.4%
Beech tCMei 003% 72.0% 84.41 -1.8% 11.3%
Beach iMIX: 75 6% 89.3': 85.8% 1A% 14.6%
Difference
Public Area FY2211110 Difference from same
Difference from prior FY quarter in
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q8 FY Scare */.f et Qtr ban! year
C4.yv. �e 8001E 71.7% 8021 95.5% 79.4% 5.4% 7.71 10.1%
Streets 86.55: 78.1's 8134% 88.4% 40% 8.3% 7.7%
CommeveN- Enetaeere 860% 78.8% 87.8% 0.9% 7.2% 19.1% ,
Commerce - ww-ef eerhnn+er 670% 76.9% 87.3% 37% 17.0% 3.5%
Residents 86.6". 78.7% 772% 87.31 82.5% 10.1% 3.3% 12%
Sidewalks 79.7% 72.2% 821% 89.8% 80.9% 73% 8.9% 10.6%
CanmodarEnertarme 78.8'. 70.0% 94.9% 81.4% 6.9% 6.0% 20.1%
Commerce- narfrrbemn 83.1% 09.8% 83.71 88.85: 81.4% 52% 21.0% 1.4%
Reudenta 779% 79.51 74.1% 87 0% 79.6. 129% 7.0% 41% I
Alle 71.7% 50.8% 73.1% 752' 00.0% 2.1% 11.7% 19.1°6
Parks -
80. 88.98: 85 7% 80.151 -2.2% 11.01 22.9%
p ar y to; 05.1% 508% 09.8% 772% 85.71 7.6% 12% 82°rt
Waterway 828% 699% 675% 674% 71.0% -0.1% -4.8% 10.6%
Beam iCMBt 88.8% 874% 87.3% 6.5% 3.3% 89%
8eaon i MCC : 88.0% 130.7% 8391 84 41 88.7';: -7.7% 0.2% 7 .214
•
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 further questions, please feel free to contact me.
JMG AKGB /LDR
•
•