LTC 104-2011 Cleanliness Index & Assessment Program Results for FY 2010/11 QT 2 D A t4'
�
I
MI OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MAY .» �•
LTC # 104 -2011 LETTER 50' CXDMMISIIN
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: April 28, 2011
SUBJECT: Cleanliness Index & Assessment Pro ram Results for FY 2010/11 Quarter 2
The purpose of this Letter to Commission is to communicate the results of the award winning
Cleanliness Index and Assessment program from FY2010/11 Quarter 2 (January 1, 2011 to
March 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; and FY
2010/11. 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 2010/11 Quarter 2
Overall, the citywide cleanliness index improved during FY 2010/11 Quarter 2 by 17.4% when
compared to the same quarter in FY2005/06 (the first year the program was implemented) and
improved by 16.7% when compared to the same quarter in FY2009/10. In general, the City's
cleanliness has steadily progressed as evidenced by the index, anecdotal information, and
results of our most recent resident surveys. Further, the percentage of assessments rated as
clean or better has improved significantly, with Streets, Parks and Beaches scoring above the
target of 90 percent of assessments being clean or better; and all other areas, except parking
lots and alleys, scoring clean or better for more than 80 percent of the assessments.
Positive and Improved Areas in FY 2010/11 Quarter 2
• Parks- Scores improved by 19.0% when compared to the same quarter in FY2009/10,
with a 12.1% improvement when compared to the prior quarter. Parks will continue to
work with sanitation to address any issues, as well as waste hauler responsibilities.
• Beaches - Scores improved by 14.8% for areas covered by Miami Beach staff and
21.2% for areas covered by MDC compared to the same quarter in FY2005/06, with a
8.3% and 10.2% improvement from same quarter in FY 2009/10. Cleanliness of
beaches remains a priority, with multiple departments collaborating to address prior
issues. Miami -Dade County personnel are invited to participate in all quarterly meetings.
Code will reach out to the local middle and high school to provide community service
hours for students that assist with event related cleanups and will add an additional code
officer to the mid -beach area.
Areas of Focus
• Alleys— Overall scores in alleys improved by 29.9% when compared to the same quarter
in FY 2005/06 and 20.5% when compared to the same quarter in FY2009/10. Despite
these improvements, alley cleanliness ratings at 1.89 remain among the lowest citywide.
Code is reassessing staffing areas and issuing code citations to ensure dumpsters meet
current requirements. Sanitation will work with waste haulers to identify potential
increase in service for identified businesses.
• Streets /Sidewalks (Commercial- Entertainment) — Streets /sidewalks across the
Beach remain steady. Overflowing garbage cans appear to be the cause of a slight
decline. Sanitation will address this service issue with the waste hauler WSI. Public
Works is developing a "Welcome Package" for new businesses. This packet will include
information on potential violations, including dumping of business garbage into City
receptacles.
• Parking Lots - Parking lots have improved 10.8% when compared to the same quarter
in FY 2005/06 and 9.1% when compared to the same quarter in FY 2009/10. Current
assessments scoring poorly are primarily due to overflowing garbage cans. Sanitation
will adjust service schedules as needed to address this issue. Consideration of the
placement of additional garbage cans and increasing the size of the garbage cans in
high traffic locations is being considered.
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
14.6% from FY2005/06 to FY2009/10.
Cleanliness Index Score Per Public Area (target = 1.5P
. beam
Pubic Area FY2005004 1 - Elterefy Caean
91 02 03 04 FY Scree 2 - cleat
Oyeral, C'ty Cc 4 2.20 1.94 2.24 2.03 2.10 3 - SOr eertatClean
StreeM' 2.07 1.98 2.22 1.84 2.03 4 - Somewhat rsrty
Not inclwnp obeys 1.99 1.85 2.16 1.74 1.94 5 - Daly
;a - erera - ErantarmQ2 1.84 1.78 2.44 1.74 1.95 6- Eberre®r DRY
2-o rrer;'.a - wyl- aantaatmer¢ 1.89 1.87 1.81 1.75 1.83
headmmt 2.25 1.93 2.11 1.74 2.01
AWN' 246 2.69 2.75 2.49 2.60
SideWJaiks 2.02 2.05 2.33 1.84 2.06
Car mew - Emeannwnt 1.87 1.95 2.50 1.86 2.04
Commend* moment 1.97 2.15 1.91 1.79 1.95
headman 2.28 2.11 2.35 1.83 2.14
Pads 2.08 1.53 1.93 2.04 1.90
Pattng 225 2.26 2.30 2.01 221
Waterway 2.77 _ 2.12 2.93 2.53 2.59
Beach Areas
Gibe at k a* Beata ResponsasdlY 2.02 I 1.68 1.80 1.91 1.85
Mt de Cowl* Re°onsE y 1.96 1.78 2.04 1.95 1.93
FY2005 FY109G07 FY 2007308 FY MAW FY 2193A0
Pub1e Area FY Score FY Score FY Sire FY Score FY *Care %dump Rom % Mang. Rom % Mango Worn
Bt'xs E BiM FY Prior FY Best FY
Overall City Save 2.10 1.78 1.75 1.75 1.80 14.6%- 2_4% 2.4%
treebs` 2.03 1.66 1.69 1.73 1.74 -14.1% 8A% 4.6%
Hint ncudeg aeys 1.94 1.57 1.59 1.66 1.66 -14.0% 1L 4% 6.396
commons* - Enweammera 1.95 1.56 1.56 1.65 1.69 -13.4% 2_3% 8.5%
{Sommes -Nonr Bertanmeat 1.63 1.51 1.60 1.65 1.63 -10.6% 4.7% 8.4%
Ruth 2.01 1.63 1.64 1.68 1.65 -17.6% -1.4% 1.5%
mew' 2.60 2.28 2.07 1.97 1.99 -23.3% 13% 1.3%
Sidewalks 2.06 1.66 1.72 1.73 1.75 -14.3% 1.5% 5.4%
Coe- eneer3ai - Entertainment 2.04 1.61 1.68 1.69 1.77 - 13.9% 4.7% 3.4%
Corms: - Nott - Ententan mers 1.Q 1.64 1.75 1.79 1.77 - 8 84% -1.2% 7.6%
Rrabenmt 2.14 1.74 115 1.77 1. 71 - 204% -3.3% -1.6%
Part16 1.90 - 1.75 152 1.55 1. 57 -17.1% 1.2% 3.2%
Patting 221 - 1.81 1.87 1.96 2.00 4..1% 2Z% 181%
Waterway 2.59 2.08 203 2.10 2.11 48.4% 8414 1.5%
Beach AMA
CRY of Awes Beads Respansbity 135 1.75 1.59 1.62 1.59 -13.8% -1.5% 0.5%
MMr10ade Gout RespansbIy 1.93 1.91 1.70 1.61 1.63 -15.8% 1.1% 1.1%
FY 2009110 % Mingo from •
Pubic Area Q1 02 03 04 FY Sm. % Change besot % Mango it eaters quarter
helot 01r prior FY 0tr In base ye r
OVerat City Scram 1.71 1.92 1.80 1.74 1.80 45% 4.6% - 14.156
Streets' 1.68 1.95 1.70 1.63 1.74 -4.3% -13.2% - 11.5%
Not araMarareaweys 1.63 1.83 1.66 1.54 1.66 -&5% - 133% -11.
ca mereso - E tedaerme-1 1.70 1.92 1.63 1.50 1.69 -7.3 -13.1% - 13.9
commits 1.61 1.84 1.56 1.54 1.63 -1.576 -15.5% -12.2%
Restdenmi 1.55 1.67 1.76 1.63 1.65 -7.2% -12.5% -0.0%
mere' 1:88 2.37 1.86 1.85 1.99 4.7% - 12..0% - 25.6%
S ideteeks 1.74 1.92 136 1.59 1.75 42% -122% -13.714
()ominteswt- Btetlaermel 1.1'2 1.98 1.20 1.56 1.77 4.2% -18.4% - 16.0%
carmen:hi - Nowertedahrrert 1.72 1.93 1.80 1.63 1.77 -85% - 182% 4.214
Reddmmt Lei 1.74 1.65 1.58 1.71 -14.5% -142% - 132%
Pates 1.61 1.61 1.67 1.57 3.696 4714 -182%
Patting 2.00 2.22 1.99 1.80 2.00 43% -15.3% -10.2%
Waterway 1.91 2.27 2.10 2.16 2.11 3.0% -1.4% -14.416
S eaCR A W6
t21y or Miami Beads Resperatt10ty 1.56 1.56 1.67 1.:99 1.59 -4.3% -1.3% -16.4%
idlaml -Bade County Resat:mib6ty 1.63 I 1.56 _ 1.65 1.67 1.63 1.0% -5.6 - 14.471
Public Area FY 2Ot0l11 %, CMa1ig►
01 02 03 04 FY $ are %55M1 Rom %eltfpeto liners quarter
_ _ prier 4311r _Lido FY rite In bare pier
0veraIi C•t} Zczte 1.53 1.60 -1..5% - 14.7% -17.4%
Streets' 1.59 1.60 0296 -17.3% -13.1%
tot nctudng says 1.54 1.51 -1 I% -17.5% - 111.4%
Comer - tenon - •4 1 124 2.9% 200% - 13296
Cornmermt Nmr9r5ertinme6 1.56 -5.7% - 1 -21.1%
Restamtit 1.59 1.51 4.3% -3.9% -812%
Mats ® - 1.71 1.89 10.5% -205% - 232%
SNiatlts 1.68 1.66 -1.414 - 13..6% 131.0%
Cron shoat- 6yedarmert 1.63 1.69 3.796 -15:1% - 13.556
Coo rme :tat - Non - Ellettattmere 1.64 1.59 - .8..6% - 17.7 % - 25.814
Residential 1.71 1.71 -42% -1.8!6 - 13.33%
P -121% -13_0% -15.0%
Paling 172 Sai 17.454 -3.1% - 10.8%
W ateretay _ 1.76 1..54 -52% 23.3% -24.2%
Beach Am.%
01 9 or Warm Meech Respartel lty I 1.52 2% x.396 114.1'4
883lnb ode Courtly RespcnsibItt ` 1.54 I 4. -18 -21.2%
Private , Bu61ness garage 891np61E4s scores are not used 1113te C2ClN on of 1616 socee.
°- Privates Business garbage Oianpstess were riot assessed in FYO5 04 and FY06 01.
Atone: Target In FY2005et5 was 2.0 and 035 changed Th 1.514 FY'2fa0 .lD7
Percentage of Assessments scoring 2.0 or better (target = 90 %)
Public Area FY2005 /06 (Base year)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 _ FY Score
Ci ywide 57.5 %_ 71.1% _ 56.7% _ 75.5% _ 65.2% ,
-
Streets 65.7% 79.2% 63.9% 84.8% 73.4%
Commercial Entertainment 66.1% 81.1% 47.5% 74.6% 67.3%
Commercial - Non - Entertainment 76.7% 72.2% 82.4% 97.9% 82.3%
Residential 56.8% 84.6% 66.2% 86.1% 73.5%
Sidewalks 62.6% 68.7% 56.4% 79.3% 66.7%
Commercial Entertainment 69.2% 71.8% 41.7% 71.7% 63.6%
Commercial - Non - Entertainment 63.5% 56.4% 79.8% 87.4% 71.8%
Residential 52.4% 78.1% 52.1% 82.2% 66.2%
Alleys* _ 37.7 %_ 36.8% 37.0% 56.2% 41.9%
Parks 46.3% 88.0% 68.2% 63.8% 66.6%
Parking 48.0% 59.5% 49.2% 69.0% 56.4%
Waterway 42.9% 83.7% 34.5% 56.8% 54.5%
Beach (CMB) 64.1% 83.8% 66.0% 78.5% 73.1%
Beach (MDC) 75.3% 78.4% 53.9% 77.2% 71.2%
FY2005/06 FY2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 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 65.2% 82.4% 80.3% 81.0% 79.4% 14.2% -1.6% -3.0%
Streets 73.4% 89.8% 87.4% 87.1% 86.4% 13.0% -0.7% -3.4%
Commercial - Entertainment 67.3% 90.1% 88.2% 88.1% 87.8% 20.5% -0.3% -2.2%
Commercial - Non - Entertainment 82.3% 924% 88.5% 84.6% 87.3% 5.0% 2.7% -5.2%
Residential 73.5% 85.6% 86.1% 87.0% 82.5% 9.1% -4.5% -4.5%
Sidewalks 66.7% 87.6% 80.8% 85.2% 80.9% 14.2% -4.2% -6.7%
Commercial - Entertainment 63.6 % 89.8% 84.8% 88.6% 81.4% 17.8% -7.2% -8.4%
Commercial - Non - Entertainment 71.8% 88.0% 77.7% 78.3% 81.4% 9.6% 3.0% -6.6%
Residential 66.2% 84.1% 78.3% 83.9% 79.6% 13.4% -4.2% -4.5%
Alleys* 41.9% 59.6% 63.8% 67.0% 69.0% 27.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Parks 66.6% 76.8% 86.2% 84.1% 89.1% 22.5% 4.9% 2.9%
Parking 56.4% 76.4% 74.4% 72.8% 65.7% 9.2% -7.1% - 10.7%
Waterway 54.5% 69.4% 69.5% 71.9% 71.6% 17.2% -0.3% -0.3%
Beach (CMB) 73.1% 81.4% 86.2% 84.4% 87.3% 14.2% 2.9% 1.1%
Beach (MDC) 71.2% 74.0% 84.5% 85.8% 88.7% 17.5% 2.9% 2.9%
Difference
Public Area FY2009/10 Difference from same
Difference from prior FY quarter in
Q1 _ Q2 Q3 Q4 FY Score _ from prior Qtr Qtr base year
Citywide 80.0% 71.7% 80.2% 85.6% 79.4% 5.4% 7.7% 10.1%
Streets 86.5% 78.1% 88.4% '" 86.4% 4.0% 8.3% 7.7%
Commercial - Entertainment 86.0% 78.8% 87.8% 0.9% 7.2% 19.1%
Commercial - Non - Entertainment 87.0% 76.9% 87.3% 3.7% 17.0% -3.5%
Residential 86.8% 78.7% 77.2% 87.3% 82.5% 10.1% 3.3% 1.2%
Sidewalks 79.7% 72.2% 82.1% 89.8% 80.9% 7.8% 8.9% 10.6%
Commercial - Entertainment 78.8% 70.0% 84.9% 81.4% 6.9% 6.0% 20.1%
Commercial - Non - Entertainment 83.1 % 69.8% 83.7% 88.8% 81.4% _ 5.0% 21.0% 1.4%
Residential 77.9% 79.5% 74.1% 87.0% 79.6% 12.9% 7.0% 4.8%
Alleys* 71.7% 55.8% 73.1% 75.2% 69.0% 2.1% 11.7% 19.1%
Parks 94,5% 86.3% 88.9% 86.7% 89.1% -2.2% 11.0% 22.9%
Parking 65.1% 50.8% 69.6% 77.2% 65.7% 7.6% 8.2% 8.2%
Waterway 82.8% 68.9% 67.5% 67.4% 71.6% -0.1% -4.8% 10.6%
Beach (CMB) 88.6% MI 80.9% 87.4% 87.3% 6.5% -3.3% 8.9%
Beach (MDC) 88.6% 89.7% 84.4% 88.7% -7.7% 0.2% 7.2%
Difference
Public Area FY2010/11 Difference from same
Difference from prior FY quarter in
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY Score from prior Qtr Qtr base year
C wide 88.6% 84.3% - -4.3% 12.6% 13.2%
Streets /94.6% 91.9% _ -2.7% 13.8% 12.7%
Commercial- Entertainment ' % 92.2% - 4.7% 13.5% 11.1%
Commercial - Non - Entertainment -3.0% 14.3% 19.1%
Residential 1.0% 13.4% 7.5%
Sidewalks 88.3% 88.3% -2.0% 14.1% 17.6%
Commercial - Entertainment 84.8% - 6.2% 14.8% 13.0%
Commercial - Non - Entertainment 2.3% 22.5% 35.9%
Residential 81.7% 822% 0.5% 2.6% 4.1%
Alleys* 82.9% p , - 16.9/ 10.1/ 29.1%
Parks 2.4% 10.6% 8.9%
Parking 81.4% * 7 -13.8% 16.8% 8.0%
Waterway 78.9% 87.1% 8.1% 181% 3.4%
Beach (CMB) -0.4% 1.0% 9.7%
Beach (MDC) -0.2% 6.5% 17.9%
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/ B /JGG /KGB /LDR
__ 1