LTC 594-2019 Garage Attendant and Garage Security Index Results for FY 2018/19 Quarter 4MIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
LTC# 594-2019 LETTER TO COMMISSION
TO : Mayor Dan Gelber and Members of he City C
FROM : Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE : November 1, 2019
SUBJECT : Garage Attendant and Garage Secur Index Results for FY 2018/19 Quarter 4
The purpose of this Letter to Commission is to communicate the results of the newly
developed Garage Attendant and Garage Security Index for fiscal year 2018/19 Quarter 4
(July 1, 2019 to September 30, 2019).
Key Q4 Metrics:
• Attendant Average Index Rating: 4.95
• Attendant Percent Improvement from Prior Quarter: 1.2%
• Security Average Index Rating: 4.95
• Security Percent Improvement from Prior Quarter: 4.2%
Background
The Miami Beach Garage Attendant Index and Garage Security Index are an objective
measurement of customer service performance ranging from 1.0 (not satisfied) to 5.0
(extremely satisfied) and includes assessments of conduct, professionalism, attire, and
knowledge. 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. Each garage is assessed a minimum of four (4) times per quarter, at varying times
of the day and evening .
Any assessment resulting in a score between 1.0 and 3.99 on a 5.0 scale results in a $100
penalty and shall require a memorandum indicating corrective action items taken to remedy
the situation. Critical item questions scoring 1.0 will result in an override of the total
assessment to a 1.0 and will result in a re-shop. Three (3) assessments scoring between
1.0 and 3.99 to the same employee will result in the removal of the employee.
Garage Attendant Index Results FY 2018/19 Quarter 4
Overall, the City Garage Attendant Index in FY 2018/19 Quarter 4 was a 4.95 on a 5.0
scale. The scores improved from the prior quarter and from the prior FY same quarter.
Parking staff have reviewed the results of the assessments with th e contractor for garage
attendants and is sued penalties per the agreement based on 310 assessments conducted
in all garages with 1 assessment scoring 3.99 or below resulting in a fine of $100. Citywide
scores this quarter remained stable from the prior quarter. Additionally, a memorandum
was issued to correct the identified deficiency .
Areas of Focus in FY 2018/19 Quarter 4
• Service not prompt-Employees must ensure that transaction time is quick and wait
time for personal assistance by attendant is no longer than 10 minutes or schedule
for a mutually convenient time.
Garage Security Index Results FY 2018/19 Quarter 4
Overall, the City Garage Security Index in FY 2018/19 Quarter 4 was a 4.95 on a 5.0 scale .
There were 61 assessments conducted in all garages with 0 assessment scoring 3.99 or
below. The scores improved from the prior quarter.
Areas of Focus in FY 2018/19 Quarter 4
• Greeting not provided-Security personnel are to greeted customers in a courteous
manner including a sincere hello and welcoming attitude.
• Nametag not visible . Security personnel are always required to wear a nametag for
ease of references by the customer. Some personnel did not have their nametag
visible.
MIAMI BEACH GARAGE ATIENDANT INDEX
CITYWIDE SUMMARY FOR GARAGES
MIAMI ATTENDANTIN
CITYWIDE SUMMARY BY GARAGE Q4 2019
04-2019
Avg Score
#
Initial
Res hops
Scoring Below 4
Experiences ( $100 additional
below 4 fin
MIAMI BEACH GARAGE SECURITY INDEX
CITYWIDE SUMMARY FOR GARAGES
Average Score Per Quarter Per Year
CITYWIDE SUMMARY BY GARAGE Q4 2019
SECURITY
04-2019
Avg Score
Next Quarter Assessments
#
Initial
Experiences
Experiences
Below 4 for
Experiences
below4
# ofReshops
Scoring Below 4
City part-time staff is conducting garage attendant/security assessments every quarter.
Additionally, residents are always welcome to participate. If you or any member of your staff
is interested in participating in the City's Garage Attendant Index and Garage Security
Index, please contact Dr. Leslie Rosenfeld with Organization Development Performance
Initiatives at extension 6923.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
~chme ~~
~SF/L ~~
C: J. Mark Taxis, Assistant City Manager
Richard Clements, Police Chief
Saul Francis, Parking Director
Dr. Leslie Rosenfeld, Chief Learning Development Officer
Evaluation Criteria for each assessment are listed below: Critical items with an asterisk (*)
scoring a 1 result in overall score of 1 for experience:
• Garage attendant/security first impression was 1-clean, 2-professional, 3-greeted
with a smile, and 4-displayed appropriate behavior.*
• Service was prompt. Transaction time was quick and wait time for personal
assistance by attendant/security was no longer than 10 minutes or schedule for a
mutually convenient time.*
• I was greeted in a courteous manner.* (Attendant/security greeted me with 1-
sincere hello, 2-welcoming attitude, and 3-helpful )
• Employee responded to customer in a courteous manner following the philosophy
that "the customer is not always right, but always deserves to be treated with
respect".*
• Employee provided accurate and understandable solutions/options (in English) to
customer request or directed the customer to the appropriate person who may have
knowledge in the subject matter. Employee appeared knowledgeable.
• Employee had access to necessary tools to meet request and provided a receipt.
Information and material to obtain answers and or services were readily available.
• I received the service/information required. (All of my questions or the entire service
was provided concisely and accurately) Employee had a positive, helpful attitude,
was efficient and followed through with request. Employee appeared to go the extra
mile to assist me .
• The attendant/security said, "Thank You!" ending the conversation showing that they
appreciated my business (Ex. Have a great day, enj oy your stay, we appreciate your
business, we hope to see you soon).
• Attendant/security was wearing an appropriate clean un iform with name tag and/or
10, consistent with the contract requirements.
• The overall impression of my visit was positive. Satisfied with timeliness,
completeness, and clarity of information and/or services received. Employee
demonstrated professionalism and courtesy.