No preview available
 /
     
LTC 120-2025 Cleanliness Index Results for FY 25 Quarter 1120-2025 Docusign Envelope ID: FEB825CD-3C6C-4405-92O0-BE011 F7FFDB6 MIAMI BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER LTC# LETTER TO COMMISSION TO: Honorable Mayor Steven Meiner and Members of the City Commission FROM : DATE : /) ·_()_~ Eric Carpenter, City Manager '[_,,,UG\.._,,,v()l~vvv~ March 17, 2025 SUBJECT: Cleanliness Index Results for FY 25 Quarter 1 The purpose of this Letter to Commission (L TC) is to communicate the results of the Cleanliness Index for Fiscal Year 2025 Quarter 1 (October 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024). Key Q1 Metrics: • Citywide Cleanliness Index Rating: 1.51 • Citywide Cleanliness Index Compared to FY 24 Quarter 1: 2.0% change • Citywide Percent Assessments Meeting Target of 2.0: 90.6% Background The Miami Beach Public Area Cleanliness Index is an objective measurement of performance ranging from 1.0 (Extremely Clean) to 6.0 (Extremely Dirty) and includes assessments of litter/trash, garbage cans/dumpsters , organic material , and fecal matter (attachment A).The scale used is as follows : 1.0 extremely clean, 2.0 clean, 3.0 somewhat clean, 4.0 somewhat dirty, 5.0 dirty and 6.0 extremely dirty. 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. Quarterly sample sizes are set to ensure no greater than a ± 5.0 percentage point sampling error given the 95% confidence level for each of the public areas assessed. The City tightened the target for the Citywide and area-specific cleanliness indicators from 2. Oto 1.5 -the lower the score on the cleanliness index indicates a cleaner area. This target continues to be the same to date. As important, the City also has a goal to ensure that 90 percent of assessments score 2.0 or better, with awareness to seasonal fluctuations. The scores are compared to the same quarter in prior years to account for seasonal variations. Summary of the Cleanliness Assessment Results FY 25 Quarter 1 The Citywide Cleanliness Index score for FY 25 Quarter 1 is 1.51 , positioning it midway between 1.0 (extremely clean) and 2.0 (clean). Additionally, 90.6% of all public area assessments scored 2.0 or better, exceeding the 90% target. . While there have been slight changes compared to both the previous quarter and the same quarter in previous fiscal year, overall performance remains strong, reflecting the city's continued commitment. During the quarter, a total of 9,897 unique assessments were conducted across the city. Positive and Stable Areas in FY 25 Quarter 1 • Streets -Streets achieved a score of 1.59,with 89.9% of streets assessed scoring 2.0 or better .. While there was a 5.3% change compared to the same quarter in the previous fiscal year and 2.6% change from the last quarter, the streets assessed performed well. Docusign Envelope ID: FEB825CD-3C6C-4405-92O0-BE011 F7FFDB6 Commercial entertainment streets scored 1.55, with 93.4% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better. Commercial non-entertainment streets scored 1.61 with 88.6% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better. Organic material remains an area of focus reaching 1.90 in commercial entertainment areas, 2.02 in commercia l non-entertainment areas and 2.08 in residential areas . The Sanitation Division will collaborate with the Marketing and Communications Department on a campaign reminding residents of their responsibility to clear organic material from the sidewalks and streets adjacent to their residential homes. • Parks -Parks scored 1.35, with 95.6% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better reflecting a strong performance for the quarter. The key areas for improvements identified are organic material in bark parks and handball courts, as well as litter/trash and organic at beach access points. • Sidewalks -Sidewalks scored 1.39 with 94.1 % of assessments scoring 2.0 or better reflecting an 8.6% improvement from the same quarter in the previous fiscal year and a 1.4% improvement from the previous quarter. The key areas for improvement identified are litter/trash in commercia l non-entertainment areas and organic material in commercial non- entertainment, residential and commercial entertainment areas. • Beaches -Beach areas maintained by Miami Beach scored 1.45, with 96.2% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better reflecting a 2.8% improvement compared to the same quarter in the previous fiscal year. Beach areas serviced by the County scored 1.44, with 89.8% of assessment scoring 2.0 or better. The key areas for improvements identified are litter/trash for areas maintained by the city and organic material for areas maintained by the county. Areas of Focus in FY 25 Quarter 1 • Alleys -Alleys scored 1.64, with 82 .2% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better, reflecting a 16.8% improvement for the same quarter in FY 19 and a 6.3% improvement compared to the previous quarter. The key areas for improvement identified are litter/trash and organic material in alleys. In addition, a few alleys in North and South Beach were identified with scores above 2.0 , ranging from 2.08 to 2.25. These include Pennsylvania Court from 8th to 10th Street, Byron Court from 73rd to 74th Street , and Harding Court from 73rd to 75th Street. • Waterways -Waterways scored 1.97, with 76.8% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better, reflecting a 5.9% change from the same quarter in the previous fiscal year and the previous quarter. The key areas for improvement identified are litter/trash and organic material in both non-hotspots and hotspots areas for the quarter. In terms of location, waterways in the Middle Beach areas present the greatest need for improvement, as it had the high concentration of low scores . As part of the corrective action plan, the Sanitation Division recently completed the training allowing their crews access inside the dunes to assist the Environmental and Sustainability Department team with recovery of litter issues in restricted areas after a cleanliness alert , as well as in areas adjacent to waterways . Currently, the city maintains a contract with Adventure Environmental , Inc. (AEI) to clean waterways three times a week , focusing on litter hotspots like Lake Pancoast. The contract includes removing inorganic debris (e.g., shopping carts, chairs) and larger organic hazards (e.g., branches, palm fronds). However, it excludes organic materials like coconuts, floating seaweed, and grass clippings. AEI uses a hand removal method via a barge to avoid harming living organisms. The Environment and Sustainability Department is cons idering increasing service levels to enhance waterway cleanliness. • Parking Lots -Parking lots scored 1.69, with 84.1 % of assessments scoring 2.0 or better, reflecting a 3. 7% change from the same quarter in the previous fiscal year and a 3.0% change from the previous quarter. The key areas for improvement are litter/trash and organic material particularly in commercial entertainment and commercial non- Docusign Envelope ID: FEB825CD-3C6C-4405-92DO-BE011 F7FFDB6 entertainment areas. Additionally , a few locations in the South Beach and North Beach areas were identified with scores above 2.0, ranging from 2.17 to 2.30. These locations include P23 (1619 west Avenue), P27 (1662 Meridian Avenue) and P86 (7011 Indian Creek Drive). As part of the corrective action plan, the Sanitation Division is in the process of replacing approximately 30 small trash cans (twist cans) with the larger green can. These larger receptacles will provide additional capacity and prevent overflow issues, particularly in our surface lots. Target= 1.5 or better FY 19 FY 24 FY25 % % change from change change from from base prior FY prior Qt same year Public Area Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 FY Score Ql Q2 Q3 same Q4 FYScore _Q.;,,;1_+---+--Q"'-t_r--+---1 Overall City Score 1.60 1.6 1.56 1.53 1.51 .0% -.6% Streets 1.6 1.62 1.57 1.55 Sidewalks Parks Parking Waterway Beach Area Commercial -Entertainment 1.52 1.62 1.56 1.53 Commercial -Non-Entertainment 1.57 1---1--- R es id en ti al 1.55 ----Al leys-1._97 ____ _ Commercial -Entertainment Commercial -Non-Entertainment R es id en ti a I Miami Beach Responsibility Only Miami-Dade County Responsibil i ty 1.0-1.499 1.50-1.99 9 2.0-6.0 1--+---+--- % of assessments scoring 2.0 or better (target=90%) FY19 Sidewalks Parks Parking Waterway Beach Area Public Area Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 FY Score Ql 84.4% 83.9% 85.6% 86.1% 83.0% 83.2% 85.3% 85.0% Commercial -Entertainment .3 % 85 . % 8 . % 86 .7% Commercial -Non-Entertainment 3.5% . % . % 6. % Residential 84 .9% 85.2% 87 .7% 86.1% Alleys 73.1% 75.7% n.8% 76.9% Commercial -Entertainment Commercial -Non-Entertainment Residential Miami Beach Respons i bility Only Miami-Dade County Responsibility -90 .0-100% 80.0-89 .9% 79 .9% and below ------------ FY24 Q2 Q3 1.59 1.55 1.61 1.61 FY25 Q4 FYScore Ql 2.6% 5.3% -1.9% 0.6% 4.7% 2.0% 1.9% 3.2% 2.5% 5.8% 16.7% 3.9% -6.3% -16.8% -1.4% -8.6% -12.6% -1.4% -10.2% -2.8% 0.7% -5.9% -1 0.0% -.1% -12.1% -23 .0% 3.1% 7.1% -4.3% 3.0% 3.7% -21.4% 5.9% 5.9% 40.7% 5.8% 2.8% . % -1.4% 5.9% -2.0% % change from prior Qtr -3.1% -4.2% -2.6% -2.8% -6.7% -3.3% -1.8% -1.7% -2.1% -1.7% -1.7% -4.2% -4.1% % change from prior FY same change from base year same qtr Qtr {FY -1.0% 7.3 % -0.8% 8.3% 1.4% 5.8% -0.2% 6.1% -3.6% 5.4% 12.4% 4.2% 10.4% 5.7% 4.3% 1.8% 7.8% 3.8% 11.5% -0.7% 3.1% -2.2% 35 .9% -6.7% -14 .7% -0.7% 0.6% 5.7% -3.0% -7.8% -1.9% Docusign Envelope ID : FEB825CD-3C6C-4405-92D0-BE011 F7FFDB6 Cleanliness Key Intended Outcome Clean liness continues to be in our community surveys as a key driver affecting overall quality of life. In addition , in the 2024 survey, residents and businesses rated cleanliness as one of the services the City should strive not to reduce. In fact , 41.8% of respondents rated cleanliness as the top and most important city service , while also identifying it as a top opportunity for improvement the city should focus on. Add itionally, 64% of residents surveyed indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with cleanliness in their neighborhoods. The Cleanliness Index interactive dashboard of historical and current data is avai lable on SharePoint and can be accessed through the following link: https://miamibeach.sharepoint.com/dept/orgdev/BI/SitePages/Cleanliness-Dashboard.aspx Next Quarter Assessments City part-time staff is conducting cleanliness assessments every quarter. If you or any member of your staff is interested in participating in the City' s Public Area Cleanliness Index, please contact Dr. Leslie Rosenfeld, Chief Education and Performance Officer. If you have any further questions , please feel free to contact me . Attachment A-Cleanliness Index Scoring Guide c: Maria Hernandez, Assistant City Manager David Martinez, Assistant City Manage r Mark Taxis, Assistant City Manager John Rebar, Parks and Recreation Director Jose R. Gonzalez, Transportation and Mobility Director/ Interim Parking Director Hernan Cardeno, Code Compliance Director Amy Knowles , Chief Resiliency Officer Environment & Sustainability Bradford Kaine , Pub lic Works Director Ron Mumaw, Facilities and Fleet Management Director Jason D. Greene, Chief Financial Officer Dr. Leslie Rosenfe ld , Chief Education and Performance Officer ~[~ JDG/LDR:od Docusig n Envelope ID : FEB825CD-3C6C-4405-92D0-BE011 F7F FDB6 a lonllwllat CINll ' Somewhat Ditty I Ditty • Attachment A • No Utter and/or debris on enttre blocit face . • lsoiated instances of small fresh orgallic 1118lenal (i.e. lea'i8s, OOll1Cl'lllS oov lhe area. • Isola ed pieoc!s of tltet on th enwe auessed area. Ymk:h is not l,'0i(! of htler, but may COl!tain an lsolatlld incidence of liiler • Carns In . 1501a ed Can is free • Less lhllll 10% of a 10 step d, tar\Ce ~area ts • Past residue o ecal mattet. It seems thal an covered by small organic materials. but no more atlempt . s made to dean the fecal ma , but lhan 10% of the entire assessed area . residue w left behind. • Small to modm e amOU11ts of er. Utter aCC1Jmtll.tlion shoofd aocount to I s d\an 10 smaff ~ o, 2-4 pleces of large fitter , but no more than 10% of the enlire sesHd area. • Between 10%-30% of a 10 step ~area Is covered by organic mat • . but no m0<e lhao 10% of the en e assessed area • Consistentjy cattered trash. The trash aocumulatlOll should aocoun1 10 more than 10 pieces of litter or over 4 pieces of large liltef , but no more than 10% of the entire a ed atea. • Between 30% -50% of a 10 step ~ area • covered by organic ma • ' . • 2 to 3 nsta of organlc material ccumul tioo caused by standlng wa er/rxior drain ge. The organic material is beginning IO tum brown. • Cons tent accumula.lion of trash . There are multiple pi of trash cons isting of more than 10 ~ of small llrter or over 4 pieces of large Utter . • Over 50% of~ rea 1$ COll8f'ed by organic materials . Ove 10 pieces of large organic material . • 3--4 lnstaooes of organic mat cau . ed st waler and • Alea blocked by an accumulation of trash and 5tter. Rlegal dumping may be evident. Hazardous mater s on the street . • Can is fuoclioning , but Is full v.,th trash, 'Milch can be seen from the eye M. llttet' above the ra111 guatd • • Can Is full and there is trash bove the gva,d. • Can in a usable and w0l1cing condition. but con items (i.e. $1lckers. graffi ) on them and/or some damage ( dtnts). ,... • Two instances of fecal the public area • Gan i. fu, and ll'lere IS trash above the I guard and begiMlng to overllow. • A large area or 1he can conJalns sfickefS or ffi • Oil them . • Three ins of fecal matter are l)(esen1 on the public area. ' .. ' • Can is and traSh haS ovenloWed to ~ ground. In some cases, there · a fl)t/roden I ed tnfestlltlon. ld'lmely 1----......... -~==-----+-------=-==-===-------1 Dirty • 90-100% of~ area ts covered th organic • Four or mo<e instances of fecal matter are m terial . The organic matenal has turned pres t on the public area. broW1\. • Ovet' 5 instances of organic maten accumulation ca ed by s1anding water 3!ld draina e. Docusign Envelope ID: FEB825CD-3C6C-4405-92D0-BE01 1 F7FFDB6 Cl ean liness Index for Wat erwa 2 Claall .3 $omewbat Clean Note : I • No Utter andior debris floating 011 °' in the walllf and up to e !ugh lid wa1enn811<.. o slgos of floabng tlquid . • Isolated pieces of litter floating on or 111 the entire area of watef arid up to the high tide watMmar1<. No signs of lloating liquid . • Small a111oun1 of lilter including !loanng liquids, such as o,t. TIii$ lncludns lttter floating on tha water a in the water and up to the high tide watemwk. Men than two pjeces of and le$$ than 5% ol al)Out a 20 sq. foot area of water up lo the high tide wa e,mar1< are covered by lier. but ocoumng In no more then 10% ol the entit'6 .. -ata, rea up to Iha high Ilda watennar being Messed. • Small to moderate amOU11ts of Ult«. induding floatltlg liquids, sudl as oil. Between 5% and 10% of about a 20 sq. fool area of wa er up to the high tide wate<ma Is oovered by ijtter, but ocwrring In 110 more than 10% of the entire wa!et at being asessed. • Slight unnatural or OU1 smell i5 berlg emi ed. • Consistent aocum lion ol ttaSII ltldudlng floating liqUld such as ol Beiween 10% end 25% o about 11 20 sq. fool aiea of wa er up to 1l1e high tide watermarlc is COlll!red by 6uw, but occurring in 110 more than 10% of the entire wa.w area up to the high tide termal1( being assessed. • One em-large p,cce of htte,. such as a tire, a grocery Catt. • s unnatural or fool smell s beln em itted . • large aaunulation of Utter and flash lndud,ng floa ng liquid sooh as od ClYllf 25'4 of about a 20 . foot area of water area up to lhe high tide watenna are covered by ll tlllt. Thate may be ewleoee of Illegal dum1JV19. • Two or more extnHa/ge pieces of Utter, SU(;h as tires, 8 grocery C311S , etc. • Ve,y strong uMatural or foul smen is being emitted. When assessing litter/trash for all areas : • No ~ O!ganie matetia l. soch as tree limb$ or p.ilm fronds In he water and up to the high tide watem1ark • Less !him 10% ot about a 20 sq. loot atlla of ater and 11P to the high tide w:f ennalk is covered by organic !lllltetlaf, but OCCtll'llng in no mote than 10% of the entire wa er area- • No large organic mat such as tree fimbs or palm fronds in the water and up to lhe high tide tennaric • Between 1 Oo/. • 30% of about a 20 sq . foot II' • of water and up to !he hlgh tlde walilmla Is covered by organic material, but OCQJrring In no mo<e than 10% ol !he entire wat« area. • Between 1 and 3 pieces of large organic material , l!ruCh a.s tree linbs or palm trond6 in the water and up to the tigh tlde wa ermarlt . • Between 30% • 50% ol aboul a 20 sq . foot area of wat and up to the high Ude wat6t1'11811c Is covered by organ/<: ma eriel . • Between 4 and 10 pieces ot latge ~ ma erial , s..eh as tree llfflbs °' palm fronds In the !er and up to Illa '-9h tide wahlmla • Over 50% of about a 20 sq . fool area ot water and up to the high tide watenna are cove<ed by organlc material , but ocrorrit1Q il'I no mor11 than 10% ol the enllrewa area up to the high tide 11o-aterma!1c. • Over 10 pieces of l.lrge organic ma ~ such tr limbs°' palm ronds in the wai« and up lO the high tide watetma.rt. • 9(). 00'4 of tt, wat• and up to the high tide wa ennan: is covered by~ mat • tf the litter density for the observed cond itio n 1s occurri ng between 10-25% of the assessed area, then add 1 point on th e rating scale. • If the litter dens ity for the observed conditio n is occurri ng more than 25% of the assessed area, then add 2 points on th e rating scale. When asses sing organic material for all areas : • If organic matertal density for the observed cond ition is occurrlng in more than 10% of the entire assessed area, lhen add 1 point on the rating scale.