Loading...
LTC 186-2025 Cleanliness Index Results for FY 25 Quarter 2Docusign Envelope ID: FA875500-840F-484D-A9C1-0964A3B0C66C MIAMI BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER LTC# LETTER TO COMMISSION TO: Honorable Mayor Steven Meiner and Members of the City Commission () '() __ �• FROM: Eric Carpenter, City Manager uu,c, LfJ/Zf w� DATE: May 1, 2025 SUBJECT: Cleanliness Index Results for FY 25 Quarter 2 The purpose of this Letter to Commission (L TC) is to communicate the results of the Cleanliness Index for Fiscal Year 2025 Quarter 2 (January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025). Key Q2 Metrics: •Citywide Cleanliness Index Rating: 1.59 •Citywide Cleanliness Index Compared to FY 25 Quarter 1: 5.3% change •Citywide Percent Assessments Meeting Target of 2.0: 89.9% 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. 0 to 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 2 The Citywide Cleanliness Index score for FY 25 Quarter 2 is 1.59, positioning it about midway between 1.0 (extremely clean) and 2.0 (clean). Additionally, 89.9% of all public area assessments scored 2.0 or better. While there have been 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 to citywide cleanliness. During the quarter, a total of 10,593 unique assessments were conducted throughout the city. 186-2025 Docusign Envelope ID : FA875500-840F-4B4D-A9C1-0964A3B0C66C Positive and Stable Areas in FY 25 Quarter 2 • Streets -Streets achieved a score of 1.61, with 90.7% of streets assessed scoring 2.0 or better. The streets assessed performed well with minimal changes compared to the previous quarter. Commercial entertainment streets scored 1.60, with 91.5% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better. Commercial non-entertainment streets scored 1.61 with 91. 7% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better. Residential streets scored 1.47 with 93 .6% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better. Organic material and litter/trash remain areas of focus reaching 1.89 and 1.92 respectively in commercial entertainment areas and1 .91 and 1.92 respectively in commercial non-entertainment areas. • Parks -Parks scored 1.38 , with 95.8% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better reflecting a strong performance for the quarter. The key areas for improvement identified are organic material in bark parks, litter/trash and organic material at beach access points and organic material on pedestrian trails. • Sidewalks -Sidewalks scored 1.54 with 91 .6% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better . The key areas for improvement identified are litter/trash and organic material in commercial entertainment and commercial non-entertainment areas, as well as organic material in residential areas. • Beaches -Beach areas maintained by Miami Beach scored 1.53, with 92.1 % of assessments scoring 2.0 or better . Beach areas serviced by the county scored 1.54, with 92.1 % of assessment scoring 2.0 or better . The key area for improvement identified is organic material for areas maintained by both the city and the county. Areas of Focus in FY 25 Quarter 2 • Alleys -Alleys scored 1.91 with 80.4% of the assessments scoring a 2.0 or better. Litter/trash and organic material contributed the most to the low scores reaching 2.43 and 2.25 respectively during the quarter. In the South Beach area, scores reached 1.93 and most low scores were noted during weekday daytimes and weekend nighttimes. • Waterways -Waterways scored 1.88, marking a 4.6% improvement compared to the previous quarter, with 80.8% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better. Litter/trash and organic material were the main drivers of the score reaching 1.63 and 1.92 in non-hotspot areas respectively and 1.96 and 2.14 in hotspot areas respectively for the quarter. In addition hotspot area scores reached 1.96 during weekday daytimes and 2.16 during weekend daytimes. • Parking Lots -Parking lots scored 1. 77, with 81.6% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better. Litter/trash and organic material factors were the main drivers of the low scores reaching 2.50 and 2.30 respectively in commercial entertainment areas and 2.25 and 2.09 respectively in commercial non-entertainment areas. Locations in the South Beach area, such as P13, P20 and P22, achieved scores of 2.12, 2.06 and 2.09, respectively. Locations in the North Beach area, such as P81, P86 and P88 recorded scores of 2.16, 2.34 and 2.03 respectively. To address these issues, the Sanitation Division has replaced all smaller garbage cans in the parking lots with larger Victor Stanley trash cans. This upgrade will significantly reduce the occurrence of overloaded trash cans across surface lots. BL,Jilding on this improvement, Sanitation will focus efforts in the coming quarter on addressing the organic material factor, particularly the accumulation of fallen leaves. Docusign Envelope ID: FA875500-840F-4B4D-A9C1-0964A380C66C Target= 1.5 or better FY 19 FY24 FY25 % % % change change change from FY Score FY Score Ql Q2 from from base prior prior FY same year Qtr Qtr same Public Area Qtr Overall Citv Score .51 5.3% 21 % -1. % Streets 1.59 1. % 18.4% -0.6% Commercial -Entertainment 1.56 % 18.5% -1.2% Commercial -Non-Entertainment 1.58 % -1. % Residential 1.51 % -% Alleys 1.89 % % 1. % Sidewalks % 1. -.1% Commercial -Entertainment .% % % Commercial -Non-Entertainment % 1.3% Residential .7% % -8.8% Parks 2. % 20.0% -10.4% Parking .7 0 16.4% -11.1% Waterwa)t'. 1.71 -.6% .% 18.2% Beach Area Miami Beach Responsibility Only 1 .51 .5% .7% .% Miami -Dade County Responsibility 1.55 .% .% -% 1.0-1.4 99 1.50-1.999 2.0-6.0 ,% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better (target=90"/4) FY 19 FY24 FY25 % % % change change change from from base FY Score FY Score Ql Q2 from prior FY prior year Qtr same same qtr Qtr (FY Public Area 19) Citvwide -% -% 7 % Streets 0.9% -.3% .0% Commercial -Entertainment -% -% 7 % Commercial -Non-Entertainment 3.5% -2.9% 10.2% Residential 9.9% Alleys .% .2% Sidewalks .5% Commercial -Entertainment 3.8% Commercial -Non-Entertainment 4.0% Residential Parks Parking -% Waterwa)t'. .% -.% -% Beach Area Miam i Beach Respons i bility Only -4.3% -5 % % Miami-Dade County Responsibil i ty 2. % % % 90.0-100% 80.0-89.9% 79 .9% and below Docusign Envelope ID: FA875500-840F-4B4D-A9C1-0964A3B0C66C Cleanliness Key Intended Outcome Cleanliness continues to be listed 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 . Additionally, 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 available on SharePoint and can be accessed through the following link : https://miamibeach.sharepoint.com/dept/orgdev/8I/SitePaqes/Cleanliness-Dashboard.aspx Next Quarter Assessments City part-time staff is conducting cleanliness assessments every quarter. If you or any member of your team is interested in participating in the City' s Public Area Cleanliness Index, please contact Dr. Leslie Rosenfeld , Chief Educati on 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 Manager Mark Taxis , Assistant City Manager John Rebar, Parks and Recreation Director William Macdonald, Parking Department Director Hernan Cardeno, Code Compliance Director Amy Knowles , Chief Resiliency Officer Environment & Sustainability Bradford Kaine, Public Works Director Ron Mumaw, Facilities and Fleet Management Director Jason D. Greene, Chief Financial Officer os Dr. ~sli li\5enfeld , Chief Education and Performance Officer Docus ign Enve lope ID : FA875500-840F-484D-A9C 1-0964A380C66C 2 Clean 3 Attachment A not void of litter, but may conta n an nee of litter war n r, u . Can Is free of items I.e. • Fecai matter Is not v,sible . ..,...:.1........., ._ ► I L. :..._ • Can is in good WOtklng order fu ll. Isolated • ece of tras Can is free of of a 10 step distance paved area Is • Past res idue all organic materials, but no more attempt was maoe to clean ea . tes due was left behind. • Small to moderate amounts of ,tter. Utter accumulation shoold account to less lhan 10 ma ll pieces 01 2-4 pieces of large litter. but no more than 10% of the entire assessed area . • Can is func:wn ing, but Is ful can be seen from the eye lev the ra in guard . Somewhat i------..:::=;::-;:==~----;-~-------.~==~-------1 Clean paved area Is no more than • Cons.srently scattered trash . The trash accumulabon should aocount to more lhan 10 pieces of sma litter or over 4 pieces of large ti tter , but no more tlian 10% of the en~re assessed area . • One nstance of fecal matter is present on the public area. • Can s fu ll and there is trash above the ra11 guard. • Can is in a usab e and work ing oondibon, but conta ins Rem (i.e. stlckers, graffib) on them and/or some damege (ex. dents ). 4 Somewhat .1'-'----..... -=-=e..::Maerilla===-~----'--""'-'"'--~--'Pellll=::::.:11---'-~----t Ditty 5 Ditty II Extremely Ditty • Between 30% • 50¾ of a 10 step~ area is •, • wo instances of reca l matter are present on covered by organic materla s. the pu ic area. • 2 to 3 instances of organic mater ial accum lation caused by stand ing water/poor dra inage. The organic material is beg inning to tum brown . • Cons stent accumulation or trash. There are multiple pl es of trash coos ting of more than 10 pieces of small II ter or over 4 pieces of large litter. • Over 50% of paved area Is covered by organic materials . Over 10 p eces of large organic materials . • 3-4 instances of organic matenal accumulation caus r draina e. • Area Is blocked by an accumulation of tras h and litter. Illegal dumping may be evlden Hazardous materials on the street. • 90-100% of paved area is covered with organ ic material. The organic material has tumed bro • Over 5 instances of organic material accumulat on caused by standing water and rdraina e. CU.I • Can l fu ll and there is trash abOve the raln guard and beg inning to overflow. • A large area or the can contains ems ~.e. stickers or raffib ) on them . • Th ee instances or ecal ma tt e, are presen t on the public area. • Can is fu ll and trash has overflOwed to the ground. In some cases . there 1s a ra t/roden insect in es ation. • Can Is covered or items (i.e. stickers or raffi!I and needs to be re laced. • Four 01 more ins ances of fecal matter are present on the pu ic area. Docusign Envelope ID : FA875500-840F-4B4D-A9C1-0964A3BOC66C Clea nlin ess Index for Waterwa s 1 Extremely CINn 2 CINn 3 Somewhat CINn 4 Somewhat Dirty 5 Dirty e Extremely Dirty Note : f • No litter and/or debris floating on °' In lhe water and up to the high bde wa181fflar1<. No signs of floatlng fiq uld . • Isolated pieces of litter float ng on or In the en re area of water and up to the high tide watermark. No signs of floating riquid . • Sm all am ount of loller Including floating liquids . such as oil. This includes litter ftoatlng on the wa ter or In the water and up to the high tide wa termark. Mote than two pieces of litter and less than 5% of about a 20 sq . foot area of water up lo the high tide watermark are covered by fi tter. but occurring n no more lhan 10% of the enllre water area up to the high tide wa termark being assessed . • Small to mod erate amounts of Utter, lnctuding floa ting llqu1ds, such as oll. Between 5% and 10% of about a 20 sq . foot area of water up to the high tid e waterm ari< is covered by ~tier, but occurring In no m0<e than 10% of the entire water ar a being assessed. • Slight unnatural or foul smell is being emitted . • Consi stent aocumulalion of trash Including floating liquids. such as oil. Between 10% and 25% of about a 20 sq . foot area of water up to the high tide wa term arl< ,s covered by l,uer, but occurring in no mora than 10% of the entire water area up to the high 6de watennar1< being assessed . • One extra-large p,eco or liner . such as a tire . a groceiyca etc.. • Suon unnatura l or foul smell is beln emitted. • U11ge accumulation of litter and trash inctud ing floa ting liqu ds, such as oil Over 25% of about a 20 sq . foot area of wat er area up to the high tide watermark are covered by IIUer. There may be evidence of "legal dumping , • Two 01 more extra-large pieces of litter, such as bres, a grocery carts , e1c. • Very strong unnatural or foul smell is being em ftted . Whe n asses sing litte r/tras h for all area s: • No or Isolated Instances of small fresh organic ma leriaL • No large organic ma1en'al , such as lree limbs or palm fronds in the va1er and up to the high tide watermark . • Less than 10% of about a 20 sq . foot area of water and up to the high llde watermar1< Is covered by organic malenal , but ocaming In no more than 10% of the en re water area. • No la,ge organlc ma1enal , such as tree r.mbs 01 palm fronds In the water and up to the h gh tide atermark . • Between 10% -30% of about a 20 sq . fool area of water and up 10 the high fide watermark Is covered by organic material, but occurring i n no mote than 10% of the en6re water area. • Betw en 1 and 3 p eces of large organ,c material , such as tree tombs 01 palm fronds In the water and up to the high tide watermark . • Between 30% • 50% of about a 20 sq , fool area of water and up to the hig tide watermark s covered by organic material . • Between 4 and 10 pieces of large org anic material , such as tree tombs°' palm fronds In the water and up to the high tide watermark. • Over 50 % of aboul a 20 sq . foot area of water and up to the high tide w;,termark are covered by organ ic material. but occurring In no more than 10% of the n~re wa ter area up to the high tid e watermark . • Over 10 pieces of large organic ma terial , such as tree limbs°' palm fronds in the water and up to the high tide wa termark. • 90-100% o the water and up to the h gh tide wtermark is covered by organ c ma terial. • If the li tte r dens it y for the obse rv ed condition is occurring between 10-25% of th e assessed area , then add 1 po in t on the ra ti ng scale. • If the li tter de nsity for the obse rv ed co ndition Is occu rring more than 25% of the assessed area , th en add 2 poin ts on the rat in g scal e. Wh en assess ing orga ni c ma terial for all areas : • If organ ic mate ri al dens ity for the obse rv ed conditi on is occurring in more than 10% of the entire assessed area , then add 1 po int on the rati ng scale .