Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLTC 543-2025 Cleanliness Index Results for FY 25 Quarter 4Docusign Envelope ID: 350180E6-F91 F-4537-B4F9-88651 B830O03 MIAMI BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER LTC# LETTER TO COMMISSION TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor Steven Meiner and Members of the City Commission Eric Carpenter, City Manager Sit,,(_, ().Ao � DATE: SUBJECT: v0v7 J-VVvv V"... December 29, 2025 Cleanliness Index Results for FY 25 Quarter 4 The purpose of this Letter to Commission (L TC) is to communicate the results of the Cleanliness Index for Fiscal Year 2025 Quarter 4 (July 1, 2025 to September 30, 2025). Key Q4 Metrics: •Citywide Cleanliness Index Rating: 1.51 •Citywide Cleanliness Index Compared to FY 25 Quarter 3: 5.6% improvement •Citywide Percent Assessm ents Meeting Target of 2.0: 94.1 % 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/d umpsters, 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. Su m mary of the Cleanliness Assessment Results FY 25 Quarter 4 The Citywide Cleanliness Index score for FY25 Quarter 4 is 1.51, placing it slightly above the target of 1.50 and well below the threshold of 2.0 (considered clean). This reflects a 5.6% improvement compared to the previous quarter. Additionally, 94.1 % of all public area assessments scored 2.0 or better, marking a 4.6% improvement from the previous quarter and a 0.6% year-over-year improvement. Overall, performance remains strong and underscores the city's ongoing commitment to maintaining cleanliness across all neighborhoods. During the quarter, a total of 9,319 unique assessments were conducted. For FY25, the city has completed 38,014 unique assessments. 543-2025 Docusign Envelope ID: 35D180E6-F91 F-4537-B4F9-88651 B830D03 Po sitive and Stable Areas in FY 25 Quarte r 4 • Streets -Streets achieved a score of 1.61, with 91.6% of streets assessed scoring 2.0 or better. The streets assessed performed well and remained stable compared to the previous quarter. Commercial entertainment streets scored 1.62, with 93 .2% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better. Commercial non-entertainment streets scored 1.64, with 92.8% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better. Residential streets scored 1.49, with 93 .2% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better. Organic material and litter/trash remain areas of focus , reaching 1.95 and 1.85., respectively, in commercial entertainment areas and 2.01 and 1.86, respectively, in commercial non-entertainment areas. • Parks -Parks scored 1.34, with 97.8% of assessments scoring 2 .0 or better, reflecting a strong performance for the quarter. The key areas for improvement identified are organic material and fecal matter in bark parks and organic material on pedestrian trails. • Sidewalks -Sidewalks scored 1.43 with 96.6% of assessments scoring 2.0 or bette r. 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 sco red 1.45, with 96.1 % of assessments scoring 2.0 or better. Beach areas serviced by the County scored 1.31, with 90.0% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better. The key area for improvement identified is organic material for areas maintained by the County. • Waterways -Waterways scored 1.55 with 88.3% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better. Non-hotspot areas averaged a score of 1.35, while hotspot areas reached 1.83. The key areas for improvement identified are litter/trash and organic material in hotspot areas. Areas of Focus in FY 25 Quarter 4 • Alleys -Alleys scored 1. 70 with 83.5% of the assessments scoring a 2.0 or better. Litter/trash and organic material contributed the most to the low scores, reaching 2.34 and 2.11, respectively, during the quarter. In the South Beach area, scores reached 1. 76, and most low scores were noted during weekend night times. The Sanitation Division will collaborate with Code Enforcement to address issues involving private properties, which continue to present the greatest challenges in alley maintenance. • Parking Lots -Parking lots scored 1.59, with 91.9% of assessments scoring 2.0 or better. Litter/trash and organic material factors were the main drivers of the low scores, reaching 2.23 and 2.09 respectively, in commercial entertainment areas and 2.1 O and 1.96, respectively, in commercial non-entertainment areas. The Sanitation Division will continue to monitor the lower-performing lots. Adjustments to service days may be made to better align with actual lot usage patterns . Docusign Envelope ID: 35D180E6-F91 F-4537-B4F9-88651 B830D03 Target= 1.5 or better FY 19 FY24 FY Score FY Score Ql Public Area Overall Citv Score 1.51 Streets 1.58 Commercial -Entertainment Commercial -Non-Entertainment Residential Alleys Sidewalks Commercial -Entertainment Commercial -Non-Entertainment Residential Parks Parking Waterwalr'. Beach Area Miami Beach Responsibility Only Miami-Dade County Responsibility % of assessments scoring 2.0 or better (target=90%} FY 19 FY 24 FY Score FY Score Ql Cit}'wide Streets Sidewalks Parks Parking Waterwalr'. Beach Area Public Area Commercial -Entertainment Commercial -Non-Entertainment Residential Alleys Commercial -Entertainment Commercial -Non-Entertainment Residential Miami Beach Responsibility Only Miami-Dade County Responsibility 1.0-1.4999 1.5-1.999 2.0-6.0 90.0-100% 80.0-89 .999% 79.999% and below FY25 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY Score 1.59 1.60 1.51 1.60 1.60 1.62 1.61 1.60 1.60 1.62 1.60 1.62 FY25 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY Score % % % change change change from from base from prior FY prior Qt year same same Qtr Qtr -5.6% .0% -1.3% -0.6% 3.9% 3.9% 0.6% 5.2% 5.9% 1.9% 3.8% 7.2% -1.3% 7.2% 0.7% -5.0"/o -2.9% -7 .1% -7.1% 1.4% -4.0% -5.9% 0.0% 2.9% -6 .9% 4. % -0.7% -8.1% 3.8% -8.1% -2.9% 2.3% -5.6% -8.1% -3.0"/o -14.1% -24.4% -16.7% -22.9% -4.0% 5.8% -11.0"/o -10.1% 10.3% 7.3% % % change % change from change from base from prior FY year prior Qt same same qtr Qtr (FY 19) 4.6% 0.6% 9.3% 0.1% -2.3% 7.8% 0.5% -2.8% 7.5% 0.2% 1.8% 7.7% -0.4% -2. % 8.2% -0.8% -1.8% 8.6% 4.4% 0.8% 10.0% 3.7% 0.5% 4.6% 5.3% 1.8% 8.2% 5.9% 0.8% 11.1% 2.1% 0.6% 8.5% 10.2% 4.7% 25.5% 13.9% 10.2% 23.3% 2.3% -0.8% 9.8% 10.8% -2.8% 1.5% Docusign Envelope ID : 35D180E6-F91F-4537-B4F9-88651 B830D03 Cl ea nliness 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 on. Additionally , 64% of residents surveyed indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with cleanliness in their neighborhoods. The city's Appearance Index, which provides data on the condition of public rights of way, is now being utilized as well and may be found on the dashboard. The Cleanliness and Appearance Index interactive dashboard of historical and current data is available on sharePoint and can be accessed internally through the following link : https://mi a mibea ch.sharepoint.com/depUo rgdev/B1/SitePages /Cleanliness- Dashboard.aspx Next Quarter Assessments City part-time staff are conducting cleanliness and appearance assessments every quarter. If you or any member of your team is interested in participating in the City's Public Area Clean liness 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 Manager Mark Taxis, Assistant City Manager John Rebar, Parks and Recreation Director William Macdonald, Parking Department Director Hernan Cardena, Code Compliance Director Amy Knowles, Chief Resiliency Officer, Environment & Sustainability John Norris, Public Works Director Elizabeth Miro, Interim Facilities and Fleet Management Director Jason D. Greene , Chief Financial Officer Dr. Leslie Rosenfeld , Chief Education and Performance Officer Docusign Envelope ID : 35D180E6-F91 F-4537-B4F9-88651 B830D03 1 Attachment A Cleanliness Index for Streets . Sidewa lks , Alleys . Parks, Park in Lots and Beaches Trull • No litter and/or deb ris oo entire block face . Cans/ • Ca n is in good worK ing order . M more Ihm 3l 4 fu ll. Can is free of items (I.e . strckers , raffiti. E)(tteme ly ,... _____ -;,o:;...,.. ="""'"'la,.-.~----------~~==--------f Clean • Isolated ir.stances of sm I fresh organic ma1enal (i.e. leaves. tlf"<J11ch!!S cover !he ved area. UUer/Truh • lsoleted pieces of fi tter on the ent,re assessed area, which is not void of titler, but may conta in an Isolated incidence of littet nicMamiall • Less than 10% of a 10 st p distance ~ area 1s co·,ered by sm!lll organ ;c materials . but no more than 10% of the entire assessed area. • Fecal matter is no1 v,sibie . I• C3n ,sin !v ii. lsolat I Can is iree o • Past residue at,emptwas .e.sidUO\! • Small to model<lte emoonts of ti ller. iner • Can is iuru;Uomng, hut is full vAlh I/ash, which aocumulalion shoufd account to less ,han 10 small can be seen from theeye le•1el, No litte, above pier.es o, 2--4 pieces of large litter, but no more the r-ain guard. 3 than 10% of the entire assossed are3. • Clfle sma ll isolated ,ristance of a sticker or Somewhat ,---.....--...-.,.-,,.,...,,,.....-.., ~=-----T="''-c',-,.,,,-,~-'--._.__e,,.,s .. • n,_o,,,t _dr_a_w_n ... to ... 1 ___ 1. __ c--1 Clean ic Matariala Mlttlr 4 Somewhat Dirty 5 Dirty t) Extremely Ditty • Between 10¾ • 30% or a i0 step pa,ed area is • One in:;tanceof feca l mm er is presc-nt on tile covered by o.rgamc malenats, but no mote than public area . 10% of the entire assessed ares. • 1 to 3 iece.s of lar. •e or anic materials Utter/Trull • Consisrently scattered trash , The trash accumulation should accounl !o more than 0 pieces of sma n litter or oV(lr 4 Pieces oi large litter. but no more than 10% of the enijre a,sessed • Between 30% • 50% of a 10 step paved area ,s covernd by organ1e rnater,a •s. • 2 10 3 instar.ces of organic material accum lation c.iused by standi!1{1 water/poo1 drarnage. The organ ic material JS beg inn ing to tum brown . Litttr I TrHh • Consistent accumulation of trash . There are multiple pijes ol trash cons isting of mo re than 10 pieces of smafl lilter or ove r 4 pieces of large filter . • Over 50% or paved a1ea 1s covered by organ:c materials . Over 10 pieces of large organic materials. • 3-4 instances of organic mater,al accumulation caused by stand or d1a inaQe. • Area Is blocked by an accumulat ion of tras h and litter. Illegal dumping may !Je evident. Haza1dous materia ls on the street. • 90-100% of Qaved area is. covered with organ;c material. The organic matenal has turned brown. • Over 5 1nslilnces of organic mate rial accurn latlon caused by standing water and oordrama e. • Can ,s lull ond there is tf3sl1 abo~-e the r ·1 gvard . • Can is in a usab ie a11d vorK111g C011dit1or1, but contains items (,.e. stickefs . graffiti) on them arid /or some damage (ex . dents). er . • Two instances of feca l ma"er are p,esent on the pu~ic area . • Can is full and there is trash above the ra?n guard and beginning to overflow. • A large area oft e can contains items (Le. stickers or araffi ') oo them . Fecal Matter • Th ee instan ces of feca l maite1 are prese~t 011 the public area. • Can is full and trash has oveiflowed to !he ground . In some cases, there I a r.il/ro<!enl/inscct infestation. • Can is covered of items (i.e. stickers or roffit l and nees1s to be re laced. ecalMatter • Four or niore instanc'sS of fecal matter are present on !he public area , Docusign Envelope ID : 35D180E6-F91 F-4537-B4F9-88651 B830D03 lndeX Extremely Clean 2 Clea n 3 Somewha t Clean 4 Somewhat Dirty 5 Dirty e Exwmely Dirty Note : Cleanliness Index for Waterways Litter / Trash O anlc Materials • No litter anc/or debns floating on -Of In the w.ater ancl up to the high bde watermark . No signs of fioahng iiqul<i. • Isolated pi eces of htte, floating on or in the ent:re area of water and lIP to the high tide watarmark. No sig11s of floating liquid . • • No or isolated instances o · small flesh orQa nic material. • No large o,gan,c ma terial. sucl\ as tree limbs 0t palm tror.ds in tl-.e water and up to !he high tide watermark . • Les s than 10% of about a 20 sq. loot area of wate r and up to the high tide watermark is covered by orQ,3 mc material , but occur Mg in no mere than 10% of ,he entire water area . 1 • No la,ge or ga r>ic maten al. such as !fee limbs or pa lm fronds in the ,,.ttor and up to the high iide watermatk . • Smal f amoun1 oi litli!t indudif'lg floating liqvids , • Bel\1•een 10% • 30% oi about a 20 $Q. foot a1ea such as oil. Th i s includes litter fioating on the of water and up to lhe high tide watermark is wa ter or In the water and up to tne high ~do covered by organic mate,ial, blit occurring in no watermatk . Mo,e lhan two pieces oi litter and less morn than 10% of the enbre water area. than _5% of abOul a 20 sq . foot area of waler up io ! • Betwe n 1 and 3 pieces cf large o,garuc th& high de waterman< are c;;,,•ered by frttor, ~ut I material . ~.uch a.s tree hmbs or pa!m fronds in occumng 1n no 1:1ore than 10 ., of the _ent,re "ate1 i the water and p to tile high tide watermar!I . ar ea up to the !11gh tide watermark being , assessed, • Small to mode rate amounts of litter, including floating bqulds, such as oil. 6e,ween $% and 10% of about a 20 sq. toot area of water up to the hrgh tide wa1errnarlt is covered by hlter, bu t occurnng in no more than 10% of the entire water area bei ng assessed . • Sligh t unri atu rn l or ioul smell is being em itted • Consistent accumtJlation of bash lnel ueing noaling hqulds. such as oi l. Ber,1een 10% 3nd 25% of abo 1t a 20 sq. foot area ofwa er up to the high • 8P,tween 30% -50% of about a 20 sq . foot areo of water and up to the high tida watermark Is covered by organrc material . • Between 4 and 10 pieces oi l319e orgamc material, such as tree limbs or palm fronos i11 the water and tip to ll'le higl tide watermark . tlde watermark is ccvEt,ed t;,y httor. but occurrl0g in 1 no ITI0(6 than 10% of the entire wafer ace~ up to • O,•er 50% of abou t a 20 sci . foot area ol wJ!e1 and up to the hig h lice waterman< are covered hy organ ic material. btrt occurring in no more than 10% of the erit,rc wa ter area up to the high tide wmerma<k , the h,gn tide wa1crmar k being 11ssessed. • One extra-la rqo p,e<:c of htler , sud\ as a tire. a gmce1y cart . etc. • Strom unriah/ral or fou l small is bain ommec! • Large accumulation of fitter ami trash including I Roatlng !,qu ids, wch as oil Over Z5% ol about a 20 sq. foot area of wa te1 area up to the high tide wate rmwk are cove~d by litte r. There rna1• be j av,dence of Il legal dumping . • Two or more extta-18rge pieces of litter, &u<:h as tires , a grocery c.irts. etc. • Very sl ron(l unna tural or foul sme ll is being em itte<i , • Over 10 pieces of large or9<\llic material, such as tree 1,mbs or palm fronds i n tha wate and up to the high :,de watermark . 1 • 90-100% ol the water and up to the high tide watermark 1s covered by Oll)<ln ic matenaJ. Wh en as sess ing litter/tra sh for all ar eas : • If the litte r de nsity for th e obs erved condition is occurring between 10-25% of tt1 e ass es sed are a, then add 1 po int on th e ra ti ng sca le. • ff the litter de nsity for the obse rv ed condition is occur ring more than 25% of the asse ssed area, the n add 2 point s on the rat ing scale . When assessin g organic mat erial for all ar eas: • If organ ic materia l den sity for the obse rv ed condition is occurr ing in more th an 10% of the entire assess ed are a, then add 1 point on the ra ti ng scale .