Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLTC 100-2026 - Cleanliness Index Results for FY 26 Quarter 1Docusign -Envelope ID: DBD720EA-932D-4109-8101-A694O3950776 MIAMI BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER LTC# LETTER TO COMMISSION TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor Steven Meiner and _M� Commission Eric Carpenter, City Manager � �vvvv, DATE: SUBJECT: March 11, 2026 Cleanliness Index Results for FY 26 Quarter 1 The purpose of this Letter to Commission (L TC) is to communicate the results of the Cleanliness Index for Fiscal Year 2026 Quarter 1 (October 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025). Key Q1 Metrics: •Citywide Cleanliness Index Rating: 1.43•Citywide Cleanliness Index Compared to FY 25 Quarter 4: 4.7% improvement•Citywide Percent Assessments Meeting Target of 2.0: 93.6% 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 ensure 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 26 Quarter 1 The Citywide Cleanliness Index for FY26 01 stands at 1.43, exceeding our 1.5 target. This marks an improvement of 4.7% compared to 04 FY25 and 5.3% over 01 FY25. Additionally, 93.6% of all public area assessments scored 2.0 or better, indicating areas were clean or extremely clean, a stable trend from 04 FY25 and a 2.7% improvement from 01 FY25. In total, 10,035 unique assessments were conducted in 01 FY26. Positive and Stable Areas in FY 26 Quarter 1 •Streets -Streets achieved an overall score of 1.53, reflecting a 4.4% improvementcompared to 04 FY25 and a 3.2% improvement from 01 FY25. 92.1 % of street assessments were rated clean or extremely clean (2.0 or better), demonstrating stability compared to both 04 FY25 and the same quarter in the previous fiscal year. Commercial Entertainment scored 1.43 with 97.0% assessment scoring 2.0 or better, reflecting an 11.7% improvement compared to 04 FY25 and a 7.7% improvement from 01 FY 25. 100-2026 Docusign Envelope ID:DBD720EA-932D-4109-8101-A694D3950776 Commercial non-entertainment scored 1.59 with 92.9%of assessment scoring 2.0 or better,marking a 3.0%improvement compared to Q4 FY25 and a 1.2%improvement from Q1 FY 25.However,organic material scores reached 2.01.Residential streets scored 1.46 with 92.4%of assessment scoring 2.0 or better,reflecting a 2.0%improvement compared to Q4 FY25 and a 9.3%improvement from Q1 FY 25.However,organic material scores reached 2.05. •Sidewalks -Sidewalks achieved an overall score of 1.30 with 96.9%assessment scoring 2.0 or better,representing a 9.1 %improvement compared to Q4 FY25 and a 6.5% improvement from Q1 FY25.Commercial Entertainment scored 1.27 with 97.4%of assessment scoring 2.0 or better,reflecting an 11.2%improvement compared to Q4 FY25 and a 9.9%improvement from Q1 FY 25.Commercial non-entertainment scored 1.40 with 95.5%of assessment scoring 2.0 or better,marking a 6.0%improvement compared to Q4 FY25 and a 2.8%improvement from Q1 FY 25.Residential sidewalks scored 1.25 with 97.1 %of assessments scoring 2.0 or better,reflecting an 8.8%improvement compared to Q4 FY25,with performance remaining stable from Q1 FY25. •Parks -Parks achieved a score of 1.26 with 97.2%of assessment scoring 2.0 or better, reflecting a 3.8%improvement compared to Q4 FY25 and a 6.7%improvement from Q1 FY25. •Parking Lots -Parking lots recorded a score of 1.52 with 92.7%of assessment scoring 2.0 or better,marking a 4.4%improvement compared to Q4 FY25 and a 10.1% improvement from Q1 FY25,representing one of the strongest improvements compared to Q1 FY25 among assessed public rights of way.However,in commercial entertainment areas,litter/trash scores reached 2.16. •Beach Areas -Miami Beach maintained beach areas scored 1.38 with 93.5%of assessment scoring 2.0 or better,reflecting a 4.8%improvement compared to Q4 FY25 and maintaining stable performance from Q1 FY25.Beach areas maintained by Miami- Dade County scored 1.58 with 85.7%of assessments scoring 2.0 or better,reflecting a 1.9%improvement compared to Q4 FY25,but a 9.7%deterioration compared to the same quarter in the previous fiscal year.However organic material scores reached 2.43. Areas of Focus in FY 26 Quarter 1 •Alleys -Alleys recorded a score of 1.74,remaining stable from Q1 FY25,but reflecting a 7.4%deterioration compared to Q4 FY25.Within alleys,litter/trash reached 2.57 and organic material reached 2.14.Additionally,several locations did not meet the performance target.In the South Beach region,Alton Court,Lenox Court,and Ocean Court exceeded the threshold with scores above 2.0.Similarly,in the North Beach region,areas near Collins Court and Harding Court also recorded scores above 2.0.The sanitation division is actively monitoring alley performance to identify areas needing additional service,and also considering specific alleys for weekend service. •Waterways -Waterways scored 2.01,reflecting a 29.7%deterioration compared to Q4 FY25 and a 2.0%deterioration from Q1 FY25.In non-hotspot areas,litter trash and organic material scored 1.83 and 1.89,respectively.While in hotspot areas,litter/trash and organic material scored 2.45 and 1.94 respectively.In addition,in hotspots areas scores reached 2.47 during the weekend daytimes.The Middle Beach area was the primary contributor to lower performance scores with an overall score of 2.54.Specifically,waterways along Collins Avenue between 49th and 51 st Streets recorded scores above 2.0.Additionally,a segment along Collins Avenue between 23rd and 24th Streets registered a rating of 4.69. In FY26 Q1,four alerts related directly to waterways were forwarded to the waterway contractor for resolution.The remaining alerts involved trash or illegal dumping at street ends and were referred to the sanitation division.This quarter marked the first full period under the contractor's expanded scope,which increased service from three to five days Docusign Envelope ID:DBD720EA-932D-4109-8101-A694D3950776 per week,alternating between North and South waterways (inorganic materials only).The scope also includes complete removal of all materials from Lake Pancoast during each visit,handling any debris reported through resident complaints (organic or inorganic),and adding one day per week for organic material removal,alternating between North and South waterways.These enhancements have resulted in a significant increase in debris removal volume.Also,according to Marine Patrol,waterway utilization is 70%higher on weekends compared to weekdays.The Environment and Sustainability Division is currently reviewing the contract to determine potential adjustments. Target =1.5 or better FY 19 FY24 FY25 Public Area FY Score FY Score FY Score Overall City Score 1.57 Streets 1.59 Commercial-Entertainment 1.56 Commercial-Non-Entertainment/1.58 Residential 1.51 Alleys 1.89 Sidewalks Commercial-Entertainment Commercial-Non-Entertainment----Residential Parks Parking Waterway ]aj--l-I-l- Beach Area Miami Beach Responsibility Only'1.50 Miami-Dade County Responsibility 1.55 FY26 %change 9 change %change from from basea1from prior Qtr prior FY year same same Qtr Qtr -4.7%-5.3%-10.6% -4.4%-3.2%-5.6% -11.7%-7.79 -5.9% -3.0%-1.2%1.3% -2.0%-9.3%-5.8% 7.4%0.0%-11.7% -9.1%-6.5%-18.2% -11.2%-9.9%-12.4% -6.0%-2.8%-12.5% -8.8%0.8%-22.4% -3.8%-6.7%-10.6% -4.4%-10.1%-29.3% 29.7%2.0%43.6% -4.8%-4.8%-3.5% -1.9%9.7%7.5% Target =1.5 or better FY 19 FY 24 FY25 Public Area FY Score FY Score FY Score Overall City Score Streets Commercial-Entertainment----Commercial-Non-Entertainment----Residential ----Aley>. RHEANUVNVNVkttic.rare Sidewalks Commercial-Entertainment Commercial -Non-Entertainment----Residential yeyepegyeggegggegggeggill:&GM:EI:Z3EI:SE2car"Tr.TTY:EI:Ek:I Parks Parking Waterway Beach Area Miami Beach Responsibility Only[ Miami-Dade County Responsibility TIRAEEIII FAEIRETEATFEIEAl Er: II FY 26 %change %change 9 change from from baseQ1from prior Qtr prior FY year same same Qtr Qtr -0.7%2.7%10.9% -0.3%1.3%10.9% 4.1%3.9%9.9% 0.1%4.9%11.2% -0.9%3.3%8.9% -5.4%2.8%10.3% 0.3%3.0%13.7% 0.2%2.5%6.8% -0.5%3.6%11.6% 1.5%4.1%16.0% -0.6%1.6%4.8% 0.8%10.2%49.6% -15.6%-2.8%-17.1% -2.7%-2.8%2.8% -4.8%-4.6%-6.4% 1.0-1.4999 1.5-1.999 2.0-6.0 90.0-100% 80.0-89.999% 79.999%and below Docusign Envelope ID:DBD720EA-932D0-4109-8101-A694D03950776 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 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://miamibeach.sharepoint.com/dept/orgdev/B1/SitePages/Cleanliness-Dashboard.aspx Next Quarter Assessments City part-time staff conduct cleanliness and appearance 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 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,Facilities,Fleet and Beach Director William Macdonald,Parking Department Director Hernan Cardena,Code Compliance Director Amy Knowles,Chief Resiliency Officer,Environment &Sustainability John Norris,Public Works Director Jason D.Greene,Chief Financial Officer Dr.Leslie Rosenfeld,Chief Education and Performance Officer;u5coked Docusign Envelope ID:DBD720EA-932O-4109-8101-A694D3950776 Attachment A Lots and Beaches •No litterand/or debris on entire block face.4Extremely Clean •Isolated instances of small tresh organicmaternal (i.e.leaves,branches}coverthe vedarea. Littert •Fecal matter is not visible. 2Clean •Isolated pieces oflitter on the entire assessedarea,which is notvoid oflitter,but may contain anisolatedincidenceoflitter Less than 10%of a 10step distance pavedarea is covered by small organic materials.but no mote than 10%of the entire assessed area. •Can is in good working order,no more than 34full,Isolated piece ottrash outside of thecanCanistreeofitems{ie.stickers.affiti. •Past residue of fecal matte.Itseems that an attemptwas made to clean the fecal matter.but residue was left behind. Canst •Can is functioning,but is full with trash,which can be seen from the eye level.No litter above the rain guard. •One small isolated instance of a sticker or3affti,which the veis not drawn totSom@whatkg..g=,{Clean •Between 10%-30%ofa 10 step 2awed_area iscoveredbyorganicmatenals,but no more than10%ofthe entire assessed area. •1to3 ieces of large organic materials •Small to moderate amounts of litter.Litter accumulation should account to less than 10 small pieces o 2-4 pieces of large litter.but no more than 10%of the entire assessed area. •One instance of fecalmatter is present on thepublicarea Litter/Trash •Consistentlyscattered trash,The trash accumulation should account to more than 1 pieces ofsmall litter or over 4 pieces of large litter, but no more than 10%of the entire assessed area. 4Somewhat Dirty Organic Materials •Can is full and thereis trash above the ran guard. •Can is in a usableand working condition,but}contains items (ie.stickers,graffiti)on them and/or some damage (ex.dents). Fecal Matier •Between 30%-50%ofa 10 step paved area is •Two instances of fecal matter are present on covered by organic materials.the public area I•2t03instances of organic material accumulation caused by standing water/poof drainage.The organic material is beginning to turn brown. 1Trash Cansl 5Dirty •Consistent accumulation of trash.There are multiple pies oftrash consisting of more than 10 pieces of small litter orover 4 pieces of large litter. •Over 50%of gaveg area is covered by organicmaterials.Over 10 pieces of large organic materials. •3-4instances of organic material accumulationcausedbystanordrainage. 6 ExtremelyDirty •Are is blocked by an accumulation of trash and litter.Illegal dumping may be evident Hazardous materials on the street. rials •90-100%of paved area is covered wth organic material.The organic matenal has turned brown, •Over 5 instances oforganic materialaccumulationcausedbystandingwater and or drainate. •Can is full and there is trash above the ran guard and beginning to overflow. •A large area of the can contains items (i.e.stickers or ;raffiti)on them Three instances of fecal matter are present on the public area. •Can is full and trash has overflowed to te gr0und.In some cases,there is a rat/rodent/insect infestation. •Can is covered of items (i.e.stickers orret»laced. atter •Four or more instances ot fecal matter are 2resenton the public area, Docusign Envelope ID:DBD720EA-932D-4109-8101-A694D3950776 Cleanliness Index for Waterways Index Litter /Trash O ic Materials ExtremelyClean •No litterand/o debris floating onor in the wateranduptothehightdewatermark.No signs of floating liquid. •No or isolated instances of small fresh organicmaterial. ]·No largeorganic materiai,suchas tree limbs or I palm fronds in thewatsr arw upto the high tide watermark. 2Clean •Isolatedpieces of litter floating onorin the entireareaofwateranduptothehightidewatermark.No signsof fating liquid.I •L.ess than 10¾of about a 20sq.lootarea ofwateranduptothehightidewatermarkisIcoveredDyorganicmalerial,but occurringin nomorethan10%%of the entirewaterarea.l·No large organicmaterial,such as tree limbsorpaimtrondsinthewateranduptothenightide watermark. 3 SomewhatClean •Smalt amount of litter including floating liquids,such as oil.This includeslitterfloating on thewaterorinthewateranduptothehightide watermark.More than two pieces oflitter and lessthan5%of abouta 20 sq.footareaofwaterup tothehightidewatermarkarecoveredbyutter,butocurrnginnomorethan10%of the entire waterareauptothehightidewatermarkbeingassessed. •Between 10%•30%ofabouta 20 sq.foot areaofwateranduptothehightidewatermarkiscoveredbyorganicmaterial,but occurringin no morethan 10%ofthe entirewaterarea. •Between 1 and 3 pieces ot largeorganicmaterial,such as tree limbs or paimfronds inthewateranduptothehightidewatermark. e Small to moderate amountsoflitter,includingfloatingl«quids.such as oil.Between 5%and 10%I of about a 20 sq.foot area of waterup 10 the high4tidewatermarkiscoveredbyhtter,butoccurring inSomewhatnomorethan10oftheentirewaterareabeingDirtyassessed.1 •Shgntunnatural orfoul smell is being emitted. •Between 30%-50%of about a 20 sq foot areaofwateranduptothehightidewatermarkiscoveredbyorganicmaterial. •Between 4 and 10 piecesoflargeorganicmaterial,suchas tree limbs orpalm frondsin thewater and upto the high tide watermark. 5Dirty I •Cor,sistent accumulaijon of trash including fioalingliquids,such as oil.Between 10%and 25%of about a 20 sq.foot area ofwater up to the hightidewatermarkiscoveredbylitter,but occurring innomorethan10%ofthe entire waterarea up tothehightidewatermarkbeingassessed. e One extra-largepiece of htter,such as a tire.agrocerycart,etc.I •Stron unll3tural or f01J1 ,mell ,s bein emitted, •Over 50%of about a 20sq.foot area of wateranduptothehightidewatermarkarecoveredbyorganicmaterial,but occurring inno morethan10%of theentire water area up to the high tide watermark. •Over 10pieces of large organicmaterial,suchastreelimbsorpalmfrondsinthewateranduptothehightidewatermark. 6 ExtremelyDirty le Large accumulationoflitterandtrashincludingfloatingliquids,such as oil Over25%ofabouta 20 sa.footarea ofwater area up to the high tidewatermarkarecoveredbylitter.There may be[evidence of illegal dumping. e Toot more extra-large piecesoflitter,such astires,a grocery carts.etc. •Verystrong unnatural or foulsmellis beingemitted. •90-100%ofthewater and up to the high tidewatermarkiscoveredbyorganicmatenal.]-II ! Note: When assessing litter/trash for ail areas. •lf the litter density for the observed condition is occurring between 10-25%of the assessed area,then add 1 point on the rating scale. •If the litter density for the observed condition is occurring more than 25%of the assessed area,then add 2 points on the rating scale. When assessing organic material for all areas. •If organic material densityfor the observed condition is occurring in more than 10%of the entire assessed area,then add 1 point on the rating scale