LTC 188-2007 re: Cleanliness Index & Assessment Program Results for FY 06/07 Quarter 3R~(;FIVF~
m MIAMIBEACH
2007 A11G ! 6 AM 10~ 06
CITY C~~.flt'S 01"Fll;f._
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
LTC # 188-2007
LETTER TO COMMISSION
TO: Mayor David Dermer and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager ~
DATE: August 13, 2007 ~ J
SUBJECT: Cleanliness Index & Assessment Program Results for FY06/07 Quarter 3
The purpose of this Letter to Commission is to communicate the results of the Cleanliness
Index and Assessment program for FY06/07 Quarter 3 (April 1, 2007 to June 30, 2007).
Background
The Miami Beach Public Area Cleanliness Index is an objective measurement of
performance ranging from 1.0 (Very Clean) to 6.0 (Very Dirty) and includes assessments of
litter, litter/garbage cans/dumpsters, organic matter, and fecal matter. 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.
For FY 2006/07, in conjunction with enhanced sanitation services, the City increased the
target for the Citywide and area-specific cleanliness indices from 2.0 to 1.5 -the lower the
score on the cleanliness index indicates a cleaner area. The new target is very ambitious
and leaves little room for poor scores on the assessment. Also, the City has a secondary
goal to ensure that 90 percent of assessments score 2.0 or better.
Summary of the Cleanliness Assessment Results FY 2006/07 QUARTER 3
Overall, the Citywide cleanliness index improved 19.9% in Quarter 3 when compared to the
same quarter the previous year. Cleanliness scores in all public areas assessed have
improved in comparison to the same quarters in the previous year, with the exception of the
County maintained beach areas. No public areas achieved the target of 1.5. However,
almost all public areas, except alleys, beaches, and waterways, would have achieved the
previous goal of 2.0 from FY2005/06.
Positive and Improved Areas
• Streets: Streets overall improved by 27.9% from the prior year.
• Sidewalks: Sidewalks overall improved by 30.5% from the prior year although its
score increased slightly from the previous quarter.
• Parking: Parking lots improved by 27% over the prior year. This was the first
quarter that Sanitation was fully responsible for cleaning parking lots.
Areas of Focus
Each quarter the principal departments involved in the Cleanliness Program meet to review
and discuss in detail the quarterly cleanliness assessments, as well as trends over time.
During the quarterly review specific attention is focused by the Public Works Department,
the Parks Department, the Parking Department and Code Compliance on areas where a
score may have dropped or some problem has been noted. In this Quarter, specific
attention was focused on:
• Parks
• Waterways
• Alleys
• Beaches
Cleanliness Adjustments
Parks -Data indicated that litter was the principal problem in Parks, especially after
hours or during weekends when staff was not present. The Parks Maintenance
Division has re-assigned resources to provide seven (7) day coverage and after
hours coverage in order to provide a higher level of cleanliness.
Alleys -Alleys remain the principal cleanliness issue in the City. Even though some
improvements have been made, especially with the alley repaving program, over
flowing dumpsters and illegal dumping are a significant problem. In response, the
Sanitation and Code Compliance Division have spent time cross training and
identifying areas of concern that can be jointly addressed. Code Compliance has
also reassigned some of its resources to provide for early morning coverage that will
significantly improve the ability to achieve compliance with the Sanitation Code in our
alleys.
Waterways -Waterway scores have improved significantly since the initiation of the
City's contracted waterway cleaning service. Minor adjustments in the contractors
efforts were identified to improve scores relative to larger items (for example:
shopping carts) in the waterways.
Beaches -The most significant concern was in the County maintained areas where
both litter and organic material (seaweed) are the most significant issues.
Unfortunately, the level of service has not improved over time nor kept pace with the
heavy utilization of the City's beaches. Miami-Dade County has been advised and
several requests made for a higher level of service to be provided. In the City
controlled areas, generally west of the sand dune, an area in Middle and North
Beach was identified for which poor coordination existed between Sanitation and
Parks resulting in some inappropriately serviced areas. This problem should now be
corrected and will be observed in the next quarter scores.
Cleanliness Key Intended Outcome
As the Commissioners are aware, cleanliness in our community was rated very high in
Resident Surveys as a service to be provided by the City impacting quality of life. Since the
inception of the community survey and the cleanliness assessment, the City has seen noted
increases in the overall service level and satisfaction in the community in this important
service area. The cleanliness assessment has proven to be a valuable service
management tool providing objective data for the City employees engaged in this activity.
Not coincidentally, the work of the City in the area of cleanliness has been recognized by
outside agencies and organizations for the positive impact in our community.
2
Summary Per Public Area
Overall City Score 2.27 2.20 1.94 2.24 2.03 1.83 1.83 1.71 1.71 1.80 1.80 •19.9%
SVeets' 2.02 2.07 1.98 2.22 1.84 1.69 1.69 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 •27.9%
Notincludingalleys 2.01 1.99 1.85 2.16 1.74 1.64 1.64 1.50 1.50 1.60 1.60 •25.9%
Commemial•Entedainmen 2.03 1.84 1.78 2.44 1.74 1.54 1.54 1.56 1.56 1.60 1.60 •34.4%
Commercial •Non•Entertainmen 1.89 1.87 1.75 1.65 1.65 1.43 1.51 1.51 •16.3%
Residential 2.16 2.25 1.93 2.11 1.74 1.73 1.73 1.51 1.51 1.69 1.69 •19.9%
Alleys" 2.19 2.46 2.69 2.75 2.49 2.12 2.12 2.30 2.30 2.40 2.40 •12.7%
Sidewalks 2.08 2.02 2.05 2.33 1.84 1.73 1.73 1.59 1.59 1.62 1.62 •30.5%
Commercial•Entedainmen 2.12 1,87 2.50 1.86 1.58 1.58 1.62 1.62 1.60 1.60 •36.1%
Commercial •Non•EnteRainmen 2.04 1.97 2.15 1.79 1.77 1.77 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53 •19.8%
Residential 2.06 2.28 2.11 2.35 1.83 1.84 1.84 1.62 1.62 1.73 1.73 •26.3%
Parks 2.08 2,04 1.56 1.56 1.76 1.76 1.77 1.77 •8.4%
Parking 226 225 2.26 2.30 2.01 1.91 1.91 1.76 1.76 1.68 1.68 •27.0%
Waterway 2.92 2.77 2.12 2.93 2.53 2.36 2.36 1.97 1.97 2.06 2.06 •29.6%
Beach Areas
' Private I Business garbage dumpsters scores are not used in the ca~ulatbn of this score.
" Private I Business garbage dumpsters were not assessed in PY05 Q4 and FY06 (11.
"' Targetfor FYO&N7 was changed ro 1.5.
3
Percents a of Assessments scori n 2.0 or better
% of a ssessments s coring 2,0 or better Difference from
Public Area ~ ,w „_ _ _ , ~,ww,__ _ , ~~iw w~ww ww ~iwwuw ww ~niwn~ww w ~ r~iwwtw~ Ai ~iwwiw~ Aw ~iww~w~ Aw
Ci ide 54,9% 57.5% 71.1% 56.7% 15,5% 82.7% 85.7% 82.2% 25.5%
Streets 69.5% 65.7% 19.2% 63,9% 84,8% 89.0% 90.4% 90.6% 26.1%
Commercal-Entertainment 68.8% 66.1% 81.1% 41.5% 74.6% 92.3% ~.3% 89.3% 41.8%
Commercial -Non-Entertainment 74.2% 76.7% 70.4% 82.4% 94.9% 90.0% 90.1 % 92.0% 9.6%
Residential 64.3% 55.7% 78.6% 63.8% 81,6% 80,4% 84.1% 84,6% 20.8%
Sidewalks 56,5% 62.6% 68.1% 56.4% 79,3% 86.7% 89.8% 34.4%
Commercal-Entertainment 57.1% 69.2% 11,8% 41.7% 11.7% ~, 89.8% 88.8% 47.1%
Commercial -Non-Entertainment 51.6% 63.5% 55.0% 18,0% 84.5% 85.0% 14,9%
Residential 62.5% 512% 12.5% 50,0% 17.6% 77.5% 83,3% 84.6% 34.6%
Alle s' 41.6% 37.1% 36.8% 37.0% 56.2% 70.0% 66.3% 50.5% 13.5%
Parks 61.8% 46.3% 88.0% 68.2% 63.8% 18.4% 83,1% 17,6% 9.4%
Parkin 47.1% 48.0% 59.5% 49.2% 69.0% 74,6% 83.0% 17,9% 28.7°l0
Waterwa 45.6% 42.9% 83,7% 34.5% 56,8% 65.3% 12.7% 72.0% 31.5%
Beach CMB 13.5% 64,1% 83,8% 66,0% 78,5% 88.9% 87,5% 64.1% •1.3%
Beach MDC 13.5% 75,3% 78.4% 53,9% 71.2% 81.9% 71.0% 51.8% .1''~
Next Quarter Assessments
City employees are conducting cleanliness assessments every quarter. If you or any
member of your staff is interested in participating in the City's Public Area Cleanliness
Program, please contact Theo Carrasco with the Office of Budget and Performance
Improvement at extension 6230.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
JM /SAM
F:\cmgr\$ALL\LTC.07\Cleanliness Results FY07 Q3 LTCrev.doc
4