g1November 9, 2010
Metropolitan
Center
150 S.E. 2nd Ave, Suite 500 • Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 305 - 349 -1255 • Fax: 305 - 349.1271
Website: http: / /metropolitan.fiu.edu/
FM I Metropolitan
Center
Howard A. Frank Ph.D., Director
Ned Murray, Ph.D., Associate Director
Maria Iicheva, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate
Donna Comrie, MA, Research Assistant
Victoria derma, MA, Research Associate
FW1 Metropolitan ente
Center
RESEARCH TEAM ................. ...............................
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ......................................... . ................... . ................................................................... 1
OVERVIEW: LEGAL BASIS AND APPROACH ................................................................... ..............................2
INTERVIEWCONTENT AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................... ..............................3
A. Supervisory Interviews .......................................................................................... .............................3
Positives: . .................................................................................................................................. ..............
4
Negatives: ................................................................................................................................................
4
B. Content Analysis of Budget Documents and Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports ...............5
C. Assessment ........................................................................................................... ..............................5
OVERALLRESULTS - IN-DEPTH CALLS .......................................................................... ..............................6
Survey Administration and Sampling ....................................................................... ..............................6
SurveyFindings in Broad Relief ................................................................................ ..............................7
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................. ..............................9
REFERENCES................................................................................................................. .............................10
APPENDIXA ................................................................................................................... .............................11
APPENDIX B SOUTH MIAMI CITIZEN SURVEY RESULTS .............................................. .............................17
ExecutiveSummary ................................................................................................. .............................18
Methodology........................................................................................................... ...............................
19
SurveyResults ....................................................................................................... ...............................
20
DemographicInformation ..................................................................... ...............................
20
Satisfaction with Quality of Life /General Issues ................................. ...............................
21
CityCaracteristics ................................................................................. ...............................
26
EvaluationsCity Employees .................................................................. ...............................
30
Sourcesof Information ......................................................................... ...............................
32
Overall Ratings for City of South Miami ............................................... ...............................
33
Overall Ratings City of South Miami Services ...................................... ...............................
33
Recommend/Live in South Miami ......................................................... ...............................
34
Open-ended Comments ........................................................................ ...............................
35
LIST OF FIGURES
Resident Perceptions of Importance of Issues for City of South Miami ........... ............................... 24
Resident Top Priorities for South Miami's elected Officials and Senior Staff . ............................... 25
Evaluations City Services and Programs ............................................................. ............................... 29
Evaluations Trash Pick -up, Parks & Police Services .......................................... ............................... 30
Evaluations of City Hall and City Employees ....................................................... ............................... 32
Sources for News and Information about South Miami ...................................... ............................... 32
Fig I Metro�ofitan
Center
In June of 2010, the Florida International University Metropolitan Center was contacted by the City of
South Miami to conduct a performance audit as set forth in Section 4, Letter F of the City Charter (as
amended in 2000). This is the inaugural audit conducted under the Charter.
Without precedents or detailed language in the Charter, the FIU team, in consultation with the City
Manager and Finance Director and approval of the City Commission (June 27, 2010) designed the
audit as follows:
1) "Performance" would be defined to include workload measures, outputs, outcomes, and
benchmarks (to professional standards, neighboring communities, or historical trends).
2) FIU staff would interview senior departmental staff and conduct content analysis of relevant
city documents to see if performance indicators were deployed and to assess organizational
capacity for their use; and
3) The Metropolitan Center would conduct a survey of residents to garner baseline data on
citizen satisfaction and to identify critical issues for future performance measurement
development.
Results of the interviews and content analysis suggested that managers felt empowered to effect
changes in their departments and they were able to define critical roles and responsibilities.
However, most managers were unable to either define performance consistent with the above -
referenced definition or to connect departmental efforts to broader strategic aims. Further, training
(both formal and on-the-job) is limited and the loss of a single employee in any unit has serious
consequences for "institutional memory" given the lack of formalized standard operating procedures.
The citizen survey results indicated that nearly nine of ten residents viewed South Miami as a good
place to live or work; similar percentages expressed the belief they would be residing in the city three
years from now. Residents did, however, express concerns regarding property taxes, crime, and
traffic congestion, and voiced some reservations with municipal governance and transparency.
Younger non -Anglo residents without a college degree tended to be more critical of municipal
services; satisfaction with the community's quality of life increases with tenure.
South Miami has traditionally operated with a line -item budget with recent enhancements to budget
narrative. If the city is to implement a performance -based budget management approach, it will have
to invest human and financial resources in training and infrastructure (information technology and
data management). The city will also need to engage in visioning and similar strategic planning
efforts to align measures to broader community goals. We also recommend the appointment of a
Chief Productivity Officer to provide stewardship for this effort, with appropriate domicile in the
Finance Office. Furthermore, the Balanced Scorecard appears to be a valid model for rollout of a
performance -based management approach.
FM I Metropolitan
Center
The City of South Miami contacted the Metropolitan Center at Florida International in June of 2010
to undertake a performance audit of municipal operations. These audits are called for in the Charter,
specifically, Section 4, Letter F, which requires that "The City Commission shall require a
performance -based audit for each department at least once every five years." This performance
audit requirement has been embedded in the charter since 2000; however, no audits have been
conducted prior to this effort. Thus, the FIU team had no models or precedents upon which to base
their work. On the other hand, this afforded city management and FIU considerable latitude in their
interpretation of the Charter requirements and their implementation.
In consultation with the then - current city manager and the finance director, the Metropolitan Center
undertook the audit described herein utilizingthe following rubric:
1) "Performance," was defined in a traditional public sector model to include departmental
evidence of workload measures (e.g., number of potholes repaired, number of athletic events
held, etc.). Further, we sought evidence of cost - effectiveness (e.g., cost per lane mile
maintained, percentage of base budgets devoted to overhead items, etc.). And lastly, we
ascertained if departments utilized performance benchmarks such as professional standards
or comparisons to peer jurisdictions (e.g., comparing police response times to International
City /County Managers Association guidance or to response times in neighboring Pinecrest or
Doral).
The FIU research team used two principal methods to obtain performance data. The first
was to review city documents such as recent budgets and comprehensive annual financial
reports (CAFRs). The second was to conduct a series of interviews with senior department
managers to obtain a first -hand assessment of what measures they were or were not
deploying in their respective operations.
2) The Metropolitan Center conducted a citizen satisfaction survey of randomly selected South
Miami residents. Such surveys are a staple of contemporary public management and serve
three purposes. We undertook the survey to:
Illuminate possible strengths and weaknesses in municipal service delivery;
Provide a baseline of data that allows periodic tracking of future
performance; and
Gather critical insights on what citizens believe to be the most salient
aspects of municipal management, with subsequent incorporation into
performance measures most relevant to residents.
This two -fold approach was utilized in the study, as set forth in the Scope of Services executed
between the city and Metropolitan Center on June 16, 2010 and agreed to by the city commission at
its July 27, 2010 meeting.
In the next part of this report, we highlight findings from the interviews and documentary analysis
undertaken for the first part of this performance audit. In the next section, we review highlights from
the citizen survey. In the last section we synthesize our findings with an eye to development of
performance measures that "fit' with a broader community vision.
FolMetropolitan
Center
A. Supervisory Interviews
Over a two -week period commencing July 19, 2010, FIU Metropolitan Center staff interviewed senior
department staff from the city's operating departments, as well as the city manager and finance
director. Interviews were arranged with the assistance of the city manager's office. All officials were
cooperative and addressed the questions with candor and completeness. The city manager and
finance director reviewed the questions before administration. FIU staff deployed the same interview
schedule for all departments to assure consistency.
The 15 questions were as follows:
1) What is the primary role and responsibility of your department?
2) What do you believe are the community's greatest needs, demands, and expectations with
respect to your department's governing role and responsibilities?
3) Do you believe your department is adequately addressing these community needs,
demands, and expectations?
4) What are your department's goals? How did you develop them?
5) With which city departments do you regularly communicate and coordinate? On what
issues, services, or programs?
6) What would you consider to be the three to five most important metrics for assessing your
department's productivity? How about its effectiveness in terms of citizen or customer
satisfaction?
7) Has your department's performance improved or declined from past years and for what
contributing reasons or circumstances?
8) How do you store or manage data related to assessing your department's performance?
This could be manual records, spreadsheets, or other means. Please describe.
9) What do you believe are your department's greatest strengths? Weaknesses?
10) Are you familiar with "best practice" examples from other municipalities that you think
could help?
11) Is there any lack of equipment or technology that impedes your department's performance
at current staffing and service levels?
12) Moving from technology to people, are their specific training shortcomings that impede or
limit your performance?
13) Is there any regular on-the-job training for you and your staff?
0
FW1 Metropolitan
Center
14) Do you feel empowered to change work rules or major work processes to improve your
department's productivity? If not, why not?
15) Do you feel the work climate in your department encourages employees at all ranks to
provide suggestions or innovations that would help you "do more with less ?"
These questions were designed to elicit a broad overview of performance within each department.
We asked our respondents to see how their work ties in with broader community goals, and then
asked if they have metrics for assessing performance. We further inquired about potential "drivers"
of performance such as training or budget. A matrix showing responses by department is provided in
Appendix A.
Our findings suggest positive and negatives in terms of a broadly defined performance framework for
municipal operations. They also identify a broader set of issues regarding training and
communication within the city.
Positives:
1) Most departments report a clear and concise description of roles and responsibilities.
2) Most department heads feel empowered to change business practices that foster
productivity or responsiveness to citizen needs.
3) The most recent budget document has narrative that allow for at least some understanding
of services delivered.
4) Department heads do meet and communicate regularly, allowing for coordination of effort.
Negatives:
1) In general, department managers have little sense of how their services dovetail with
community needs; many cannot express larger goals or mission for their units.
2) While some managers have an abstract view of what performance is for their units, they
cannot articulate specific measures for monitoring performance over time.
3) Performance data are not kept manually or electronically; there is no repository for such
data that could be used by the manager or senior department heads.
4) Standard operating procedures are not kept to maintain "institutional memory," hence the
loss of a single employee can have serious consequences for operations.
5) Training — either formal or on-the-job—Is given short shrift. This reflects a combination of
scarce resources and an organizational culture that may undervalue development of
human capital.
FN I Met itan
ropol
Center
6) Recent budget cuts and vacancies exacerbate other institutional shortcomings.
Recent turnover in the city manager's office as well as the fiscal stringency of the times present
challenges to organization -wide thinking and planning. Many of those interviewed conveyed a sense
of anxiety regarding future layoffs or cuts.
B. Content Analysis of Budget Documents and Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports
Our analysis of recent (last three fiscal years) of comprehensive annual financial reports or budget
documents did not reveal consistent usage of workload or productivity measures on a departmental
basis. This finding is consistent with those of our interviews and squares with former City Manager
Witt's assessment that the city has historically deployed a line -item budget
C. Assessment
Our interviews and documentary content analysis reveal that the city does not deploy explicit
measures of performance as defined above. This is consistent with South Miami's traditional
reliance on a line -item budget format that has only been recently supplemented with some
descriptive narrative.
More importantly, senior managers do not have a clear sense of departmental goals or strategic "fit"
of their operations. Without a sense of strategy or long -term thinking, the collection of performance
measures and their subsequent use in daily management may be viewed as wasteful "window
dressing." Budget cuts and shortcomings and employee training (which would include the basics of
performance measurement and management) may exacerbate this perception. Meanwhile, our
findings suggest that the city would need to enhance its data management /information technology
capacity to implement systematic, ongoing measurement of departmental performance.
A
FMI Metropolitan
Center
Survey Administration and Sampling
The Metropolitan Center conducted a telephone survey of 408 randomly selected South Miami
residents from August 26, 2010 to September 9, 2010. Calls were conducted in Spanish and English
in the evenings and Sundays. A prior report of findings, submitted October 7, 2010 is in Appendix B.
Priorto discussing our findings, three methodological comments are in order.
1) By using landlines instead of cell phones, we avoided an increasingly common bias in
contemporary surveying that recently made headlines in The Miami Herald (Thomma,
2010). Simply put, younger, poorer families and individuals are saving money and
abandoning landlines. By drawing a sample based on households with landlines, we hoped
to avoid these biases.
2) Our sample size of approximately 400 yields a +/- 5% level of precision 95% of the time.
This means that if we report that 85 % of the residents have a favorable impression of a
given service, and 15% have a negative impression, the "reality" is that the positive
impression could be as low as 80% or as high as 90 %. It is worth noting that this level of
precision is based on sample rather than population size (Kelton, 1983). Another point is
that increasing sample size has diminishing returns in terms of precision. A sample of 800,
for example, yields a precision of +/ -3.5 %; 1000 yields +/ -3.1 +. This suggests that
doubling sample size and cost has relatively limited impact on precision; hence a sample of
400 is a frequently used benchmark in surveying. This is shown in Table 1 below.
Gaining a higher degree of precision would have added considerably to survey cost and yielded
relatively little. Hence the FIU team recommended the 400 case sample size.
3) Surveying entails trade -offs. Consistent with point 1, if we had opted to survey a list of
residents, rather than voters, and used mail administration, we might have only garnered a
10% response rate, leading to serious questions about the validity of findings. If we opted
for cell phone usage, we would have a decidedly younger set of responses. Our approach
Metropolitan
Center
obviated these biases, though we did encounter a handful (less than 12 cases) in which
there were multiple voters within the household, and our phone interviewers queried the
head of household on multiple occasions. That, however, was a possible tradeoff more
acceptable, in our minds, than more serious biases other modes of administration might
have introduced.
In sum, the approach we took is cost - effective and defensible within a budget constraint and "good
practice" in survey administration.
Survey Findings in Broad Relief
Detailed survey results are found in Appendix B. These cover a wide range of municipal services and
provide an overview of citizen perception of the quality of life in the city. Overall satisfaction seems
high:
• 85.7% rated overall quality of life as good or excellent;
• 89.9% see themselves living in South Miami three years from now; and
• 86.1% would recommend South Miami as a place to live and work.
A more granular examination reveals some areas of concern. Seven of ten respondents express
crime and public safety, as well as property taxes as "very important" issues. Nearly half attach
perceive trash collection, traffic congestion, and poverty /homelessness as "very important."
These frequencies are unsurprising. Crime and public safety are. perennial "hot" topics in local
government and explain in part why police and fire outlays are the biggest shares of most local
government budgets. Likewise, the property tax has been at the core of "tax rebellions" since
California's Proposition 13 of 1978. This levy does not always correlate with ability -to -pay; current
economic conditions and the precipitous drop in property values only exacerbate this negative
perception. Traffic congestion is a chronic problem in South Florida, where average commute times
are now in line with Los Angeles, New York, and other major metropolitan areas. Residents in any
locale want clean streets; poverty and homelessness concerns must be viewed against the backdrop
of a foreclosure crisis and the worst post -World War II recession and double -digit unemployment.
Our open -ended question in which respondents could state their most pressing concerns yielded two
predominant concerns: "Good Government - Accountability" and "Property Taxes." The responses
under the former heading may suggest that residents desire better communication with their elected
officials. They may also reflect a deep- seated anger towards government that is caused by the
current economic crisis.
This reasoning also holds for property tax concerns. In this regard, it is worth noting that U.S. Census
data reveal that median family income in Miami -Dade fell by nearly 6% in 2009, and is now below
2006 levels (Brackey, 2010). Viewed through this prism, even relatively stable property tax bills will
be seen as increases given shrinking earnings.
This economic fact notwithstanding, residents give high grades to the accessibility, courtesy, and
knowledge of city employees. Residents also give high grades to the city's cleanliness and overall
appearance. The one area that received somewhat lower grades is parks and recreation. A caveat in
that regard is that nearly a quarter of our respondents show limited awareness of recreation
offerings, explaining in part why their perceived quality may be lower than other municipal offerings.
FMI Metropolitan
Center
Residents under age 30, those who have lived in the city for less than 10 years, residents who have
less than a college education, and residents who are non- Anglo, tend to view municipal service and
delivery and overall quality of life less favorably than their older, longer- tenured, better - educated,
Anglo counterparts. These perceived differences are not always statistically significant and the
correlations between these socioeconomic variables and perceived service quality are not strong.
Nonetheless, many of our responses suggest that younger, non - college educated residents view
South Miami thorough a less favorable prism. This also holds true for non -Anglo residents. Obviously,
age and length of residence are correlated. Similarly, educational level is a proxy for income, and
better - educated residents are less likely to be negatively impacted by the current economic situation.
Education also correlates with race. Younger and shorter- tenured residents may have more recent
benchmarks to draw upon in perceiving quality of service delivery; hence they are more critical than
longer - tenured residents. The upshot is that different segments of the community may have different
perceptions of virtually identical levels of service delivery given their respective socioeconomic
characteristics. This is typical of municipal citizen satisfaction surveys (Newell, 2005). Further work
such as citizen interviews or point -of- service surveys may provide a better understanding of what
may cause these differences.
A final survey finding of note is that newspapers and television are the principal means by which
citizens learn about South Miami's municipal operations. Only six percent visit the city's website.
Younger residents may eschew print media and pay little attention to television news. Holding in
abeyance the content of traditional news providers, city leaders and senior officials may need to
consider "beefing up" their internet and social networking delivery to connect with younger residents.
Metropolitan
Center
Findings from our interviews and content analysis suggest that the city is facing both a "root" and
"branch" decision in terms of its performance measurement and budgeting. The root decision is
whether the city should move beyond a line -item budget and adopt a more performance- oriented
budgetary structure? The "branch" decision follows the first: If South Miami adopts a performance -
oriented model, how will it do so?
The first decision is significant. Adoption of an outcome - oriented budget entails a reorientation of
many stakeholders in the system (Frank and Strube, 2007; Frank, 2009). Elected officials will need
to focus more on municipal service outputs and outcomes instead of line -items that lead to
production of services. Senior city managers will need to think more about what they are producing
in terms of quantity, quality, and perhaps most importantly— strategic fit. And lastly, citizen
engagement will have to focus on longer -range strategies and goals for the community. This
reorientation is often seen as a "journey." But the end result is a process in which the annual budget
process and ongoing management are linking pins to long -range community goals and aspirations.
The "branch" decision would be what format to adopt if an outcome - oriented approach is chosen.
One approach under consideration by Finance Director Riverol and City Manager Mirabile is the
Balanced Scorecard (BSC) developed at the Harvard Business School in the early 1990s by
Professors David Norton and Robert Kaplan. Their model uses metrics related to financial status,
employee training, customer satisfaction, and processing- enabling, hence the "balanced" descriptor.
While originally designed for the private sector this approach has been widely adopted in the
nonprofit and public sectors (Niven, 2003). This utilization provides examples that could be put to
use in South Miami. However, the BSC is predicated upon a strategic road map being in place that
ties performance measures to goals and vision. This suggests that its implementation will require an
investment in community visioning and similar strategic planning efforts prior to adoption.
Reiterating what was said earlier, our findings indicate the city will need to invest human and
material resources to build a platform for performance -based management. Minimally, this suggests
training in the basics of performance measurement for senior staff. It will also require greater
institutionalization of policies and procedures to allow for sustained adoption of new business
processes in the face of inevitable turnover of personnel. We also repeat our observation that
performance data will need to be kept in a central repository for dissemination throughout the city.
And lastly, we repeat a preliminary recommendation made in an August 25, 2010 memorandum to
former City Manager Witt and Finance Director Riverol that South Miami should appoint a "Chief
Productivity Officer" to spearhead the development of a performance management system and to
sustain its operation after rollout. Successful implementation of organizational change requires "buy -
in" from all stakeholders and an individual who takes responsibility for obtaining it. The Finance
Department would be a logical domicile for this operation given its centrality to budget and
accounting operations.
FW1Metropolitan
Center
Plummets to Less than 2006. SunSentinel.com.
http• / /blogs trb com/ business /colunists /`brackey/blog /2010/9 /poorer and uninsured Bout
h flo.html. Last accessed 11/8/2010.
Frank, Howard A. (2009). Implementing ActiveStrategy in Miami -Dade County. In C. Reddick (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Strategies for Local E- Government Adoption: Comparative Studies.
(pp. 719 -734). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Frank, Howard A. & Strube, Jill. (2007). Enhancing Public Productivity: A Unified Approach. Public
Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal 12 (1): 1 -35.
Kalton, Graham. (1987). Introduction to Survey Sampling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Newell, Augusto L. (2005). The Drivers of Perception: Identifying the Driving Factors of Resident
Perception of Municipal Service Quality in Cities of South Florida. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Florida International University, Miami.
Niven, Paul R. (2003). Balanced Scorecard Step -by -Step for Government and Nonprofit Agencies.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Thomma, Steven. (2010, October 24). When Polls Get it Wrong. The Miami Herald, 1L -6L.
10
Metropolitan
Center
APPENDIXA
Performance Audit Matrix of Findings
Interview Review- Cross Cutting Threads/Themes
Current notes: Y=yes, Y- = limited response
1. What is the primary role and responsibilities of your department?
In general, most departments reported a clear and concise description of roles and
responsibilities. Several departments merely stated the role or responsibility of the
individual.
Note: Much like an employee handbook, department handbooks would provide direction
to department heads. The city should create department guides to ensure that each
employee is aware of the vision, mission, and roles.
Theme: A great majority of departments appear to respond to demands /needs versus
developing a proactive approach to the work schedule. Also, there are a great number of
complaints /impediments noted when department heads are asked about their roles and
responsibilities.
Responded to Question- Listed Actual Roles & Res onsibili
Building
City
Man er
Clerk
Code
Enforcement
Finance
Human
Resource
IT
Parks&
REC
Planning
Police
Pub
works
Y
Y-
Y
Y
Y
Y-
N
Y
Y-
Y-
Y-
I Responded to Question with a Complaint I
Building
I City
Man er
Clerk
Code
Enforcement
Finance
Human
Resource
IT
Parks&
REC
Planning
I Police
TF
FN--TN—
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
2. What do you believe are the community's greatest needs, demands and
expectations with respect to your department's governing role and responsibilities?
6 of the 11 departments gave no response or a limited response when identifying the
needs of the community.
Community needs (as stated by Department):
• Provide professional and cordial services
• Protect property value
• Transparency
• expeditious handling of any vacancies
• A variety of sports
• Safe, quick and professional response
• Traffic control (big issue)
• Have service at every level
Please note: The responses that were giver are rather vague. Again, a great number of complaints
are identified.
city
11
McCenterr
Center
N Y- I Y I Y Y n/a- n/a Y N Y N
Responded to Ouestion- Complaint
Building
City
Mange
Clerk
Code
Enforcement
Finance Human
Resource
IT
Parks&
REC
Planning
Police
Pub
works
Y
I Y
N
N
Y I
Y
N
I Y
N
N
3. Do you believe your department is adequately addressing these community
needs, demands and expectations?
Five departments felt they adequately addressed the needs of the community, while three
department heads did not share this sentiment. In addition, three departments did not
address or respond to the question.
Improvements noted:
• All complaints responded to within 24 hours
• Divided city into four quadrants one per officer- increased efficiency
• Stipulation mediation program- correct code enforcement issues and reduce fines
• Improved line item budget to narrative- greater transparency
• City commissioner meetings are less confrontational
Barriers:
• Too many unfinished projects
• More personnel needed
• City moving in direction of strong mayor form of government
• Funding
Responded to Ouestion- ( ?? Did not answer question- best we can...)
I Building
City
Man er
Clerk
I Code
Enforcement
Finance
Human
Resource I
IT
Parks&
I REC
Planning
I
Police
I
Pub
I works
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y I
??
IN
I ??
I Y
??
4. With which other City departments do you regularly communicate and
coordinate? On what issues, services or programs?
All departments appear to communicate with one another as needed. Currently, no formal
meetings are coordinated. Many of their roles and responsibilities appear to overlap but
there are no coordinated, comprehensive efforts /projects. Department head planning
sessions could benefit the city, eliminate redundancy and provide a more organized,
proactive level of communication.
Responded to Ouestion- Communication w other dept.
Building
City
Clerk
Code
Finance
Human
TT
Parks
Planning
Police
Pub
Merger
Enforcement
Resource
& REC
works
Y -3
Yes-
Y- as
Y -2
Y -all
Y -1
Y- IT
Y -2
Y -5
Y -all
Yes -
Not
all
needed
new
issues
all
formal
budget
5. What are your department's goals? How did you come up with these goals?
Goals are vague- apparent that goals for the department are more often based on the
immediate needs or request of the city versus overall outputs and outcomes. Because the
roles and responsibilities are poorly defined, the goals lack continuity. 10 of the 11
department heads had no responses or limited responses when describing the
department's goals.
;an
iVA
FW1 Metropolitan
Center
Responded to Question
6. What would you consider to be three to five most important metrics for assessing
your department's productivity? How about its effectiveness in terms of citizen or
"customer" satisfaction?
The response rate for the question is extremely low. Currently, only one department has a
clearly defined metric to determine the rate of productivity. This is an area of deep
concern. A pattern emerges. Metrics should align with roles & responsibility and
department goals. Assessment must be measurable.
Responded to Question
7. Has your department's performance improved or declined from past years and
for what contributing reasons or circumstances?
Based on the responses, the great majority of department heads are new to the position.
Experience:
• Two (2) department head vacancies,
• Five (5) heads who have been in the position for less than 4 months
• Two (2) who have five (5) or more years of experience
• Two (2) unaccounted for- building and code enforcement
One major constraint in high turnover is that institutional knowledge is lost. A newly
designed handbook for each department may create better transitions. Second, department
head meetings would lead to the expansion of cross - cutting knowledge and networking.
Lastly, identifying the previous years performance would serve as a benchmark for future
improvements.
Responded to Question- Improved or Declined
De artment Head- Len th of Time in this position
8. How do you store or manage data related to assessing your department's
performance? This could be manual records, spreadsheets, or other means. Please
describe.
Only the finance department was able to answer this question. First, departments must
identify goals and metrics. Once completed, they can then compile and store assessment
data. Nonetheless, each department answered this question based on work res onsibili
Building City Clerk Code Finance
Building
Man er
Clerk
Enforcement
Human
Resource
IT
Parks&
REC
Planning
Police
Pub
works
Man Manger
N
Y
Y-
N
Y-
N
Y-
Y-
Building
City
Clerk
Code
Finance
Human
IT
Parks
Planning
Police
Pub
Man Manger
Enforcement
Resource
& REC
works
N
N
N
Y (but
y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
n/a
N
confusing)
Improved
N
N
N
Improved
1/D
Improved
Building
City
Clerk
Code
Finance
Human
IT
Parks
Planning
Police
Pub works
Manger
Enforcement
Resource
&
works
REC
N
n/a
N
N
Improved
N
N
N
Improved
1/D
Improved
Building
City
Clerk
Code
Finance
Human
IT
Parks
Ptmming
Police
Pub
Manger
Enforcement
Resource
&
works
REC
?
mo
7 yrs
2 mo
new
No
4 mo
5 DH
No
10
manager
in 4
police
yrs
rs
chief
iK3
FNIMetropolitan
Center
Note: The responses are based on data keeping of department info. The data tracking per
department is extremely low. Essentially, new department heads must rely on advice of
staff to function. Institutional knowledge is lost with each exiting employee.
Note: Finance Department requested recommendations for tracking and /or monitoring
I Re.snanded to Ouestion- Store data Y or N I
Building
City
Man er
Clerk.
Code
Finance
Human
IT
Parks &
R1 C
Planning
Police
Pub
works
Y
I N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y-
9. What do you believe are your department's greatest strengths? Weaknesses?
A great majority of department heads identified the staff as its greatest strength. Clearly,
there is a culture that the contributions of employees are paramount. The city must take
the opportunity to build on these values. Professional development should further foster
team building, decisions making, and planning sessions.
Strengths:
• Professionalism of staff- work in the industry, through their own efforts they earn licenses and /or
certifications.
• People work well. Employees are good people trying to do a goodjob- ability to develop strategic
plans, goals, and objectives in teams
• keep good records, search quickly
• Time efficient
• confidentiality (employees are not afraid to come in)
• Personable, caring team that cares about the children and community.
• Peaceful place for children —safe haven
• Professionalism
• Staff; Officers. Extremely stable staff in last couple of years
• Commitment of staff (work on weekends to catch up),
• Long tenure employees
• Cross - utilization has been successful despite being a union shop so employees can work on
differentjobs
Weaknesses:
• None
• n/a
• Lack of communication within departments,
• understaffed,
• too many constant interruptions
• low budget
• lack of internal structure
• technology- relying on Voyager instead of Navalign
• Lack of knowledge- functionality and institutional knowledge.
• Standard operating procedures are `owned' by the employee not city- (no manuals, books, etc)
• high level of turnover in upper management which impacts many departments and causes
stagnation of projects in the works- Lack of continuity
• People work on pet projects
• Priorities shift as management shifts- Pillars aren't strong
• High turnover impacts time it takes for things to get done
• Manpower to provide all programming
• Motivation; we are seen as being overstaffed (maybe we make our work look easy) - how do we
chow that we are necessary in this time of economic crisis.
IM
FW1 Metropolitan
Center
___.._.......
• Merge microfilm and imaging
• Pension issue is hurting their morale,
• Cost saving measures affecting morale - not being able to stay competitive with other cities
• Very costly private retirement in South Miami
• Insufficient funds to do what they need to do
• Understaffed but have hiring freeze
• Not having right equipment and resources when it comes to software, programs to enhance
performance
• Not to be able to fully staff different divisions
you familiar with "best practice" examples from other municipalities that you
Several of the department heads were able to identify best practices in the field.
Unfortunately, none have implemented any strategies. Currently, shortage of staff and
time appear to interfere with this much needed process. Planning sessions would allow
for development and implementation of best practices.
I Remanded to Question- Familiar w/ best oraetiees I
Building
City
Man er
Clerk
Code
Enforcement
Finance
Human
Resource
IT
Parks &
REC
Planning
Police
Pub
works
N
I N
I N
Y-
Y-
Y
Y
N
Y-
Y
Y-
11. Is there any lack of equipment or technology that impedes your department's
performance at current staffing and service levels?
Narrative:
IT has been largely outsourced.
I Remanded to Onestion- Technolopv Needs- Yes or No I
Building
City
Cterk
Code
Finance
Human
IT
Parks &
Planning
Police
Pub
Manger
Enforcement
Resource
REC
works
N
Y-
N
Y
Y
Y
Y!
Y-
N
Y
N
personnel
I training
12. Moving from technology to people, are there specific training shortcomings that
A great number of departments were able to identify training shortcomings. All of the
shortcomings can be reversed with the addition of a `Training the Trainer' system. With
over 150 employees, the level of in -house knowledge is astounding. A system of
identifying employee skill sets is essential. Thus, city employees should lead professional
development sessions.
Note: Employee handbooks were not received by all employees upon hiring- mentioned
at least 3 times throughout various interviews.
In addition to the community survey, it would be interesting to have employees complete
a survey about the city services.
Training Shortcomings:
• Navalign software
• Cross- training is necessary
• Training in collections
15
FM I McCente +
Cnter
• New auditors- CPE continuing education
• customer service training- dealing with difficult people
• organizational methods, project management, time management
• telephone etiquettes, saying "no" without being negative
• Core leaders /core aids to take program areas related to understanding a sport and be able to teach
the fundamentals.
• GTS — PW provides us with the maps, there could be more we could do- Begin to look at zoning
from the point of view of crime and code enforcement. Plotting. Timelinin - software needs
Resnonded to Ouestion- Training Needs- Yes or No
Building
City
Man er
Clerk
Code
Enforcement
Finance
Human
Resource
1T
Parks
& REC
Planning
Police
Pub,
works
N
N
N
Y
Y
I Y
I n/a
JY
1Y
N
JY
13. Is there any regular on -the job training for you and your staff?
Few departments identified opportunities to offer or receive on the job training. Based on
budget cuts and reduced level of personnel, on-the-job training not as frequent or
accessible. Yet, some department heads not only offered training but it was mandated by
federal government or part of a certification program. When training was a priority it was
completed. The departments heads that were able to offer training without mandates
should lead planning sessions that details time management, overcoming budget
constraints, etc.
Resnonded to Ouestion
Building
City
Manger
Clerk
I Code
Enforcement
Finance
I
Human
Resource
IT
Parks &
REC
I Planning
Police
Pub
works
Y
Y-
I N
I N
I N
N
I N
I N
I N
I Y
Y
14. Do you feel empowered to change work rules or major work processes to
improve your department's productivity? If not, why?
7 of the 11 departments felt empowered to lead their department. In the two departments
that answered no, there are current vacancies in the leadership position. One department
felt that empowerment was impaired because of high turnover and lack of staff. Only one
department did not answer the question. Now is the time for the city to capitalize on the
overwhelming sense of empowerment displayed by the department heads. Aplanning
session must be introduced while employees are eager to make their voices heard.
Question: Do the department heads receive copies of all ordinances as they are passed?
Res onded to Question- Feeling of Empowerment
Building
City
Clerk
Code
Finance
Human
IT
Parks
Planning
Police
Pub works
Manger
Enforcement
Resource
&
REC
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
n/a- no
N
Y_
answer
limited
to ques
based on
ordinance
15. Do you feel the work climate in your department encourages employees at all
ranks to provide suggestions or innovations that would help you "do more with
less "?
A climate that encourages employee suggestions wavers between departments. This may
be most closely related to the high turnover rate. Some department report open, honest,
and constant dialogue while others report fear as an impediment for suggestions. One
noted, "The city operates in fear. Fear of being fired the next dg. It's pervasive."
an
16
FMIMetropolitan
Center
FM I Metropolitan
Center
150 S.E. 2nd Ave, Suite 500 • Miami, Ft. 33131
Phone: 305 - 349 -1255 • Fax: 305 - 349 -1271
Website: httpV /metropolitan.flu.edu/
17
Metropolitan
Center
Executive Summary
The Metropolitan Center conducted a telephone survey of 408 City of South Miami residents from
August 26, 2010 to September 9, 2010. Calls were conducted in Spanish and English on evening
during the work week (4 to 8 pm) and on Sundays from noon to 7 pm.
The survey overrepresented certain demographic groups. According to the most recent data
available, the 2000 U.S. Census, 48.1% of South Miami residents were male compared to 51.9%
females. In the survey sample, 152 respondents were male (37.3 %) while 255 were female (62.7 %).
Residents ages 65 and older were also overrepresented given how they constituted 34.5% of
respondents when in 2000 they comprised 13.6% of the City's population. According to the 2000
U.S. Census, 38.9% of South Miami residents were Anglo compared to 24.7% Black and 34.4%
Hispanic. Anglo residents surveyed constituted 53.1% of respondents. According to the Census,
38.1% of South Miami residents had at least a bachelor's degree. In terms of the highest level of
educational attainment, 265 (68.5 %) of survey respondents had at least a bachelor's degree.
Survey results were analyzed to determine resident's satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the quality
of life in the City, City services, and the individual departments. Due to the overrepresentation of
Anglos, the elderly, women, and college- educated residents, the following demographic variables
were dichotomized to determine if a significant difference of opinion (a difference of 5 percentage
points or higher) existed between overrepresented groups and other groups: race, age gender and
highest level of educational attainment.
The vast majority of City of South Miami residents surveyed (347 or 85.7 %) rated the quality of life
within the City as good /excellent with 92.8% of Anglos being satisfied with the quality of life in the
City compared to 79.8% of non - Anglos. Residents were asked to evaluate the importance of 13 City
issues. Residents were concerned primarily with crime /safety (71.5% indicated it was very
important) and property taxes (70.1 %). Not surprisingly when asked what the top priorities for the
City's elected officials should be 17.6% of residents cited crime /safety while 8.3% cited property
taxes. The most commonly cited priority was good governance /accountability (21.8 %). When asked
to rate the overall value of City services for their tax dollars 67.7% of respondents described City
services as good /excellent. A striking difference in satisfaction with City services is evident between
those residing in South Miami for ten years or less (58.4°/x) and residents of longer tenure (70.9 %).
Anglo residents were more satisfied with City services (76.3 %) than non- Anglos (59.8 %).
Survey respondents were asked to rate fourteen different aspects of life within the City of South
Miami on a scale from poor to excellent. The vast majority of respondents (75% or greater) were
satisfied with garbage /trash collection, the cleanliness of streets in neighborhoods and commercial
areas, the appearance of city buildings, the condition of roads and landscape maintenance in rights
of way and public spaces. Furthermore, the majority of residents had good /excellent ratings of the
City's police force, parks and garbage pick -up.
Most respondents (65.7 %) agreed or strongly agreed they had a good experience contacting the City
government. This is due primarily to the courtesy and politeness of staff (73.6 %) and not to the
staff's training given how only 52.9% agreed /strongly agreed the staff had proper training and
knowledge to address their requests.
The major sources of information for news about the City of South Miami were newspapers (50.2 %),
television (26.7 %) and neighbors (18.4 %). The majority of respondents (56.1 %) rated the
performance of South Miami in keeping residents informed on city events and public projects as
good /excellent. Most residents surveyed (80.7°/x) had good /excellent ratings of City services,
indicated they saw themselves living in South Miami three years from now (89.9 %), and would
recommend South Miami as place to live and work (86.1 %).
ig
Metropolitan ente
C
i Center
Methodology
The 408 survey responses were collected from a random sample of City of South Miami residents
who agreed to answer a questionnaire regarding various city services. The survey instrument was
designed by the FIU Metropolitan Center, and then reviewed and approved by the City of South
Miami. The questionnaire included general quality of life questions, as well as specific questions on
the performance of various departments and the delivery of services within the city. The survey also
collected demographic information from the participating respondents.
The survey participants were obtained from a list of approximately 4,500 South Miami residents.
Responses were solicited by expert interviewers fluent in English and Spanish, and responses were
collected in the respondent's language of choice.
The survey was implemented over a two week period, from August 26 through September 9, 2010.
Survey calls were made in the evening on workdays, as well as on Sundays, from noon until 7 pm,
excluding holidays.
The 408 survey responses provide for a 95% confidence interval and a +/- 5% margin of error
It should be noted that the survey was conducted over the phone with the adult householder who
answered. All demographic questions were asked at the end of the survey, and responses were
collected and analyzed regardless of demographic characteristics. Moreover, calls were only made to
Iandline phones and this method of response collection over samples people of higher age and
income. By comparison, cell phone only users are younger, less affluent, less likely to be married or
to own their home.
Recent research reported in the National Health Interview Survey conducted in 2009 shows that of
those living below the federal poverty level of about $22,000 a year for a family of four, 36 percent
have only cell phones. Twenty -nine percent of the near -poor — between the poverty level and
$44,000 annually for a family of four — are cell phone users only, as are 20 percent of those with
higher incomes. In addition, more than a third of people under age 35 — including about half of
those in the ages 25 to 29 — have only cell phones. The figure drops steadily at age 35 and after,
with only about 1 in 20 people age 65 and older relying only on mobile service.'
The survey method selection was based on comparison of the costs and benefits of the relatively
inexpensive phone methodology vs. in- person, online or cell phone survey implementation. In terms
of cost, the four methods of survey data collection can be ranked, from highest to lowest, as in-
person, cell phone, Iandline phone, and online. While the most affordable, online surveys are also
the least representative as they require the respondent to have an email and access to a computer.
Online survey respondents are usually well educated, relatively affluent, and generally in the younger
age groups. Cell phone survey implementation is difficult and expensive because of the lower
response rate and less willingness of cell phone users to complete a survey while using their plan or
prepaid minutes, even if incentives are provided. In person surveys (door - to-door) are very labor
intensive but have a good response rate and can be more representative than others.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Early Release Brochure,
hfto' /Iw cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/ER booklet.odf
19
FM I Metropolitan
Center
Survey Results
Demographic Information
A total of 408 surveys were carried out from August 26, 2010 to September 9, 2010.
According to 2000 United States Census, 48.1% of South Miami residents were male
compared to 51.9% females. In the survey sample, 152 respondents were male (37.3 %)
while 255 were female (62.7 %). Thus, females were slightly overrepresented.
According to the U.S. Census, 13.6% of City residents in 2000 were 65 years or older.
Approximately one -third of all respondents were 65 years or older (34.5 %). The age
distribution is as follows:
♦ 10 (2.5%) between 18 and 24
♦ 26 (6.5 %) between 25 and 34
36 (9 %) between 35 and 44
e 75 (18.7 %) between 45 and 54
97 (24.1 %) between 55 and 64
♦ 81(20.1 %) between 65 and 74
e and 58 (14.4 %) ages 75 and older.
According to 2000 United States Census, 38.9% of South Miami residents were Anglo
compared to 24.7% Black and 34.4% Hispanic. In the survey sample, Angles were
overrepresented. In fact, of the 408 residents surveyed,
♦ 48 (12.2 %) were non Cuban Hispanic /Latino
♦ 57 (14.5 %) were Cuban
♦ 208 (53.1 %) Anglo
♦ 58 (14.8 %) African - American
♦ 21 (5.4 %) Other
The survey also overrepresented college- educated residents. In fact, According to 2000
United States Census, 38.1% of South Miami residents had at least a bachelor's degree. In
terms of the highest level of educational attainment, 265 (68.5 %) of survey respondents had
at least a bachelor's degree. The distribution of calls is as follows,
♦ 10 (2.6 %) had less than high school diploma
♦ 57 (14.7°/x) had high school diploma or GED
♦ 54 (14 %) had some college
♦ 144 (37.2 %) were college graduates
♦ 72 (18.6 %) had a graduate degree
♦ 49 (12.7 %) had a professional degree.
Over three - fourths of respondents had lived in the City of South Miami at least ten years. The
distribution is as follows:
♦ 1(.3 %) less than 1 year
20
FM I Metropolitan
Center
♦ 11(2.8 %) 1 to 3 years
♦ 12 (3 %) 3 to 5 years
♦ 65 (16.4 %) 5 to 10 years
♦ 307 (77.3 %) over 10 years.
d• In terms of language,
♦ 364 (89.2 %) of surveys were conducted in English.
♦ 44 (10.8 %) were conducted in Spanish.
Satisfaction with Duality of Life /General Issues
The following analysis breaks down the individual questions posed to respondents and cites
significant differences among groups for each of the demographic variables: age, gender,
race /ethnicity, educational attainment and years residing in South Miami. Due to
overrepresentation of certain groups demographic variables have been dichotomized to
account for differences between overrepresented groups and others (for example Angles and
elderly residents). The following compares distinctions between demographic groups
between the overrepresented residents and others only if a difference of 5% points or more
was evident in their opinions.
•? The vast majority of City of South Miami residents surveyed (347 or 85.7°/x) rated the quality
of life within the City as good /excellent.
♦ In terms of the demographic variables, a noticeable difference in the evaluations of the
quality of life in South Miami is apparent in race and the highest level of educational
attainment. Individuals who did not have a college degree were less likely to be satisfied
with the quality of life in the City (82.6 %) than residents with at least a bachelor's degree
(88.9 %).
♦ When comparing Angles with other racial /ethic groups, Angles were more likely to view
the quality of life in the City as good /excellent (92.8°/x) compared to non - Anglos (79.8°/x).
Residents were asked to evaluate the importance of 13 City issues. Excluding road
improvement projects, beautification /landscaping, parks and recreation programming and
resident access to City service, the majority or residents felt all these issues were very
important. The twelve issues are listed in the following bullet points.
❖ 224 or 56% of respondents considered economic growth and development of South Miami
very important.
♦ Men were less likely to view this issue as important (48.7 %) than women (60.2 %).
♦ The working age population (18 to 64) was more likely to consider this issue very
important (58.6 %) than their elders (49.3 %).
♦ Non - college educated residents were more inclined to view economic growth and
development as very important (60.8 %) than college educated residents (53.3 %).
♦ Angles placed a lower priority on growth and development (44.6°/x) than non- Anglos
(67.2 %).
21
FMIMetropolitan
Center
♦ Residents living ten years or less in South Miami were more likely to rate this issue as
very important (63.2 %) than those residing in South Miami over ten years (53.2°/x).
Traffic congestion was considered a very important issue by 269 respondents or 66.1% of
the survey sample.
♦ The working age population was more likely to consider this issue very important (68.7 %)
than their elders (60.4 %)
♦ Residents living ten years or less in South Miami were more likely to rate this issue as
very important (60.7 %) than those residing in South Miami over ten years (67 %).
Half of residents surveyed (203 or 50.1 %) considered traffic violations (speeding, running
red lights) very important.
♦ 42.4% of men felt this issue was important compared to 54.5% of women.0
♦ 46.1% of Anglos felt the same compared to 53.6% of non- Anglos.
291 respondents (71.5 %) identified crime and public safety as a very important issue for the
city.
♦ Working age residents were more likely to consider this issue very important (73.7 %)
than their elderly counterparts (66.9 %).
♦ Residents living ten years or less in South Miami were more likely to rate this issue as
very important (77.3 %) than those residing in South Miami over ten years (69.7 %).
Road improvement projects were considered very important by 146 residents (35.9 %).
♦ Non- college educated individuals were more likely to view this as a very important issue
(38.8 %) than college educated residents (33.7°/x).
♦ Men were less likely (30.5 %) than women to consider road improvements very important
(38.8 %).
♦ Anglos were less likely (30.9 %) than non - Anglos to view this as very important (41.3 %).
♦ Those residing less than 10 years in South Miami were less likely (31.5 %) to consider
road improvements very important than residents with longer tenure (36.9 %).
Beautification /landscaping was considered very important by 141 residents or 34.8 %.
♦ Anglos were less likely to view this issue as very important (28.6 %) than non - Anglos
(41.8 %).
♦ Working age residents were less likely to view this issue as very important (31.4 %) than
their retiree aged counterparts (38.1 %).
♦ Men were less likely to view this as very important (30.5 %) than women (37.2 %).
Parks and recreation programming was considered very important by 166 respondents
(41 %).
♦ Women were more likely to view this as very important (44.7 %) than men (35.1 %).
♦ Anglos were less likely to view this as very important (37.2 %) than non - Anglos (45.1 %).
22
FMI Metropolitan
Center
♦ Working age residents were more likely to view parks and recreation (43.2 %) as very
important than were their older counterparts (35.3 %).
❖ Education and community service programming were ranked very important by 207 (51.1 %)
survey respondents.
♦ 53.9% of working age residents felt education was very important compared to 47.5% of
retiree age residents.
♦ Non - Anglos were more concerned with the importance of education (58.2 %) than Anglos
(44.4 %).
♦ Women were more likely to view this issue as very important (55.7 %) than men (43 %).
♦ College- educated residents were less likely (49.2 %) to consider this issue important than
the non - college educated (58 %).
♦ Those residing in South Miami ten years or less were more likely to view education as
very important (60.2 %) than those residing in the City over ten years (48.9°/x).
Resident access to City services was considered very important by 186 residents (45.8 %).
♦ Those residing in South Miami ten years or less were more likely to view this as very
important (51.7 %) than those residing in the City over ten years (44.3 %).
♦ College- educated residents were less likely (48.1 %) to consider this issue important than
the non - college educated (42.5 %).
♦ Women were more likely to consider resident access to City services very important
(48.4 %) than men (41.1 %).
Property taxes were considered very important by 282 residents (70.1 %).
♦ Elderly residents were less likely to view this issue as very important (45.6°/x) than the
working age population (53.1 %).
♦ A large discrepancy exists between the importance men (42 %) and women place on this
issue (57 %).
♦ Non - Anglos were more likely to view this as very important (55.8 %) than were Anglos
(47.3 %).
♦ Non - college educated residents were more likely (55.8 %) than those with at least a
bachelor's degree to view property taxes as very important (47.3 %).
207 residents (51.5°/x) identified poverty and homelessness as very important.
♦ Older residents were less likely to identify poverty as a pressing concern (45.6 %) than
were working age residents (53.1 %).
♦ Women were more likely to view this as very important (57 %) than men (42 %).
♦ Non - Anglos were also more likely to view poverty as very important (55.8 %) than Anglos
(47.3 %).
♦ College educated residents (47.3°/x) were more likely than non - college educated
residents to view this as important (55.8 %).
P&I
FM I Metropolitan
Center
223 residents (54.8 %) identified trash and recycling as very important.
The difference was most pronounced between the college educated (50 %) and the non -
college educated (62.8°/x) and between men (46.1 %) and women (59.8 %).
Non - Anglos were more likely to consider this issue very important (58.7 %) than Anglos
(51.2 %).
Resident Perceptions of Importance of Issues for City of South Miami
c3Veryimportant P Somewhat important t: Notimportant
Crime and public safety
Property taxes
Trash and recycling
Traffic congestion
Poverty and homelessness
Economic growth and development
Education and comrnuntty service
programming
Resident access to city services
Traffic violations
Parks and recreation programming
Beautification/ landscaping
Road improvement projects
South Miami residents were asked to describe what the top priority of the City's elected officials
and senior staff should be. In this open -ended question, residents gave an array of responses
which were categorized by topic. The most commonly cited priorities were:
♦ Good governance /accountability (89 or 21.8 %)
♦ Crime /safety (72 or 17.6 %)
♦ Property taxes (34 or 8.3 %)
♦ Other (33 or 8.1 %)
♦ Budget /finance (28 or 6.9 %).
d• Please see page 20 for the open -ended responses to this question.
24
Metroy� itan
Center
Resident Top Priorities for South Miami's elected Officials and Senior Staff
Good
Governance /Accountability
Crime /Safety
Property Taxes
Other
Budget/Finance
Economy /Unemployment
Don't know/Unsure
Education /School Issues
Traff ic
SafetyN iolationslCo nges do h
Overdevelopment
Poverty/Homelessness
Law Enforcement/Police
Department
Beautification) Appearance of
city
Economic Development
City Services
Satisfied with Job of City
Quality of Life
Environment/Green
Initiatives
Building /Zoning Codes
Parks and Recreation
Roads /Public Transportation
Ilu''
.�, 8.1%
6.9%
W
FMI Metropolitan
Center
d• South Miami residents were asked to rate the overall value of City services for the tax dollars
paid on a scale from poor to excellent. Slightly over two-thirds of residents (275 or 67.7 %)
described the value of City services as good /excellent.
♦ A striking difference in satisfaction with City services is evident between those residing in
South Miami for ten years or less (58.4 %) and residents of longer tenure (70.9 %).
♦ College graduates were more likely to be satisfied with services (69.6 %) than those with
no college education (64.4 %).
♦ Anglo residents were more satisfied with City services (76.3 %) than non - Anglos (59.8 %).
♦ Women were more satisfied with City services (70.8 %) than men (62.2 %).
City Caracteristics
❖ Survey respondents were asked to rate fourteen different aspects of life within the City of
South Miami on a scale from poor to excellent. The results are detailed in the following bullet
points and key differences among demographic groups are analyzed.
❖ 348 respondents (85.3 %) rated the cleanliness of streets in their neighborhood as
good /excellent.
A striking difference in satisfaction with the cleanliness of streets is evident between
those residing in South Miami for ten years or less (80.9 %) and residents of longer
tenure (87.6 %).
♦ 82.6% of non - college graduates were satisfied with this aspect of the City while 88.3% of
college graduates indicated the same.
The majority of residents (325 or 79.9 %) felt the cleanliness of streets in commercial areas
was good /excellent.
♦ A striking difference in the opinions on the cleanliness of streets can be observed
between Anglos (84.7 %good /excellent ratings) and non - Anglos (76 %).
♦ Working age residents were more likely to have higher ratings of the cleanliness of these
streets (83.6 %) than their elderly counterparts (76.1 %).
d• Approximately four in ten (176 or 43.3 %) respondents rated the cleanliness of
canals /waterways good /excellent. For this issue no real distinctions were evident among the
different demographic sectors of the survey sample.
S 228 respondents (56.1°/x) rated storm drainage in South Miami as good /excellent.
♦ Non - college graduates were more likely to consider this issue good /excellent compared
to 54.3% of college graduates.
♦ 55.9% of men rated storm drainage good /excellent compared to 50.2% of women.
S 232 (59.5 %) respondents rated the condition of sidewalks good /excellent.
♦ Anglos were less likely (56.6 %) to rate this aspect of South Miami favorably than non -
Anglos (63.3 %).
♦ Whereas 57.1% of college graduates rated sidewalks as good /excellent, 64.4% of non -
College graduates had similar ratings.
s 305 (75.1 %) respondents indicated the condition of roads in the City was good /excellent.
26
FMIMetropolitan
Center
♦ 71.7% of men had favorable ratings of the condition of roads compared to 77.1% of
women.
Approximately 6 in 10 (252 or 61.9 %) respondents rated the adequacy of street lighting in
their neighborhood as good /excellent.
♦ Whereas 65.1% of residents living in South Miami in excess of ten years had a favorable .
rating of the street lighting, 52.8% of those residing in the City ten years or less indicated
the same.
s 67.6% of Anglos were satisfied with street lighting compared to 56% of non - Anglos.
♦ Working age residents were less likely (57.2 %) to be satisfied with street lighting than
retirees (69.1 %).
f• The vast majority (317 or 77.7 %) of respondents rated the appearance and maintenance of
the City's public buildings good /excellent.
♦ Whereas 82% of working age residents were satisfied with the appearance and
maintenance of buildings, 73.3% of elderly residents indicated the same.
♦ 73.5% of non - College graduates and 80.7% of college graduates were satisfied with this
aspect of life in the City.
♦ 83.2% of Anglos had satisfactory ratings of City buildings compared to 71.2% of non -
Anglos.
♦ Residents of shorter tenure (10 years or less) were less satisfied with the condition of
City buildings (68.5 %) than those with longer tenure (80.8 %).
4 187 (46.1°/x) respondents had good /excellent evaluations of the City's recreation programs.
♦ 48.3% of Anglos were satisfied with recreation programs compared to 43.2% of non -
Anglos.
♦ Whereas 52.9% of non - college graduates had positive evaluations of the City's recreation
programs, only 44.1% of college graduates had similar ratings.
♦ 43.6% of working age residents and 50.7% of retiree aged respondents were satisfied
with these programs.
y Most survey respondents (242 or 59.3 %) rated the appearance of playgrounds
good /excellent.
♦ Whereas 62.8% of residents with longer tenure were satisfied with the appearance of
playgrounds, only 48.3% of residents with shorter tenure indicated the same.
d• 274 (67.1 %) respondents rated the maintenance of parks good /excellent.
i 303 (74.9 %) residents had satisfactory evaluations of landscape maintenance in rights of
way and public areas.
♦ 70.9% of men and 77.5% of women rated landscape maintenance in rights of way and
public areas as good /excellent.
♦ Whereas 78.7% of Anglos had positive ratings of landscape maintenance in these areas,
only 70.6% of non - Anglos had positive evaluations.
27
FM I Metropolitan.
Center
♦ 81.8% of non - College graduates were satisfied with this aspect of life in South Miami
compared to 73.4% of non - Anglos.
<• Approximately nine in ten (370 or 91.1 %) respondents had good /excellent evaluations of
garbage /trash collection.
♦ Whereas 92.8% of residents with longer tenure (over 10 years) were satisfied with
garbage pickup, only 86.5% of residents with shorter tenure indicated the same.
•S Roughly four in ten respondents (168 or 41.3 %) had good /excellent evaluation of the City's
efforts in addressing homelessness.
♦ Angles were less satisfied than non - Anglos as evidenced by 37.5% and 45.7%
excellent /good evaluations by Angles and non - Anglos respectively.
♦ College graduates were slightly less satisfied than non - college graduates (ratings of
39.3% and 44.6% respectively).
♦ 38.1% of working age residents were satisfied with the city's efforts to address
homelessness compared to 47.4% of retiree aged residents who indicated the same.
♦ 37.1% of those residing in South Miami for ten years or less and 42.7% of those with
tenures in excess of ten years had good /excellent evaluations of the City's homelessness
efforts.
282 (70 %) residents indicated the City was doing a good /excellent job for public safety.
W
FM I Metropolitan
Center
Evaluations City Services and Programs
B Excellent/Good 0 Fair [_1 Poor Do not know /Not Sure
Garbage /trash collection
Cleanliness of streets in neighborhood
Cleanliness of streets in business /commercial
areas
Appearance and maintenance of City's public
buildings
Condition of roads
Landscape maintenance in rights of way and
public areas
The job the City is doing for public safety
Maintenance of parks
Adequacy of street lighting in neighborhood
Condition of sidewalks
Storm drainage
Appearance of playgrounds
Cleanliness of canals /waterways
Recreation programs
The job the City is doing to address
homelessness
Three- fourths (304 or 74.5 %) of respondents had good /excellent ratings of the City's police
services.
♦ Whereas, 79.8% of Anglos were satisfied with police services only 69.6% of non - Anglos
had similar evaluations.
`40
Metropolitan
Center
♦ 72.5% of working age residents and 79.9% of elderly residents had good /excellent
evaluations of police services.
♦ Whereas 76.3% of residents living in South Miami in excess of ten years were satisfied
with police services, only 69.7% of those residing in the City ten years or less had
favorable ratings.
295 (72.7 %) respondents evaluated the City's parks as good /excellent.
s 68.8% of women and 78.9% of men had satisfactory ratings of parks.
•A Nine in ten residents (369 or 90.9 %) had good /excellent ratings of the City's trash pick -up.
Evaluations Trash Pick -up, Parks & Police Services
Garbage and
trash pick -up
Parks in the city
City's police
services
Evaluations City Emolovees
m Excellent a Good ri'„ Fair F Poor x DK /Not Sure
S• Residents were asked to evaluate certain aspects of City Hall and City employees on a five
point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
d• 239 (58.8 %) residents felt it was easy to get someone in the City that could help them.
♦ 55% of those residing in the City for ten years or less agreed /strongly agreed with this
statement compared to 61.2% of those with longer tenures.
♦ Whereas 62.5% of Anglos agreed /strongly agreed with this claim only 56.9% of non -
Anglos felt the same way.
299 (73.6 %) respondents claimed city employees were courteous and professional.
♦ 66.3% of those residing in the City for ten years or less agreed /strongly agreed with this
statement compared to 76.3% of those with longer tenures.
The majority (214 or 52.9 %) of residents felt City employees had the proper training and
knowledge.
Ef
Metropolitan
Fol Center
♦ Whereas 61.1% of non - college graduates were satisfied with the training and knowledge
of City employees, only 49.8% of college graduates had similar evaluations.
♦ Whereas 59.1% of non - Anglos were satisfied with the knowledge of employees only
47.6% of Anglos indicated the same.
•A 237 (58.6 %) respondents agreed /strongly agreed resident requests for information or
service were addressed in a timely manner.
♦ 61.2% of women and 54.3% of men agreed /strongly agreed with this claim.
♦ Whereas 66.2% of residents ages 65 and older were satisfied with the efficiency of
addressing resident request, only 54.5% of working age residents had positive
evaluations of the timeliness of addressing resident requests.
♦ 49.4% of those residing in the City for ten years or less agreed /strongly agreed with this
statement compared to 60.9% of those with longer tenures.
❖ 266 (65.7 %) respondents agreed /strongly agreed that they had an overall good experience
contacting the City.
♦ 72.7% of non - college graduates and 63.4% of college graduates had a good overall
experience contacting the City.
♦ 68.7% of Anglos and 63.4% of non - Anglos were satisfied with their experience contacting
the City.
♦ 68.7% of those residing in South Miami in excess of ten years agreed /strongly agreed wit
this claim compared to 55% of those residing ten years or less in the City.
221 (56.3 %) respondents agreed /strongly agreed that the City government was open and
interested in hearing their concerns.
♦ 60.2% of Anglos and 53.7% of non - Anglos had positive evaluations of City Hall's interest
in hearing residents.
♦ Whereas 63.5% of those without college degrees agreed /strongly agreed with this claim
only 54.5% of college graduates felt the same way.
0 51.7% of those residing ten years or less in South Miami and 58.7% of those with a
tenure in excess of ten years agreed /strongly agreed with this claim.
31
FM I Metropolitan
Center
Evaluations of City Hall and City Employees
T Strongly Agree /Agree rs Neither Agree nor Disagree = -. Strongly Disagree /Disagree DK/Not Sure
The City of South Miami government is open and
interested in hearing the concerns or issues of
Overall, I know 1 will have a good experience
contacting the City
Resident requests for information or service are
addressed in a timely manner
The City employees have the proper training and
knowledge
The City employees are courteous and professional
It is easy to get someone in the City who could help
me
Sources of Information
Residents listed newspapers (205 respondents or 50.2%), Television (109 or 26.7 %), their
neighbors (75 or 18.4 %) and the City of South Miami newsletter (33 or 8.1 %) as their primary
information source for news about South Miami.
Sources for News and Information about South Miami
Newspaper
4(
City Website
6% Television
All Other City r41 ""y
1% 6% Newsletter 3%
7%
226 respondents (56.1 %) rated the performance of South Miami in keeping residents
informed on city events and public projects as good /excellent.
103,1
Metropolitan
Center
♦ Whereas 65.2% of non - college graduates felt the City did a good /excellent job of keeping
them informed, only 54% of college graduates were satisfied with the City's efforts at
keeping residents informed.
♦ 53.6% of Anglos and 60.4% of non - Anglos were satisfied with the efforts of the City to
keep residents informed.
Overall Ratings for City of South Miami
Respondents were also asked to evaluate their City's overall services from poor to excellent.
324 (80.7 %) had good /excellent ratings of City services.
♦ Race was the only demographic variable with large differences of opinion on overall
evaluations of City services. Whereas 76.3% of non - Anglos had good /excellent ratings of
City services, 85.6% of Anglos were satisfied with South Miami services.
Overall Ratings City of South Miami Services
Fair Poor Excellent
0
15.5% ° 21.1%
Good
61.2%
364 (89.9 %) respondents indicated they saw themselves living in South Miami three years
from now.
348 (86.1 %) residents surveyed would recommend the City of South Miami as place to live
and work.
♦ A sharp difference exists in regards to gender with 83.1% of women agreeing with this
sentiment while 91.3% of men would recommend the City to others.
33
Recommend /Live in South Miami
Yes No r Unsure
1 would
recommend the
City of South
Miami as place
to live and work.
I see myself
living in South
Miami three
years from now.
Metropolitan
Center
011
Open -ended Comments
Budget/Finance
Narrow examining budget to reduce waste
Not wasting money on projects
Cost effectiveness
Management of budget
Balancing budget of city
Money management
Budgeting and finance
Managing the budget
Budgets and debts
Making necessary cuts and budget fit well
Adapt to the budget
Budget Control
work on balancing budget and saying money
keep city within budget
Budget
Properly manage bud et
Balancing the budget
Budget
Controlling city's finances
To carry out the budget of the City in the best way
Use tax money wise)
Ruda etin
Codes
ro er buildin codes
City services
communities services
Run services
Services
Services are ok
Maintain and improve the services
Services they provide
Services to youth
Services
City services
Public Services
Taking care of homeless, more money, more rotection from crime
Make a beautiful and safe place to live
Making City better and safe
Crime, safety
Keep residents safe
Personal safety
Public safety, crime
Public Safety
Metropolitan
Center
35
FMI Cente
Mcitan.
Censer
Safety
Safety
Safety
Crime and public safety
Public safety
Crime
Safety and crime
Safety
Crime
Safety
Crime
Crime
Crime and public safety
Safety
Safe place to live
Crime
Make the community safe and educated as possible
Safety
Reducing crime
Crime and safety
To keep residents safe
Crime
Crime and public safety
Safet
Crime
Safety
Crimes
Safety
Crime and public safety
Crime
Public safetV and crime
Crime
Safety
Crime
Security
Safety for the community
Crime
Security
Crime
Crime Prevention
Safety
Crime
Safety
Crime and Public Safet
Beautification/Appearance of City
Standard of livin , how city looks
Maintain city of pleasant living, keep down noise, repair
36
Fig I Metropolitan
Center
Remodeling of area
Keeping the place nice
Beautification/Landscaping
Cleaning neighborhoods
Beautification, homelessness, traffic con estion, resident safety-
Economic safety- Development
Economic development
Economic development
Ensuring development benefits residents
Development
Economic development
Economic growth
Economic development
Economic orowth and develo ment
Economy/Unemployment
Economy
Economy
Economy
Economic issue
Economy
Economics and finance
Jobs
Jobs
Jobs
Jobs
More jobs
Employment
Jobs
More jobs
More jobs
Employment
Jobs
Making more jobs
More work and increase salaries
More jobs for outh and better education
Education/School
Education and communit service
Education
Education
Need more public education
Education
Education
Education
Education for children
Education
Education
Education
37
FM I Metropol itan
Center
Education
School and education
School improvement
School violence
Schools most)
Imp,roving education
EnvironmenVGreen initiatives
more reen laces
Keep city green
Green initiatives
..d
To see that the various issues are more taken care of
Communication understanding the diversity of the community
Serve the people of the community
Referendum election, new city commission
manage the city business
Take care of the City
Reducing local government to the essentials
Running the city good and do what is more convenient for citizens
Residential character and look, maintain honest
Listen to people
Continuity of city employees, too much power to individuals
Being fair and not ignoring people
Listening to constituents, asking them and not listening to lobbyists
To govern as best as they can
To get their act together
Honesty
Integrity in government
Honesty, commissioners need to start thinking about people in the City and not
themselves
Improvement of City Council
Honest
To see that the people are treated fair)
Corruption
Honesty among politicians, political ethics
Fair representation of entire community
Politics, get them straight
Corruption
Efficiency of government
Effective wrong government
Integrity
Less fighting within government
No corruption, honesty, do jobs effective)
Conduct themselves in honest.and professional manner
Interest in the entire community
Good administrative policy
M
FMI Metropolitan.
Center
Get act together
Leave politics out
Do what is promised
More team work among elected officials. Senior staff needs greater support of the top
administrator by the elected officials
Good government
Better use of City's money
Less corruption
Listen to residents
Being Honest
Experience people
Educate government
Consistency in political appointments
civility, fix politics
honesty among them, accountability
Transparency, ethics, responses to citizens
Corruption
Fairness and quality in politics
Reorganizing city government
Openness in government
Honesty and transparency
Honesty in government
Don't steal money
Stop stealing money
Take care of the people in the city hall
Give citizens what they need
Be objective
Care for the people
Listen to resident requests
Restoring some confidence in City Hall
Integrity, stop being laughing stock.
To work for the people and not for themselves
Less government
Stability to the government
Informed the City
Attention to community
Get good people
To be honest
Finding a new city manager
Get rid of vice mayor
Work together
Do what people want
Remove people who don't work
City government get together; management
Consistency, fair representation of all residents
Efficient government
Honesty and integrity
4W
FMIMetropolitan
Center
Get rid of the whole staff and all of the above
Should acquaint with charter and firing everyone
Integrity within government
Housing,
Overdevelopment
Maintainin the integrity of the small town
Stopping local intensity development
Maintain neighborhood, limit high rises
Keep a nice and pleasant city and not overcrowded
Keep development out
Keep community in order
keep developments in line with community characteristics
keeping density down
Keep it from growing, high raises
Kee citv in its current state
Homelessness
Get rid of some peddlers and homelessness
Poverty and homelessness
Poverty
work on helping unprivileged families
Work on the families that het
Property
Property taxes
Property taxes
Reduce property taxes
Lowering taxes
Taxes
Property taxes
Property taxes
Property taxes
Lowering property taxes
property tax containment
property taxes, keep them low if possible
Property taxes
lower property taxes
lower property taxes
Property taxes
Lowering property taxes
Lowering taxes
Reducing property taxes
Property taxes
Lowering taxes
Taxes needs work
Lower property taxes
Work on taxes
40
FM I Metropolitan
Center
To reduce rtv taxes
Transportation
Roads
Public trans ortation
Quality of
Maintaining quality of life in City and makin sure resident areas stay for residents
Maintain the guality of city in light of budget
Quality of life of people
Improving ualit of life
Focus on a better life for citizens
Satisfied with ob of City Officials
They are doing a good 'ob
They already know what they are doing
Good job
Keep up the good work
Keep things as they are now
Keen thin s well done
Traffic Safety/Violations/Congestion
Safet and traffic
Traffic and safety, park, sidewalk
Traffic
Traffic
Traffic violation
Traffic control
Traffic control and reducing concession to business
Traffic Congestion
Improve traffic
Speeding violations
Traffic violations and traffic at certain times
Sto eo le s eedin , control traffic Other
Parks, traffic, safety, of cit
Community outreach
Ozonin , Corruption, Safety, Honest Gov.
Leave the city as a small city, motivate resident involvement, develop community
programs for all age groups
Property taxes, general betterment of city
Expansion and growth of the community and more events
Maintaining taxes, crime, maintaining pleasant living, helpiing helping the need
Spend money wisely, avoid corruption, make city walkable
Dissolve the Cit
Property area
Reduce taxes, reduce student tuition
Take care of debts, including police pension funds, more swimming pools, more garages
Stop all the violations
Stop playing around with more stops at Sunset, too much traffic, raising property taxes
while the worth of the house decreases
41
FM I Metropolitan
Center
Health system,
Recvclinq and traffic congestion
More concern about elderly and outh employment and qualit of olice de artment
Maintain the balance
Maintain a healthy resident area environment
Reinforcing above issues
Keep city safe, taxes reasonable and controlspending
City codes, traffic violations, police department enforcement
Job growth, traffic, safety
A good police force, get better garbage cans
Address all the 13 issues
Behavior of city, rude
Adequate spending regulation by University of Miami
No options for cable company Atlantic Broadband; monopoly
Noise pollution
Entertainment for kids
Garbage trash, not recycling because it is a waste of money
Brains
Civic education for everyone
Controlling the development of Mr. Mansions
To quit
Give South Miami residents free parking pass
Budget and homelessness
Balancin bud et and oronertv taxes
Law Enforcement[Police -..
Law enforcement
Speeding tickets being given by oun police who are disrespectful
Police service
Police department is terrible
Police Department
Police crimes
Police tLy in to ions
Parks and Recreation
Parks and recreation
Reclaimin arks for citv residents
Multiple Issues
Poverty, cleanliness
Keeping South Miami safe and clean
Keeping the city clean and safe
Safety and efficiency
Economic development, budget
Development and education
No more construction, traffic
Keep budget under control, crime
Addressing property taxes and homelessness
Keep construction at 2 stories max. Keep property taxes at 2010 level.
Keep density low, buildings low
42
Metropolitan
Center
Too many tickets in speed traps, transparency and good government
See what is happening in the community rather than the politicians doing what they want.
Need the police to calm down.
No more backroom deals, not raise taxes, solid police chief not following underhand
deals
Housing, crime
Climate control, public safety
Commitment to citizens, enforce zone violations
Do not be involved in petty issues, homelessness, poverty being responsive to the entire
community
Good use of the money, avoid waste, be green
Improving congestion, downtown/enforcing building code
Safe neighborhood, traffic congestion, crime
Crime and education
Education, crime
Tax and pleasant environment
Crime, help on housing for homeless people
Education, homelessness
Safety and economy
Crimes and work
Economy, crime
economic issues, crime
Property taxes, public safety
Crime, taxes
fight crime, reduce taxes
Safety and taxes down
43