• Measures of the cleanliness of the public right of way show that the Department of Public Works is not currently providing optimal service. Less than half of San Francisco residents rate neighborhood street cleanliness as "good" or "very good" (49 percent). Although the Department's goal is to resolve service requests within 48 hours, a large percentage remain unresolved. In FY 2005-2006, 19 percent of street cleaning requests and 68 percent of graffiti requests were not resolved within 48 hours. Further, of the total 13,773 28-Clean service requests referred to other departments and agencies from July 2004 through June 2006, 60.6 percent were not resolved within 48 hours.
  
  
• The Bureau of Street Environmental Services lacks staff productivity standards, adequate service request prioritization methods or other criteria to determine optimal allocation of resources, resulting in inefficient staffing plans and the aggravation of deferred maintenance issues.
  
  
• Despite having over a year's worth of data, the Bureau has not significantly shifted resources based upon the information learned from Proposition C evaluations. The Bureau has not used the data from the Proposition C evaluations to alter street cleaning schedules, despite evidence that such a reallocation would be productive.
  
  
• The Bureau does not adequately collect fines for litter citations. From June 16, 2003 through August 29, 2006, the Bureau levied 12,680 fines and citations. Of the $1,290,800 due, including delinquent penalties and interest, the Department has only collected $524,209 of the fines, and waived $167,930.
  
  
• In 2004, all City departments were directed by the Mayor to abate graffiti from city-owned property within 24 hours, but the implementation of this directive has been minimal. The Bureau needs to better coordinate graffiti abatement and billing procedures with other city agencies and departments.
  
  
• The Bureau experiences significant lost work time due to work related injury and illness, personal or family leave, and sick leave, contributing to reduced productivity and understaffing. The Bureau is only exceeded by the Bureau of Urban Forestry in its level of unproductive use of scheduled work hours.

The Condition of the Public Right of Ways

The Bureau of Street Environmental Services is charged with cleaning and maintaining the public right of ways in the City. The Bureau's major activities include mechanical street sweeping, daytime litter patrols, swing shift and graveyard operations that clean busy commercial corridors, graffiti abatement, and public litter outreach programs. For most of its operations, the Bureau of Street Environmental Services divides the City into six zones.

Measures of public perception of the cleanliness of the public right of ways show that the Bureau of Street Environmental Services is not currently providing optimal service. According to the Controller's Office Annual City Survey in 2005, less than half of resident respondents rate neighborhood street cleanliness as "good" or "very good" (49 percent), which is a slight decline from the proportion finding neighborhood street cleanliness favorable in 2004 (52 percent). This measure is only one of public perception, and does not accurately gauge the condition of the public right of ways. It does show that the Department of Public Works needs to work with City officials to better satisfy the expectations of San Francisco residents.

28-Clean Service Requests

Other measures of the Bureau of Street Environmental Services performance include data generated from 28-Clean, the Department's service request management system. 28-Clean currently receives approximately 8,000 calls per month. The Department can track the generation and completion of different types of service requests generated from the public and internally. The Department analyzes and presents the 28-Clean data to SFStat, the Mayor's performance management process, several times a year.

The Department's goal is to resolve all service requests within 48 hours of receipt. Although the Department's performance improved between FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, the Department continues to have unresolved service requests after 48 hours.

Table 2.1
28-Clean Service Requests Unresolved Within 48 Hours,
FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006

Source: Department of Public Works, SFStat Data, May 2006

In addition to completing service requests that fall under its own jurisdiction, the Department refers service requests that come in through 28-Clean to other departments and agencies. Often, the loop is not closed in a timely manner on the status of these extra-Department requests. Of the total 13,773 28-Clean referrals to other departments and agencies from July 2004 through June 2006, 60.6 percent were not resolved within 48 hours. The following Table 2.2 details service requests referred to other agencies in June of 2006.

Table 2.2
28 Clean Service Requests Referred to Other Departments and Agencies, June 2006

Source: Department of Public Works, SFStat Data, June 2006

As shown in Table 2.2, some departments, such as the Public Utilities Commission, Department of Parking and Traffic, and Department of Public Health are either not resolving the service requests referred to them within 48 hours, or are doing so but then not notifying the Department in a timely manner that the request has been resolved. The Department should work with these other Departments to determine a better and uniform method for reporting resolution of 28-Clean referred service requests.

The Planning and Allocation of Resources

The Department lacks productivity standards, service request prioritization methods or other criteria to determine optimal allocation of resources in the Bureau of Street Environmental Services. Consequently, the Department does not consistently assign staff to meet priority service needs.

The Prioritization of Service Needs

One of the primary challenges of the Bureau is the utilization of its resources to regularly clean and maintain streets while having the flexibility to respond to service requests of an unforeseen or immediate nature. Many service requests are called in by the public and by Department staff through the 28-Clean tracking system. Others can be found in the text of the weekly reports made by supervisors to the Superintendent. These weekly reports detail some of the special requests asked of the Bureau's resources, such as those made by members of the Board of Supervisors or by the Director of Public Works, to prepare for visiting dignitaries, special city events, or other occasions. For example, in August of 2006, the Bureau sent a crew to clean in preparation for the Mayor's SF Connect unveiling, another crew to prepare for a weekend event in a Supervisor's district at the request of a member of the Board of Supervisors, and a graffiti crew to remove graffiti near the scene of a recent murder at the request of a member of the Board of Supervisors.

Although all of these requests may be valid, it is unclear how the prioritization decisions are made, including how these requests beyond routine maintenance are balanced alongside the importance of routine maintenance. The Bureau does not have a formal way to prioritize among these competing immediate service requests and ongoing maintenance needs, other than the discretion of the Bureau of Street Environmental Services Superintendent and supervisors. Inevitably, ongoing maintenance needs will suffer if the Bureau does not identify and manage less important service requests, a placing the requests in the appropriate queue. The Bureau should develop a methodology for prioritizing these service needs.

Staff Productivity and Allocation

All supervisors in the Bureau of Street Environmental Services report staff productivity to be a challenge. Although some degree of loss of productivity might be expected in the Bureau, the Bureau has had no formal productivity standards for street and graffiti maintenance personnel, and therefore has had no systematic method to determine how many staff positions are necessary to fulfill its duties. The Bureau needs to develop maintenance practices and productivity standards for these functions to ensure that the Bureau has an overall understanding of its staffing needs. Examples of appropriate productivity standards for laborers might include blocks swept per shift, pounds of debris collected per shift, or service calls responded to per shift. Examples of productivity standards for graffiti laborers might include number of graffiti incidences removed or square feet of surface repainted.

Proposition C and Street Maintenance

The Bureau did not previously have street maintenance standards or a method to evaluate the Bureau's performance against such standards. However, under Proposition C, passed by the voters in November of 2003, the Bureau is now required to establish standards for street maintenance, publish maintenance schedules, and regularly evaluate Bureau performance based on the standards and schedules.

In FY 2004-2005, the Controller's Office worked with the Bureau to establish the mandated maintenance standards. The chosen standards include standards for streets, graffiti, and trash receptacles. During this time the Controller's Office and the Bureau worked jointly to develop a street maintenance standards manual and evaluation tools. As further discussed in Section 3 of the report, the standards do not include Department-maintained landscaped areas or street trees. The Bureau evaluates one street cleaning route in each of the 11 supervisorial districts once a month. A segment of the routes is evaluated as a sample of the whole route, and evaluations must be performed before and after scheduled mechanical street sweeping takes place. In addition to these monthly Proposition C evaluations performed by the Department, the Controller's Office conducts two evaluations annually, serving in an auditing capacity.

A passing evaluation for the street cleaning category is a maximum of up to 15 pieces of litter counted per 100 curb feet examined. A passing evaluation for the graffiti category is a finding that 100 percent of the street surface, public and private structures and sidewalks are free of graffiti. A passing evaluation for trash receptacle category is that (a) the receptacle must be clean and not overflowing, (b) the area around the receptacle must be free of no more than five pieces of litter, (c) the structure must have a uniform coat of paint, (d) the structure must be free of large cracks or damage that affects its use, and (e) the door must be closed.

Proposition C Evaluation Methodology

As discussed above, the Department has agreed to survey and evaluate eleven routes per month to determine compliance with the Proposition C published standards and schedules. The Department has completed over a year of evaluations, beginning in July of 2005.

Currently, evaluations are performed by senior level staff, and are often done in the middle of the night. According to staff, managers spend approximately 100 hours per month performing Proposition C evaluations. At an approximate hourly salary and benefits cost of $50.45 for a 7281 Street Environmental Services Supervisor, the Department is currently spending $60,535 this fiscal year by using its managers to perform evaluations. This annual cost of $60,535 does not include lost productivity by using managers to perform the work over other Bureau service needs. Because senior level staff time is better spent performing other managerial duties, the Bureau should evaluate the potential of using non-managerial staff or an outside contract to perform the Proposition C inspections, instead of more costly managerial staff.

The Bureau's Use of Data from Proposition C Evaluations

Despite having over a year's worth of data now, the Bureau has not significantly shifted resources based upon the information learned from Proposition C evaluations. For example, the Bureau has not used the data from the Proposition C evaluations to reallocate resources, such as to alter some of the street cleaning schedules, despite evidence that such a reallocation would be productive.

In the Controller's Office City Services Auditor Annual Report on Parks and Streets Maintenance, issued July 7, 2006, the Controller found that in general the mechanical sweepers are working according to schedules and are effective. The report found, however that the Bureau should analyze its mechanical sweeping schedules database together with inspection results and determine if changes should be made to increase or decrease the frequency of sweeps. The Department's FY 2006-2007 budget included funds for an independent comprehensive study of the sweeping routes, frequencies, and schedules. As of October 18, 2006, the Request for Proposal had been released but the submission deadline for responses had not passed.

However, the existing data show that some routes consistently failed the litter standard after sweeping - such as in the Western Addition, Glen Park, Chinatown and Mission – potentially indicating that these routes could be altered so that they are swept by mechanical sweepers more frequently. The data also show that some routes are consistently clean prior to sweeping, indicating the fact that these routes could be altered so that they are swept by mechanical sweepers less frequently. For example, from July through October of 2005, the routes evaluated in the Richmond, Lakeview, and Marina neighborhoods received passing evaluations for street sweeping prior to the mechanical sweeping taking place. Also, evaluations done along different routes from December of 2005 through February of 2006 show Lakeside and Park Merced received passing evaluations for street sweeping prior to the mechanical sweeping taking place. The Bureau should identify the street cleaning routes that are consistently clean and consistently dirty, and evaluate the cost feasibility of reducing of increasing the mechanical street cleaning frequency, or shifting resources.

In 2006, the Department of Public Works transferred funding to the City Services Auditor to input all mechanical sweeping routes into a database which was intended to allow for improved management and analysis of this function. However, as noted, the Bureau has not shifted resources based upon the information learned from Proposition C evaluations. The Controller's Office is also currently in the process of revising and expanding the street cleanliness measures beyond the three currently mandated by Proposition C. The Controller has indicated that it intends to add additional standards to be measured, increasing the sample size of areas surveyed and reducing inspection time. The Bureau should work closely with the Controller's Office to ensure the new standards are implemented quickly.

Proposition C Street Maintenance Schedules

In addition to mandating the development of and evaluation against maintenance standards, Proposition C also mandated that the Department develop, publish, and report compliance with maintenance schedules. Proposition C states:

Each such department shall monitor compliance with these schedules, and shall publish regularly data showing the extent to which the department has met its published schedules.

The Controller's Office helped the Department to update its schedules for mechanical street sweeping routes and develop schedules for public areas such as plazas, bridges, tunnels, and tree maintenance. These schedules are posted on the Department and Controller's Office websites. However, as required by Proposition C, the Department does not report compliance with these schedules. The Department should begin reporting compliance with Proposition C maintenance schedules.

Improving Planning and Productivity

The Bureau should address several planning and productivity issues that interfere with street maintenance, including (a) standardizing the format of weekly reports by Bureau supervisors to the superintendent, (b) investigating the possibility of using satellite locations for litter patrols, (c) mitigating the impact of homeless encampments on workload, and (d) reorganizing zone supervision.

Standardizing the Weekly Zone Report Formats

Currently, the supervisors in the Bureau of Street Environmental submit to the Superintendent a weekly summary report of the activities that took place in his/her area of management, as well as other important issues such as personnel issues, leave, and community activities. Each supervisor utilizes a different format, some with narratives describing crew work, some with a list of activities by day of the week. These reports are dense and difficult to use to get a clear picture of what the Bureau's activities were during the week. They should be standardized to include the information most useful for the Superintendent to manage the Bureau, and not just reflect the way that individual supervisors prefer to report activities undertaken in their areas. Standardized reports would also be useful for the Superintendent in making comparisons across zones and aggregating different types of data for a better Bureau-wide snapshot of activity.

Investigating the Possibility of Using Satellite Locations

Currently, most staff in the Bureau of Street Environmental Services report to the main Department yard, located at 2323 Cesar Chavez in southeast San Francisco. After the crews assemble at the main yard in the mornings, they disperse to locations throughout the City. Several supervisors indicated that the Bureau could have some staff, such as general laborers, report directly to the zones in which they work, thus saving the transit time and associated costs. Also, if the Department procured locations where it could store vehicles in other parts of the city, the Department could realize additional savings in gas, particularly for crews working in the northwest side of the city. The Department should investigate the potential cost-savings and efficiency gains of satellite reporting and equipment locations.

Mitigating the Impact of Homeless Encampments

Many Bureau managers and staff have expressed concern about the loss in productivity and safety concerns resulting from homeless encampments. Cleaning up and removing homeless encampments is time consuming and can be hazardous for staff. In the past two years, there were at least three incidents in which homeless persons assaulted Bureau workers, and in one case the assault resulted in the victim requiring treatment at General Hospital.

The Department's primary working relationship addressing the homeless problem has been with the Police Department. The Bureau participates regularly scheduled runs with the Police Department to move and clean up around homeless people. However, the impact of homeless encampments is a City, rather than a Department-specific and Police-specific, problem. The Director should work with the Mayor and with Homeless Connect to set up a Homeless Connect team to address some of the public right of way areas with the most severe homeless encampments, and to coordinate City departments' resources and services to these areas.

Reorganizing Management Supervision of Zone Activities

Currently, the Bureau of Street Environmental Services is organized into three areas of oversight, with each of these areas managed by an Assistant Superintendent, who then reports to the Superintendent. One Assistant Superintendent manages the Zone Program, which is made up litter patrols in the Bureau's six spatial zones, with a 7781 Supervisor II position overseeing each. A different Assistant Superintendent of "Support Services" oversees the mechanical street cleaning, radio room, night shift, and swing shift operations. Another Assistant Superintendent of "Operations" oversees graffiti, along with other Bureau administrative functions.

Currently, the way the Bureau is organized, no single individual oversees and coordinates the activities of all personnel working in each of the six zones. Therefore, there is no single individual who is ultimately responsible for the cleanliness of the zones. The Bureau should evaluate reorganizing its structure so that all litter patrol staff working within a zone report to the same Supervisor II, including daytime, swing and graveyard shifts.

Litter Citations and Violations

The Department does not do an adequate job of collecting fines for litter citations it issues. From June 16, 2003 through August 29, 2006 (the 38.5 month period for which data are available), the Department levied 12,680 fines and citations, or approximately 329 fines and citations per month. Of the $1,290,800 amount due from the fines assessed, including delinquent penalties and interest, the Department has only collected $524,209 of the fines, and waived $167,930. This leaves $598,661 in uncollected fines. The Department should aggressively pursue the collection of these fines.

In addition to not adequately collecting the fines due from the citations and violations issued, the Department's litter enforcement efforts have declined. In FY 2003-2004, the Bureau's Environmental Control Officer positions were greatly reduced and then eliminated in FY 2005-2006, and the task of issuing citations was given primarily to 7215 Supervisor I staff, of which there are 46 funded positions in FY 2006-2007. However, under this situation, the Department is not prioritizing the issuance of citations and violations. In 2004 the Bureau staff issued 3,089 citations, and in 2005, they only issued 280, a decrease of 90.9 percent.

Litter enforcement through citations and violations has the dual benefit of educating the public and while generating revenues for the Department to offset General Fund expenditures. The Department states that it was working with the Mayor's Office and the City Attorney to identify a class of uniformed personnel in the Police Department to provide litter enforcement service, however this effort was not successful and halted. The Department should continue to aggressively pursue other litter enforcement staffing models, such as allocating dedicated staffing. The Bureau should also consider other procedural changes to litter enforcement, such as streamlining the procedures involved in processing citations in order to decrease the currently lengthy amount of staff time it takes to administer citations.

Graffiti Abatement

In 2001, a Civil Grand Jury estimated that the City spends approximately $22 million annually on graffiti abatement. In nine Proposition C inspections over eight months in FY 2005-2006, no route in the city was completely free of graffiti. Routes inspected in the Bayview, Marina, Pacific Heights, Noe Valley and Park Merced showed low graffiti incidences, whereas routes in the Excelsior, Haight, Chinatown, Mission and Western Addition consistently showed the highest incidences.

The Department is responsible for the removal of graffiti on its own properties, which includes street surfaces and trash receptacles. When graffiti is on public structures and buildings that do not belong to the Department, such as mail boxes, street signs, etc., the Department notifies the public agencies of the graffiti and of their responsibility to abate. Abatement procedures will differ depending on the various public agencies. In 2004, all City departments were directed by the Mayor to abate graffiti from city-owned property within 24 hours, but the implementation of this directive has been minimal.

Staff indicate that the Bureau's graffiti crews abate graffiti on public properties not under its jurisdiction when they are working in the same area. However the Bureau was not previously billing other City departments for this service. In August of 2006, the Bureau began billing the Public Utilities Commission and the Municipal Transportation Agency for graffiti abatement. This was to be facilitated by new FY 2006-2007 work order agreements with the Municipal Transportation Agency and the Public Utilities Commission, in amounts of $250,000 and $225,000 respectively. However, the Bureau reports that so far only the Municipal Transportation Agency has given the Bureau funds ($225,000) for graffiti removal. Unfortunately, the Bureau has been slow to implement this billing procedure, reflecting a broader theme of the Department's tendency to not fully quantify and recoup its costs from other City departments for services performed.

Further, the Bureau should pursue similar abatement agreements with other agencies and departments. Although the Bureau is now billing the Municipal Transportation Agency, other agencies and jurisdictions have significant graffiti abatement service requests generated through 28-Clean. In FY 2005-2006, the Bureau routed 391 service requests to the San Francisco Fire Department, only 4 percent of which were reported resolved within 48 hours, and 63 service requests to the Recreation and Park Department, only 36 percent of which were reported resolved within 48 hours. The Bureau should set up work order agreements and billing procedures to accurately reflect any graffiti abatement work it does for these other agencies, as well as pursue the previously anticipated $250,000 work order with the Public Utilities Commission. The Bureau should also pursue agreements with private entities that it refers service requests to, such as PG&E and SBC, to perform graffiti abatement and recoup these costs.

28-Clean and the Transition to 311

The City is currently in the planning process of setting up a 311 Call Center, which when fully operational will connect citizens to a central call center that will function as the customer service representative for all City departments. According to proposed plans for the initiation of 311, the Department's 28-Clean customer service line, which receives approximately 8,000 calls per month, will be the first City line to transition to the 311 system. The Department's FY 2006-2007 budget proposed that three dispatchers and one supervisor currently working on 28-Clean will transition to 311. The impact of this transition to the Department is still unknown. Should the number of calls to 28-Clean not drop in the very early phases of 311, a scenario which is likely, the Department's 28-Clean call center will have to fill the same number of calls with fewer dedicated permanent staff.

The Department stated in July that the "soft start" for the transition to 311 would take place in September, but as of October 18, the 311 Call Center had not yet been activated and the Department's dispatchers had not yet transitioned to 311.

The FY 2006-2007 Corridor Approach

In June of 2006, the Department proposed an outline of the SFClean Patrol Program, a list of actions and initiatives to improve the cleanliness of City streets. A major component of this new program is a "Corridor Approach" to intensively clean and maintain 100 blocks of city streets with the highest need and highest visibility.

The FY 2006-2007 budget for the Bureau of Street Environmental Services included funds for an additional 22 positions to implement this corridor program, positions which will manually sweep the 100 blocks during peak hours (Thursday through Monday, 12pm to 9pm). These 22 sweepers will provide oversight over their designated areas, and will act as block monitors, develop relationships with merchants, and report in requests for a variety of service areas, including structure repair, graffiti abatement, and service needs for other agencies.

As of the writing of this report, the corridor program was too early in its implementation for analysis to be possible. However, this new approach has received significant attention and resources, and is considered to be very promising. The Department should ensure that it allocates ample resources to the measurement and evaluation of the efficacy of this new approach, and utilizes this information to inform future changes in the program structure.

Staff Productivity and Attendance

Although the Bureau has programs or procedures to manage performance and attendance, the Bureau needs to improve its management of employee performance. The Bureau should manage sick leave and attendance to improve job performance and productivity.

The Bureau experiences significant lost work time due to work related injury and illness, personal or family eave, and sick leave, contributing to reduced productivity and understaffing. Of the 51,547 hours that the Bureau's 340 employees were scheduled to work in the month from May 19 through June 16, 2006, only 38,063 hours, or 73.8 percent, were actually worked. 7.39 percent of the scheduled hours were taken as sick leave (paid and unpaid) and 4.22 percent were taken as disability leave (paid and unpaid). The Bureau of Street Environmental Services is only exceeded by the Bureau of Urban Forestry in its level of unproductive use of scheduled work hours.

Further, in field visits with crews, it was observed that productivity was frequently lost due to absent staff. Crews in zones with missing personnel required supervisor oversight, trucks and equipment from other areas, which had to be re-routed or re-organized from their scheduled crews, resulting in productivity losses. Supervisors frequently noted that high rates of absenteeism impacted crew productivity.

The Bureau should work with the Department's human resources staff to review and evaluate existing protocols to monitor employees who are absent from work on extended sick or other types of leave. These efforts should include the identification of improvements in procedures to return employees to work through temporary transitional work assignments or American with Disabilities Act accommodations.

Conclusion

Measures of the cleanliness of the public right of ways show that the Bureau is not currently providing optimal service. The average monthly percentage of service requests unresolved within 48 hours has increased. The Bureau lacks productivity standards, adequate service request prioritization methods or other criteria to determine optimal allocation of resources, resulting in inefficient staffing plans and the aggravation of deferred maintenance issues. Despite having over a year's worth of data now, the Bureau has not significantly shifted resources based upon the information learned from Proposition C evaluations. The Bureau does not do an adequate job of collecting fines for litter citations it issues and needs to better coordinate graffiti abatement and billing procedures with other city agencies and departments. Finally, the Bureau experiences significant lost work time due to absenteeism, contributing to reduced productivity and understaffing.

Recommendations

The Director of Public Works should

2.1 Work with the Mayor and with Homeless Connect to set up a Homeless Connect team to address some of the public right of way areas with the most severe homeless encampments, and to coordinate City departments' resources and services to these areas.

The Deputy Director for Operations should:

2.2 Investigate the potential cost-savings and efficiency gains of using satellite staff reporting and equipment storage locations.

2.3 Develop a streamlined and uniform method for other City departments to report resolution of their 28-Clean service requests so the requests can be closed out in a timely fashion, in conjunction with the Computer Services Division .

2.4 Develop and implement a policy and methodology for the Bureau of Street Environmental Services to prioritize among competing immediate service requests and ongoing maintenance needs.

2.5 Direct the Bureau of Street Environmental Services Manager to develop formal productivity standards for street and graffiti maintenance personnel, and direct supervisors to allocate staff according to these standards.

2.6 Evaluate the potential of using non-managerial staff or an outside to perform the Proposition C inspections, instead of more costly managerial staff.

2.7 Use the data from the Proposition C inspections to reallocate resources where prudent, such as to alter the frequency of certain street cleaning schedules.

2.8 Report the Bureau of Street Environmental Services compliance with Proposition C maintenance schedules.

2.9 Standardize the format and information content of the weekly reports submitted by Bureau of Street Environmental Services supervisors.

2.10 Work with the Mayor's Office, Police Department, and Director of Public Works to aggressively pursue other litter enforcement staffing models.

2.11 Investigate and implement procedural changes to litter enforcement, such as streamlining the procedures involved in processing citations.

2.12 Direct the Bureau of Street Environmental Services Manager to set-up work order agreements and billing procedures to accurately reflect any graffiti abatement work it does for other agencies and departments.

2.13 Ensure the allocation of resources to the measurement and evaluation of the new corridor approach, and utilize this information to inform future changes in the program structure.

2.14 Work with the Human Resources and the Health and Safety Division to identify causes of paid and unpaid sick and disability leave and actions that the Bureau can take to reduce the incidence of unpaid leave and increase the number of productive hours.

The Director of Finance and Administration should:

2.15 Develop procedures to ensure timely collection of litter citation fines.

Costs and Benefits

By altering street cleaning routes, using satellite locations, and decreasing absenteeism, the Department could realize cost savings not quantified. Additionally, the Department would realize $598,661 in fine revenues through collection of existing citation fines. The Department could realize additional but not quantified fine revenues through increased enforcement activity.