2019 COMMUNITY SURVEY - City of Tea Tree Gully · Methodology & Sample 5 Sample Accuracy 6...

2019 COMMUNITY

SURVEY

May 2019

Prepared bynewfocus Pty Ltd

nf: 9178 –ep/sp

PA

GE

2Table of Contents

Background and Objectives 3

Executive Summary 4

Methodology & Sample 5

Sample Accuracy 6

Interpretation of Report 7

Key Findings – CATI & Social Media 8

Full Results – CATI & Social Media 20

Key Findings – Online community 44

Full Results – Online community 50

Action Plan – section prepared by Council staff 72

PA

GE

3

The City of Tea Tree Gully has conducted an annual Community Survey for over 16 years. The survey seeks to

measure the community’s perception of Council’s performance and service delivery, and the level of satisfaction

residents have with key services.

For the last 10 years members of Council’s Community Panel (now Council’s online community ‘Have Your Say Tea

Tree Gully’) have been given the opportunity to complete the survey. This is administered at the same time as the

general community survey with results reported separately.

The survey questions focus on the following areas:

• Service awareness, usage and value

• Satisfaction with key services

• Community wellbeing

The questionnaire was revised in 2019, primarily in the community wellbeing section. The majority of questions

remained unchanged in order to allow for comparison of results over time.

This report outlines the results of the 2019 Community Survey.

Background & Objectives

PA

GE

4

newfocus was engaged to conduct the 2019 annual City of Tea Tree Gully Community Survey. This report presents

findings from this wave of research and tracks results over time. A total of 400 random members of the City of Tea

Tree Gully community were surveyed, with a further 378 surveys completed by members of the Council’s online

community ‘Have Your Say Tea Tree Gully’.

Key results from this round of research (excluding online community results):

• Waste services continue to be the most recalled and used services, with satisfaction very high (ranging from 91%

to 93%; except for the hard waste collection service, which received a moderate satisfaction rating of 67%).

• Proportion of those very satisfied reached the highest level since 2011 and the proportion of those dissatisfied

decreased by 2% from 2018 to the lowest level in three years.

• Despite the above, satisfaction with Council overall has declined due to a shift from satisfied to neither satisfied

nor dissatisfied.

• No statistically significant changes in satisfaction levels with specific services were observed in 2019. Satisfaction

with specific services remained stable, with some recording increased and some decreased ratings. Changes that

appear to be part of long-term trends were predominantly positive.

• Maintenance of foothpaths in the local area has been identified as area for improvement. This service has been

identified as one of the key drivers of satisfaction overall and had relatively low satisfaction levels.

• Overall, City of Tea Tree Gully residents have a positive wellbeing score of (78.2), which is higher than the

Australia’s average of 75.1. The score has declined slightly from 2018 (79.0) but this could be attributed to

changes in the survey and how the wellbeing question was asked.

Executive summary

PA

GE

5

Methodology & Sample

A sample of 400 surveys was collected by newfocus. A mixed methodology of CATI (phone) interviews and online surveys were

conducted, advertised through social media and hosted by newfocus. CATI surveys were conducted from 18th – 25th March 2019

and ran for an average of 12 minutes. The online social media surveys were collected from 18th – 22nd March 2019 and took an

average of 13 minutes to complete.

For the CATI interviews, respondents were randomly selected from postcodes within the Council area using random telephone

numbers sourced by newfocus. For the online surveys through social media, respondents were randomly selected based on their

location and screened as residents of the City of Tea Tree Gully.

To ensure that the sample was demographically representative, quotas on age and gender were used (in line with the City of Tea

Tree Gully demographic profile). The sample was stratified by ward to assure relatively even representation from the six wards

within the City of Tea Tree Gully Council area.

A further 378 surveys were collected through Council's online community

'Have Your Say Tea Tree Gully'.

All data was collected in line with international standard ISO:20252.

Segment Total

18-39 years 136

40-59 years 141

60+ years 123

Total 400

Age

Segment Total

CATI 300

Social Media 100

Total 400

Methodology

Segment Total

Steventon 63

Pedare 64

Hillcott 64

Drumminor 72

Balmoral 69

Water Gully 68

Total 400

Ward

Segment Total

Male 192

Female 208

Total 400

Gender

PA

GE

6

Sample Accuracy

*Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016 Census data – Tea Tree Gully LGA

Notes about accuracy levels

Error margin refers to the accuracy of results should you take a sample of the member population now compared to if you had

results for every single member. Calculation of the level of accuracy is based on the size of the population that your sample is drawn

from. The level of accuracy increases as the size of the sample approaches the size of the population. For example, if the level of

accuracy at one point in time is quoted at ±4.90%, this means that the measurement of items in the survey accurately represents the

measurement of these same items in the population, within a range of ±4.90%.

The calculation of error margin over time is based on the sample size taken at each point in time. This accuracy level illustrates the

percentage difference that is required between this study and the last study before a statistically significant difference wi ll be found

with the sample size selected. Accuracy over time is generally quoted in the form of ±x%. In this instance, where the sample at each

point in time is 400, and is quoted as accuracy over time of ±6.92%, this means that there must be a difference of ±6.92% between

the last study and this recent study for a statistically significant difference at the .05 level to be found. Some figures that have seen a

change over time may be expected to be significant yet are not highlighted as such. This may be because they are only significant at

an accuracy level of 90%. newfocus will report on significant differences only when they are at 95% or 99% and where the ‘n’ value

is a minimum of 30 in each wave of research.

Population* Sample Error MarginError Margin Over

Time

Residents of the City of

Tea Tree Gully97,734 400 ±4.90 ±6.92

Sample Accuracy

PA

GE

7

Tables and charts are reported in percentage results. Due to rounding

some scores may range from 99% to 101%.

n = value

The n= value in the tables and charts represents the total number of

respondents included in the study and the number of respondents that

answered a specific question (excluding ‘don’t know’ responses except

where noted).

n ~ value

In some cases n~ is used. This represents the average number of

respondents across two or more questions.

Use of top/bottom-two box terminology

• top-2-box (T2B) refers to combined responses of somewhat/very

satisfied, agree/strongly agree, somewhat/very important etc

• bottom-2-box (B2B) refers to combined responses of somewhat

unsatisfied/not satisfied at all etc

Interpretation of ReportHow results are reported

Statistically significant differences

All changes reported as “significant” in this report indicate statistically

significant differences.

Between segments

A cross-tabulation or Z-test is a common method of describing whether

a relationship exists between two or more variables, ie it allows us to

statistically test whether the differences we note in the sample are

genuine differences or simply chance occurrences.

Relationships are said to be statistically significant (referenced later in

the report as “significant” or “stat. sig.”) if the P value (Z-test statistic) is

less than the chosen significance level. For example, if .05 (5%) is

selected as that level, a P value less than .05 implies that there is a

relationship between the two variables that have been cross-tabulated.

The only outcomes which have been reported on are those found to be

statistically significant at P< .05.

Over time

These symbols have been used on the charts to

identify where a statistically significant difference

over time (between 2018 & 2019) was found, and ↓

or ↑ used in tables.

Satisfaction: combined ‘top-2-box’

scores

(T2B – satisfied + very satisfied)

Very high 90%+

High 80%-89%

Relatively high 70-79%

Moderate 60-69%

Relatively low 50%-59%

Low 49% or less

Dissatisfaction: combined ‘bottom-2-

box’ scores

(B2B – dissatisfied + very dissatisfied)

Minimal 4% or less

Low 5%-9%

Moderate 10%-14%

Relatively high 15%-19%

High 20% or more

Legend for satisfaction and

dissatisfaction with services and aspects

of CTTG:

Reporting of results

This report outlines results for the combined CATI and social

media sample and separately reports results for the online

community sample.

SECTION 1

Key findings

CATI & Social Media Data

PA

GE

9

Most important Council services remain unchanged,

with waste/garbage collection seen as a priority1.1 Council services

Q29, Q8, Q10

Importance(all mentioned)

Unprompted

awareness(first mentioned)

Unprompted

stated usage

2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019*

Waste/garbage collection 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st

Parks & reserves 3rd 2nd 4th 4th 4th 3rd

Roads/maintenance 2nd 3rd 3rd 3rd 6th 7th

Library 4th 4th 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd

*In 2019, other services ranked high in terms of usage were as follows:

4th Green waste

5th Recycling

6th Hard waste collection

» Consistent with the past 8 years, waste/garbage collection remains the top-of-mind service provided by Council. It

is the first service that comes to mind when thinking of services Council provides, it is considered the most

important and it is stated as the most used.

» Roads, parks & reserves and the Library are the other most important and most recalled services provided by

Council

» Stated usage of other waste related services: green waste, recycling and hard waste collection is relatively high,

but they are seen as an area of lower priority for Council.

PA

GE

10

Waste/garbage collection remains the most recalled service,

followed by parks & reserves, the Library and roads/maintenance.1.2 Unprompted awareness of Council services

Changes in awareness of services over the past 12 months

» The most recalled services did not change from 12 months ago, with waste/garbage collection standing out as the most salient service

provided by the Council.

» Recall of more specific waste collection services declined, with statistically significant decreases for green waste and hard waste

collection. While 2018 awareness levels for those services were relatively high, 2019 awareness for green waste and hard waste collection

was below that from 2017 :

» The decline in awareness of specific waste collection services was seen across the board when it comes to age and gender of

respondents.

» Females and those aged 60+ saw statistically significant decreases in awareness for both green waste and hard waste collection.

» The only other statistically significant change from 2018 was for the recall of Waterworld, which decreased from 6% in 2018 to 2% in 2019,

with decreases recorded for all age groups and genders (although these decreases were not statistically significant)

Waste/garbage

collectionLibraryParks &

reserves

Roads/

maintenance

Most recalled services

(total mentioned)

80% 47% 38% 33%

2017 2018 2019

Waste/garbage collection 81% 80% 80%

Green waste 26% 31% 20%

Hard waste 22% 29% 17%

Recycling 16% 24% 19%

PA

GE

11

Statistically significant differences in awareness by age

» As in 2018, younger residents (18-39) were less likely than older residents to name a waste collection service

– Statistically significantly less likely to be aware of the green waste service, recycling, hard waste collection

and general waste/garbage collection

» That group was also statistically less likely to spontaneously mention library service, footpaths, street trees and

verge maintenance.

» 18-39 year olds were the most likely of all age groups to be aware of the provision of events (stat. sig.)

» 40-59 year olds were the most likely of all groups to spontaneously mention green waste and hard waste

collection, street/trees maintenance and verge maintenance (all stat. sig.)

» Residents 60+ were statistically significantly more likely than other groups to recall waste/garbage collection,

provision of footpaths, street sweeping, library service and Commonwealth Home Support Program. Those 70+

were statistically significantly most likely to recall Community Bus/Transport Service; whereas hard waste

collection and events were less likely to be recalled by residents 60+ (all stat. sig.)

Statistically significant differences in awareness by gender

» Females were less likely than males to recall parks and reserves and green waste and recycling.

» Among older residents (60+), females were less likely to mention roads. This group was most likely to recall

Community Bus/Transport Service which would suggest that females in that older group might be less likely to

drive and more often rely on transport provided by Council.

Awareness of services differed by age and gender1.2 Unprompted awareness of Council services cont/d

PA

GE

12

The top four services with the highest stated unprompted usage are the same as in the last 3 years. Library returned to the 2nd

position in the ranking (3rd in 2018), parks and reserves moved to 3rd position (4th in 2018) and green waste shifted to the 4th

position, with statistically significant decline in stated usage (23% in 2019 vs. 34% in 2018).

Changes in stated usage of other services over the past 12 months

» Stated usage of all waste collection services except waste/garbage collection has decreased statistically significantly since 2018 (with

the scores returning to levels similar to those from 2017).

» Another statistically significant change is decline in stated usage of Waterworld (from 5% to 2%).

Stated usage by age and gender

» Residents aged 40-59 years remain more engaged with Council, generally stating higher usage of Council services than those aged

18-39 and 60+. However, in that group (40-59 y.o.) stated usage of waste services decreased substantially in 2019.

» Residents 18-39 were most likely to state they don’t use any services (8%) and were statistically significantly less likely to use most

waste services and library.

» Females were less likely than males to state that they use waste services and their stated usage declined significantly from 2018 for

hard waste, green waste and recycling.

Waste/garbage

collection

The services with the top stated usage have remained

unchanged for the past 3 years1.3 Usage of Council services

Total Aged 18-39 Aged 40-59 Aged 60+ Males Females

2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019

Greenwaste 34% 23% 15% 18% 47% 27% 39% 24% 31% 28% 36% 18%

Recycling 27% 19% 16% 13% 33% 22% 32% 21% 25% 24% 28% 14%

Hard waste collection 27% 18% 15% 11% 41% 32% 25% 11% 25% 17% 30% 19%

LibraryParks &

reserves

Most used services

75% 26% 23%33%

Green waste

collection

PA

GE

13

72% 72% 74% 69%54%

2016(n=410)

2017(n=403)

2018(n=397)

2019(n=398)

NationalCouncil

Benchmark

% T

2B

sa

tis

fac

tio

n

16% 13% 19% 21%

56% 59%55% 48%

20% 20% 17% 24%

6% 6%5% 5%

2% 1% 4% 2%

2016 (n=410) 2017 (n=403) 2018 (n=397) 2019 (n=398)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither satisfied nordissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

Overall satisfaction level declined, with growing proportion of those

neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

1.4 Satisfaction with Council performance overall

Overall satisfaction has decreased, with growing

segment of those that are indifferent

» Proportion of those very satisfied with the Council

continued to increase to the highest level since 2011.

» There has been a slight decline in the proportion of

those dissatisfied/very dissatisfied, while at the same

time overall satisfaction has decreased due to an

increase in indifference (neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied).

Q11/Q12

67% 63% 65% 69%76% 72% 72% 74% 69%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

T2B satisfaction

Reasons for dissatisfaction with Council

performance overall (n=27)

» In 2019 the main reason for dissatisfaction

was value for money, with residents

complaining about high council rates

(mentioned by 8 people)

» Poor maintenance of verges, the top

complaint in 2018, remained high on the list

(mentioned by 6 people)

PA

GE

14

#5

Control of litter and rubbish

Drivers of overall satisfaction with Council

performance1.4 Overall satisfaction with Council performance cont/d

Higher statistical analysis was conducted to

identify which services/areas are most

strongly contributing to overall satisfaction

with Council performance. In order of

influence, the following services/areas were

found to have the strongest influence on

whether someone is satisfied with Council

overall.

#1

Opportunity to have their

say

#2

Maintenance of footpaths in local area

#3

Waste collection

service overall

#4

Appearance of roadside

verges

Overall

satisfaction

with Council

PA

GE

15

In 2019 more areas reached high satisfaction levels1.5 Satisfaction with Council Services

Areas of very high satisfaction

• Waste collection service overall

• Green waste collection

• Recycling services

• Council’s library services

Areas of high satisfaction

• Provision of parks, reserves and

playing fields

• Provision of playgrounds

• Major events

Areas of relatively high

satisfaction

• Maintenance of parks, reserves

and playing fields

• Maintenance of playgrounds

• Control of litter and rubbish

• Council’s recreation centres

• Waterworld

Areas of moderate satisfaction

• Hard waste collection

• Condition of main roads

• Provision of street trees

• Provision of community centres,

services and programs

• Provision of arts and cultural

performances and activities

Areas of relatively low satisfaction

• Condition of local or residential roads

• Provision of footpaths in local area

• Appearance of roadside verges in local area

• Maintenance of street trees

• Opportunity to have your say on issues affecting your

area

Areas of low

satisfaction

• Maintenance

of footpaths

in local area

Top

performing

areas:

Areas for

improvement:

Council Services

» All Council services have been classified into categories based on satisfaction scores (T2B – combined

very satisfied or satisfied)

» The top performing areas relate to most waste services and library; importantly those are areas of high

importance and/or usage

» Priority areas for improvement include maintenance of footpaths in local area (with lowest satisfaction

level) and condition of local or residential roads (area of relatively low satisfaction and high importance)

PA

GE

16

No significant changes in satisfaction with services were

reported in the past 12 months1.6 Largest changes in satisfaction with Council Services over the past 12 months

ImprovementsThere were no significant increases in satisfaction with

services among residents in 2019.

Areas where satisfaction increased at least 3% or has increased for more

than two waves of study include:

» Condition of main roads (62%, up by 3%, increasing for second consecutive year)

» Major events (88%, up by 2%, increasing for sixth consecutive year)

» Provision of playgrounds (81%, up by 2%, increasing for third consecutive year)

» Waste collection (93%, up by 1%, increasing for third consecutive year)

» Appearance of roadside verges in your local area (53%, up by 1%, increasing for second

consecutive year)

Declines There were no significant declines in satisfaction with

services among residents in 2019.

Some areas had reported satisfaction levels lower than in 2018. Changes,

although not significant, should be monitored in future years. Areas that

decreased by at least 3% or have decreased for more than one wave include:

» Council’s Recreation Centres (70%, down by 6%)

» Maintenance of footpaths in local area (49%, down by 4%)

» Provision of parks, reserves and playing fields (82%, down by 4%)

» Provision of footpaths in local area (56%, down by 3%)

» Provision of street trees (63%, down by 3%)

» Provision of community centres, services and programs (68%, down by 3%)

» Waterworld (76%, down by 2%; note: satisfaction with Waterworld has seen incremental

decrease in satisfaction for the third year in a row).

PA

GE

17

Majority of aspects of Personal Wellbeing Index and satisfaction with life as a

whole declined. This could at least partly be attributed to changes in the survey1.7 Community wellbeing

2018 2019T3B% change

from 2018T3B% B3B% T3B% B3B%

Life as a whole* 77 2 65 2 -12↓

Your personal relationships 80 2 77 2 -3

Your standard of living 75 1 72 1 -3

How safe you feel 74 2 71 0 -3

What you are currently achieving in life 68 2 64 1 -4

Your future security 61 3 62 1 +1

Your health 68 2 61 2 -7↓

Feeling part of your community 47 5 46 4 -1

Ratings of satisfaction with different aspects of residents’ wellbeing have decreased for most aspects

» Satisfaction with life as a whole decreased significantly (down 12%)

» Satisfaction with own health also decreased significantly (down 7%) with all other items except for satisfaction with future security

decreasing slightly.

» Importantly, changes to survey instrument were introduced in 2019 that might have affected the wellbeing scores, particularly for

life as a whole:

– Satisfaction with life as a whole (Global Life Satisfaction - GLS) was asked first as a separate question, before the seven

items of satisfaction which form the basis of the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) scale. In previous years, the PWI items and

the GLS were asked as part of one multiple rating question

– There has also been a minor change to the wording of the descriptors used at each end of the scale for the GLS and PWI

questions. In previous years the scale ranged from “Very satisfied” to “Very dissatisfied” and in 2019 the scale was adjusted in

line with the Australian Centre on Quality of Life guidelines to range from “Completely satisfied” to “Not satisfied at all”. The

number of points on the scale (11) was unchanged

*Life as a whole asked as a separate question (Q1N19) and not included as part of Q1N14

Scale changed for all items (from Very satisfied/Very dissatisfied to Completely satisfied/Not satisfied at all”.

0% represents n=1

PA

GE

18

Satisfaction with different aspects of wellbeing varies by age; survey

method also impacts on results

1.7 Community wellbeing

%T3B response

Gender Age

Male Female 18-39 50-49 60+

Phone SM Phone SM Phone SM Phone SM Phone SM

Life as a whole* 65 58 72 54 70 59 68 23 68 69

Your standard of living 75 62 78 59 75 67 71 33 83 46

Your health 66 47 63 51 66 55 69 8 60 54

What you are currently achieving in life 68 53 70 47 66 52 66 25 73 62

Your personal relationships 84 67 79 63 84 66 78 45 84 75

How safe you feel 78 70 69 60 74 66 72 46 74 77

Feeling part of your community 50 38 49 33 52 39 45 15 53 38

Your future security 66 53 66 43 61 53 61 17 76 46

Age

%T3B response

Combined phone and Social media

sample

18-39 40-59 60+

Life as a whole* 64 64 68

Your standard of living 71 68 79

Your health 60 64 59

What you are currently achieving in life 58 63 72

Your personal relationships 74 76 83

How safe you feel 69 70 74

Feeling part of your community 45 42 51

Your future security 57 57 73

Age differences:

» There were some differences in wellbeing across age, with older residents generally

more satisfied across the different wellbeing items, with significantly higher scores for

that group on satisfaction with achieving in life and future security.

Sampling methodology differences:

» Although overall differences by sampling

methodology could be explained by

differences in results by age group and

gender, when broken down further, there

were still some differences by

methodology.

» Sub-groups (males, females and age

groups) who completed the survey via

social media were less satisfied with

some elements of their lives as outlined

below, possibly due to a social desirability

effect amongst the CATI sample.

*Life as a whole asked as a separate question first (Q1N19), before Q1N14

Note: text in blue indicates result is statistically significantly higher than other sub-groups. Text in red indicates result is

statistically significantly lower than other sub-groups.

Note: text in blue indicates result is statistically significantly higher than other methodology type. Text in red indicates

result is statistically significantly lower than other methodology type.

PA

GE

19

The wellbeing of City of Tea Tree Gully residents is

higher than the Australian average

Note: In this year's report the City of Tea Tree Gully's Wellbeing Index does not include satisfaction with life as a whole, in line with Personal Wellbeing Index

Manual (The Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University, 2003). PWI for Australia based on the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Report 35.0

(Capic, T., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M., Cummins, R. A., Khor, S., Richardson, B., Greenwood, C., Olsson, C., & Hutchinson, D. (2018). Australian Unity

Wellbeing Index: Report 35.0, Financial Control. Geelong: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University.

http://www.acqol.com.au/projects#reports..

“

CITY OF TEA TREE GULLY

PHONE/SOCIAL MEDIA

78.2


ONLINE COMMUNITY

79.2

(2018 = 79.0)

(2018 = 79.9)

SECTION 2

Full resultsCATI & Social Media

PA

GE

21

Waste collection services continue to be the most recalled; green

waste and hard waste collection services declined in awareness2.1 Unprompted awareness of services provided to residents

Q8/Q9

Note: 0% represents n=2 or less

Only responses of 5% and above for All mentioned in 2019 are shown

% response

First mentioned Others mentioned All mentioned

2016

(n=412)

2017

(n=405)

2018

(n=399)

2019

(n=398)

2016

(n=407)

2017

(n=381)

2018

(n=380)

2019

(n=366)

2016

(n=412)

2017

(n=405)

2018

(n=399)

2019

(n=398)

Waste/garbage collection 53 50 52 51 38 33 29 32 91 81 80 80

Parks & reserves 5 8 9 4 43 40 41 46 47 46 48 47

Library 11 10 10 8 37 34 28 33 48 42 37 38

Roads/maintenance 7 6 8 7 20 27 27 29 27 31 34 33

Greenwaste 4 2 2 2 24 26 30 20 28 26 31 20

Footpaths 2 1 3 2 17 23 17 20 19 23 19 20

Recycling 1 - 1 2 23 17 24 18 24 16 24 19

Street trees/maintenance - 2 1 3 14 14 23 17 14 16 22 18

Street sweeping 3 2 2 2 11 12 13 16 14 13 14 17

Hard waste collection 4 2 4 3 24 22 27 14 27 22 29 17

Verge maintenance 1 2 2 1 10 19 17 16 10 20 18 16

Events (eg Civic Park

Carols, AusDay, Civic Park

Movies, Touch a Truck)

0 1 - 1 7 13 13 11 8 14 12 11

Dog registration/control 1 1 1 1 8 10 11 9 8 10 11 9

Community Bus/Transport

Service0 1 1 1 6 6 7 6 7 7 7 7

Playgrounds 0 0 0 0 7 8 8 7 7 7 8 7

Recreation Centres/facilities 0 - - 0 8 5 4 5 8 5 4 5

Commonwealth Home

Support Program (formerly

HACC)

0 - 1 1 5 4 7 4 6 3 7 5

Ovals and sporting grounds - - - - 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5

PA

GE

22

Waste services usage continues to be relatively high, significant

decline in stated usage occurred in specific waste services2.2 Services used

Q10

Only responses of 3% and above for 2019 are shown

% response

2016

(n=408)

2017

(n=395)

2018

(n=387)

2019

(n=397)

Waste/garbage collection 76 67 74 75

Library 41 34 31 33

Parks & reserves 32 30 28 26

Greenwaste 28 24 34 23

Recycling 21 16 27 19

Hard waste collection 29 23 27 18

Roads/maintenance 13 10 14 17

Footpaths 8 8 7 11

Events (eg Civic Park Carols, Australia Day, Civic Park Movies) 6 6 7 8

Dog registration/control 7 5 5 5

Street trees/maintenance 6 4 4 5

Playgrounds 7 6 7 5

None/in particular 2 3 3 5

Justice of the Peace 2 1 2 4

Street sweeping 3 1 3 4

Community Bus/Transport Service 2 3 2 3

Ovals and sporting grounds 2 2 3 3

Immunisation service 4 4 3 3

Recreation Centres/facilities (Golden Grove, Turramurra, Burragah) 6 4 2 3

PA

GE

23

16% 13% 19% 21%

56% 59%55% 48%

20% 20% 17% 24%

6% 6%5% 5%

2% 1% 4% 2%

2016 (n=410) 2017 (n=403) 2018 (n=397) 2019 (n=398)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

Almost 7 in 10 residents are satisfied with Council, with

a shift from satisfaction towards indifference 2.3 Satisfaction with Council’s performance overall

Q11

72% 72% 74% 69% T2B

No statistically significant differences in satisfaction levels by age or gender were recorded this year.

PA

GE

24

Poor value for money was the most common

reason for dissatisfaction in 2019

Q12

Note interpret with caution due to small sample sizes

% response

2016 (n=34) 2017 (n=31) 2018 (n=35) 2019 (n=27)

High council rates/poor value for money/regardless of property value/increased for business/vacant

blocks- 10 9 30

Poor maintenance of verges/parks/reserves/litter/broken glass/dying grass/plants/overhanging trees 24 32 17 19

Roads/poorly maintained/designed/flood 24 6 9 11

Don't do enough/what they say they will/only the bare minimum/all talk no action 3 6 9 11

The rates we pay are higher than other council areas but the services provided are the same/less 3 - 3 11

Footpaths/poorly maintained/uneven/lack of/none on either side of the road for years 24 10 11 7

Customer service/poor/unhelpful/rude 12 3 3 7

Distribution of resources/should do so more effectively/unequal/given to newer areas for

maintenance/older/rural areas forgotten3 - 9 7

Overall maintenance/presentation of area/poor - - 3 7

Rates are high/have gone up/but the services provided have remained the same/reduced/do not

equate6 - 9 7

Don't spend money wisely/waste on executive pay packets/poor decision making/travel/overseas

trips/rock concerts15 3 6 4

Unnecessary removal of trees/roses/replacing with unsightly plants/shrubs - 3 - 4

Street cleaning/maintenance not often enough/should be done after storms/rubbish collection not

before- 10 3 4

Traffic control issues/poor planning/hoons/speeding drivers - 3 - 4

Parking/inadequate/especially around schools/hospitals 3 - - 4

Council have become too bureaucratic - - - 4

Hard refuse collection/would like more frequently - 10 - 4

Too much high density housing/no back yards for children to play in - - - 4

Poor development decisions/no regard for environment or existing residents/should not develop

farm land into residential zone/subdivision/rezone to allow multi-storey buildings- - 6 4

Building approval process/takes too long 9 - - 4

Don't do enough for the elderly 3 - - 4

No reason given - - - 4

Against local government in general/should not exist - - - 4

2.4 Reasons for dissatisfaction with Council’s performance

PA

GE

25

Waste collection services continue to perform

well, with the exception of hard waste collection2.5 Satisfaction with services - waste collection services

Q14

Waste collection services

2016 2017 2018 2019 T2B%

change

from 2018T2B% B2B% T2B% B2B% T2B% B2B% T2B% B2B%

Green waste collection 88 3 91 2 90 3 91 2 +1

Recycling services 87 4 90 2 89 3 91 2 +2

Hard waste collection - - - - 65 15 67 14 +2

Waste collection service overall 90 3 91 1 92 2 93 2 +1

Residents 60+ were statistically significantly more satisfied across all waste services. No other demographic

differences were observed.

Top 3 most common reasons for dissatisfaction with the hard waste service included:

» Low frequency of the service (not enough collections days a year) – mentioned by 52% of those dissatisfied

» Size restrictions (and difficulty to measure the size) – mentioned by 23% of those dissatisfied

» Items being left by the collection company – mentioned by 15% of those dissatisfied

PA

GE

26

Overall satisfaction with waste services has

held steady2.5 Satisfaction with services - waste collection services cont/d

Q14

0% represents n=2 or less

54% 55% 56% 54%

36% 37% 36% 40%

7% 8% 7% 5%

3% 1% 2% 2%0% 0% 1%

2016 (n=412) 2017 (n=405) 2018 (n=400) 2019 (n=400)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither satisfiednor dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

Waste collection services overall

53% 55% 58% 59%

35% 36% 32% 32%

9% 8% 8% 7%

3% 1% 2% 1%0% 1% 1%

2016 (n=409) 2017 (n=398) 2018 (n=394) 2019 (n=397)

Green waste collection

54% 54% 57% 56%

33% 36% 32% 35%

9% 8% 8% 7%4% 2% 2% 1%0% 0% 1% 1%

2016 (n=412) 2017 (n=402) 2018 (n=396) 2019 (n=399)

Recycling services Hard waste collection

39% 39%

26% 28%

20% 20%

12% 11%

3% 2%

2018 (n=353) 2019 (n=350)

Satisfaction with hard waste is much

lower than other waste collection

services. This is due to a larger

proportion of residents responding that

they are neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied – which may be due to

lower usage. There is also a higher

proportion of dissatisfaction, which

relates to the frequency of the service.

However, mentions of this reason

have decreased in 2019.

PA

GE

27

Infrequency of service and size restrictions are the two main

reasons for dissatisfaction2.5 Satisfaction with services - reasons for rating for hard waste collection services

Q1N18

0% represents n=1

% response – Q14 – Hard waste collection

Satisfied to very satisfiedNeither satisfied nor

dissatisfied

Dissatisfied to very

dissatisfiedDon't know

2018 (n=230) 2019 (n=231) 2018 (n=71) 2019 (n=67) 2018 (n=52) 2019 (n=48) 2018 (n=47) 2019 (n=49)

Efficient/prompt service/no issues 57 65 6 4 - 2 - -

Useful/saves effort of going to dump 20 14 - 1 - - - -

Two pickups per year is suitable 3 10 - 1 - 2 - -

Easy to book/just need to ring - 9 - 1 - - - -

Inexpensive/cheaper/free - 7 - - - - - -

Not enough collection days a year/wait time too long 11 6 45 34 56 52 4 -

Haven't used the service/not for a long time 4 3 14 19 - 2 70 96Size restrictions/difficult to judge/cut to right size 1 2 6 13 2 23 - -

Customer service/helpful 20 2 1 - - - - -

Don't have a need for the service - 1 1 3 - - 15 10

Website/easy to use 1 1 - - - - - -

Late/delayed/inconsistent time 1 1 4 - 6 4 - -

Stops illegal dumping - 1 - - - - - -

Only take specific items 1 1 8 6 19 4 - -

Other Council's don't provide service/charge for it 4 1 - - - - - -

Leave rubbish behind 1 1 1 6 6 15 - -

No set dates 1 1 - - 4 - - -

Information provided about what is collected/clear - 1 - - - - - -

Positive word of mouth (e.g. neighbours) 4 0 - 1 - - - -

Difficult/hassle to organise 0 0 1 4 6 10 - -

Missed our street/no pickup - 0 3 1 4 4 - -

Don't know - 0 3 1 - - 2 2

Other (unrelated to hard waste) 2 0 3 4 2 2 - -Communicate scheduled pick ups/all households on street

advised so pick ups happen at one time- 0 - - - 4 - -

Environmentally friendly - 0 - - - - - -

Preparation of items required before pick up/annoying - 0 - - - 2 - -

Monthly pick ups/happy with this frequency - 0 - - - - - -

Instructions for collection/not clear - 0 - - - - - -

Don't recycle/should separate items and recycle if possible - 0 - - - 4 - -

Website/complicated - - - 1 - - - -

People put out too early/unsightly 1 - 1 4 - 2 - -

Bad experience (unspecified) - - 1 - - - - -

Costs too much/can't afford - - - - 2 - - -

Loud/noisy 0 - - - - - - -

No confirmation received from Council - - 1 - 4 - - -

Don't know enough information - - 8 9 12 4 13 4

Poor customer service - - - - 2 4 - -

People add to pile/make over-size 0 - - 3 2 2 - -

PA

GE

28

Satisfaction with condition of main roads improved slightly while

satisfaction with footpaths slightly declined in 20192.6 Satisfaction with services - roads and footpaths

Roads and footpaths

Q15

2016 2017 2018 2019 T2B%

change


Condition of local or residential roads 54 17 54 18 59 16 59 12 -

Condition of main roads (generally dual

lane roads and high traffic roads)60 14 51 15 59 13 62 12 +3

Provision of footpaths in your local area 43 29 49 31 59 18 56 19 -3

Maintenance of footpaths in your local area 39 32 43 33 53 22 49 21 -4

Appearance of roadside verges in your

local area43 28 43 26 52 21 53 17 +1

PA

GE

29

10% 12% 16% 15%

44% 42%43% 44%

29% 28% 25% 29%

11% 13% 13% 10%

6% 5% 4% 3%

2016 (n=411) 2017 (n=405) 2018 (n=399) 2019 (n=399)

9% 12% 18% 13%

34% 32%34% 39%

29% 31%28% 31%

15% 15%13% 8%

13% 11% 8% 8%

2016 (n=407) 2017 (n=399) 2018 (n=400) 2019 (n=398)

No significant changes in satisfaction with

roads and footpaths were observed2.6 Satisfaction with services - roads and footpaths cont/d

Q15

Condition of main roadsCondition of local or residential

roads

Provision of footpaths in your

local area


local areaMaintenance of footpaths in your local area

10% 14% 19% 21%

33%35%

40% 35%

28% 21%

23% 26%

14% 19%9% 11%

15% 11% 9% 7%

2016 (n=400) 2017 (n=401) 2018 (n=395) 2019 (n=397)

8% 12% 17% 14%

31%31%

37%35%

29% 24%

25% 31%

16% 19%

13% 14%16% 14% 9% 6%

2016 (n=401) 2017 (n=397) 2018 (n=391) 2019 (n=394)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

16% 10% 15% 16%

45%41%

44% 47%

25%34%

28% 26%

12% 11% 9% 9%

3% 3% 4% 3%

2016 (n=408) 2017 (n=405) 2018 (n=397) 2019 (n=400)

PA

GE

30

Satisfaction with aspects of the local area declined slightly

except for provision of playgrounds

Parks, playground and trees

2.7 Satisfaction with services - aspects of the local area

2016 2017 2018 2019T2B%

change

from

2018T2B% B2B% T2B% B2B% T2B% B2B% T2B% B2B%

Provision of parks, reserves and playing fields 77 6 83 4 86 3 82 5 -4

Maintenance of parks, reserves and playing fields 73 8 78 7 79 5 78 7 -1

Provision of playgrounds 70 11 78 6 79 5 81 5 +2

Maintenance of playgrounds 70 8 75 7 81 4 79 5 -2

Provision of street trees 57 17 62 13 66 14 63 16 -3

Maintenance of street trees 49 25 49 23 57 21 55 19 -2

Control of litter and rubbish 70 11 66 12 75 9 74 7 -1

Q16

PA

GE

31

8% 12% 17% 14%

31%31%

37%35%

29% 24%

25% 31%

16% 19%

13% 14%16% 14% 9% 6%

2016 (n=401) 2017 (n=397) 2018 (n=391) 2019 (n=394)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

28% 29% 32% 31%

43% 47%49% 48%

22% 18%16% 16%

6% 6% 3% 4%

2% 1% 1% 1%

2016 (n=360) 2017 (n=374) 2018 (n=351) 2019 (n=359)

Provision of playgrounds trending up for fourth

consecutive year2.7 Satisfaction with services - aspects of the local area cont/d

Q16

0% represents n=1

34% 36% 36% 35%

44%47% 50% 48%

17%13% 11% 13%

4% 4% 3% 3%

2% 0% 2%

2016 (n=406) 2017 (n=403) 2018 (n=389) 2019 (n=394)

Provision of parks, reserves and playing

fields

Maintenance of parks, reserves and playing

fields

27% 28% 31% 31%

46% 50% 48% 47%

20% 16% 17% 15%

5% 6% 3% 5%

2% 1% 2% 2%

2016 (n=404) 2017 (n=399) 2018 (n=390) 2019 (n=391)

Provision of playgrounds Maintenance of playgrounds

26% 28% 32% 33%

44%50% 48% 48%

19%16% 16% 15%

8% 6% 4% 3%

3% 1% 1% 2%

2016 (n=371) 2017 (n=379) 2018 (n=364) 2019 (n=372)

PA

GE

32

Provision of playgrounds trending up for fourth

consecutive year2.7 Satisfaction with services - aspects of the local area cont/d

Q16

Provision of street trees Maintenance of street tress


22% 22% 25% 23%

36% 40%41% 41%

25% 25% 21% 21%

12% 9% 9% 10%

5% 5% 5% 6%

2016 (n=409) 2017 (n=400) 2018 (n=398) 2019 (n=398)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

16% 15% 17% 17%

33% 34%39% 38%

26% 29%22% 26%

15% 16% 16% 11%

10%

7% 5%8%

2016 (n=406) 2017 (n=399) 2018 (n=398) 2019 (n=397)

20% 20% 26% 25%

50% 46%50% 49%

20% 22%16% 19%

6% 9% 7% 5%

5% 3% 2% 1%

2016 (n=408) 2017 (n=404) 2018 (n=399) 2019 (n=398)

PA

GE

33

Small decline in provision of community centres, services

and programs after trending upwards in previous years2.8 Satisfaction with services - provision of community centres, services and programs

17% 18% 23% 23%

46%50%

48% 44%

32%28% 26% 29%

5% 3% 2% 3%

1% 1% 1%

2016 (n=327) 2017 (n=325) 2018 (n=314) 2019 (n=308)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

2016 2017 2018 2019 T2B%

change


Provision of community centres,

services and programs63 6 69 3 71 3 68 3 -3

Q18_1, Q2n17

Note that in 2017 onward provision of community centres, services and programs

asked as a separate question (Q2n17) and not included as part of Q18

PA

GE

34

Satisfaction with library services and major events

continues to trend up

Arts, leisure and community orientated programs and services

2.9 Satisfaction with services - arts and leisure

2016 2017 2018 2019 T2B%

change


The provision of arts and cultural

performances and activities, for

example art exhibitions, theatre

shows and events at the library

56 8 63 6 65 7 65 3 -

Major events, for example Civic

Park Carols, AusDay, Touch a

Truck and Civic Park Movies)

76 4 83 4 86 4 88 2 +2

Council's Recreation Centres 67 6 76 4 76 2 70 3 -6

Waterworld 81 3 79 3 78 4 76 4 -2

Council's Library services 86 1 87 1 87 2 90 1 +3

Q18

PA

GE

35

No significant changes observed in arts and leisure; however,

minimal declines in satisfaction with Waterworld continue over time2.9 Satisfaction with services - arts and leisure cont/d

Q18

0% represents n=1

The provision of arts & cultural

performances & activities

12%19% 25% 26%

44%44%

40% 39%

36%32% 28% 32%

7% 5% 5% 3%

1% 1% 2%

2016 (n=301) 2017 (n=309) 2018 (n=266) 2019 (n=269)

29% 34%45% 47%

47%48%

41% 41%

20%14% 10% 10%

3% 2% 2% 2%

1% 1% 1% 0%

2016 (n=357) 2017 (n=353) 2018 (n=334) 2019 (n=348)

Major events Council’s Recreation Centres

19% 25% 26% 24%

48%51% 50%

46%

28%21% 22% 27%

5% 3% 2% 3%

1% 0% 1% 0%

2016 (n=323) 2017 (n=313) 2018 (n=287) 2019 (n=293)

32% 33% 33% 29%

49% 46% 45% 47%

16% 18% 18% 20%

3% 2% 3% 4%0% 1% 1%

2016 (n=311) 2017 (n=298) 2018 (n=287) 2019 (n=288)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

Waterworld Council’s Library services

42% 47% 50% 50%

44%41% 37% 40%

13% 11% 10% 9%1% 1% 2%

0% 1% 1%

2016 (n=356) 2017 (n=348) 2018 (n=326) 2019 (n=340)

PA

GE

36

Agreement that residents have opportunity to have their say, the

top driver of overall satisfaction, increased slightly2.10 Agreement that you have opportunity to have a say on issues that affect your area

Q26a

12% 15% 10% 13%

50% 39% 44% 44%

25%29% 29% 28%

10% 13% 12% 10%

3% 4% 5% 5%

2016 (n=408) 2017 (n=387) 2018 (n=385) 2019 (n=386)

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nordisagree

Agree

Strongly agree

2015 2016 2017 2018 T2B%

change


Opportunity to have your say on

issues affecting your area62 13 53 17 54 17 57 15 +3

PA

GE

37

Waste/garbage collection continues to be the key priority for residents,

while mention of roads/maintenance has significantly declined

2.11 Most important services provided by Council

Q29

Note: only responses of 4% and above in the 2019 total column are included

0% presents n=2 or less

% response

Total Most important 2nd most important 3rd most important

2016

(n=412)

2017

(n=404)

2018

(n=400)

2019

(n=400)

2016

(n=412)

2017

(n=404)

2018

(n=398)

2019

(n=400)

2016

(n=395)

2017

(n=388)

2018

(n=394)

2019

(n=390)

2016

(n=380)

2017

(n=367)

2018

(n=372)

2019

(n=369)

Waste/garbage collection 68 70 70 74 50 48 47 53 10 15 14 14 9 8 9 8

Parks & reserves 36 37 35 35 7 6 6 6 16 17 17 15 14 16 13 15

Roads/maintenance 33 36 40 32 9 14 15 9 15 15 16 12 10 9 9 12

Library 20 15 17 21 5 3 4 5 8 5 7 9 8 8 7 8Events (eg Civic Park Carols, AusDay,

Civic Park Movies, Touch a Truck)8 13 11 14 2 1 2 4 2 4 3 6 5 8 6 5

Footpaths 13 9 14 12 3 0 2 1 6 3 5 3 6 6 7 8

Street trees/maintenance - 9 12 10 - 1 2 3 - 4 5 5 - 5 6 3

Recycling 11 4 8 9 1 1 1 2 6 2 5 5 5 2 2 3

Don't know - 9 8 9 - 3 1 1 - 2 2 3 - 5 5 5

Playgrounds 7 3 8 6 0 0 2 1 3 2 3 3 4 2 3 3

Greenwaste 14 7 7 6 4 1 1 1 6 3 2 3 4 3 4 3Overall appearance/street

maintenance/tidiness of the local area- 7 2 6 - 2 1 2 - 3 1 3 - 2 1 1

Street sweeping 3 5 5 5 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 3 2 2 1 1

Hard waste collection 9 4 6 5 3 0 1 1 4 2 4 1 2 1 2 2

Commonwealth Home Support

Program (formerly HACC)4 3 4 4 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

Recreation Centres/facilities (Golden

Grove, Turramurra, Burragah)8 5 4 4 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 6 1 2 3

Verge maintenance 5 8 5 4 0 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 3 5 2 2

Community Bus/Transport Service 2 2 1 4 1 0 1 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

PA

GE

38

Reflecting the trend of residents becoming more indifferent, the

proportion of those who could not give suggestions for improvement

increased2.12 Suggestions for improvement

Q30

Note: 0% represents n=1

Only responses of 2% and above for 2019 are shown

% response2016

(n=412)

2017

(n=401)

2018

(n=400)

2019

(n=399)

Nothing/happy with everything 9 7 10 12

Communication/kept updated/what they are doing/promote their services/more newsletters/emails/use of

social media5 15 6 6

Footpaths/on all roads/maintain/seal/not just those on main roads/make paths wheelchair/pram friendly 9 8 5 6

Road maintenance/line marking/median strips with access gaps/prioritise maintenance needs/lobby for

repairs on State roads6 6 11 6

Rubbish/green waste/recycling/reliable/collected more frequently/have larger/split/more public bins/offer free

dump runs/more environmentally friendly trucks/soft plastic recycling5 3 5 5

Listen to/consult with ratepayers/community forum/understand our needs/co-operate/be honest/transparent 5 4 5 5

Parks and reserves better maintained/environmentally friendly/provide facilities such as turf/toilets/fountains 3 7 4 4

Hard waste/more collections/have a depot/waste transfer station/coordinate bookings within the same

area/larger size accepted1 3 3 3

Street sweeping/more frequently/all roads 1 1 2 3

Council rates/reduce/user pays system/find other ways to raise funds 5 4 5 3Verges/better maintain verges/alternative to grass/council trees/clear branches overhanging footpaths/better

rubbish control2 6 5 3

Recreational facilities/provide more/maintain/upgrade/playgrounds/bike trails/paths/BBQ facilities/dog off the

lead/toilets areas/wheelchair swings/shaded areas/hiking trails5 5 3 3

Tree maintenance/employ good arborists/monitor dangerous trees/significant trees/change laws/more

leniency3 3 4 3

Parking/improve residential areas/near sports facilities/schools/parks/off street/be flexible with residents 1 1 2 2

Plantings/look after/improve selection of trees council plant/native/replace dead trees/plan appropriately 0 1 2 2

Community events/programs/raise awareness/better variety/on weekends/appeal to all

demographics/wheelchair access1 2 3 2

Street lighting/improve/better maintained/around the O-Bahn 1 1 0 2

Traffic control/stop hoon driving/roundabouts/reduce speed signs/advance notice for roadworks 1 2 2 2

Subdivision/limit/increase minimum block size/no highrise apartments/limit density planning/not enough

parking space1 - 0 2

Don't know/can't think of anything 10 12 6 12

PA

GE

39

While satisfaction with wellbeing items has decreased, this may be

partly attributed to changes in how this question was asked in 20192.13 Wellbeing - resident satisfaction with areas of their life

Q1N14

0% represents n=1

Note: Life as a whole included in wellbeing score, but is now a different question Q1N19

Note: “Your spirituality or religion” not asked in 2019


78.2

2016 2017 2018 2019 T3B%

change


Life as a whole 77 1 75 2 77 2 65 2 -12↓

Your standard of living 68 0 72 0 75 1 72 1 -3

Your health 66 1 67 2 68 2 61 2 -7↓

What you are currently achieving in life 66 2 66 2 68 2 64 1 -4

Your personal relationships 82 1 77 1 80 2 77 2 -3

How safe you feel 74 0 69 1 74 2 71 0 -3

Feeling part of your community 46 3 49 3 47 5 46 4 -1

Your future security 61 1 62 2 61 3 62 1 +1

down slightly from 79.0 in 2018

PA

GE

40

82% 77% 80% 77%

17% 22% 18% 20%

1% 1% 2% 2%

2016 (n=404) 2017 (n=387) 2018 (n=382) 2019 (n=391)

72% 66% 64% 67%

27%32% 29% 28%

1% 3%7% 5%

2014 (n=196) 2015 (n=219) 2016 (n=226) 2017 (n=209)

Your spirituality or religion (if applicable) Dissatisfied (rating 0-2)

Neutral (rating 3-7)

Satisfied (rating 8-10)

Decline in satisfaction with health stands out and should be

closely monitored in future waves of the study2.19 Wellbeing - resident satisfaction with areas of their life cont/d

Q1N14

0% represents n=1

68% 72% 75% 72%

32% 28% 24% 27%

0% 0% 1% 1%

2016 (n=411) 2017 (n=397) 2018 (n=394) 2019 (n=397)

Your standard of living Your health

66% 67% 68%61%

32% 31% 30%37%

1% 2% 2% 2%

2016 (n=410) 2017 (n=391) 2018 (n=394) 2019 (n=397)

66% 66% 68% 64%

32% 32% 30% 35%

2% 2% 2% 1%

2016 (n=406) 2017 (n=388) 2018 (n=391) 2019 (n=395)

What you are currently achieving

in lifeYour personal relationships

T3B

PA

GE

41

72% 66% 64% 67%

27%32% 29% 28%

1% 3%7% 5%

2014 (n=196) 2015 (n=219) 2016 (n=226) 2017 (n=209)

Your spirituality or religion (if applicable) Dissatisfied (rating 0-2)



74% 69% 74% 71%

26% 30% 24% 29%

0% 1% 2% 0%

2016 (n=411) 2017 (n=400) 2018 (n=398) 2019 (n=398)

46% 49% 47% 46%

51% 49% 49% 50%

3% 3% 5% 4%

2016 (n=406) 2017 (n=397) 2018 (n=395) 2019 (n=392)

Slight shift from extreme ratings for other aspects of

wellbeing is most likely due to changes to scale labels 2.19 Wellbeing - resident satisfaction with areas of their life cont/d

How safe you feel Feeling part of your community

Your future security

61% 62% 61% 62%

38% 35% 36% 37%

1% 2% 3% 1%

2016 (n=403) 2017 (n=394) 2018 (n=390) 2019 (n=393)Q1N14, QN19

0% represents n=1

Note that in 2019 “Life as a whole” asked as a separate question (Q1N19) and not

included as part of Q1N14

77% 75% 77%65%

23% 23% 22%33%

1% 2% 2% 2%

2016 (n=409) 2017 (n=394) 2018 (n=393) 2019 (n=399)

Life as a whole

PA

GE

42

Resident profile2.20 Demographic profile of residents cont/d

Q32

0% represents 2 or less

Suburb of residence

% response

2016

(n=412)

2017

(n=405)

2018

(n=400)

2019

(n=400)

Greenwith 14 10 12 12

Highbury 9 7 8 10

Wynn Vale 10 9 13 9

Modbury 3 6 5 7

Ridgehaven 5 4 3 7

Modbury Heights 7 7 4 7

Modbury North 6 6 7 6

St Agnes 7 6 5 6

Surrey Downs 2 1 2 5

Redwood Park 5 6 6 5

Dernancourt 4 5 4 4

Golden Grove - West of Golden Grove Road 2 7 6 4

Hope Valley - East of Reservoir Road 2 5 5 4

Banksia Park 3 4 4 3

Fairview Park 4 3 4 2

Tea Tree Gully 4 2 2 2

Holden Hill 3 2 3 2

Golden Grove - East of Golden Grove Road 2 4 4 2

Vista * 0 1 2

Valley View 1 1 2 1

Gilles Plains 2 1 1 1

Hope Valley - West of Reservoir Road 1 0 1 1

Para Hills 0 1 0 0

Salisbury Heights 1 1 - 0

Paracombe - - 0 0

PA

GE

43

5%8%

8%

22%

21%

13%

23%18 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 39

40 to 49

50 to 59

60 to 69

70 plus

Resident profile 20192.20 Demographic profile of residents cont/d

Q5, Q4, Qward

48%

52%

Gender

(n=400)

16%

17%

18%

17%

16%

16%

Ward

(n=400)Age – CATI (n=300)

Age – Social Media (n=100)

12%

39%

23%

9%

4%

9%4%

18 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 39

40 to 49

50 to 59

60 to 69

70 plus

SECTION 3

Key findings

Online Community Data

Note: Online community members, by nature of their

membership, may have an increased familiarity of

Council and its services due to the Council surveys

they participate in, as well as (for some) a higher level

of involvement in their community. Online community

members also often join with specific areas of

interest, such as the environment, and this may

contribute to their differing responses. It is also

thought that online community members often have

higher expectations of Council’s performance, which

may explain a trend for online community members

to sometimes be less inclined to provide ‘top 2 box’

or very satisfied ratings in some areas.

PA

GE

45

Waste/garbage collection continues to be the

most important service that Council provides3.1 Council services

As seen with the results for the general public (phone and social media), waste collection, roads, parks & reserves, and

the Library were among the most important services provided by Council

» Priority of services remained unchanged. Waste/garbage collection is the standout service in terms of importance, cited by

almost half of online community members surveyed (43%; noticeable decline from 49% in 2018). The next most important

service was roads, mentioned by just 13% (14% in 2018), followed by parks and reserves (7% vs. 6% in 2018) and the Library

(5% vs 4% in 2018).

» No significant changes were recorded for importance of other services, with priority order largely unchanged.

Importance(first mentioned)

2018 2019

Waste/garbage collection 1st 1st

Roads 2nd 2nd

Parks/reserves 3rd 3rd

Library 4th 4th

PA

GE

46

58%68% 70% 72%

54%

2016(n=269)

2017(n=387)

2018(n=338)

2019(n=376)

NationalCouncil

Benchmark

% T

2B

sa

tis

fac

tio

n

7% 11% 14% 13%

51%55%

56% 59%

33%24%

22% 22%

7% 8% 6% 5%

2% 2% 1% 1%

2016 (n=269) 2017 (n=387) 2018 (n=338) 2019 (n=376)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

Among online community members, satisfaction continued to increase, with

poor verge maintenance again the main contributor to dissatisfaction3.2 Overall satisfaction with Council performance

Overall satisfaction with performance has continued to

improve

» 72% of online community members are satisfied

overall with Council’s performance, increasing from

70% in 2018

Reasons for dissatisfaction (n=20)

» As seen in 2018, poor maintenance of verges/

parks/ reserves/ litter/ broken glass/ dying grass/

plants/ overhanging trees was the main reason

provided for being dissatisfied with Council’s

performance (mentioned by n=6 online community

members)

» Other reasons included:

– Poor customers service (n=3)

– Poor development decisions/no regard for

environment (n=3)

– Perception that Council is not active enough

(n=3)

69% 65% 62%71%

63% 58%67% 70% 72%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

T2B satisfaction

PA

GE

47

Footpaths and verges continue to be main

areas for improvement3.3 Satisfaction with Council Services

Council Services

» All Council services have been classified into categories based on satisfaction scores (T2B –

combined very satisfied or satisfied)

» The top performing areas for online community members relate to waste services, while

maintenance of footpaths and appearance of roadside verges are the main areas for improvement

(unchanged from 2018)

Areas of very high satisfaction

• Waste collection service overall

• Green waste collection

Areas of high satisfaction

• Recycling services

• Provision of parks, reserves

and playing fields

• Maintenance of parks,

reserves and playing fields

• Major events

• Council’s Library services

Areas of relatively high

satisfaction

• Provision of playgrounds

• Maintenance of playgrounds

• Council's Recreation Centres

• Waterworld

• Provision of arts and cultural

performances and activities

• Provision of community centres,

services and programs

• Opportunity to have your say on issues

affecting your area

Areas of moderate satisfaction

• Condition of main roads

• Condition of local or residential

roads

• Provision of street trees

• Control of litter and rubbish

• Hard waste collection

Areas of relatively low

satisfaction

• Provision of footpaths in your

local area

• Maintenance of street trees

Areas of low satisfaction

• Maintenance of footpaths in your

local area

• Appearance of roadside verges in

your local area

Top

performing

areas (online

community):

Areas for

improvement

(online

community):

PA

GE

48

The largest changes in satisfaction over the

past 12 months3.4 Largest changes in satisfaction with Council Services over the past 12 months

Improvements

2018 2019 Change

Hard waste collectionT2B 60% 67% +7

B2B 18% 12% -6

Condition of main roadsT2B 60% 67% +7%

B2B 23% 19% -4%

Condition of local or residential roadsT2B 56% 65% +9%

B2B 24% 16% -8%

Declines

There were no major declines in satisfaction with services among

online community members in 2019.

Declines in satisfaction with services among online community members were minimal:

» Recycling services (88%, down by 1%)

» Provision of footpaths in local area (55%, down 1%)

» Appearance of roadside verges in your local area (44%, no change)

» Control of litter and rubbish (67%, down 1%)

» Provision of community centres, services and programs (70%, down 1%)

» Council’s Library services (88%, down 3%)

And there were services that saw large improvements in satisfaction, as well as smaller numbers

of dissatisfied responses:

PA

GE

49

2019 saw noticeable improvement in sense of

safety among online community members3.5 Community wellbeing

Majority of wellbeing aspects increased for online community members in 2019 but results should be treated with

caution due to changes to how the question is asked

» Sense of safety saw a significant increase of 10% and all other elements of the wellbeing index (apart from achieving in life,

and relationships) increased slightly.

» Once again, feeling part of the community continues to be the lowest area of satisfaction among residents. However, it

appears that there may be an improvement in that area (subject to differences in research method).

» Satisfaction with ‘life as a whole’ declined this year and this is likely due to the changes in the questionnaire and this metric

being asked as a standalone item (rather than among other wellbeing aspects; in line with industry standards)

» Online community members continue to be happier overall compared to the general community (79.2 wellbeing score, vs 78.2

among the general community).

2016 2017 2018 2019 T3B%

change


Life as a whole* 76 1 77 1 75 1 69 0 -6

Your standard of living 73 1 75 1 74 1 78 0 +4

Your health 62 1 68 2 62 2 64 2 +2



How safe you feel 72 1 69 2 68 2 78 1 +10↑

Feeling part of your community 54 3 53 2 52 2 57 2 +5


*Life as a whole asked as a separate question first (Q1N19), before Q1N14

SECTION 4

Full resultsOnline community data

PA

GE

51

7% 11% 14% 13%

51%55%

56% 59%

33%24%

22% 22%

7% 8% 6% 5%

2% 2% 1% 1%

2016 (n=269) 2017 (n=387) 2018 (n=338) 2019 (n=376)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

Satisfaction with overall performance

continues to improve4.1 Satisfaction with Council’s performance overall

Q11

72% T2B70%67%58%

PA

GE

52

Primary reason for dissatisfaction concerned poor

maintenance of verges/parks/reserves

4.2 Reasons for dissatisfaction with Council’s performance overall

Q12

Note interpret with caution due to small sample sizes

% response

2016

(n=24)

2017

(n=37)

2018

(n=24)

2019

(n=20)

Poor maintenance of verges/parks/reserves/litter/broken glass/dying grass/plants/overhanging trees 17 27 25 30

Don't do enough/what they say they will/only the bare minimum/all talk no action 13 14 4 15

Customer service/poor/unhelpful/rude - 8 8 15

Poor development decisions/no regard for environment or existing residents/should not develop farm

land into residential zone/subdivision/rezone to allow multi-storey buildings4 3 8 15

Roads/poorly maintained/designed/flood 8 5 13 10

Will not accept responsibility for trees/removal/pruning/trees not replaced - 5 - 10

The rates we pay are higher than other council areas but the services provided are the same/less - 5 - 10

High council rates/poor value for money/regardless of property value/increased for business/vacant

blocks25 14 17 5

Neighbour disputes/issues not resolved/unfair - - 4 5

Street cleaning/maintenance not often enough/should be done after storms/rubbish collection not

before4 3 4 5

Footpaths/poorly maintained/uneven/lack of/none on either side of the road for years 17 14 8 5

Don't listen to the community/not consulted on key issues which affect us - 11 8 5

Parking/inadequate/especially around schools/hospitals - 5 - 5

Poor financial management/debt council is in/too high/affects completion of projects/selling off land - - 4 5

Too much high density housing/no back yards for children to play in - - - 5

Unclear where the rates go/what they represent on how why calculated on housing value - - - 5

Bus shelter blocking view when exiting driveway/not moved back to where it originally was - - - 5

PA

GE

53

Satisfaction with lowest rated aspect of waste collection; hard waste,

increased. Proportion of those dissatisfied declined significantly

4.3 Satisfaction with Services - waste collection service

Q14

» As with the general community results (phone and social media sample), satisfaction with hard waste collection was lower than

other waste services. This is due to a large portion of neutral respondents (perhaps suggesting lower usage), as well as a larger

portion of dissatisfied respondents.

– As in 2018, dissatisfaction comes from frequency of collections, with many believing there should be more frequent

collections; this reason has decreased slightly in 2019

– As for the general community, the second most common reason for dissatisfaction concerned size restrictions

Online community2016 2017 2018 2019 T2B%

change


Green waste collection 91 6 90 6 92 3 92 3 -

Recycling services 88 4 88 5 89 2 88 7 -1

Hard waste collection - - - - 60 18 67 12 +7

Waste collection service overall 91 3 92 4 92 3 95 3 +3

PA

GE

54

42% 42% 38% 40%

45% 47% 51% 49%

8% 6% 9% 5%

4% 3% 2% 5%

1% 2% 1% 1%

2016 (n=267) 2017 (n=387) 2018 (n=335) 2019 (n=370)

Overall waste service, green waste and recycling all

continue to have very high satisfaction levels

4.3 Satisfaction with Services - waste collection service cont/d

47% 44% 41% 43%

44% 48% 50% 53%

6% 4%5%

2%2% 2% 2% 2%

1% 1% 1% 0%

2016 (n=269) 2017 (n=389) 2018 (n=338) 2019 (n=377)

Verydissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

Waste collection services overall

45% 44% 42% 45%

46% 46% 50% 47%

4% 3% 5% 5%5% 5% 2% 3%

1% 2% 1% 0%

2016 (n=267) 2017 (n=385) 2018 (n=337) 2019 (n=373)

Green waste collection

Recycling services

22% 26%

38%41%

22%21%

12% 10%

6% 2%

2018 (n=312) 2019 (n=339)

Hard waste collection

Q14

0% represents n=1

B2B

PA

GE

55

Those satisfied with hard waste service primarily cited

the efficiency and/or proficiency of the service4.3 Satisfaction with services - reasons for rating for hard waste collection services

Q1N18

% response – Q14 – Hard waste collection

Satisfied to very satisfiedNeither satisfied nor

dissatisfied

Dissatisfied to very

dissatisfiedDon't know

2018

(n=186)

2019

(n=186)

2018

(n=69)

2019

(n=67)

2018

(n=57)

2019

(n=39)

2018

(n=26)

2019

(n=35)

Efficient/prompt service/no issues 55 54 10 4 2 - - 3Easy to book/just need to ring - 15 - - - - - -Two pickups per year is suitable 10 10 3 - - - - -Useful/saves effort of going to dump 6 9 - - - - - -Not enough collection days a year/wait time too long 12 6 25 30 49 44 8 3Other (unrelated to hard waste) 7 5 6 3 5 5 4 -Inexpensive/cheaper/free - 4 - - - - - -Customer service/helpful 3 2 - - 2 - - -Haven't used the service/not for a long time 4 2 42 42 - - 88 86Difficult/hassle to organise 1 2 3 3 5 8 - 3No set dates 1 2 - 6 2 3 - 3Don't know enough information 1 2 12 3 2 8 8 6Only take specific items 2 2 4 3 9 10 - -Positive word of mouth (e.g. neighbours) 2 2 1 - - - - -Information provided about what is collected/clear - 2 - - - - - -Size restrictions/difficult to judge/cut to right size 1 1 3 9 28 28 - -Leave rubbish behind 1 1 3 1 7 13 - -Poor customer service - 1 - 1 5 8 - -Don't know 2 1 1 1 - - - 3Website/complicated - 1 - - - - - -

Don't recycle/should separate items and recycle if possible - 1 - - - - - -

People put out too early/unsightly 5 - 3 3 5 10 - -People take from pile/disrupt/leave mess - - - 3 - - - -Other Council's don't provide service/charge for it 4 - - - - - - -Late/delayed/inconsistent time 1 - - - 4 - - -Don't have a need for the service 1 - - 1 - - - 6Bad experience (unspecified) - - 1 - - - - -People add to pile/make over-size 1 - - 1 5 8 - -Missed our street/no pickup 1 - - - 2 - - -

PA

GE

56

Significant improvement for the condition of both

main and local/residential roads4.4 Satisfaction with Services - roads and footpaths

Q15

2016 2017 2018 2019 T2B%

change


Condition of local or residential roads 58 19 57 21 56 24 65 16 +9↑

Condition of main roads (generally dual

lane roads and high traffic roads)61 20 63 20 60 23 67 19 +7↑

Provision of footpaths in your local area 46 33 44 38 56 28 55 28 -1

Maintenance of footpaths in your local area 41 35 40 37 45 29 48 28 +3


local area32 37 36 43 44 34 44 35 -

PA

GE

57

4% 7%7% 5%

28% 29%37% 39%

30% 21%22% 22%

22% 29%23% 25%

15% 15% 11% 10%

2016 (n=267) 2017 (n=385) 2018 (n=335) 2019 (n=375)

10%9% 10% 8%

51% 54% 50% 59%

20% 17% 17%13%

14% 16% 19%17%

6% 4% 4% 2%

2016 (n=269) 2017 (n=388) 2018 (n=338) 2019 (n=378)

8%7% 8% 9%

50% 50% 48%56%

23% 22% 20%19%

16% 18%18%

14%

4% 4% 6% 2%

2016 (n=269) 2017 (n=389) 2018 (n=336) 2019 (n=377)

Significant improvement for the condition of both main

and local/residential roads4.4 Satisfaction with Services - roads and footpaths cont/d

Q15

Condition of local or residential

roadsCondition of main roads Provision of footpaths in your local area

Maintenance of footpaths in your local area Appearance of roads and verges in your local area

6% 8% 6% 10%

35% 32% 40% 39%

24% 23%26% 23%

22% 25%20% 21%

13% 12% 8% 8%

2016 (n=265) 2017 (n=376) 2018 (n=334) 2019 (n=371)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

9%9% 8% 11%

37% 35%47% 44%

21% 18%

17% 18%

21% 24%17% 19%

12% 14% 11% 9%

2016 (n=266) 2017 (n=385) 2018 (n=334) 2019 (n=376)

T2B

T2B

PA

GE

58

Small (continued) improvement to all local area aspects aside from

litter and rubbish control, which has remained steady4.6 Satisfaction with Services - aspects of local area

Q16

Online community

2016 2017 2018 2019 T2B%

change

from

2018T2B% B2B% T2B% B2B% T2B% B2B% T2B% B2B%

Provision of parks, reserves and playing fields 81 7 83 4 84 4 87 5 +3

Maintenance of parks, reserves and playing fields 72 10 73 12 80 10 81 7 +1

Provision of playgrounds 73 9 75 7 77 5 78 6 +1

Maintenance of playgrounds 70 7 72 5 75 5 77 5 +2

Provision of street trees 58 19 62 19 64 17 67 20 +3

Maintenance of street trees 45 25 46 29 54 22 56 29 +2

Control of litter and rubbish 60 14 59 19 68 14 67 14 -1

PA

GE

59

12% 9% 12% 13%

50% 50% 46% 49%

19% 22% 23% 19%

13% 15% 14% 13%

5% 5% 4% 6%

2014 (n=277) 2015 (n=329) 2016 (n=267) 2017 (n=388)

Provision of street trees

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

Satisfaction regarding park and playground

provision/maintenance continues to trend upward4.6 Satisfaction with Services - aspects of local area cont/d

Q16

Provision of parks, reserves and playing

fieldsMaintenance of parks, reserves and

playing fields

Provision of playgrounds Maintenance of playgrounds

26% 28% 23% 30%

55% 56% 61%57%

12%13% 12% 8%

5% 3% 3% 4%2% 1% 1% 1%

2016 (n=267) 2017 (n=387) 2018 (n=334) 2019 (n=375)

22% 23% 20%28%

51% 50% 60%52%

17% 16% 11% 12%8% 10% 7%

6%

2% 1% 3% 1%

2016 (n=269) 2017 (n=385) 2018 (n=333) 2019 (n=374)

19% 24% 21% 28%

54% 51% 56%49%

18% 18% 18% 16%7% 6% 4% 4%

2% 1% 1% 2%

2016 (n=257) 2017 (n=369) 2018 (n=319) 2019 (n=356)

18% 23% 22% 28%

52% 49% 53%49%

23% 23% 21% 19%

6% 4% 3% 4%1% 1% 2% 1%

2016 (n=250) 2017 (n=362) 2018 (n=310) 2019 (n=350)

PA

GE

60

12% 13% 16% 17%

46% 49% 49% 50%

23%19% 19% 12%

14% 13% 13% 13%

4% 6% 3% 7%

2016 (n=267) 2017 (n=388) 2018 (n=332) 2019 (n=378)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

The majority continue to be satisfied with street

tree provision and litter/rubbish control4.6 Satisfaction with Services - aspects of local area cont/d

Q16

Provision of street trees Maintenance of street trees


9% 10% 11% 13%

36% 36%43% 43%

31% 25%24% 16%

19% 22% 17% 20%

6% 7% 5% 8%

2016 (n=265) 2017 (n=387) 2018 (n=334) 2019 (n=374)

11%9% 12% 15%

48% 50%57% 52%

26% 22%18% 19%

9% 14% 11% 12%

5% 5% 3% 2%

2016 (n=267) 2017 (n=385) 2018 (n=336) 2019 (n=376)

PA

GE

61

Community centres, services and programs remain an

area of relatively high satisfaction4.7 Satisfaction with Services - provision of community centres, services and programs

2016 2017 2018 2019 T2B%

change


Provision of community centres,

services and programs65 5 71 3 71 3 70 3 -1

Q18_1, Q2n17

Note that in 2017 provision of community centres, services and programs asked as a

separate question (Q2n17) and not included as part of Q18

0% represents n=1

13% 15% 16% 18%

53%56% 55% 52%

30% 26% 26% 27%

3% 3% 3% 2%

2% 1% 0% 1%

2016 (n=240) 2017 (n=337) 2018 (n=282) 2019 (n=328)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

PA

GE

62

A minor decline in Council’s Library services, with all other arts

and leisure services showing improvement in 20194.8 Satisfaction with Services - Arts & Leisure

Q18

0% represents n=1

2016 2017 2018 2019 T2B%

change


The provision of arts and cultural

performances and activities, for

example art exhibitions, theatre

shows and events at the library

57 8 59 4 68 5 72 3 +4

Major events, for example Civic

Park Carols, AusDay, Touch a

Truck and Civic Park Movies)

66 5 74 3 78 4 81 2 +3

Council's Recreation Centres 69 3 68 0 75 1 78 1 +3

Waterworld 66 3 68 3 71 3 75 3 +4

Council's Library services 85 1 89 0 91 1 88 2 -3

PA

GE

63

11% 15% 20% 20%

58% 53%54% 57%

29%31% 25% 21%

3% 0% 0% 1%0%

2016 (n=236) 2017 (n=334) 2018 (n=272) 2019 (n=322)

17% 23% 26%34%

48%51%

52%47%

29%24% 18% 17%

4% 2% 2% 1%1% 1% 2% 1%

2016 (n=248) 2017 (n=351) 2018 (n=299) 2019 (n=351)

11% 12% 19% 19%

46% 48%49% 53%

35%36% 28% 26%

6% 4% 3%2%

2% 1% 2% 0%

2016 (n=237) 2017 (n=329) 2018 (n=279) 2019 (n=317)

A minor decline in Council’s Library services, with all other arts and

leisure services showing improvement in 20194.8 Satisfaction with Services - Arts & Leisure cont/d

Q18

0% represents n=1

Provision of arts and cultural

performances and activitiesMajor events Council’s Recreation Centres

Waterworld Council’s Library services

20%21% 23% 22%

45% 48% 48% 53%

31%29% 26% 22%

3% 2% 3% 2%1% 0% 1%

2016 (n=211) 2017 (n=315) 2018 (n=249) 2019 (n=288)

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied


Satisfied

Very satisfied

45%44% 46% 49%

40% 45% 45% 39%

14%11% 8% 10%

1% 0% 1% 2%0%

2016 (n=249) 2017 (n=355) 2018 (n=309) 2019 (n=340)

PA

GE

64

Opportunity to have one’s say remains an area

of relatively high satisfaction4.10 Agreement that you have opportunity to have a say on issues that affect your area

Q26a

0% represents n=1

2016 2017 2018 2019 T2B%

change


Opportunity to have your say on

issues affecting your area71 11 71 13 70 10 72 10 +2

15% 17% 17% 18%

56% 54% 53% 54%

18% 15% 20% 18%

9% 10% 8% 8%

2% 3% 2% 2%

2016 (n=263) 2017 (n=375) 2018 (n=335) 2019 (n=372)

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nordisagree

Agree

Strongly agree

PA

GE

65

Waste collection, roads, parks & reserves, and the Library

continue to be the most important services provided by Council 4.15 Most important services provided by Council

Q29

Note: only responses of 3% and above in the 2019 total column are included

0% represents n=1

Note: 2nd & 3rd most important services not coded in 2018. Therefore figures in the 2018 Total column are the same as those in the 2018 Most Important column.

% response

Total Most important 2nd most important 3rd most important

2016

(n=269)

2017

(n=382)

2018

(n=338)

2019

(n=356)

2016

(n=269)

2017

(n=380)

2018

(n=338)

2019

(n=356)

2016

(n=259)

2017

(n=374)

2018

(n=0)

2019

(n=350)

2016

(n=250)

2017

(n=342)

2018

(n=0)

2019

(n=320)

Waste/garbage collection 70 70 49 69 50 50 49 43 12 13 - 19 10 9 - 9

Roads/maintenance 39 41 14 46 12 10 14 13 17 22 - 24 12 11 - 10

Parks & reserves 26 27 6 32 4 4 6 7 14 12 - 10 10 13 - 18

Library 21 19 4 20 3 0 4 5 6 9 - 7 14 11 - 9

Footpaths 17 8 4 18 1 1 4 4 9 5 - 7 8 3 - 8

Community services/programs/support - 5 1 9 - - 1 2 - 2 - 5 - 3 - 3

Events (eg Civic Park Carols, AusDay,

Civic Park Movies, Touch a Truck)3 7 1 8 1 1 1 2 1 2 - 2 1 5 - 5

Overall appearance/street

maintenance/tidiness of the local area- 10 3 8 - 3 3 3 - 4 - 3 - 4 - 3

Street trees/maintenance - 4 1 6 - 1 1 1 - 1 - 4 - 2 - 2

Verge maintenance 3 5 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 3 - 2 1 2 - 3

Recycling 7 3 1 6 1 1 1 1 4 1 - 3 3 1 - 2

Playgrounds 2 2 1 4 - 0 1 0 - 1 - 1 2 1 - 3

Recreation Centres/facilities (Golden

Grove, Turramurra, Burragah)4 5 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 - 1 2 3 - 3

Infrastructure/maintenance 4 7 1 4 0 3 1 2 3 2 - 1 0 1 - 1

Council rates/allocation of rate payer's

funds/value for money7 3 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 - 2 3 1 - 1

Communication/listening to the

opinions/demands of the

community/keeping public informed

- 6 0 3 - 1 0 1 - 1 - 0 - 4 - 2

Street lighting 3 2 1 3 2 - 1 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 - 2

PA

GE

66

Some demand for improved footpaths and verges, followed by

more robust waste services and increased road maintenance4.16 Suggestions for improvement

Q30

Note: Only responses 3% and above shown for 2019

Note: Question not coded in 2018

% response

2016

(n=260)

2017

(n=379)

2019

(n=269)

Footpaths/on all roads/maintain/seal/not just those on main roads/make paths wheelchair/pram friendly 6 7 7

Verges/better maintain verges/alternative to grass/council trees/clear branches overhanging footpaths/better

rubbish control2 9 7

Rubbish/green waste/recycling/reliable/collected more frequently/have larger/split/more public bins/offer free

dump runs/more environmentally friendly trucks/soft plastic recycling5 4 6

Road maintenance/line marking/median strips with access gaps/prioritise maintenance needs/lobby for

repairs on State roads3 6 5

Communication/kept updated/what they are doing/promote their services/more newsletters/emails/use of

social media7 7 4

Listen to/consult with ratepayers/community forum/understand our needs/co-operate/be honest/transparent 5 11 4

Nothing/happy with everything 4 2 4Hard waste/more collections/have a depot/waste transfer station/coordinate bookings within the same

area/larger size accepted- 3 3

Parks and reserves better maintained/environmentally friendly/provide facilities such as turf/toilets/fountains 6 3 3

Recreational facilities/provide more/maintain/upgrade/playgrounds/bike trails/paths/BBQ facilities/dog off the

lead/toilets areas/wheelchair swings/shaded areas/hiking trails2 2 3

Subdivision/limit/increase minimum block size/no highrise apartments/limit density planning/not enough

parking space1 1 3

Equality for all areas/more maintenance/attention/to older areas/reduce rates for areas not maintained as

much2 3 3

Street sweeping/more frequently/all roads 1 2 3

Council rates/reduce/user pays system/find other ways to raise funds 5 6 3Environment/more awareness/focus on water preservation/recycled water/clean waterways/have an

information hub1 1 3

PA

GE

67

Most wellbeing indicators improved in 2019; most

noticeably for feeling safe, which reached a historical high4.17 Online community member satisfaction with areas of their life

Q1N14

0% represents n=1

Note: Life as a whole included in wellbeing score, but is now a different question Q1N19

Note: “Your spirituality or religion” not asked in 2019

2016 2017 2018 2019 T3B%

change


Life as a whole 76 1 77 1 75 1 69 0 -6

Your standard of living 73 1 75 1 74 1 78 0 +4

Your health 62 1 68 2 62 2 64 2 +2



How safe you feel 72 1 69 2 68 2 78 1 +10↑

Feeling part of your community 54 3 53 2 52 2 57 2 +5


PA

GE

68

Community wellbeing4.17 Online community member satisfaction with areas of their life cont/d

Q1N14

Your standard of living Your health

62% 68% 62% 64%

37% 30% 36% 34%

1% 2% 2% 2%

2016 (n=261) 2017 (n=379) 2018 (n=334) 2019 (n=376)Dissatisfied (0-2)


Satisfied (rating 8-10)What you are currently achieving in life

67% 71% 71% 70%

32% 28% 27% 30%

1% 1% 2% 1%

2016 (n=257) 2017 (n=369) 2018 (n=332) 2019 (n=376)

Your personal relationships

77% 81% 80% 79%

22% 18% 19% 20%

2% 1% 1% 1%

2016 (n=253) 2017 (n=373) 2018 (n=328) 2019 (n=375)

73% 75% 74% 78%

26% 25% 25% 22%

1% 1% 1% 0%

2016 (n=261) 2017 (n=377) 2018 (n=334) 2019 (n=376)

PA

GE

69

76% 77% 75% 69%

23% 22% 24% 31%

1% 1% 1% 0%

2016 (n=257) 2017 (n=377) 2018 (n=333) 2019 (n=376)

Dissatisfied (0-2)



55%61% 59% 60%

42%35% 38% 37%

4% 4% 3% 4%

2016 (n=255) 2017 (n=375) 2018 (n=334) 2019 (n=371)

54% 53% 52% 57%

43% 45% 46% 42%

3% 2% 2% 2%

2016 (n=257) 2017 (n=375) 2018 (n=334) 2019 (n=373)

72% 69% 68%78%

27% 29% 30%21%

1% 2% 2% 1%

2016 (n=259) 2017 (n=381) 2018 (n=335) 2019 (n=375)

Community wellbeing4.17 Online community member satisfaction with areas of their life cont/d

Q1N14_9, Q1N19

0% represents n=1

Note that in 2019 “Life as a whole” asked as a separate question (Q1N19) and not

included as part of Q1N14

How safe you feel Feeling part of your community

Your future security

T3B

Life as a whole

PA

GE

70

Respondent profile4.18 Demographic profile of online community sample cont/d

Q32

0% represents n=1

Suburb of residence

% response

2016

(n=269)

2017

(n=389)

2018

(n=338)

2019

(n=376)

Wynn Vale 7 7 7 10

Modbury Heights 10 10 12 10

Highbury 16 11 12 8

Modbury 3 4 7 8

Hope Valley - East of Reservoir Road 4 4 5 7

Greenwith 6 6 5 6

St Agnes 3 4 5 6

Banksia Park 6 6 6 6

Modbury North 3 4 5 5

Redwood Park 3 5 4 5

Golden Grove - West of Golden Grove Road 2 2 3 5

Fairview Park 8 7 4 5

Ridgehaven 4 4 4 4

Surrey Downs 9 7 6 4

Dernancourt 6 4 3 3

Tea Tree Gully 3 4 4 2

Valley View 1 2 1 2

Holden Hill 1 2 2 1

Salisbury Heights 1 1 - 1

Gilles Plains 0 0 1 1

Yatala Vale 1 0 1 1

Vista 0 1 1 1

Houghton 0 1 0 0

Upper Hermitage 1 0 - 0

Paracombe 0 0 0 0

PA

GE

71

2%

11%

9%

17%

18%

23%

20% 18 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 39

40 to 49

50 to 59

60 to 69

70 plus

Respondent profile 20194.18 Demographic profile of Online community sample cont/d

Q5, Q4, Qward

42%

58%

Gender

(n=369)

Age (n=377)

19%

18%

14%

18%

20%

12%

(n=376)

PA

GE

72Action Plan

Section prepared by Council staff

Area ActionWaste collection Consider increasing amount of hard waste per collection from 2m3 to 4m3,

including budget implications and response times

Investigate separate collections for specific recyclable material eg. paper,

cardboard, metals

Review our bin delivery and repair service against outsourcing the work to our

collection contractor

Parks & reserves Establish maintenance standards for key precincts, including Tea Tree Gully

Township and Modbury

Improve planning and notification of Council’s planting program

Verges Use interactive website maps to display verge cutting information

Street trees Review post-planting resident feedback surveys

Investigate use of interactive website maps to promote Council’s planting and

pruning program

Roads Proactively inform the community and raise awareness of major capital works,

including road works

Expand the use of recycled materials

Set service levels for road and kerb maintenance

Use interactive website maps to promote capital projects and display service

based information, including road works and street sweeping

Trial dust suppressant on unsealed roads to improve driver safety and reduce

maintenance costs

PA

GE

73Action Plan


Area ActionFootpaths Set service levels for footpath maintenance, starting with Modbury precinct

Use interactive website maps to promote planned footpath works (capital

works program)

Playgrounds Maintain a high level of maintenance on all playgrounds

Use interactive website maps to promote planned playground renewals (capital

works program)

Library Implement new customer service model including improved ways for

customers to identify library staff

Implement extended library opening hours from 1 July 2019

Review and implement early literacy programs session times to meet customer

needs

Proactively promote library services

Recreation Centres and Arts Centre Review current operations and services (eg. sports programming, venue hire,

partnerships and asset management)

Review usage rates for Arts Centre

Sport and community facilities Review and assess hard courts

Audit Council-owned sports facilities

Establish a long-term facility upgrade program

Waterworld Aquatic Centre Review current operations and services (eg. programs offered, venue hire,

asset management, structure)

PA

GE

74Action Plan


Area ActionCustomer service/communication Implement further stages of new Customer Request Management system to

improve customer experience

Implementation of self service options for key services (i.e. rates, hall hire,

section 221s)

Proactively promote the role of Council and its services

Conduct customer experience and communication training

Implement post-service feedback process using the new Customer Request

Management system

Major events/arts & cultural

activities

Continue to conduct post event surveys to obtain community/attendee

feedback and identify new opportunities

Engage with key groups to improve accessibility and inclusion

Community engagement Grow Council’s ‘Have Your Say Tea Tree Gully’ online community membership

Proactively promote ‘have your say’ opportunities and the subsequent

outcomes and decisions

Raise staff awareness of opportunities to engage with our community

Community centres, services and

programs

Continue to evaluate programs and obtain participant feedback, including

ensuring they are appropriate, sustainable and inclusive

Gain a better understanding of what the community wants in regards to

community centres, services and programs

2019 COMMUNITY SURVEY - City of Tea Tree Gully · Methodology & Sample 5 Sample Accuracy 6...

Documents

Transcript of 2019 COMMUNITY SURVEY - City of Tea Tree Gully · Methodology & Sample 5 Sample Accuracy 6...