Holroyd City Council Special Rate Variation Research Prepared by: Micromex Research Date: December...

Holroyd City CouncilSpecial Rate Variation Research

Prepared by: Micromex Research Date: December 2013

Background

3

Background & Objective

Background

Holroyd City Council is facing the challenge of balancing community expectations with future financial sustainability, and as such has determined that it needs to apply for a special rate variation in order to fund future services, facilities, programs and initiatives for its residents.

Research Objectives

As part of the application process, Holroyd City Council requested Micromex Research conduct a robust community research survey in order to:

1. Measure community support for the introduction of a special rate levy

2. Provide an avenue for feedback in order for residents to express their views on the proposed SRV

4

Interviewing & Sample Size Implications

Interviewing

A random telephone survey of 400 residents was conducted between 23rd and 27th November 2013.

Interviewing was conducted in accordance with IQCA (Interviewer Quality Control Australia) Standards and the Market Research Society Code of Professional Conduct. Where applicable, the issues in each question were systematically rearranged for each respondent.

Sampling Size Implication

A random community sample size of 400 provides a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 4.9% at 95% confidence.

This means that if the survey was replicated with a new universe of n=400 Holroyd residents, that 19 times out of 20 we would expect to see the same results, i.e. +/- 4.9%.

Therefore the research findings documented in this report should be interpreted by Holroyd Council and IPART as not just the opinions of 400 residents, but as an accurate and robust measure of the entire Holroyd community’s attitudes.

5

Questionnaire Flow

The questionnaire was developed in conjunction with Council staff

QA. Before we start, I would like to check whether you or an immediate

family member works for Holroyd City Council?

Q1. In which suburb do you live?

Q2. How satisfied are you with the quality of infrastructure, such as

buildings, roads, footpaths and parks, currently provided by

Council in the local area?

Q3. How satisfied are you with the level of services currently provided

by Council in the local area?

Q4. How important do you believe it is for Council to implement

programs that will provide better infrastructure?

READ CONCEPT

Q5. How supportive are you of Council proceeding with this special

rate variation?

Q6. Why do you say that?

• The questionnaire, of approximately 5 minutes in duration, was designed to establish current attitudes and explore community response to the proposed resource strategies

Questionnaire Structure

Q7. Prior to this call were you aware that Council is potentially

seeking to make an application for a special rate variation?

Q8. How were you informed of the Special Rate Variation?

Q9. Based on what you have been told, how important do you

believe it is that Holroyd City Council is allowed to

introduce this special rates variation?

Q10. Please stop me when I read out your age bracket:

Q11. Which of the following best describes the house where you

are currently living?

Q12. Do you live in a :

Q13. Which of the following best describes your current

employment status?

Q12. Gender

6

How To Interpret Rating Scores

Ratings questions

The Unipolar Scale of 1 to 5 was used in all rating questions, where 1 was the lowest importance, satisfaction or support and 5 the highest importance, satisfaction or support

This scale allowed for a mid range position for those who had a divided or neutral opinion.

1.99 or lower ‘Very low’ level of importance/satisfaction/support2.00 – 2.49 ‘Low’ level of importance/satisfaction/support2.50 – 2.99 ‘Moderately low’ level of importance/satisfaction/support3.00 – 3.59 ‘Moderate’ level of importance/satisfaction/support3.60 – 3.89 ‘Moderately high’ level of importance/satisfaction/support3.90 – 4.19 ‘High’ level of importance/satisfaction/support4.20 – 4.49 ‘Very high’ level of importance/satisfaction/support4.50 + ‘Extreme’ level of importance/satisfaction/support

Sample Profile

8

Base: n=400

Other

Home duties

Work part time outside the

Holroyd LGA

6 - 10 years

Less than 6 months

Ratepayers

50-64

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2%

3%

6%

7%

9%

10%

13%

15%

36%

42%

21%

23%

12%

1%

1%

20%

80%

16%

21%

28%

36%

51%

49%

Gender

Age

Ratepayer status

Years lived in the area

Employment status

Sample Profile

The sample has been weighted to reflect ABS Census data

9

90% Of Residents Are At Least Somewhat Satisfied With Infrastructure Provided By Council

Base: n=400

Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

▲▼ = significantly higher/lower level(by group)

Q. How satisfied are you with the quality of infrastructure currently provided by Council in the local area?

Not at all satisfied

Not very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

0% 20% 40% 60%

4%

6%

17%

55%

18%

Mean ratings

Male Female Own Rent

3.78 3.77 3.73 3.94

Overall: 3.77

18-34 35-49 50-64 65+

3.82 3.53▼ 3.76 4.10▲

Those aged 65+ are significantly more satisfied with the quality of infrastructure currently provided than were those aged 35-49

10

93% Of Residents Are At Least Somewhat Satisfied With The Level Of Services Currently Provided By

Council

Base: n=400

Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied

▲▼ = significantly higher/lower level(by group)

Q. How satisfied are you with the level of services currently provided by Council in the local area?

Not at all satisfied

Not very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Satisfied

Very satisfied

0% 20% 40% 60%

2%

5%

21%

55%

17%

Mean ratings


3.76 3.83 3.78 3.85

Overall: 3.79

18-34 35-49 50-64 65+

3.75▼ 3.61▼ 3.86 4.15▲

Those aged 65+ were significantly more satisfied with the level of service currently provided than were those aged 18-49

11

A very small minority do not believe it is important for Council to implement programs that will provide better infrastructure and

services

98% Of Residents Believe It Is At Least Somewhat Important For Council To Implement Programs That

Will Provide Better Infrastructure And Services

Base: n=400

Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very important

▲▼ = significantly higher/lower level (by group)

Q. How important do you believe it is for Council to implement programs that will provide better infrastructure and services?

Not at all important

Not very important

Somewhat important

Important

Very important

0% 20% 40% 60%

1%

1%

6%

32%

60%

Mean ratings


4.36▼ 4.62▲ 4.46 4.61

Overall: 4.49

18-34 35-49 50-64 65+

4.50 4.50 4.46 4.49

Funding Options

13

SRV Concept Statement

Read statement:

Council is facing the challenge of balancing community expectations with future financial sustainability. Council is experiencing a growing gap between the cost of providing services and facilities and the available funding to meet those costs. This position is as a result of a long term ‘cap’ on Council’s ability to increase rates; costs rising more than CPI (especially in areas like construction) and the City’s increasing growth. Council has consulted with the community and has identified 3 potential options to deal with this growing funding gap. Those three options are:

Option 1 - Decline in Service (Decline in services and maintain rates) Option 2 - Maintain Service (Maintain services, increase rates)Option 3 - Improve Service (Improve services, increase rates)

Residents were read this before being asked for their level of support

14

Decline In Service


Option 1:

No rate increase above the State Restricted Level of around 3% which in effect would lead to a reduction in services and/or infrastructure. Based on an expected annual increase of around 3%, residential ratepayers would pay on average around $38 more each year. This is an average annual charge of $1,431 (or a quarterly charge of $358) by 2019/2020.

Under this option savings could include:

• Reduced opening hours or possible closure of facilities including pools, libraries, etc.• Reduced maintenance of sporting facilities, parks and gardens• Reduced maintenance of roads, footpaths, cycleways and drains• Reduced environmental programs (e.g. weed removal and native vegetation programs)• Longer processing times for customer requests, applications and permits.• Fewer community events • Less funds for community sponsorship and economic development • Large increases in user fees and charges

15

Just Over ½ The Residents Are Supportive Of Option 1 – Decline Service

Base: n=400

Q. How supportive are you of Council proceeding with this option?

Not at all supportive

Not very supportive

Somewhat supportive

Supportive

Very supportive

0% 10% 20% 30%

21%

23%

21%

26%

9%

Mean ratings


2.97▲ 2.60▼ 2.75 2.89

Overall: 2.78

18-34 35-49 50-64 65+

2.77 2.65 2.76 3.02

Scale: 1 = not at all supportive, 5 = very supportive


Only 9% of residents are very supportive of this option

16

Maintain Service

Option 2:

Increase rates by 9% for 4 years and 8% for 1 year. Maintain our services and renew our current infrastructure. Residential ratepayers would pay on average around $85 more each year over this 5 year period. This is would mean that by 2019/2020 the average annual rate charge would be $1,711 (or a quarterly charge of $428)

• Maintaining opening hours and programs at pools, libraries, although no new facilities would be constructed

• Maintenance of sporting facilities, parks and gardens would remain as is, with no increase to mowing, planting or maintenance

• Construction of roads, footpaths, cycleways and drains would be maintained• Environmental programs would be retained (e.g. weed removal and native vegetation

programs)• Processing times for customer requests, applications and permits would remain the

same• Community events would be maintained, but not expanded • Funding of community sponsorship and Economic Development would be maintained


17

Almost ¾ Of Residents Are At Least Somewhat Supportive Of Option 2 – Maintain Service

Those aged 18-34 were significantly more supportive of Option 2 – Maintain Service than

were those aged 35-49



Not very supportive

Somewhat supportive

Supportive

Very supportive

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

16%

12%

30%

32%

11%

Mean ratings


3.05 3.12 3.04 3.28

Overall: 3.09

18-34 35-49 50-64 65+

3.25▲ 2.79▼ 3.12 3.20

Base: n=400



18

Enhance Services

Option 3:

Enhanced Services. Under this option rates would increase by 9% for 6 years, which would provide for our services to be maintained, current infrastructure renewed and new services and/or infrastructure developed. Residential ratepayers would pay on average around $98 more each year over this 6 year period. This would mean that by 2019/2020 the average annual rate charge would be $1,790 (or a quarterly charge of $448).

In addition to maintaining all current service levels this option would enable Council to provide the community new additional or enhanced services and infrastructure that could include:

• Improve condition of standard of assets such as roads, footpaths, cycleways and drains, sporting grounds, parks and gardens in a shorter timeframe

• Processing times for customers making requests, lodging applications, seeking permits, etc., would be improved

• Delivery of new and enhanced services in consultation with the community • New capital works projects built and managed such as buildings, sporting facilities and

playgrounds• Hyland Road Sporting Complex fully implemented in a shorter timeframe• Improve condition of standards of existing assets • Increase allocation of parking in town centres


19


66% Of Residents Are At Least Somewhat Supportive Of Option 3 - Enhance

Non-ratepayers are significantly more supportive of this Option than are ratepayers



Mean ratings


3.07 3.10 2.98▼ 3.54▲

Overall: 3.09

18-34 35-49 50-64 65+

3.56▲ 2.85▼ 2.77▼ 2.87▼

Base: n=400


Not very supportive

Somewhat supportive

Supportive

Very supportive

0% 10% 20% 30%

17%

17%

24%

24%

18%

20

Option 2 – Maintain Services Is The Most Preferred Option With 40% Of Residents Selecting This As

Their First Preference

The majority recognise that there needs to be some investment into the services and facilities

offered in the LGA

Q. Please rank the 3 options in order of preference:

Base: n=400

Option 1 - Decline in services

Option 3 - Enhance services

Option 2 - Maintain services

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

26%

35%

40%

23%

27%

50%

52%

38%

10%

1 2 3

Mean ratings

1.70

2.03

2.26

Maintain services, increase rates (40%)

Services and facilities need to be maintained 15%

Happy to pay an increase to see the area maintained 6%

Enhance services, increase rates (35%)

Services and facilities need improvement 21%

Decline in services and maintain rates (26%)

Can not afford a rate increase 15%

Council need to find alternative funding 6%

21

Option 2 – Maintain Services (40%)

“I am happy to pay a slight increase to see the area maintained”

“Council needs to be more efficient with how funds are

spent”

“The area is already better than most other surrounding Councils and it doesn't need much

improvement, but I don't want services to deteriorate in the area”

“It is financially, a better option for most

people in the area”

“Council needs to maintain current services without too

high a rate increase”

“Services need to be maintained for the

increasing the population”

Q. What is your reason for choosing that option as your highest preference?

“The community needs services to be maintained so they don't go backwards”

“Council needs to maintain services but ensure extra funding is spent in the right

areas”

22

Option 3 – Enhance Services (35%)


“Growth is required so services don't go backwards”

“This allows for new projects and developments in the

area”

“Rates are going to increase regardless so I would prefer to see improved services in the area as a

result of a rate increase”

“It creates jobs for people within the community”

“Everything needs to be improved and I don't mind

paying a little more for this”

“It will be a greater benefit to the community as the local area has to be

sustainable”

“If no one pays for a rate increase then nothing will get done and

everything will decline”

23

Option 1 – Decline In Services (26%)


“I can not afford a rate increase”

“Council are not spending current funds wisely and need

to review this”

“I already pay enough in rates each year and am not being provided

with decent infrastructure or services”

“I don’t believe Council would make any changes even with higher rates”

“As the area is growing Council are getting more funding”

“Council has given no guarantee that older, more established areas will benefit from the rate increase”

“Both Council and residents need to contribute to maintaining services and infrastructure”

24

42% Of Residents Were Aware Of Council Potentially Applying For An SRV

Not surprisingly, ratepayers are more aware

Yes42%

No58%

Q. Prior to this call were you aware that Council is potentially seeking to make application for a special rate variation?

Males more likely than females

Ratepayers more likely than non-ratepayers

Those aged 35-65+ more likely than those aged 18-34

Base: n=400

Conclusion

26

Conclusion

Residents have strong levels of satisfaction with the current levels of servicing and facilities provided by Council.

Residents indicated they believe it is highly important that Council continues to improve facilities and services. As such, it is of little surprise that residents are generally supportive of a rate increase of some type.

1. Residents were most supportive of Option 2 – Maintain Services and Increase Rates

73% of residents were at least ‘somewhat supportive’ of Holroyd Council proceeding with Option 2

66% of residents were at least ‘somewhat supportive’ of Holroyd Council proceeding with Option 3

2. Overall, residents preferred Option 2 – Maintain Services and Increase Rates 40% of residents selected Option 2 as their most preferred option 35% of residents selected Option 3 as their most preferred option

These outcomes indicate that the community wants to be able to invest in ensuring the quality of services and infrastructure is at

least maintained

Telephone: (02) 4352 2388 Fax: (02) 4352 2117Web: www.micromex.com.au Email: [email protected]

Holroyd City Council Special Rate Variation Research Prepared by: Micromex Research Date: December...

Documents

Transcript of Holroyd City Council Special Rate Variation Research Prepared by: Micromex Research Date: December...