Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Coffs Harbour City Council
Prepared by: Micromex Research Date: May 2020
Customer Satisfaction Research
Table of ContentsBackground and Methodology 3
Sample Profile 7
Key Findings 9
Detailed Results 17
Performance of Council 18
Summary of Council Services and Facilities 22
Comparison to Micromex Benchmarks 33
Priority Issues 38
Living in the Coffs Harbour LGA 41
Contact and Communication 44
Importance of and Satisfaction with Council’s Services and Facilities 54
Appendix A: Additional Analyses 82
Appendix B: Further Demographics 101
Appendix C: Questionnaire 103
Background & Methodology
4
Background & Methodology
Why?
• Understand and identify community priorities for the Coffs Harbour City Council LGA
• Identify the community’s overall level of satisfaction with Council performance
• Assess and establish the community’s priorities and satisfaction in relation to Council activities, services, andfacilities
• Compare results to the Micromex Community Benchmarks (using normative data from over 35 regional LGA,since 2014)
• Explore and understand resident experiences contacting Council
How?
• Micromex Research, together with Coffs Harbour City Council developed the questionnaire. A previous surveyinstrument used in 2012-2018 was re-visited and updated in 2020. Though the structure of the survey remainedsimilar to previous years, some data was not directly comparable.
• Telephone survey (landline and mobile) to N=504 households
• We use a 5 point scale (e.g. 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied)
• Greatest margin of error +/- 4.4%
When?
• Implementation 27th April – 2nd May 2020
5
Background & MethodologySample selection and error
A total of 504 resident interviews were completed. Respondents were selected by means of a computer based random selection process usingthe electronic White Pages and SamplePages.
A sample size of 504 residents provides a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 4.4% at 95% confidence. This means that if the survey wasreplicated with a new universe of N=504 residents, 19 times out of 20 we would expect to see the same results, i.e. +/- 4.4%.
For the survey under discussion the greatest margin of error is 4.4%. This means, for example, that an answer such as ‘yes’ (50%) to a questioncould vary from 45.6% to 54.4%.
The sample was weighted by age and gender to reflect the 2016 ABS Census data for Coffs Harbour City Council LGA .
Interviewing
Interviewing was conducted in accordance with the AMSRS (Australian Market and Social Research Society) Code of Professional Behaviour. The survey was conducted during the period 27th April – 2nd May 2020 between 4:00pm and 8:30pm Monday to Friday, and between 10am and 4pm on Saturdays. Where phones were not answered e.g. diverted to answering machines or engaged, interviewers called up to 3 times throughout the duration of the project to ensure a sample size of 504 was achieved.Approximately 275 hours were spent interviewing, with each survey averaging 15.75 minutes.
Prequalification
Participants in this survey were pre-qualified as being over the age of 18, and not working for, nor having an immediate family member workingfor Coffs Harbour City Council.
Data analysis
The data within this report was analysed using Q Professional.
Within the report, ▲▼ and blue and red font colours are used to identify statistically significant differences between groups, i.e., gender, age,ratepayer status, length of time lived in the LGA and residential location .
Significance difference testing is a statistical test performed to evaluate the difference between two measurements. To identify the statisticallysignificant differences between the groups of means, ‘One-Way Anova tests’ and ‘Independent Samples T-tests’ were used. ‘Z Tests’ were alsoused to determine statistically significant differences between column percentages.
6
Background & MethodologyRatings questions
The Unipolar Scale of 1 to 5 was used in all rating questions, where 1 was the lowest importance or satisfaction and 5 the highest importance orsatisfaction.
This scale allowed us to identify different levels of importance and satisfaction across respondents.
Top 2 (T2) Box: refers to the aggregate percentage (%) score of the top two scores for importance. (i.e. important & very important)
Top 3 (T3) Box: refers to the aggregate percentage (%) score of the top three scores for satisfaction or support. (i.e. somewhat satisfied, satisfied &very satisfied)
We refer to T3 Box Satisfaction in order to express moderate to high levels of satisfaction in a non-discretionary category. We only report T2 BoxImportance in order to provide differentiation and allow us to demonstrate the hierarchy of community priorities.
Percentages
All percentages are calculated to the nearest whole number and therefore the total may not exactly equal 100%.
Micromex LGA Benchmark
Micromex has developed Community Satisfaction Benchmarks using normative data from over 60 unique councils, more than 120 surveys andover 68,000 interviews since 2012.
Please note: The Micromex Benchmark satisfaction norms are based on surveys where only those rating importance as 4 or higher were asked torate their satisfaction. Coffs Harbour City Council LGA residents were all asked to rate satisfaction, regardless of importance score and thereforethe applicable tables in this report should be considered as a point of interest only.
Word Frequency Tagging
Verbatim responses for ‘open ended’ questions were collated and entered into analytical software. This analysis ‘counts’ the number of times aparticular word or phrase appears and, based on the frequency of that word or phrase, a font size is generated. The larger the font, the morefrequently the word or sentiment is mentioned.
Sample Profile
8
The sample was weighted by age and gender to reflect the 2016 ABS community profile of Coffs Harbour City Council.
Sample Profile
Gender
Female 52% Male 48 %
23% 23%27% 27%
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+
Age
Ratepayer status
Ratepayer 78%
Non-ratepayer 22%
Time lived in the area
2% 4% 9%
29%
56%
Up to 2years
2-5 years 5-10 years 10-20years
Morethan 20years
Location type
75%
18%
7%
Urban Rural Mixed/unsure
N=504 Telephone Interviews with Coffs Harbour City Council
LGA residents
*None of the above <1%
Key Findings
10
Key Findings - Summary
82%
of Coffs Harbour LGA residents were at least
somewhat satisfied with the performance of Council in
the last 12 months
Top Drivers of Overall Satisfaction
Highest Priority IssuesMost Valued Aspects of the area
79% of residents were at least somewhat satisfied with the
level of communication Council currently has with the
community
Waste and recycling
Enforcement of local building regulations
Economic Development
Natural environment/beauty
Lifestyle/atmosphere
Central location
Weather and climate
Maintaining/improving roads
General town maintenance
Completion of bypass
Council’s level of communication with the
community
11
Key Opportunity Areas
Consultation, communication and engagement with the Community
Satisfaction with Council’s communication was included in the regression analysis to highlight the importance ofcommunity engagement and consultation.
• ‘Council’s level of communication with the community’ was the strongest driver of overall satisfaction,contributing to almost 40%.
• Issues relating to communication were common reasons for residents being either not at all, or not very satisfiedwith the performance of Council.
12
Key Opportunity Areas
Cleanliness and Appearance of the Area
Waste collection, cleanliness and appearance of the local area became a common theme throughout theresearch.
• ‘Waste and recycling’ was the second strongest driver of overall satisfaction, contributing to over 10%.
• Residents placed significantly higher levels of importance (than benchmark norms) on ‘cleanliness of streets’.
• When asked about the top priority issues for the area, 17% of residents suggested ‘general town maintenanceincluding updated infrastructure, development and cleanliness in the area’ as the biggest priority.
• In terms of what council could do in order to better assist the community over the coming months of COVID-19,the suggestion to ‘keep waste services open/increase garbage collection during this time’ was the secondhighest response (10%).
• ‘Waste and recycling’ was the highest rated service/facility in terms of importance, and demonstrated thelargest gap in performance (between importance and satisfaction).
13
Key Opportunity Areas
Economic Development and Tourism in the Area
Encouraging people to the area, as well as economic growth in the area were frequently mentioned
‘Economic development’ was the service/facility with the second largest gap in performance (betweenimportance and satisfaction)
Both ‘Economic development’ and ‘tourism marketing’ were 2 of the 10 strongest drivers of overallsatisfaction.
‘Economic Development’ was also among the 5 lowest rated services/facilities in terms of satisfaction.
When compared to previous research, level of importance increased significantly for both ‘economicdevelopment’ and ‘tourism marketing’.
14
Key Opportunity Areas
The Local Road Network
Although satisfaction scores are above regional benchmark norms, the local road network is an area of concernfor Coffs Harbour LGA residents.
• ‘Maintaining/improving roads’ was the top suggestion when asked about the highest priority issues for the next10 years.
• ‘Maintenance of sealed roads’ was one of the top 5 measures with the largest performance gaps.
• Both ‘maintenance of unsealed roads’ and ‘maintenance of sealed roads’ were among the 5 lowest ratedservices/facilities in terms of satisfaction.
• ‘Maintenance of unsealed roads’ was one of the top 10 drivers of overall satisfaction.
15
Key Opportunity Areas
• Council’s communication and engagement is critical in shaping the community’s perceptions of Council performance. Greater investment in this area will consolidate/strengthen overall satisfaction.
• Understand needs in relation to cleanliness in the area, and continue to provide adequate waste services to the community
• Continue to focus on economic growth in the area, including the promotion of tourism.
• With the local paper moving online council should look to audit current communication and engagement methods and develop a revised media strategy to upweight community awareness and engagement
• Work with the community to understand and explore expectation with regard to the local road network
Recommendations
16
Unique Differences
As a point of interest, compared to our benchmarks we have identified unique aspects of CoffsHarbour City Council compared to other Regional councils, these include:
• Coffs Harbour LGA residents place a higher level of importance on cleanliness and appearance in their area, with ‘cleanliness of streets’, ‘protection of the natural
environment’ and ‘parks, reserves and playgrounds’ demonstrating higher importance scores than the benchmark norms.
• The following Community facilities also demonstrated significantly higher importance scores than our Regional Benchmark norms:
- Community facilities- Parks, reserves and playgrounds
- Sporting facilities- Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events
• Residents also appeared to be more satisfied with infrastructure, for example ‘maintenance of sealed roads’, ‘maintenance of unsealed roads’, ‘footpaths and
cycleways’, ‘maintenance of public toilets’ and ‘sewerage’ all demonstrated higher satisfaction scores than our regional benchmark norms.
Detailed Results
Perfo
rma
nce
of C
oun
cil
Detailed Results
1. Performance of Council
2. Summary of Council Services &
Facilities
3. Comparison to Micromex
Benchmarks
4. Priority Issues
5. Living in the Coffs Harbour LGA
6. Contact and Communication
7. Importance of, and Satisfaction
with, Council Services & Facilities
19
Overview – Overall Satisfaction
82% of Coffs Harbour LGA residents are at least somewhat satisfied with the performance of Council, on par with the Micromex Regional Benchmark norm. The mean rating for satisfaction
is the highest reported across the 6 year reporting period.
Q5a. Overall, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues, but across all responsibility areas?
T3B Satisfaction Scores
11%
40%
31%
14%
4%
8%
39%
36%
12%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Very satisfied (5)
Satisfied (4)
Somewhat satisfied (3)
Not very satisfied (2)
Not at all satisfied (1)
Coffs Harbour City Council (N=504)
Micromex LGA Benchmark - Regional (N=31,907)
Coffs Harbour City
Council
Micromex LGA Benchmark -
Regional
Mean rating 3.38 3.34
T3 Box 82% 83%
Base 504 31,907
Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied
Mean ratings 3.38 3.29 3.23 3.36
82% 86% 83% 88%
2020 2018 2016 2014
20
Overall Satisfaction
The proportion of residents committing to the top box (very satisfied) has increased significantly since 2018. The 18-34 group demonstrated the highest levels of satisfaction across age groups, and those that have lived in the area for 10 years or less were significantly more
satisfied than residents that have lived in the area for over 10 years.
Q5a. Overall, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues, but across all responsibility areas?
Overall 2020
Overall 2018
Male Female 18–34 35–49 50–64 65+
Mean rating 3.38 3.29 3.40 3.36 3.59 3.37 3.27 3.31
Base 504 506 241 263 115 114 138 136
Ratepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
Ratepayer Non-ratepayer Up to 10 yearsMore than 10
yearsUrban Rural
Mean rating 3.35 3.49 3.62▲ 3.34 3.38 3.32
Base 392 107 72 430 376 93
11%▲
40%
31%▼
14%
4%
6%
34%
46%
11%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Very satisfied (5)
Satisfied (4)
Somewhat satisfied (3)
Not very satisfied (2)
Not at all satisfied (1)
2020 (N=504) 2018 (N=506)▲▼ = A significantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by group/compared to 2018) Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied
21
Reasons for Level of Overall Satisfaction
For those that stated they were satisfied or very satisfied with Council’s performance, general statements of happiness with Council and the job they do (25%), was the dominant reason for
giving this rating. For those that are either not at all or not very satisfied, the most common reason was ‘unhappy with Council e.g. management, communication and budgeting’ (17%).
Q5a. Overall, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues, but across all responsibility areas?
Q5b. What is your main reason for giving this score?
Very satisfied/Satisfied (51%) N=504
Happy with Council/they do a good job e.g. communication, management 25%
Council can always improve e.g. management, communications, infrastructure, events 19%
Good services & facilities/visible improvements in the area 7%
Against development of the Cultural Centre 4%
Area is clean/well maintained 2%
Don't know/nothing 2%
Somewhat Satisfied (31%)
Room for improvements e.g. development, cleanliness of the area, bringing back kerbside collections 14%
Poor decision making and planning/communication/consultation from Council 13%
Against developments, particularly the Cultural Centre 6%
Council do a good job/good services/facilities in the area 4%
Better financial management for Council 2%
Not all Satisfied/Not Very Satisfied (18%)
Unhappy with Council e.g. management, communication and budgeting 17%
Against the development of the Cultural Centre 4%
Need for increased town maintenance/facilities e.g. pools, roads, footpaths 4%
Rates are too high/lower the rates 2%
Please see Appendix A for full list of responses
Sum
ma
ry o
f Co
unc
il Se
rvic
es
& F
ac
ilitie
sDetailed Results
1. Performance of Council
2. Summary of Council Services &
Facilities
3. Comparison to Micromex
Benchmarks
4. Priority Issues
5. Living in the Coffs Harbour LGA
6. Contact and Communication
7. Importance of, and Satisfaction
with, Council Services & Facilities
23
Satisfaction – Key Trends
A core element of this community survey was the rating of 26 facilities/services in terms of importance and satisfaction. The above analysis identifies the key satisfaction trends when
compared to the 2018 research.
Key Satisfaction Trends
2020 2018
Lifeguards 4.14 3.98
Maintenance of bridges 3.94 3.67
Parks, reserves and playgrounds 3.80 3.65
Storm water/flood management 3.74 3.37
Enforcement of pet regulations 3.47 3.16
Coastal management 3.39 3.06
Enforcement of local building regulations 3.28 3.09
Maintenance of public toilets 3.27 2.93
Economic development 3.20 3.04
2020 2018
Cultural facilities 3.34 3.64
Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events
3.79 3.94
Libraries 3.83 4.11
Compared to 2018 research, there were significant increases in resident satisfaction for 9 of the 25 comparable services/facilities provided by Council, specifically:
There was also a significant decline in resident satisfaction for the following:
Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied
24
Importance & Satisfaction – Highest/Lowest Rated Services/Facilities
The above analysis identifies the highest and lowest rated services/facilities in terms of importance and satisfaction.
Importance Satisfaction
The following services/facilities received the highest importance mean ratings:
Top 5 for importance Mean T2 Box
Waste and recycling 4.75 95%
Protection of the natural environment 4.68 94%
Lifeguards 4.64 92%
Parks, reserves and playgrounds 4.60 94%
Storm water/flood management 4.59 91%
The following services/facilities received the lowest importance mean ratings:
Bottom 5 for importance Mean T2 Box
Maintenance of unsealed roads 3.63 57%
Online services such as the website 3.81 66%
Libraries 3.82 65%
Cultural facilities 3.83 66%
Enforcement of pet regulations 4.00 71%
The following services/facilities received the highest satisfaction mean ratings:
The following services/facilities received the lowest satisfaction mean ratings:
Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very important Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied
Top 5 for satisfaction Mean T3 Box
Sewerage 4.32 95%
Water supply 4.25 93%
Lifeguards 4.14 91%
Sporting facilities 3.94 93%
Maintenance of bridges 3.94 95%
Bottom 5 for satisfaction Mean T3 Box
Maintenance of unsealed roads 3.00 72%
Development application processing 3.06 68%
Maintenance of sealed roads 3.18 78%
Economic development 3.20 77%
Maintenance of public toilets 3.27 77%
25
Identifying Priorities via Specialised AnalysisThe specified research outcomes required us to measure both community importance and community satisfaction with a range of specificservice delivery areas. In order to identify core priorities, we undertook a 2-step analysis process on the stated importance and rated satisfactiondata, after which we conducted a third level of analysis. This level of analysis was a Shapley Regression on the data in order to identify whichfacilities and services are the actual drivers of overall satisfaction with Council.
By examining these approaches to analysis, we have been able to:
Identify and understand the hierarchy of community priorities
Inform the deployment of Council resources in line with community aspirations
Performance Gap Analysis
Quadrant Analysis
Shapley Regression Analysis
Determine the services/facilities that driveoverall satisfaction with Council
Step 1. Performance Gap Analysis (PGA)
PGA establishes the gap between importance and satisfaction. This is calculated by subtracting the top 3 satisfaction score from the top 2importance score. In order to measure performance gaps, respondents are asked to rate the importance of, and their satisfaction with, each of arange of different services or facilities on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = low importance or satisfaction and 5 = high importance or satisfaction. Thesescores are aggregated at a total community level.
The higher the differential between importance and satisfaction, the greater the difference is between the provision of that service by CoffsHarbour City Council and the expectation of the community for that service/facility.
In the table on the following page, we can see the services and facilities with the largest performance gaps.
When analysing the performance gaps, it is expected that there will be some gaps in terms of resident satisfaction. Those services/facilities thathave achieved a performance gap of greater than 20% may be indicative of areas requiring future optimisation.
26
Performance Gap AnalysisWhen we examine the largest performance gaps, we can identify that the majority of the services or facilities have been rated as high in
importance, whilst resident satisfaction for all of these areas is between 68% and 91%.
Service/Facility Importance T2 Box Satisfaction T3 BoxPerformance Gap
(Importance –Satisfaction)
Waste and recycling 95% 77% 18%
Economic development 88% 77% 11%
Protection of the natural environment 94% 84% 10%
Maintenance of sealed roads 87% 78% 9%
Footpaths and cycleways 85% 77% 8%
Maintenance of public toilets 84% 77% 7%
Development application processing 75% 68% 7%
Storm water/flood management 91% 87% 4%
Parks, reserves and playgrounds 94% 91% 3%
Note: Performance gap is the first step in the process, we now need to identify comparative ratings across all services and facilities to get an understanding of relative importance and satisfaction at an LGA level. This is when we undertake step 2 of the analysis.
Please see Appendix A for full Performance Gap Ranking
27
Quadrant AnalysisStep 2. Quadrant Analysis
Quadrant analysis is often helpful in planning future directions based on stated outcomes. It combines the stated importance of the communityand assesses satisfaction with delivery in relation to these needs.
This analysis is completed by plotting the variables on x and y axes, defined by stated importance and rated satisfaction. We aggregate the top 2box importance scores and top 3 satisfaction scores for stated importance and rated satisfaction to identify where the facility or service shouldbe plotted.
On average, Coffs Harbour City Council LGA residents rated services/facilities more important than our Benchmark, and their satisfaction was, onaverage, higher.
Explaining the 4 quadrants (overleaf)
Attributes in the top right quadrant, MAINTAIN, such as ‘parks, reserves and playgrounds’, are Council’s core strengths, and should be treated assuch. Maintain, or even attempt to improve your position in these areas, as they are influential and address clear community needs.
Attributes in the top left quadrant, IMPROVE, such as ‘waste and recycling’ are key concerns in the eyes of your residents. In the vast majority ofcases you should aim to improve your performance in these areas to better meet the community’s expectations.
Attributes in the bottom left quadrant, NICHE, such as ‘maintenance of unsealed roads’, are of a relatively lower priority (and the word ‘relatively’should be stressed – they are still important). These areas tend to be important to a particular segment of the community.
Finally, attributes in the bottom right quadrant, COMMUNITY, such as ‘libraries’, are core strengths, but in relative terms they are considered lessovertly important than other directly obvious areas. However, the occupants of this quadrant tend to be the sort of services and facilities thatdeliver to community liveability, i.e. make it a good place to live.
Recommendations based only on stated importance and satisfaction have major limitations, as the actual questionnaire process essentially ‘silos’facilities and services as if they are independent variables, when they are in fact all part of the broader community perception of councilperformance.
Coffs Harbour City Council Micromex Regional Benchmark
Average Importance 81% 77%
Average Satisfaction 84% 81%
28
ImproveHigher importance, lower satisfaction
MaintainHigher importance, higher satisfaction
Imp
ort
anc
e
NicheLower importance, lower satisfaction
Satisfaction CommunityLower importance, higher satisfaction
29
The Shapley Value RegressionStep 3. The Shapley Value Regression
The outcomes identified in stated importance/satisfaction analysis often tend to be obvious and challenging. No matter how much focus acouncil dedicates to maintaining sealed roads, it will often be found in the IMPROVE quadrant. This is because, perceptually, the condition oflocal roads can always be better.
Furthermore, the outputs of stated importance and satisfaction analysis address the current dynamics of the community, they do not predictwhich focus areas are the most likely agents to change the community’s perception of Council’s overall performance.
Therefore, in order to identify how Coffs Harbour City Council can actively drive overall community satisfaction, we conducted further analysis
Explanation of Analysis
Regression analysis is a statistical tool for investigating relationships between dependent variables and explanatory variables. Using a Shapleyregression, a category model was developed. The outcomes demonstrated that increasing resident satisfaction by actioning the priorities theystated as being important would not necessarily positively impact on overall satisfaction.
What Does This Mean?
The learning is that if we only rely on the stated community priorities, we will not be allocating the appropriate resources to the actual serviceattributes that will improve overall community satisfaction. Using regression analysis, we can identify the attributes that essentially build overallsatisfaction. We call the outcomes ‘derived importance’.
Identify top services/facilities that will drive overall satisfaction with Council
Map stated satisfaction and derived importance to identify community priority areas
Determine 'optimisers' that will lift overall satisfaction with Council
30
Key Drivers of Overall Satisfaction with Council
These 9 services/facilities are the key community priorities and by addressing these, Coffs Harbour City Council will improve overall community satisfaction. The score assigned to each area indicates the percentage of influence each attribute contributes to
overall satisfaction with Council.In the above chart, ‘maintenance of unsealed roads’ contributes 3.0% towards overall satisfaction, while ‘Council’s level of communication with the community’ (39%) is a far stronger driver, contributing more than three times as much to overall
satisfaction with Council.
Dependent variable: Overall, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues, but across all responsibility areas?
Note: Please see Appendix A for complete list
3.0%
3.2%
3.2%
3.3%
3.4%
4.0%
4.5%
10.7%
39.1%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%
Maintenance of unsealed roads
Coastal management
Tourism marketing
Council Pools
Development application processing
Economic development
Enforcement of local building regulations
Waste and recycling
Council's level of communication with thecommunity
The results in the chart above identify which services/facilities contribute most to overall satisfaction. If Council can improve satisfaction scores across these services/facilities, they are likely to improve their overall satisfaction score.
The above regression includes the question ‘How satisfied are you currently with the level of communication Council has with the community?’. The analysis highlights the importance of community engagement and consultation.
These top 9 services/facilities (so 35% of the 26 services/facilities) account for more than 70% of the variation in overall satisfaction. Therefore, whilst all 26 services/facilities are important, only a number of them are potentially significant drivers of satisfaction (at this stage, the other 17
services/facilities have less impact on satisfaction – although if resident satisfaction with them was to suddenly change they may have more immediate impact on overall satisfaction).
31
Mapping Stated Satisfaction and Derived Importance Identifies the Community Priority Areas
The above chart looks at the relationship between stated satisfaction (top 3 box) and derived importance (Shapley result) to identify the level of contribution of each measure. Any
services/facilities below the blue line (shown above) could potentially be benchmarked to target in future research to elevate satisfaction levels in these areas.
Derived importance
Sta
ted
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Key Contributors to Barriers/Optimisers
Different levers address the different levels of satisfaction across the community
-22.2%
-6.7%
-3.9%
-2.0%
-2.8%
-2.3%
-1.0%
-1.2%
16.9%
4.0%
0.6%
1.9%
0.6%
1.1%
2.2%
1.9%
-26.0% -13.0% 0.0% 13.0% 26.0%
Council's level of communication with the community
Waste and recycling
Enforcement of local building regulations
Economic development
Development application processing
Council Pools
Tourism marketing
Coastal management, including erosion and sea level rise
Optimisers(45%)
Barriers(55%)
The chart below illustrates the positive/negative contribution the key drivers provide towards overall satisfaction. Some drivers can contribute both negatively and positively depending on the overall opinion of the residents.
The scores on the negative indicate the contribution the driver makes to impeding transition towards satisfaction. If Council can address these areas, they should see a lift in future overall satisfaction results, as they positively transition residents who are currently not at all satisfied to being
satisfied with Council performance.
The scores on the positive indicate the contribution the driver makes towards optimising satisfaction. If Council can improve scores in these areas, they will see a lift in future overall satisfaction results, as they will positively transition residents who are currently already ‘somewhat
satisfied’, towards being more satisfied with Council’s overall performance.
Detailed Results
1. Performance of Council
2. Summary of Council Services &
Facilities
3. Comparison to Micromex
Benchmarks
4. Priority Issues
5. Living in the Coffs Harbour LGA
6. Contact and Communication
7. Importance of, and Satisfaction
with, Council Services & Facilities
Co
mp
aris
on
to M
icro
me
x Be
nchm
ark
s
34
Comparison to the Micromex LGA Benchmark – Largest Importance Gaps
The charts above display the largest variances between Coffs Harbor City Council’s top 2 box importance scores and the Micromex LGA Benchmark (Regional). Coffs Harbour City LGA
residents place more importance (than benchmark norms) on appearance and environment related measures.
57%
87%82%
65%
77%
93%87%
70%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Maintenanceof unsealed
roads
Maintenanceof sealed
roads
Coastalmanagement
Libraries
Coffs Harbour City Council
Micromex LGA Regional Benchmark
91%94%
81%
94%
65%
80%
67%
83%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Cleanliness ofstreets
Protection ofthe natural
environment
Communityfacilities
Parks, reservesand
playgrounds
Coffs Harbour City Council
Micromex LGA Regional Benchmark
Higher Community Priorities(compared to Benchmark norms)
Lower Community Priorities(compared to Benchmark norms)
35
Comparison to the Micromex LGA Benchmark - ImportanceThe table below shows the largest variances between Coffs Harbour City Council’s top 2 box importance scores and the Micromex LGA
Benchmark. We can see that for 7 of the comparable services/facilities, residents’ top 2 box scores are higher than, or equal to 10% above the benchmark score. For those that are lower than Benchmark norms, 1 service, ‘maintenance of unsealed roads’, experienced a variance of ≥10%.
Service/Facility
Coffs Harbour City Council
T2 box importance score
Micromex LGA Benchmark –
RegionalT2 box importance
score
Variance
Cleanliness of streets 91% 65% 26%▲
Protection of the natural environment 94% 80% 14%▲
Community facilities 81% 67% 14%▲
Parks, reserves and playgrounds 94% 83% 11%▲
Storm water/flood management 91% 81% 10%▲
Sporting facilities 86% 76% 10%▲
Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events 80% 70% 10%▲
Maintenance of sealed roads 87% 93% -6%
Maintenance of unsealed roads 57% 77% -20%▼
Note: Benchmark differences are based on assumed variants of +/- 10%, with variants beyond +/- 10% more likely to be significant▲/▼ = positive/negative difference equal to/greater than 10% from Benchmark.Please see Appendix A for full list of benchmark comparisons.
36
Comparison to the Micromex LGA Benchmark – Largest Satisfaction Gaps
The charts above display the largest variances between Coffs Harbour City Council’s top 3 box satisfaction scores and the Micromex LGA Benchmark (Regional). Coffs Harbour City LGA residents are more satisfied (than benchmark norms) with the maintenance of sealed and
unsealed roads.
77% 79%
88%83%
89% 91%95%
88%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Waste andrecycling
Culturalfacilities
Libraries Coastalmanagement
Coffs Harbour City Council
Micromex LGA Regional Benchmark
78%72%
91%
79%
58%55%
74%68%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Maintenanceof sealed
roads
Maintenanceof unsealed
roads
Cleanliness ofstreets
Enforcementof localbuilding
regulationsCoffs Harbour City Council
Micromex LGA Regional Benchmark
Higher Levels of Satisfaction(compared to Benchmark norms)
Lower Levels of Satisfaction(compared to Benchmark norms)
37
Comparison to the Micromex LGA Benchmark - SatisfactionThe table below shows the largest variances between Coffs Harbour City Council’s top 3 box satisfaction scores and the Micromex LGA
Benchmark. We can see that for 5 of the comparable services/facilities, residents’ top 3 box scores are higher than, or equal to 10% above the Benchmark score. For those that are lower than Benchmark norms, 2 services, ‘cultural facilities’, and ‘waste and recycling’, experienced a
variance of ≥10%.
Service/Facility
Coffs Harbour City Council
T3 box satisfaction score
Micromex LGA Benchmark –
RegionalT3 box satisfaction
score
Variance
Maintenance of sealed roads 78% 58% 20%▲
Maintenance of unsealed roads 72% 55% 17%▲
Cleanliness of streets 91% 74% 17%▲
Enforcement of local building regulations 79% 68% 11%▲
Footpaths and cycleways 77% 67% 10%▲
Cultural facilities 79% 91% -12%▼
Waste and recycling 77% 89% -12%▼
Note: Benchmark differences are based on assumed variants of +/- 10%, with variants beyond +/- 10% more likely to be significant▲/▼ = positive/negative difference equal to/greater than 10% from BenchmarkPlease see Appendix A for full list of benchmark comparisons.
Please note: The Micromex Benchmark satisfaction norms are based on surveys where only those rating importance as 4 or higher were asked to rate their satisfaction. Coffs Harbour City Council LGA residents were all asked to rate satisfaction and therefore the below
should be considered as a point of interest only.
Detailed Results
1. Performance of Council
2. Summary of Council Services &
Facilities
3. Comparison to Micromex
Benchmarks
4. Priority Issues
5. Living in the Coffs Harbour LGA
6. Contact and Communication
7. Importance of, and Satisfaction
with, Council Services & Facilities
Prio
rity
Issu
es
39
Better Assisting the Community
When asked what Council could do in order to better assist the Coffs Harbour City community in times of local emergency or disaster, 11% suggested to ‘support the community e.g. rate cuts, supporting local businesses’. ‘Keep waste services open/increase garbage collection during this time’ (10%) was also a
common response, as well as concerns around the new Cultural Centre (10%).
Q1. What do you believe Council could do in order to better assist our community over the coming months of COVID-19 or in other times of local emergency or disaster?
10%
10%
10%
8%
7%
6%
4%
4%
4%
4%
40%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Keep waste services open/increase garbagecollection during this time
Stop building new Cultural Centre
Support the community e.g. rate cuts, supportinglocal business
Improved communication/provision ofinformation/consultation
Policing COVID rules/restrictions
Council is doing well/can't do much/the issue isbeyond Council
Be better prepared in the future for emergencyevents e.g. floods, fires
Better Council management e.g. budgeting,staffing, development priorities
Continue Council services e.g. maintenance,cleaning, upgrades
While things are quiet work on roads/supportinginfrastructure
Don't know/nothing
Base: N = 504 Please see Appendix A for full list of responses
40
Priority Issues
18% of Coffs Harbour LGA residents suggested ‘maintaining/improving roads’ as the highest priority issue. General town maintenance, as well as completion of the bypass were also
common responses.
Q2b. Thinking of the next 10 years, what do you believe will be the highest priority issues within the Coffs Harbour City Council region?
Base: N = 504
18%
17%
15%
13%
12%
9%
9%
8%
0% 10% 20%
Maintaining/improving roads
General town maintenance includingupdated infrastructure, development
and cleanliness in the area
Completion of bypass
Improved Council management e.g.budgeting, communications, planning
Employment/business opportunities
Improved/additionalfootpaths/cycleways
Waste services/management
Against building of the Cultural Centre
Please see Appendix A for full list of responses‘
Livi
ng in
the
Co
ffs H
arb
our
LG
ADetailed Results
1. Performance of Council
2. Summary of Council Services &
Facilities
3. Comparison to Micromex
Benchmarks
4. Priority Issues
5. Living in the Coffs Harbour LGA
6. Contact and Communication
7. Importance of, and Satisfaction
with, Council Services & Facilities
42
Most Valued Aspect of Living in the Coffs Harbour LGA
48% of residents suggested the ‘natural environment/beauty’ as the most valued aspect about living in the Coffs Harbour region. The lifestyle and atmosphere in the area was also highly
valued.
Q2a. What do you value most about living in the Coffs Harbour City Council region?
Base: N = 504
48%
21%
18%
18%
13%
12%
7%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Natural environment/beauty of thebeaches and mountains
Lifestyle/atmosphere e.g. quiet,relaxed, rural, coastal
Central location/proximity tobeaches, services and facilities
Weather and climate
Community feel e.g. friendly, familyarea
Availability of good qualityservices/facilities/activities
I have always lived here/it ishome/nice area
A well maintained area e.g. clean,good roads, upgrades
Please see Appendix A for full list of responses‘
43
Quality of Life
Quality of life in the Coffs Harbour City Council LGA is very high, with 96% of residents rating it as good to excellent, and a significantly higher portion of residents selected the top box of ‘excellent’ than
regional benchmark norms. Ratepayers rated their quality of life significantly higher than non-ratepayers, and quality of life was higher in rural locations than in urban settings.
Q3. Overall, how would you rate the quality of life you have living in the Coffs Harbour City Council region?
▲▼ = A significantly higher/lower rating (by group)↑↓ = A significantly higher/lower rating (compared to the benchmark)
Overall 2020 Male Female 18–34 35–49 50–64 65+
Mean rating 5.21 5.28 5.14 5.16 5.23 5.26 5.18
Base 504 241 263 115 114 138 136
Ratepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
Ratepayer Non-ratepayer Up to 10 yearsMore than 10
yearsUrban Rural
Mean rating 5.27▲ 4.99 5.16 5.22 5.19 5.33
Base 392 107 72 430 376 93
43%↑
41%
12%↓
3%
1%
<1%
31%
42%
21%
4%
1%
<1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Excellent (6)
Very good (5)
Good (4)
Fair (3)
Poor (2)
Very poor (1)
Coffs Harbour City Council (N=504) Micromex LGA Benchmark - Regional (N=4,861)
Coffs Harbour City
Council
Micromex LGA Benchmark -
Regional
Mean rating 5.21↑ 4.96
T3 Box 96% 94%
Base 504 4,861
Scale: 1 = very poor, 6 = excellent
Co
nta
ct a
nd C
om
mun
ica
tion
Detailed Results
1. Performance of Council
2. Summary of Council Services &
Facilities
3. Comparison to Micromex
Benchmarks
4. Priority Issues
5. Living in the Coffs Harbour LGA
6. Contact and Communication
7. Importance of, and Satisfaction
with, Council Services & Facilities
45
Contact with Council
45% of Coffs Harbour City LGA residents had made contact with Council in the last 12 months, an increase from 2018 results. Ratepayers were significantly more likely to have made contact
and across age groups, those aged 35-64 were more likely to have made contact.
Q6. Have you contacted Council within the past 12 months?
▲▼ = A significantly higher/lower percentage (by group)
Overall 2020
Overall 2018
Male Female 18–34 35–49 50–64 65+
Yes 45%▲ 35% 43% 46% 40% 50% 50% 38%
Base 504 506 241 263 115 114 138 136
Ratepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
Ratepayer Non-ratepayer Up to 10 yearsMore than 10
yearsUrban Rural
Yes 48%▲ 33% 49% 44% 43% 50%
Base 392 107 72 430 376 93
Yes 45%No 55%
Base: N=504
46
Contact with Council
Of those who had made contact with Council, 70% had made contact more than once, with an average of 2.4 contacts. The percentage of residents making contact four or more times
has increased slightly since 2018.
Q7. (If yes on Q6) Could you please tell me approximately how many times you have contacted Council during this time?
Number of contacts Overall 2020 Overall 2018 Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+
Once (1) 30% 32% 26% 33% 30% 25% 27% 40%
Twice (2) 24% 25% 25% 24% 28% 25% 23% 23%
Three times (3) 17% 20% 19% 15% 8% 19% 22% 15%
Four or more times (4) 29% 23% 31% 27% 35% 31% 29% 22%
Mean 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.2▼
Base 225 178 103 122 46 58 69 52
Number of contactsRatepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
Ratepayer Non-ratepayer Up to 10 yearsMore than 10
yearsUrban Rural
Once (1) 30% 34% 29% 30% 30% 25%
Twice (2) 25% 21% 29% 23% 28% 18%
Three times (3) 17% 12% 6% 19%▲ 14% 28%▲
Four or more times (4) 28% 33% 36% 28% 29% 29%
Mean 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.6
Base 187 36 35 188 161 46
30%24%
17%
29%32%25%
20% 23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Once Twice Three times Four or more times2020 2018
▲▼ = A significantly higher/lower percentage or rating (by group)Note: 2018 respondents that stated ‘unsure’ were not included in the above analysis
47
Reasons for Contacting Council
For residents that had made contact with Council, ‘garbage/waste management/recycling/tips’ (15%) and ‘development applications (13%) were the most common reasons for contact. Those aged 18-34 were
significantly more likely to make contact regarding ‘businesses/economic development enquiries’ and ‘water billing’, and those living in rural settings were significantly more likely to make contact regarding ‘development
applications’.
Q8a. (If yes on Q6) Thinking about your most recent enquiry, what was that contact regarding?
13%
3%
1%
1%
2%
1%
4%
2%
6%
4%
14%
9%
9%
12%15%
17%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
5%
8%
8%
9%
9%
13%15%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Other
Can’t recall
Traffic management/parking
Septic tanks
Road or bridge closures
Other parks and gardens
Cultural facilities
Community facilities
Building inspection inquiries
Sporting facilities
Community development enquiries
Business/economic development enquiries
Drainage problem
Water billing
Road and footpath improvements
Rates inquiry
Ranger matters - barking dogs, livestock, etc.
Water, sewage
Vegetation and trees
Development application (DA)
Garbage/waste management/recycling/tips
2020 (N=225) 2018 (N=179)
Please see Appendix A for results by demographics and ‘other specified responses
48
Resolution of the Issue
45% of residents that had made contact with Council stated their issue was resolved after the first contact, with a mean of 1.7 contacts to have an issue resolved. The 18-34 age group were
more likely to state that their issue was resolved after the first contact.
Q8b. (If yes on Q6) And regarding that matter, how many times did you need to contact Council to have your issue resolved?
31%
3%
6%
16%
43%
26%
5%
10%
15%
45%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Not yet resolved (NA)
4 or more times (4)
Three times (3)
Twice (2)
Once (1)
2020 (N=225) 2018 (N=178)
Please see Appendix A for results by demographicsNote: Issues that are still not resolved were not included in the mean calculation
Mean number of contacts = 1.7
49
3%
13%
15%
68%
2%
12%
15%
71%
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75%
Letter
Face-to-face
Email or website
Telephone
2020 (N=225) 2018 (N=179)
Method of Contact
As was the case in 2018, telephone was the most common method of contacting Council. There were no significant differences across demographics, however those that have lived in
the area for up to 10 years were more likely to have made contact via email or website.
Q8c. (If yes on Q6) How did you first make contact with Council?
Note: No respondents selected the options ‘MyBin app’ or ‘social media’
Method of contact Overall 2020 Overall 2018 Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+Telephone 71% 68% 68% 73% 70% 72% 77% 63%Email or website 15% 15% 14% 16% 16% 17% 10% 18%Face-to-face 12% 13% 15% 9% 14% 10% 10% 15%Letter 2% 3% 3% 2% 0% 1% 4% 5%Base 225 179 103 122 46 58 69 52
Method of contactRatepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
Ratepayer Non-ratepayer Up to 10 yearsMore than 10
yearsUrban Rural
Telephone 71% 68% 72% 70% 71% 68%Email or website 15% 16% 22% 14% 15% 16%Face-to-face 11% 16% 6% 13% 12% 12%Letter 3% 0% 0% 3% 3% 3%Base 187 36 35 188 161 46
Note: In 2018, the ‘letter’ option was previously worded ‘letter or fax’, and 1% stated ‘unsure’.
50
Satisfaction with Contact
77% of residents that had made contact with Council were at least somewhat satisfied with the way their latest inquiry was handled. Although slightly below benchmark norms, results have been following an upward trend since 2014. Females, younger residents (18-34) and those
living in Rural areas expressed higher levels of satisfaction with their contact.
Q8d. (If yes on Q6) And how would you rate your satisfaction with the way Council handled the latest inquiry?
Overall 2020
Overall 2018
Overall 2016
Overall 2014
Male Female 18–34 35–49 50–64 65+
Mean rating 3.59 3.46 3.46 3.27 3.32 3.81▲ 3.97 3.55 3.65 3.21▼
Base 225 179 180 189 103 122 46 58 69 52
Ratepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
Ratepayer Non-ratepayer Up to 10 yearsMore than 10
yearsUrban Rural
Mean rating 3.58 3.63 3.59 3.59 3.67 3.20
Base 187 36 35 188 161 46
33%
28%▲
16%
10%
13%
39%
18%
15%
8%
20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Very satisfied (5)
Satisfied (4)
Somewhat satisfied (3)
Not very satisfied (2)
Not at all satisfied (1)
2020 (N=225) 2018 (N=179)
Coffs Harbour City Council
Micromex LGA Benchmark
Mean rating 3.59 3.77
T3 Box 77% 80%
Base 225 23,641
▲▼= A significantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by group/year)Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied
51
Satisfaction By Method of and Number of Contacts
Those that made contact via ‘telephone’ demonstrated significantly higher levels of satisfaction, whilst those using non-direct methods, email, website and letter, expressed significantly lower levels. Residents that had their inquiry resolved after only one contact were significantly more satisfied, however, once more than one
point of contact was required, the number of contacts did not impact satisfaction.
Q8d. (If yes on Q6) And how would you rate your satisfaction with the way Council handled the latest inquiry?
Overall 2020 Telephone Face-to-face Email or website Letter
Mean rating 3.59 3.80▲ 3.53 2.87▼ 2.18▼
Base 225 159 27 34 6*
Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied*Caution low base ▲▼= A significantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by method/number of contacts)
Q8c. (If yes on Q6) How did you first make contact with Council?
Q8b. (If yes on Q6) And regarding that matter, how many times did you need to contact Council to have your issue resolved?
Once Twice Three times Four or more times
Mean rating 4.24▲ 3.70 3.65 3.71
Base 100 34 22 11
52
Council’s Level of Communication
79% of residents are at least somewhat satisfied with the level of communication Council currently has with the community. These results are on par with Regional Benchmark norms.
Those aged 18-34 demonstrated significantly higher levels of satisfaction with Council’s level of communication.
Q9. How satisfied are you with the level of communication Council currently has with the community?
Overall 2020 Male Female 18–34 35–49 50–64 65+
Mean rating 3.32 3.25 3.39 3.65▲ 3.18 3.28 3.20
Base 504 241 263 115 114 138 136
Ratepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
Ratepayer Non-ratepayer Up to 10 yearsMore than 10
yearsUrban Rural
Mean rating 3.31 3.36 3.52 3.29 3.32 3.25
Base 392 107 72 430 376 93
11%
39%
29%
12%
9%
10%
39%
30%
15%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Very satisfied (5)
Satisfied (4)
Somewhat satisfied (3)
Not very satisfied (2)
Not at all satisfied (1)
Coffs Harbour City Council (N=504)Micromex LGA Benchmark - Regional (N=12,854)
Coffs Harbour City Council
Micromex LGA Regional
Benchmark
Mean rating 3.32 3.31
T3 Box 79% 79%
Base 504 12,854
Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied
53
Preferred Communication Methods
Overall, ‘local newspapers’ (75%) and ‘radio’ (73%) were the most preferred channels for receiving information about Council. However looking at specific demographics we see that for 18-34 year old's, the most common
channel selected was ‘Facebook’ (83%), and for residents who have lived in the LGA for 10 years or less, the top option was ‘Council’s website’.
Q10. In the future which of the following channels would you like to receive information about Council?
2%
8%
14%
20%
36%
43%
44%
44%
45%
49%
53%
54%
61%
63%
73%
75%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Other
Brochures/flyers
Online platforms (e.g. Have Your Say)
Council e-Newsletter
Libraries
Council community centres
Community organisations/groups
TV
Council website
Radio
Local newspaper
Other specified Count
Letters in the mail 2Prefer not to receive information from
Council2
Telephone 2Happy to receive information in any
form1
Hard copy of Council newsletter 1
Local schools 1
SMS 1
Word of mouth 1
Base: N=504 Please see Appendix A for results by demographics
Imp
ort
anc
e o
f, a
nd s
atis
fac
tion
with
, C
oun
cil
Serv
ice
s a
nd F
ac
ilitie
s Detailed Results
1. Performance of Council
2. Summary of Council Services &
Facilities
3. Comparison to Micromex
Benchmarks
4. Priority Issues
5. Living in the Coffs Harbour LGA
6. Contact and Communication
7. Importance of, and Satisfaction
with, Council Services & Facilities
55
Service AreasA core element of this customer satisfaction was the rating of 26 facilities/services in terms of Importance and Satisfaction. Each of the 26
facilities/services were grouped into service areas as detailed below:
An Explanation
The following pages detail the Shapley findings for each service area, rank services/facilities within each service area and identify the stated importance and satisfaction ratings by key demographics.
ImportanceFor the stated importance ratings, residents were asked to rate how important each of the criteria was to them, on a scale of 1 to 5.
SatisfactionFor the stated satisfaction ratings, residents were asked to rate how satisfied they are with each of the criteria, on a scale of 1 to 5.
Note: All respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction, regardless of their importance score.
Infrastructure
Water supply
Maintenance of sealed roads
Maintenance of unsealed roads
Waste and recycling
Sewerage
Storm water/flood management
Maintenance of bridges
Maintenance of public toilets
Footpaths and cycleways
Environment/Open Spaces
Coastal management, including erosion and sea level rise
Protection of the natural environment
Cleanliness of streets
Parks, reserves and playgrounds
Community
Libraries
Lifeguards
Cultural facilities (Jetty Theatre, Regional Art Gallery, Regional Museum)
Council Pools
Sporting facilities
Community facilities (e.g. halls, youth space)
Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events (e.g. festivals, concerts in community halls and one-off events and
concerts)
Corporate
Tourism marketing
Economic development (strategies to boost local businesses and jobs)
Enforcement of local building regulations
Enforcement of pet regulations
Development application processing
Online services such as the website
Contribution to Overall Satisfaction with Council’s Performance
1.2%
2.9%
2.7%
2.7%
39.1%
8.7%
11.5%
16.3%
24.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Council's level ofcommunication with the
community
Nett: Community
Nett: Environment/OpenSpaces
Nett: Corporate
Nett: Infrastructure
Nett Contribution Average service/facility
By combining the outcomes of the regression data, we can identify the derived importance of the different Nett Priority Areas. After Council’s level of communication with the community (39%), ‘Infrastructure’ (24%) is the key contributor toward overall satisfaction with Council’s
performance, although each of the services/facilities grouped under this area average 2.7%, whereas those within the ‘Environment/Open Spaces’ service area average 2.9%.
Note: ‘Council’s level of communication with the community’ (green bar) was an extra question added in to the regression analysis. The following pages analyse the individual service areas and their contribution to overall satisfaction. Q9 ‘How satisfied are you currently with
the level of communication Council has with the community?’ is not included in the following service area analysis.
57
Service Area 1: InfrastructureShapley Regression
Contributes to Almost 25% of Overall Satisfaction with Council
24.4%
10.7%
3.0%
2.6%
2.2%
1.9%
1.3%
1.1%
0.9%
0.5%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Nett: Infrastructure
Waste and recycling
Maintenance of unsealed roads
Footpaths and cycleways
Maintenance of sealed roads
Sewerage
Water supply
Maintenance of bridges
Storm water/flood management
Maintenance of public toilets
58
Service Area 1: Infrastructure
Within the ‘Infrastructure’ service area, in terms of importance, ‘waste and recycling’ is considered to be the most important, whilst ‘maintenance of unsealed roads’ is the facility of least relative importance. In terms of satisfaction, residents are most satisfied with ‘sewerage’
and ‘maintenance of bridges’ and least satisfied with ‘maintenance of unsealed roads’.
Hierarchy of Services/Facilities
Waste and recycling 95% 77%
Storm water/flood management 91% 87%
Water supply 87% 93%
Maintenance of sealed roads 87% 78%
Sewerage 86% 95%
Footpaths and cycleways 85% 77%
Maintenance of public toilets 84% 77%
Maintenance of bridges 80% 95%
Maintenance of unsealed roads 57% 72%
Importance T2BService/Facility(Ranked high – low on importance)
Satisfaction T3B
59
Service Area 1: InfrastructureImportance Mean Scores by Key Demographics
Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very importantSignificantly higher/lower level of importance (by group)
Overall Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+
Water supply 4.42 4.27 4.57 4.60 4.55 4.21 4.39
Maintenance of sealed roads 4.48 4.32 4.63 4.56 4.49 4.46 4.42
Maintenance of unsealed roads 3.63 3.53 3.72 3.72 3.64 3.57 3.61
Waste and recycling 4.75 4.63 4.85 4.83 4.75 4.70 4.72
Sewerage 4.40 4.27 4.52 4.27 4.51 4.25 4.57
Storm water/flood management 4.59 4.43 4.74 4.60 4.62 4.54 4.61
Maintenance of bridges 4.26 4.15 4.37 4.09 4.36 4.28 4.32
Maintenance of public toilets 4.39 4.24 4.52 4.18 4.49 4.38 4.47
Footpaths and cycleways 4.38 4.22 4.53 4.28 4.44 4.40 4.40
Ratepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
RatepayerNon-
ratepayerUp to 10
yearsMore than
10 yearsUrban Rural
Water supply 4.36 4.64 4.57 4.40 4.70 3.65
Maintenance of sealed roads 4.48 4.47 4.54 4.47 4.51 4.40
Maintenance of unsealed roads 3.63 3.60 3.65 3.63 3.58 3.85
Waste and recycling 4.74 4.76 4.82 4.73 4.75 4.68
Sewerage 4.34 4.61 4.44 4.40 4.68 3.51
Storm water/flood management 4.58 4.62 4.65 4.58 4.66 4.36
Maintenance of bridges 4.25 4.31 4.16 4.28 4.21 4.45
Maintenance of public toilets 4.32 4.60 4.33 4.39 4.37 4.47
Footpaths and cycleways 4.35 4.48 4.55 4.35 4.43 4.25
60
Service Area 1: InfrastructureDetailed Overall Response for Importance
Not at all important
Not very important
Somewhat important
Important Very important Base
Water supply 8% 2% 3% 14% 73% 504
Maintenance of sealed roads <1% 2% 11% 23% 64% 504
Maintenance of unsealed roads 12% 8% 23% 20% 37% 504
Waste and recycling 1% 1% 3% 13% 82% 504
Sewerage 8% 1% 5% 13% 73% 504
Storm water/flood management 2% 1% 6% 18% 73% 504
Maintenance of bridges 6% 2% 11% 20% 60% 504
Maintenance of public toilets 4% 3% 9% 20% 64% 504
Footpaths and cycleways 3% 1% 11% 25% 60% 504
61
Service Area 1: InfrastructureSatisfaction Mean Scores by Key Demographics
Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfiedSignificantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by group)
Overall Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+
Water supply 4.25 4.21 4.29 4.60 4.19 4.03 4.21
Maintenance of sealed roads 3.18 3.31 3.06 3.24 3.11 3.10 3.27
Maintenance of unsealed roads 3.00 3.11 2.89 3.03 2.89 3.07 2.97
Waste and recycling 3.40 3.34 3.46 3.50 3.24 3.30 3.56
Sewerage 4.32 4.34 4.30 4.48 4.29 4.10 4.41
Storm water/flood management 3.74 3.72 3.76 3.83 3.65 3.68 3.81
Maintenance of bridges 3.94 3.90 3.98 4.18 4.07 3.83 3.75
Maintenance of public toilets 3.27 3.45 3.12 2.96 3.25 3.35 3.50
Footpaths and cycleways 3.30 3.32 3.29 3.69 3.25 3.15 3.17
Ratepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
RatepayerNon-
ratepayerUp to 10
yearsMore than
10 yearsUrban Rural
Water supply 4.20 4.42 4.43 4.22 4.39 3.53
Maintenance of sealed roads 3.19 3.13 3.06 3.20 3.23 3.08
Maintenance of unsealed roads 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.06 2.79
Waste and recycling 3.38 3.45 3.78 3.34 3.36 3.53
Sewerage 4.29 4.38 4.32 4.32 4.44 3.77
Storm water/flood management 3.78 3.62 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.70
Maintenance of bridges 3.88 4.16 4.12 3.91 4.00 3.68
Maintenance of public toilets 3.32 3.12 3.23 3.28 3.25 3.28
Footpaths and cycleways 3.26 3.50 3.44 3.28 3.30 3.37
62
Service Area 1: InfrastructureDetailed Overall Response for Satisfaction
Not at all satisfied
Not very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied Base
Water supply 4% 3% 12% 26% 55% 471
Maintenance of sealed roads 6% 15% 43% 25% 10% 501
Maintenance of unsealed roads 10% 19% 44% 18% 10% 426
Waste and recycling 12% 11% 25% 29% 23% 500
Sewerage 4% 2% 9% 31% 55% 463
Storm water/flood management 5% 8% 22% 37% 28% 488
Maintenance of bridges 1% 5% 23% 41% 31% 449
Maintenance of public toilets 5% 17% 35% 29% 13% 474
Footpaths and cycleways 8% 15% 32% 29% 16% 492
63
Service Area 2: Environment/Open SpacesShapley Regression
Contributes to Over 10% of Overall Satisfaction with Council
11.5%
3.2%
2.9%
2.9%
2.6%
0% 10% 20%
Nett: Environment/Open Spaces
Coastal management, including erosion and sealevel rise
Protection of the natural environment
Cleanliness of streets
Parks, reserves and playgrounds
64
Service Area 2: Environment/Open Spaces
Within the ‘Environment/Open Spaces’ service area, in terms of importance, ‘parks, reserves and playgrounds’ as well as ‘protection of the natural environment’ are considered to be the most important, whilst ‘coastal management’ is the facility of least relative importance. In terms of satisfaction, residents
are most satisfied with ‘cleanliness of streets’ and ‘parks, reserves and playgrounds’ and least satisfied with ‘coastal management’.
Hierarchy of Services/Facilities
Parks, reserves and playgrounds 94% 91%
Protection of the natural environment 94% 84%
Cleanliness of streets 91% 91%
Coastal management, including erosion and sea level rise 82% 83%
Importance T2BService/Facility(Ranked high – low on importance)
Satisfaction T3B
65
Service Area 2: Environment/Open SpacesImportance Mean Scores by Key Demographics
Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very importantSignificantly higher/lower level of importance (by group)
Overall Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+
Coastal management 4.30 4.09 4.50 4.31 4.39 4.33 4.20
Protection of the natural environment 4.68 4.59 4.76 4.71 4.71 4.63 4.68
Cleanliness of streets 4.53 4.45 4.60 4.49 4.54 4.47 4.60
Parks, reserves and playgrounds 4.60 4.47 4.71 4.59 4.60 4.61 4.59
Ratepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
RatepayerNon-
ratepayerUp to 10
yearsMore than
10 yearsUrban Rural
Coastal management 4.26 4.49 4.59 4.26 4.36 4.28
Protection of the natural environment 4.64 4.81 4.79 4.66 4.72 4.59
Cleanliness of streets 4.51 4.57 4.59 4.52 4.52 4.58
Parks, reserves and playgrounds 4.57 4.68 4.68 4.58 4.58 4.67
66
Service Area 2: Environment/Open SpacesDetailed Overall Response for Importance
Not at all important
Not very important
Somewhat important
ImportantVery
importantBase
Coastal management 4% 4% 10% 21% 61% 504
Protection of the natural environment 1% 1% 4% 17% 77% 504
Cleanliness of streets <1% 1% 8% 28% 63% 504
Parks, reserves and playgrounds 1% 1% 4% 24% 70% 504
67
Service Area 2: Environment/Open SpacesSatisfaction Mean Scores by Key Demographics
Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfiedSignificantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by group)
Overall Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+
Coastal management 3.39 3.25 3.51 3.68 3.44 3.20 3.30
Protection of the natural environment 3.45 3.43 3.46 3.65 3.51 3.28 3.38
Cleanliness of streets 3.83 3.77 3.88 3.89 3.87 3.77 3.79
Parks, reserves and playgrounds 3.80 3.72 3.88 3.81 3.89 3.71 3.81
Ratepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
RatepayerNon-
ratepayerUp to 10
yearsMore than
10 yearsUrban Rural
Coastal management 3.38 3.45 3.71 3.34 3.45 3.22
Protection of the natural environment 3.41 3.55 3.54 3.43 3.50 3.28
Cleanliness of streets 3.80 3.93 3.99 3.80 3.85 3.70
Parks, reserves and playgrounds 3.74 4.06 3.95 3.78 3.83 3.70
68
Service Area 2: Environment/Open SpacesDetailed Overall Response for Satisfaction
Not at all satisfied
Not very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied Base
Coastal management 5% 13% 38% 28% 17% 461
Protection of the natural environment 6% 9% 36% 29% 19% 491
Cleanliness of streets 4% 5% 23% 42% 26% 504
Parks, reserves and playgrounds 2% 6% 28% 37% 26% 498
69
Service Area 3: CommunityShapley Regression
Contributes to Almost 10% of Overall Satisfaction with Council
8.7%
3.3%
1.7%
1.3%
1.1%
0.7%
0.3%
0.2%
0% 5% 10%
Nett: Community
Council Pools
Sporting facilities
Cultural facilities (Jetty Theatre, Regional Art Gallery,Regional Museum)
Community facilities (e.g. halls, youth space)
Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events(e.g. festivals, concerts in community halls and one-
off events and concerts)
Lifeguards
Libraries
70
Service Area 3: Community
Within the ‘Community’ service area, in terms of importance, ‘lifeguards’ is considered to be the most important, whilst ‘libraries’ is the facility of least relative importance. In terms of
satisfaction, residents are most satisfied with ‘sporting facilities’ and least satisfied with ‘cultural facilities’.
Hierarchy of Services/Facilities
Lifeguards 92% 91%
Sporting facilities 86% 93%
Community facilities 81% 85%
Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events 80% 90%
Council Pools 75% 87%
Cultural facilities 66% 79%
Libraries 65% 88%
Importance T2BService/Facility(Ranked high – low on importance)
Satisfaction T3B
71
Service Area 3: CommunityImportance Mean Scores by Key Demographics
Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very importantSignificantly higher/lower level of importance (by group)
Overall Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+
Libraries 3.82 3.46 4.14 3.53 3.90 3.61 4.20
Lifeguards 4.64 4.50 4.77 4.69 4.69 4.52 4.67
Cultural facilities 3.83 3.62 4.02 3.69 3.90 3.77 3.95
Council Pools 4.08 3.82 4.31 3.84 4.23 4.13 4.09
Sporting facilities 4.39 4.34 4.44 4.31 4.49 4.35 4.42
Community facilities 4.24 4.08 4.39 3.99 4.23 4.27 4.44
Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events
4.22 4.02 4.40 4.19 4.38 4.14 4.19
Ratepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
RatepayerNon-
ratepayerUp to 10
yearsMore than
10 yearsUrban Rural
Libraries 3.79 3.87 3.87 3.81 3.83 3.79
Lifeguards 4.60 4.79 4.83 4.61 4.72 4.43
Cultural facilities 3.75 4.12 3.80 3.84 3.82 3.93
Council Pools 4.04 4.22 4.31 4.04 4.04 4.23
Sporting facilities 4.40 4.38 4.31 4.41 4.39 4.37
Community facilities 4.24 4.27 4.23 4.24 4.16 4.51
Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events
4.18 4.34 4.41 4.18 4.21 4.16
72
Service Area 3: CommunityDetailed Overall Response for Importance
Not at all important
Not very important
Somewhat important
ImportantVery
importantBase
Libraries 9% 8% 18% 22% 43% 504
Lifeguards 2% 2% 4% 13% 79% 504
Cultural facilities 8% 6% 21% 27% 39% 504
Council Pools 8% 3% 14% 23% 52% 504
Sporting facilities 2% 2% 9% 26% 60% 504
Community facilities 4% 1% 14% 28% 53% 504
Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events
5% 4% 12% 24% 56% 504
73
Service Area 3: CommunitySatisfaction Mean Scores by Key Demographics
Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfiedSignificantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by group)
Overall Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+
Libraries 3.83 3.65 3.98 3.97 3.93 3.55 3.92
Lifeguards 4.14 4.17 4.10 4.11 4.08 4.00 4.36
Cultural facilities 3.34 3.29 3.39 3.64 3.44 3.14 3.22
Council Pools 3.69 3.63 3.74 3.84 3.59 3.62 3.71
Sporting facilities 3.94 3.94 3.95 4.03 3.80 3.92 4.01
Community facilities 3.48 3.39 3.56 3.37 3.62 3.34 3.59
Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events
3.79 3.69 3.88 3.91 3.85 3.82 3.60
Ratepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
RatepayerNon-
ratepayerUp to 10
yearsMore than
10 yearsUrban Rural
Libraries 3.84 3.81 3.94 3.82 3.92 3.66
Lifeguards 4.07 4.35 4.28 4.11 4.13 4.03
Cultural facilities 3.28 3.56 3.64 3.29 3.39 3.19
Council Pools 3.63 3.87 3.76 3.67 3.71 3.68
Sporting facilities 3.91 4.09 3.85 3.96 4.00 3.80
Community facilities 3.43 3.66 3.65 3.46 3.44 3.62
Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events
3.78 3.83 3.70 3.80 3.78 3.77
74
Service Area 3: CommunityDetailed Overall Response for Satisfaction
Not at all satisfied
Not very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied Base
Libraries 3% 8% 21% 36% 31% 444
Lifeguards 3% 6% 14% 27% 50% 482
Cultural facilities 7% 13% 35% 26% 18% 465
Council Pools 6% 7% 25% 36% 26% 460
Sporting facilities 1% 6% 20% 44% 29% 491
Community facilities 4% 10% 35% 33% 17% 458
Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events
2% 7% 27% 36% 27% 486
75
Service Area 4: CorporateShapley Regression
Contributes to Over 15% of Overall Satisfaction with Council
16.3%
4.5%
4.0%
3.4%
3.2%
0.9%
0.2%
0% 10% 20%
Nett: Corporate
Enforcement of local building regulations
Economic development (strategies to boost localbusinesses and jobs)
Development application processing
Tourism marketing
Online services such as the website
Enforcement of pet regulations
76
Service Area 4: Corporate
Within the ‘Corporate’ service area, in terms of importance, ‘economic development’ is considered to be the most important, whilst the ‘online services such as the website’ is the facility of least relative
importance. In terms of satisfaction, residents are most satisfied with ‘tourism marketing’ and ‘online services’ and least satisfied with ‘development application processing’.
Hierarchy of Services/Facilities
Economic development 88% 77%
Enforcement of local building regulations 78% 79%
Development application processing 75% 68%
Tourism marketing 74% 87%
Enforcement of pet regulations 71% 82%
Online services such as the website 66% 87%
Importance T2BService/Facility(Ranked high – low on importance)
Satisfaction T3B
77
Service Area 4: CorporateImportance Mean Scores by Key Demographics
Scale: 1 = not at all important, 5 = very importantSignificantly higher/lower level of importance (by group)
Overall Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+
Tourism marketing 4.12 3.92 4.32 4.11 4.26 4.03 4.12
Economic development 4.44 4.37 4.51 4.46 4.61 4.38 4.34
Enforcement of local building regulations 4.20 4.02 4.35 3.78 4.23 4.25 4.46
Enforcement of pet regulations 4.00 3.69 4.28 3.79 3.93 3.94 4.28
Development application processing 4.06 4.08 4.04 3.53 4.01 4.22 4.38
Online services such as the website 3.81 3.62 3.98 3.69 4.09 3.97 3.51
Ratepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
RatepayerNon-
ratepayerUp to 10
yearsMore than
10 yearsUrban Rural
Tourism marketing 4.07 4.31 4.38 4.09 4.21 3.83
Economic development 4.42 4.51 4.53 4.43 4.52 4.24
Enforcement of local building regulations 4.17 4.26 4.12 4.21 4.21 4.19
Enforcement of pet regulations 3.99 4.00 4.32 3.94 4.04 3.90
Development application processing 4.11 3.88 3.90 4.09 3.99 4.29
Online services such as the website 3.74 4.03 4.01 3.77 3.79 3.83
78
Service Area 4: CorporateDetailed Overall Response for Importance
Not at all important
Not very important
Somewhat important
ImportantVery
importantBase
Tourism marketing 5% 4% 17% 23% 51% 504
Economic development 2% 1% 8% 25% 63% 504
Enforcement of local building regulations 4% 4% 14% 25% 53% 504
Enforcement of pet regulations 5% 4% 20% 29% 42% 504
Development application processing 9% 4% 12% 23% 52% 504
Online services such as the website 9% 6% 19% 26% 40% 504
79
Service Area 4: CorporateSatisfaction Mean Scores by Key Demographics
Scale: 1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = very satisfiedSignificantly higher/lower level of satisfaction (by group)
Overall Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+
Tourism marketing 3.60 3.45 3.73 3.84 3.70 3.50 3.40
Economic development 3.20 3.10 3.29 3.56 3.01 3.07 3.21
Enforcement of local building regulations 3.28 3.30 3.27 3.73 3.29 3.04 3.21
Enforcement of pet regulations 3.47 3.34 3.58 3.72 3.53 3.27 3.39
Development application processing 3.06 3.00 3.12 3.34 3.02 2.98 2.99
Online services such as the website 3.51 3.41 3.60 3.75 3.45 3.54 3.30
Ratepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
RatepayerNon-
ratepayerUp to 10
yearsMore than
10 yearsUrban Rural
Tourism marketing 3.53 3.84 3.98 3.53 3.64 3.46
Economic development 3.14 3.41 3.34 3.18 3.23 3.06
Enforcement of local building regulations 3.23 3.48 3.51 3.25 3.32 3.12
Enforcement of pet regulations 3.42 3.60 3.50 3.46 3.45 3.58
Development application processing 3.03 3.18 3.12 3.06 3.10 3.02
Online services such as the website 3.47 3.63 3.73 3.47 3.47 3.58
80
Service Area 4: CorporateDetailed Overall Response for Satisfaction
Not at all satisfied
Not very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied Base
Tourism marketing 4% 8% 32% 33% 22% 474
Economic development 6% 17% 40% 25% 12% 473
Enforcement of local building regulations 8% 13% 37% 28% 14% 440
Enforcement of pet regulations 6% 11% 33% 30% 19% 466
Development application processing 8% 24% 33% 24% 11% 402
Online services such as the website 3% 11% 38% 30% 19% 432
81
Comparison to Previous Research - SatisfactionService/Facility
Satisfaction
2020 2018
Water supply 4.25 4.23
Maintenance of sealed roads 3.18 3.24
Maintenance of unsealed roads 3.00 2.89
Waste and recycling 3.40 3.53
Sewerage 4.32 4.30
Storm water/flood management 3.74▲ 3.37
Coastal management 3.39▲ 3.06
Protection of the natural environment 3.45 3.33
Cleanliness of streets 3.83 3.70
Maintenance of bridges 3.94▲ 3.67
Maintenance of public toilets 3.27▲ 2.93
Footpaths and cycleways 3.30 3.24
Libraries 3.83▼ 4.11
Parks, reserves and playgrounds 3.80▲ 3.65
Tourism marketing 3.60 3.51
Lifeguards 4.14▲ 3.98
Cultural facilities 3.34▼ 3.64
Economic development 3.20▲ 3.04
Enforcement of local building regulations 3.28▲ 3.09
Enforcement of pet regulations 3.47▲ 3.16
Council Pools 3.69 3.71
Development application processing 3.06 2.96
Sporting facilities 3.94 3.92
Community facilities 3.48 NA
Online services such as the website 3.51 3.55
Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events 3.79▼ 3.94
Scale: 1 = Nat all satisfied, 5 = very satisfied▲▼= A significantly higher level of satisfaction (by year)
Appendix A:Additional Analyses
83
Importance & SatisfactionThe following table shows the hierarchy of the 26 services/facilities ranked by the top 2 box importance ratings, as well as residents’ corresponding top 3 box satisfaction ratings. The service/facility ranked most important by residents is ‘waste and recycling’, with a top 2 box importance score
of 95%. For the most part, the majority of services/facilities provided by Coffs Harbour City Council are considered highly important, with only 4 measures falling below a 70% T2B rating.
Waste and recycling 95% 77%Parks, reserves and playgrounds 94% 91%Protection of the natural environment 94% 84%Lifeguards 92% 91%Cleanliness of streets 91% 91%Storm water/flood management 91% 87%Economic development 88% 77%Water supply 87% 93%Maintenance of sealed roads 87% 78%Sewerage 86% 95%Sporting facilities 86% 93%Footpaths and cycleways 85% 77%Maintenance of public toilets 84% 77%Coastal management, including erosion and sea level rise 82% 83%Community facilities 81% 85%Maintenance of bridges 80% 95%Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events 80% 90%Enforcement of local building regulations 78% 79%Council Pools 75% 87%Development application processing 75% 68%Tourism marketing 74% 87%Enforcement of pet regulations 71% 82%Online services such as the website 66% 87%Cultural facilities 66% 79%Libraries 65% 88%Maintenance of unsealed roads 57% 72%
Importance T2BService/Facility(Ranked by importance)
Satisfaction T3B
84
Performance Gap AnalysisWhen analysing performance gap data, it is important to consider both stated satisfaction and the absolute size of the performance gap.
Performance Gap Ranking
Service/Facility Importance T2 Box Satisfaction T3 BoxPerformance Gap
(Importance –Satisfaction)
Waste and recycling 95% 77% 18%Economic development 88% 77% 11%Protection of the natural environment 94% 84% 10%Maintenance of sealed roads 87% 78% 9%Footpaths and cycleways 85% 77% 8%Maintenance of public toilets 84% 77% 7%Development application processing 75% 68% 7%Storm water/flood management 91% 87% 4%Parks, reserves and playgrounds 94% 91% 3%Lifeguards 92% 91% 1%Cleanliness of streets 91% 91% 0%Coastal management 82% 83% -1%Enforcement of local building regulations 78% 79% -1%Community facilities 81% 85% -4%Water supply 87% 93% -6%Sporting facilities 86% 93% -7%Sewerage 86% 95% -9%Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting
events80% 90% -10%
Enforcement of pet regulations 71% 82% -11%Council Pools 75% 87% -12%Tourism marketing 74% 87% -13%Cultural facilities 66% 79% -13%Maintenance of bridges 80% 95% -15%Maintenance of unsealed roads 57% 72% -15%Online services such as the website 66% 87% -21%Libraries 65% 88% -23%
85
Influence on Overall SatisfactionThe chart below summarises the influence of the 27 facilities/services on overall satisfaction with Council’s performance,
based on the Shapley Regression:
39.1%
10.7%
4.5%
4.0%
3.4%
3.3%
3.2%
3.2%
3.0%
2.9%
2.9%
2.6%
2.6%
2.2%
1.9%
1.7%
1.3%
1.3%
1.1%
1.1%
0.9%
0.9%
0.7%
0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0% 15% 30% 45%
Council's level of communication with the community
Waste and recycling
Enforcement of local building regulations
Economic development
Development application processing
Council Pools
Tourism marketing
Coastal management
Maintenance of unsealed roads
Protection of the natural environment
Cleanliness of streets
Footpaths and cycleways
Parks, reserves and playgrounds
Maintenance of sealed roads
Sewerage
Sporting facilities
Water supply
Cultural facilities
Community facilities
Maintenance of bridges
Storm water/flood management
Online services such as the website
Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events
Maintenance of public toilets
Lifeguards
Enforcement of pet regulations
Libraries
86
Comparison to the Micromex LGA Benchmark - ImportanceThe table below shows the variance between Coffs Harbour City Council’s top 2 box importance scores and the Micromex LGA Benchmark. We can see that for 19 of the comparable services/facilities, residents’ top 2 box scores are higher than, or equal to the Benchmark score. For those
that are lower than Benchmark norms, 1 service, ‘maintenance of unsealed roads’, experienced a variance of ≥10%.
Service/Facility
Coffs Harbour City Council
T2 box importance score
Micromex LGA Benchmark –
RegionalT2 box importance
score
Variance
Cleanliness of streets 91% 65% 26%▲
Protection of the natural environment 94% 80% 14%▲
Community facilities 81% 67% 14%▲
Parks, reserves and playgrounds 94% 83% 11%▲
Storm water/flood management 91% 81% 10%▲
Sporting facilities 86% 76% 10%▲
Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events 80% 70% 10%▲
Economic development 88% 79% 9%
Cultural facilities 66% 58% 8%
Sewerage 86% 80% 6%
Waste and recycling 95% 90% 5%
Council Pools 75% 70% 5%
Online services such as the website 66% 61% 5%
Note: Benchmark differences are based on assumed variants of +/- 10%, with variants beyond +/- 10% more likely to be significant▲/▼ = positive/negative difference equal to/greater than 10% from Benchmark.
87
Comparison to the Micromex LGA Benchmark - Importance
Service/Facility
Coffs Harbour City Council
T2 box importance score
Micromex LGA Benchmark –
RegionalT2 box importance
score
Variance
Footpaths and cycleways 85% 81% 4%
Development application processing 75% 71% 4%
Lifeguards 92% 90% 2%
Maintenance of public toilets 84% 82% 2%
Enforcement of pet regulations 71% 70% 1%
Water supply 87% 87% 0%
Tourism marketing 74% 76% -2%
Enforcement of local building regulations 78% 81% -3%
Coastal management, including erosion and sea level rise 82% 87% -5%
Libraries 65% 70% -5%
Maintenance of sealed roads 87% 93% -6%
Maintenance of unsealed roads 57% 77% -20%▼
Note: Benchmark differences are based on assumed variants of +/- 10%, with variants beyond +/- 10% more likely to be significant▲/▼ = positive/negative difference equal to/greater than 10% from Benchmark.
88
Comparison to the Micromex LGA Benchmark - SatisfactionThe table below shows the variance between Coffs Harbour City Council’s top 3 box satisfaction scores and the Micromex LGA Benchmark. We can see that for 18 of the comparable services/facilities, residents’ top 3 box scores are higher than, or equal to the Benchmark score. For those
that are lower than Benchmark norms, 2 services, ‘cultural facilities’, and ‘waste and recycling’, experienced a variance of ≥10%.
Service/Facility
Coffs Harbour City Council
T3 box satisfaction score
Micromex LGA Benchmark –
RegionalT3 box satisfaction
score
Variance
Maintenance of sealed roads 78% 58% 20%▲
Maintenance of unsealed roads 72% 55% 17%▲
Cleanliness of streets 91% 74% 17%▲
Enforcement of local building regulations 79% 68% 11%▲
Footpaths and cycleways 77% 67% 10%▲
Storm water/flood management 87% 78% 9%
Maintenance of public toilets 77% 70% 7%
Water supply 93% 87% 6%
Parks, reserves and playgrounds 91% 86% 5%
Sewerage 95% 91% 4%
Sporting facilities 93% 90% 3%
Tourism marketing 87% 84% 3%
Economic development 77% 74% 3%
Note: Benchmark differences are based on assumed variants of +/- 10%, with variants beyond +/- 10% more likely to be significant▲/▼ = positive/negative difference equal to/greater than 10% from Benchmark
89
Comparison to the Micromex LGA Benchmark - Satisfaction
Service/Facility
Coffs Harbour City Council
T3 box satisfaction score
Micromex LGA Benchmark –
RegionalT3 box satisfaction
score
Variance
Creation or attraction of cultural and sporting events 90% 88% 2%
Council Pools 87% 85% 2%
Online services such as the website 87% 85% 2%
Enforcement of pet regulations 82% 81% 1%
Lifeguards 91% 91% 0%
Development application processing 68% 69% -1%
Protection of the natural environment 84% 86% -2%
Community facilities 85% 88% -3%
Coastal management, including erosion and sea level rise 83% 88% -5%
Libraries 88% 95% -7%
Cultural facilities 79% 91% -12%▼
Waste and recycling 77% 89% -12%▼
Note: Benchmark differences are based on assumed variants of +/- 10%, with variants beyond +/- 10% more likely to be significant▲/▼ = positive/negative difference equal to/greater than 10% from Benchmark
90
Reasons for Level of Overall SatisfactionQ5a. Overall, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues, but across all responsibility areas?
Q5b. What is your main reason for giving this score?
Very satisfied/Satisfied (51%) N=504
Happy with Council/they do a good job e.g. communication, management 25%
Council can always improve e.g. management, communications, infrastructure, events 19%
Good services & facilities/visible improvements in the area 7%
Against development of the Cultural Centre 4%
Area is clean/well maintained 2%
Great place to live/close to family 1%
New to the area, still finding out what is available <1%
Don't know/nothing 2%
Somewhat Satisfied (31%)
Room for improvements e.g. development, cleanliness of the area, bringing back kerbside collections 14%
Poor decision making and planning/communication/consultation from Council 13%
Against developments, particularly the Cultural Centre 6%
Council do a good job/good services/facilities in the area 4%
Better financial management for Council 2%
Rates are too high 1%
Would like to see more arts/cultural events and activities 1%
Unhappy with the performance of Council staff <1%
Do not feel safe in the area <1%
Nice community to live in <1%
Don't know/nothing 1%
91
Reasons for Level of Overall SatisfactionQ5a. Overall, how satisfied are you with the performance of Council, not just on one or two issues, but across all responsibility areas?
Q5b. What is your main reason for giving this score?
Not all Satisfied/Not Very Satisfied (18%) N=504
Unhappy with Council e.g. management, communication and budgeting 17%
Against the development of the Cultural Centre 4%
Need for increased town maintenance/facilities e.g. pools, roads, footpaths 4%
Rates are too high/lower the rates 2%
Want waste services continued e.g. kerbside pickups 1%
Improve environmental conservation <1%
Need more/improved tourist attractions <1%
92
Better Assisting the CommunityQ1. What do you believe Council could do in order to better assist our community over the coming months of COVID-19 or in other times of local emergency or
disaster?
N=504 N=504
Support the community e.g. rate cuts, supporting local business
10%Create a recovery plan for things like
employment2%
Stop building new Cultural Centre 10% Aligning with state/federal governments 1%
Keep waste services open/increase garbage collection during this time
10% Council should provide sanitation stations 1%
Improved communication/provision of information/consultation
8% Ensuring access to medical services/facilities 1%
Policing COVID rules/restrictions 7%Council should be more proactive about
climate change<1%
Council is doing well/can't do much/The issue is beyond Council
6% Improved public transport <1%
Be better prepared in future for emergency events e.g. floods, fires
4% Less backpackers <1%
Better Council management e.g. budgeting, staffing, development priorities
4%Making sure that donations are received from
Red Cross<1%
Continue Council services e.g. maintenance, cleaning, upgrades
4% Monitoring unleashed pets more closely <1%
While things are quiet work on roads/supporting infrastructure
4% New Council building should go ahead <1%
Ease the restrictions of COVID - 19 e.g. for exercise, small business
3% Water supply <1%
Support for the vulnerable/essential workers 3% Don't know/nothing 40%
93
Most Valued Aspect of Living in Coffs HarbourQ2a. What do you value most about living in the Coffs Harbour City Council region?
N=504 N=504
Natural environment/beauty of the beaches and mountains
48% Business/employment/education opportunities the area offers
2%
Lifestyle/atmosphere e.g. quiet, relaxed, rural, coastal
21% Limited traffic/not congested 2%
Central location/proximity to beaches, services and facilities
18% Affordability of the area 1%
Weather and climate 18% Tourism 1%
Community feel e.g. friendly, family area 13% Underdeveloped nature of the area 1%
Availability of good quality services/facilities/activities
12% Build the bypass <1%
I have always lived here/it is home/nice area 7% Do not like the area/too many tourists/homeless
<1%
A well maintained area e.g. clean, good roads, upgrades
4% Safe area/low crime <1%
A well managed Council e.g., budgeting, support, planning
2% Don't know/nothing 1%
94
Highest Priority IssuesQ2b. Thinking of the next 10 years, what do you believe will be the highest priority issues within the Coffs Harbour City Council region?
N=504 N=504Maintaining/improving roads 18% Education opportunities/facilities 1%General town maintenance including updated
infrastructure, development and cleanliness in the area
17% Homeless population 1%
Completion of bypass 15% Supporting the local community 1%Improved Council management e.g. budgeting,
communications, planning13% Traffic congestion/management 1%
Employment/business opportunities 12% Availability of land <1%Improved/additional footpaths/cycleways 9% Ban fires on beaches <1%Waste services/management 9% Better signage <1%Against building of the Cultural Centre 8% Disability access <1%Managing population growth 7% Everything is a priority <1%Need for additional/better services/facilities 7% Focus on cultural aspects of the city <1%Cost of living in the area e.g. rates, affordability of
housing6% Get things back to normal <1%
Developing an entertainment/sporting centre 6% Happy with things <1%Promoting tourism 6% Improved electricity <1%Public transport 5% Improved NBN/internet <1%Protecting the natural environment and coastline 4% Inclusivity within the community <1%Health care services/facilities 3% Keep the calm atmosphere <1%Overdevelopment 3% Limit the amount of blueberry farms <1%Safety/security e.g. drug usage, crime rate 3% More local talent <1%Services/facilities for the elderly and disadvantaged
people3% Need a youth centre <1%
Water supply/management 3% Not to become another Byron/Gold Coast <1%Kerbing and guttering 2% Open beach access <1%
Provision of housing 2%Pool has changed hands and do not like quality
of services<1%
Availability of parking 1% Renting with pets <1%Developing the airport/increased flights in and out of
the area1% Don't know/nothing 7%
95
Reasons for Contacting Council
Overall 2020 Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+
Garbage/waste management/recycling/tips
15% 13% 17% 15% 11% 16% 19%
Development application 13% 17% 10% 8% 20% 17% 4%▼
Water, sewage 9% 9% 8% 8% 6% 11% 8%
Vegetation and trees 9% 8% 9% 4% 7% 7% 16%▲
Rates inquiry 8% 8% 9% 4% 7% 11% 10%
Ranger matters 8% 5% 10% 7% 9% 9% 6%
Road and footpath improvements 5% 6% 5% 8% 4% 2% 8%
Drainage problem 3% 3% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3%
Water billing 3% 2% 3% 8%▲ 3% 0% 0%
Sporting facilities 2% 2% 1% 0% 7%▲ 0% 0%
Community development enquiries 2% 3% 1% 4% 1% 0% 2%
Business/economic development enquiries 2% 2% 2% 4% 1% 0% 3%
Building inspection inquiries 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0%
Other parks and gardens 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%
Cultural facilities 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3%▲
Traffic management/parking 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0%
Community facilities <1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Road or bridge closures <1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Septic tanks <1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Can’t recall 3% 4% 1% 7% 0% 4% 0%
Other 17% 15% 19% 18% 18% 16% 16%
Base 225 103 122 46 58 69 52
▲▼ = A significantly higher/lower percentage (by group)
Q8a. (If yes on Q6) Thinking about your most recent enquiry, what was that contact regarding?
Results by Demographics
96
Reasons for Contacting Council
Ratepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
RatepayerNon-
ratepayerUp to 10
yearsMore than 10
yearsUrban Rural
Garbage/waste management/recycling/tips
13% 27% 21% 14% 14% 14%
Development application 13% 12% 7% 14% 9% 23%▲Water, sewage 9% 6% 4% 10% 8% 7%Vegetation and trees 9% 5% 13% 8% 10% 4%Rates inquiry 10% 0% 9% 8% 9% 9%Ranger matters 9% 0% 13% 7% 8% 7%Road and footpath improvements 5% 2% 5% 5% 4% 8%Drainage problem 3% 2% 0% 3% 3% 3%Water billing 2% 5% 4% 2% 4% 0%Sporting facilities 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0%Community development enquiries 1% 6% 0% 2% 2% 0%Business/economic development enquiries 2% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2%Building inspection inquiries 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%Other parks and gardens 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%Cultural facilities 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%Traffic management/parking 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%Community facilities 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%Road or bridge closures 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Septic tanks 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%Can’t recall 1% 9% 0% 3% 3% 0%Other 16% 25% 22% 16% 17% 20%Base 187 36 35 188 161 46
▲▼ = A significantly higher/lower percentage (by group)
Q8a. (If yes on Q6) Thinking about your most recent enquiry, what was that contact regarding?
Results by Demographics
97
Reasons for Contacting CouncilQ8a. (If yes on Q6) Thinking about your most recent enquiry, what was that contact regarding?
Other specified Count
Disapproval of new buildings 6
Animal registration 5
Neighbour complaints 3
Organising a grave plaque 3
Water restrictions/licenses 3
Development of the Cultural Centre 2
Fishing inquiry 2
Graffiti 2
Health inspection 2
Powerlines 2
To get the correct email address 2
Backpackers 1
Beach access 1
Billing issues 1
Employment 1
Fence violations 1
Fire safety inquiry 1
Nelson St Nursery 1
Noise complaint 1
Solar farm 1
Other Specified Responses
98
Resolution of the IssueQ8b. (If yes on Q6) And regarding that matter, how many times did you need to contact Council to have your issue resolved?
Results by Demographics
Overall 2020 Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+
Once 45% 43% 46% 56% 41% 43% 40%
Twice 15% 13% 17% 22% 17% 9% 16%
Three times 10% 11% 8% 0%▼ 11% 13% 12%
Four or more times 5% 5% 5% 7% 1% 8% 3%
Not yet resolved 26% 27% 25% 15% 29% 27% 29%
Mean 1.7 2.59 2.45 2.04 2.61 2.67 2.64
Base 225 103 122 46 58 69 52
Ratepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
Ratepayer Non-ratepayer Up to 10 yearsMore than 10
yearsUrban Rural
Once 43% 57% 35% 47% 45% 35%
Twice 17%▲ 2% 17% 15% 17% 13%
Three times 10% 10% 19%▲ 8% 9% 10%
Four or more times 5% 4% 2% 5% 4% 9%
Not yet resolved 25% 28% 27% 25% 24% 35%
Mean 2.52 2.44 2.68 2.48 2.45 2.96
Base 187 36 35 188 161 46
▲▼ = A significantly higher/lower percentage (by group)
99
Preferred Communication MethodsQ10. In the future which of the following channels would you like to receive information about Council?
Results by Demographics
Overall Male Female 18-34 35 – 49 50 – 64 65+
Local newspaper 75% 73% 76% 74% 67%▼ 71% 85%▲
Radio 73% 69% 76% 75% 80%▲ 78% 60%▼
Council website 63% 59% 66% 71% 72%▲ 73%▲ 38%▼
TV 61% 60% 62% 64% 68% 55% 60%
Community organisations/groups 54% 50% 57% 57% 63%▲ 47% 50%
Council community centres 53% 48% 57% 60% 54% 50% 48%
Facebook 49% 40% 56%▲ 83%▲ 68%▲ 39%▼ 13%▼
Libraries 45% 37% 52%▲ 49% 44% 42% 45%
Council e-Newsletter 44% 40% 47% 44% 50% 45% 38%
Email 44% 44% 44% 45% 53%▲ 41% 39%
Online platforms (e.g. Have Your Say)
43% 38% 47% 55%▲ 55%▲ 44% 21%▼
Brochures/flyers 36% 34% 37% 25% 34% 34% 48%▲
Instagram 20% 17% 23% 41%▲ 32%▲ 12%▼ 2%▼
Twitter 14% 12% 14% 21% 25%▲ 10% 2%▼
LinkedIn 8% 9% 8% 10% 15%▲ 8% 1%▼
Other 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 3% 4%
Base 504 241 263 115 114 138 136
▲▼ = A significantly higher/lower percentage (by group)
100
Preferred Communication MethodsQ10. In the future which of the following channels would you like to receive information about Council?
Results by DemographicsRatepayer status Time lived in the area Location type
RatepayerNon-
ratepayerUp to 10
yearsMore than
10 yearsUrban Rural
Local newspaper 72% 83% 69% 76% 77% 73%
Radio 70% 82% 74% 73% 73% 72%
Council website 61% 72% 76%▲ 61% 64% 63%
TV 55% 83%▲ 61% 61% 61% 65%
Community organisations/groups 51% 64% 60% 53% 53% 55%
Council community centres 49% 69%▲ 51% 53% 52% 53%
Facebook 42% 74%▲ 67%▲ 46% 48% 49%
Libraries 42% 56%▲ 42% 45% 45% 45%
Council e-Newsletter 42% 51% 62%▲ 41% 44% 48%
Email 47%▲ 32% 46% 43% 42% 50%
Online platforms (e.g. Have Your Say) 40% 54%▲ 42% 43% 43% 42%
Brochures/flyers 36% 36% 39% 35% 33% 44%
Instagram 16% 36%▲ 29% 19% 22% 17%
Twitter 10% 25%▲ 18% 13% 14% 15%
LinkedIn 7% 11% 13% 7% 7% 12%
Other 2% 1% 0% 2% 1% 3%
Base 392 107 72 430 376 93
▲▼ = A significantly higher/lower percentage (by group)
Appendix B:Further Demographics
102
DemographicsQA3. Which residential suburb or town do you live in or nearest to?
N=504 N=504
Coffs Harbour/Diggers Beach 38% Nana Glen 2%
Woolgoolga 8% North Boambee Valley 2%
Toormina/Bayldon 7% Sapphire 2%
Boambee East 5% Coramba 1%
Bonville 5% Karangi 1%
Boambee 4% Mullaway 1%
Sawtell 4% Orara Valley/Upper Orara/Dairyville 1%
Corindi/Upper Corindi 3% Red Rock 1%
Sandy Beach 3% Safety Beach 1%
Arrawarra 2% Ulong/Lowanna 1%
Emerald Beach/Emerald Heights 2% Bucca/Lower Bucca/Central Bucca <1%
Korora 2% Bundagen <1%
Moonee 2%
Appendix C: Questionnaire
104
105
106
The information contained herein is believed to be reliable and accurate, however, no guarantee is given as to its accuracy and reliability, and no responsibility or liability for any information, opinions or commentary contained herein, or
for any consequences of its use, will be accepted by Micromex Research, or by any person involved in the preparation of this report.
Telephone: (02) 4352 2388Web: www.micromex.com.au Email: [email protected]