2010 community survey results

www.iris.org.au

Mosman CouncilCommunity Survey Results

Conducted by IRIS ResearchNovember 2010

www.iris.org.au

Key Results

• There has been improvement in resident satisfaction with Council performance, Council staff and Councillor performance since the 2006 survey.

• Some priorities for further improvement include provision of car parking, DA process, engagement/consultation with residents and the provision/maintenance of footpaths

• By far the single main issue of concern for the future is traffic, transport and roads.

• Views regarding the paid parking strategy are polarised, with 51.3% agreeing it is a good strategy.

www.iris.org.au

Survey Objectives

• Measure importance/satisfaction with services & facilities;• Measure overall satisfaction with performance of Council;• Measure overall satisfaction with the customer service

provided by Council staff • Measure overall satisfaction with Councillors’ performance;• Identify perceptions about Mosman LGA;• Gauge level of pride residents have towards the community;• Determine preferred communication methods;• Measure level of community agreement with parking

strategy.

www.iris.org.au

Survey Methodology

• Telephone Survey using IRIS Computer Aided Telephone interviewing (CATI) facilities.– Implemented under IQCA Quality guidelines.– Random Sample: White pages & ‘half-open’ method– Most recent birthday method

• Age and gender quotas applied

• Interviews conducted 27th Oct – 1st Nov 2010.

www.iris.org.au

Survey Methodology

• To qualify for an interview, had to be:– Residing in the Mosman Council Area for at least 6 months;– Over the age of 18 years.

• 411 interviews completed (59% compliance)

• Weighted to ensure the most accurate reflection of resident opinion

www.iris.org.au

Overall Satisfaction

Mean 2010 = 6.70

Mean 2006 = 6.53

High Sat = 67.0%

Low Sat = 3.9%

0.8% 0.4% 0.8% 2.0%

6.3%9.5%

11.9%

35.3%

24.2%

5.5%

1.8% 1.2%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0 Very Dissatisfied

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Satisfied

X

2010 2007

Total satisfaction (6-10) = 78.7%

www.iris.org.au

Satisfaction Benchmarks

• Mosman performed well relative to comparable Councils

• Index score above average for comparable Councils.

6760

78

39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mosman 2010 Comparable Highest Lowest

Inde

x Sc

ore

www.iris.org.au

Most Important Services

Service / facility (rank order)

Importance rating (%)

Mean Score N/R

Low(0-3)

Medium(4-6)

High(7-10)

Waste & recycling collection services 0.3% 0.0% 1.4% 98.3% 9.20

Provision & maintenance of parklands 0.3% 0.5% 4.9% 94.3% 8.81

Overall cleanliness, appearance & management of public spaces 0.5% 0.2% 3.9% 95.4% 8.76

Providing & maintaining footpaths 0.3% 0.0% 6.1% 93.6% 8.74

Management & protection of the environment 0.7% 0.5% 6.0% 92.8% 8.69

Provision of car parking 0.4% 1.2% 7.8% 90.6% 8.69

Providing & maintaining Local Roads 0.0% 0.3% 8.9% 90.8% 8.58

Council engaging (consulting) with the community 1.6% 2.4% 7.8% 88.3% 8.57

Litter control & rubbish dumping 1.1% 1.4% 7.2% 90.3% 8.56

Enforcement of health & food regulations 4.1% 1.3% 10.2% 84.4% 8.53

www.iris.org.au

Least Important Services


Importance rating (%)

Mean Score N/R

Low(0-3)

Medium(4-6)

High(7-10)

Services & facilities for people with a disability 10.8% 11.5% 10.1% 67.6% 7.42

Services & facilities for older people 8.5% 11.4% 11.6% 68.5% 7.34

Assisting economic development with business community & visitors 16.5% 3.8% 21.3% 58.4% 7.29

Providing & maintaining bike paths 8.5% 10.5% 20.6% 60.5% 7.02

Enforcement of parking restrictions 1.6% 11.7% 23.9% 62.8% 6.97

Library Services 2.9% 12.6% 23.0% 61.5% 6.86

Overall range of facilities & activities relevant to culture & the arts 3.1% 9.5% 29.8% 57.5% 6.59

Local festivals & events 3.7% 11.8% 32.2% 52.3% 6.32

Services & facilities for people from culturally & linguistically diverse backgrounds 12.5% 17.8% 19.3% 50.4% 6.22

Mosman Art Gallery & Community Centre 6.9% 24.8% 27.4% 41.0% 5.47

www.iris.org.au

Most Satisfied Services


Satisfaction rating (%)Mean Score N/R

Low(0-3)

Medium(4-6)

High(7-10)

Library Services 17.6% 1.8% 16.7% 64.0% 7.73

Provision & maintenance of parklands 0.6% 2.8% 13.1% 83.5% 7.71

Waste & recycling collection services 0.1% 5.9% 15.3% 78.7% 7.69

Overall cleanliness, appearance & management of public spaces 0.6% 0.7% 16.8% 81.9% 7.67

Services & facilities for children & families 21.1% 1.1% 14.6% 63.2% 7.49

Cleaning of streets 0.8% 3.8% 21.1% 74.2% 7.40

Management & protection of the environment 6.1% 2.3% 19.4% 72.3% 7.40

Enforcement of health & food regulations 17.6% 2.2% 21.4% 58.8% 7.26

Services & facilities for older people 45.3% 0.5% 18.2% 36.0% 7.21

Litter control & rubbish dumping 1.8% 3.6% 27.5% 67.1% 7.12

www.iris.org.au

Least Satisfied Services


Satisfaction rating (%)

Mean Score N/R

Low(0-3)

Medium(4-6)

High(7-10)

Assisting economic development with business community & visitors 41.5% 3.6% 28.4% 26.4% 6.01

Services & facilities for people from culturally & linguistically diverse backgrounds 53.0% 3.9% 25.9% 17.1% 5.98

Managing development (land use planning) 14.2% 9.1% 40.6% 36.2% 5.97

Traffic Management 5.8% 14.7% 41.9% 37.6% 5.84

Council engaging (consulting) with the community 8.5% 12.8% 39.8% 38.9% 5.82

Condition of public toilets 16.6% 11.7% 37.7% 33.9% 5.75

Provision of car parking 2.2% 15.6% 42.4% 39.9% 5.71

Enforcement of parking restrictions 5.0% 19.7% 37.5% 37.8% 5.55

Providing & maintaining bike paths 26.0% 12.9% 37.1% 24.0% 5.36

Development approvals process 29.2% 14.0% 35.5% 21.3% 5.22

www.iris.org.au

Quadrant AnalysisWaste services

ParklandsPublic spaces

Footpaths EnvironmentCar parkingLocal roadsCommunity engagement Litter & dumping Health regulations

Managing development

Traffic managementPublic toiletsDrainage

Overall community S&FHeritage

Cleaning streets

S&F for children & familiesStreet trees

Council info & supportDA process

Animal ControlS&F for youth Sport & rec facilities

S&F for disabledS&F for older peopleEconomic development

Bike pathsParking restrictions

Library services

Overall S&F culture & arts

Local festivalsS&F for people from bkgrds

Art Gallery & Community Centre5.4

5.8

6.2

6.6

7.0

7.4

7.8

8.2

8.6

9.0

9.4

5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8

Very good!

Need to improve!

Impo

rtanc

e

Satisfaction

www.iris.org.au

Quadrant Analysis

• Priority service areas for improvement are: Providing & maintaining footpaths Provision of car parking Providing & maintaining local roads Council engaging (consulting) with the community Managing development (land use planning) Traffic management Condition of public toilets Management of street trees Access to Council information & Council support Development approvals process

= High Imp + Low Sat

www.iris.org.au

Gap Analysis

Provision of car parking. 3.01 Development approvals process. 2.84 Council engaging/consulting with the community. 2.76 Providing and maintaining footpaths. 2.71 Condition of public toilets. 2.70 Managing development (land use planning). 2.54 Traffic Management. 2.51 Providing and maintaining Local Roads. 2.28 Providing and maintaining bike paths. 2.20

Mean Gap(IMP-SAT)

www.iris.org.au

External BenchmarksQuestion Index

Comparable Highest Lowest

Library Services 79 73 81 67

Mosman Art Gallery & Community Centre 73 62 73 56

Local festivals & events 68 65 72 54

Sport & recreational facilities 69 68 74 60

Provision & maintenance of parklands 77 67 77 58

Services & facilities for older people 74 59 74 46

Services & facilities for people with a disability 59 58 66 49

Services & facilities for children & families 62 61 68 56

Services for young people 71 55 71 41

Animal Management & Control 65 62 67 55

Waste & recycling collection services 77 77 86 59

Enforcement of health & food regulations 73 65 80 65

www.iris.org.au

External BenchmarksQuestion Index

Comparable Highest Lowest

Overall cleanliness appearance & mgmt of public spaces 76 63 87 50

Providing & maintaining Local Roads 62 52 62 42

Providing & maintaining footpaths 59 50 66 43

Providing & maintaining bike paths 68 53 68 43

Provision of car parking 56 52 68 31

Traffic Management 57 54 61 44

Condition of public toilets 58 45 58 36

Managing development (land use planning) 59 53 59 48

Development approvals process 51 48 69 31

Council assisting economic development 60 57 67 45

Council engaging (consulting) with the community 57 52 61 46

Access to Council information & Council support 67 60 67 49

www.iris.org.au

Satisfaction with Staff


(Recent contact)

Mean 2010 = 7.5

Mean 2006 = 6.5

High Sat = 74.1%

Low Sat = 5.2%

2.0% 1.1% 1.5% 0.5%

3.9%

9.0%

5.5%

16.0%

22.5%

13.8%

21.8%

2.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 Very Dissatisfied

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Satisfied

X

Recent ContactNo Recent Contact

www.iris.org.au

Staff Benchmarks

• Resident satisfaction with Mosman Council staff is amongst highest in the state.

7567

75

59

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Inde

x Sc

ore

www.iris.org.au

Satisfaction with Councillors

2.6%0.5%

2.5%3.8%

5.9%

18.2%

12.2%

18.1%

12.9%

2.4%1.3%

19.6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 Very Dissatisfied

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Satisfied

X

2010 2007 Mean 2010 = 5.83

Mean 2006 = 5.66

High Sat = 34.8%

Low Sat = 9.5%


www.iris.org.au

Councillors Benchmarks

• Satisfaction with Mosman Councillors sits just above average for Councils classified as comparable.

58 5663

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Inde

x Sc

ore

www.iris.org.au

Community Safety & Connectedness

• Residents feel safe and are proud of the Mosman area.• Proximity to city means many socialise outside the area.

Statement (rank order)

Agreement rating (%)

Mean Score

(out of 10)N/RLow(0-3)

Medium(4-6)

High(7-10)

I feel safe in my own home 0.0% 1.0% 3.4% 95.6% 8.83I feel safe walking around my neighbourhood 0.1% 0.8% 4.5% 94.6% 8.63People in Mosman are generally proud of their area 1.2% 0.3% 6.2% 92.3% 8.55My neighbourhood is a friendly place to live 0.8% 1.6% 13.9% 83.7% 8.05I can call on a neighbour or local relative if I need assistance 1.1% 5.7% 10.8% 82.4% 8.04

I feel I belong to the community I live in 0.5% 2.1% 19.3% 78.2% 7.85I make a contribution to the community I live in 2.7% 5.0% 26.4% 65.9% 7.16I mainly socialize in my local area 0.9% 11.4% 34.3% 53.5% 6.47

www.iris.org.au

Issues of ConcernIssue (rank order) Overall Mosman Bay Middle Harbour Balmoral

Traffic, transport and roads 41.0% 35.4% 50.0% 39.7%

Overdevelopment 16.8% 15.7% 15.7% 19.1%

Parking 11.5% 18.3% 3.5% 10.3%

Environment and climate change 4.3% 1.1% 10.2% 2.7%

Over population and over crowding 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.0%

Protecting heritage and village feel 2.6% 1.1% 5.7% 1.5%

Providing adequate services and facilities 2.4% 4.4% 1.6% 0.6%

Services and facilities for aging population 2.0% 0.9% 0.0% 5.3%

Maintaining current quality and integrity 1.3% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Services and facilities for children and families 0.7% 0.0% 1.0% 1.4%

Stormwater management 0.6% 1.1% 0.0% 0.6%

Shopping strips versus shopping centres 0.6% 0.7% 0.0% 1.0%

Tree management 0.5% 0.7% 0.0% 0.6%

Waste management 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4%

Vandalism/safety 0.4% 0.0% 0.9% 0.4%

Other 4.5% 6.0% 3.6% 3.4%

Non response 6.4% 7.1% 3.8% 8.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

www.iris.org.au

Mosman is...

... A wonderful/great place to live 30.2%

... A beautiful place 17.6%

... My home 5.7%

... Perfect/ paradise/ the best place to live 5.3%

... Friendly and community orientated 5.0%

... Convenient 4.3%

... Quiet and pleasant 4.0%

... Safe and clean 3.1%

www.iris.org.au

Paid Parking Strategy

13.3%

2.0%4.1% 4.8%

6.2%

17.4%

5.1%

11.0%

16.2%

5.9%

13.1%

0.8%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0 Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 StronglyAgree

X

30.4% 51.3%

• Views were quite polarised - 13.1% provided the max score of 10, while 13.3% provided the min score of 0.

www.iris.org.au

Paid Parking Strategy

• While there is no clear consensus on this issue, overall 51.3% of the residents surveyed agreed that it was a good strategy to deal with parking issues.

• Meanwhile, a lesser 30.4% disagreed while the remaining 17.4% were undecided or unfazed.

Agreement rating (%)

Mean Score

(out of 10)N/RLow(0-3)

Medium(4-6)

High(7-10)

On-street paid parking at Mosman beaches and foreshore reserves is a reasonable strategy to help manage the costs and other impacts of visitors?

0.8% 24.2% 28.8% 46.3% 5.63

www.iris.org.au

Conclusion

• Resident perceptions of Council’s performance are positive across the ‘top line’ key performance indicators:

Overall satisfaction with Council is strong

Satisfaction with Council staff is strong

Satisfaction with Councillors is improving

However, detailed analysis of individual services and facilities uncovered a number of opportunities for improvement…

www.iris.org.au

Conclusion

Priority Rank Service/Facility

Identified as not meeting resident expectations in…

Quadrant Analysis Gap Analysis

(Higher importance/Lower satisfaction)

(Higher than average gap b/w importance & satisfaction)

1 Provision of car parking X X

2 Development approvals process X X

3 Council engaging (consulting) with the community X X

4 Providing & maintaining footpaths X X

5 Condition of public toilets X X

6 Managing development (land use planning) X X

7 Traffic management X X

8 Providing & maintaining local roads X X

9 Providing & maintaining bike paths X

10 Management of street trees X

11 Access to Council information & Council support X

2010 community survey results

Documents